[Senate Hearing 109-1095]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1095
AN INTEGRATED NATIONAL ALL-HAZARDS
ALERT SYSTEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-408 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISASTER PREVENTION AND PREDICTION
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina, E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska,
Chairman Ranking
TED STEVENS, Alaska MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BILL NELSON, Florida
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 27, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of Senator DeMint...................................... 1
Statement of Senator E. Benjamin Nelson.......................... 2
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 17
Witnesses
Hoover, Reynold N., Director, Office of National Security
Coordination, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
Department of Homeland Security................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Lawson, John M., President/CEO, Association of Public Television
Stations....................................................... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Guttman-McCabe, Christopher, Assistant Vice President, Homeland
Security and Regulatory Policy, CTIA--The Wireless
AssociationTM....................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Moran, Kenneth, Acting Director, Office of Homeland Security
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC).... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Paese, Mark, Director, Maintenance, Logistics and Acquisition
Division, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).............................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Taylor, Richard, Executive Director, North Carolina Wireless 911
Board; Chairman, the COMCARE Alliance and E-911 Institute;
Partner, the National Emergency Alerting and Response Systems
Initiative (NEARS)............................................. 37
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Appendix
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared
statement...................................................... 55
AN INTEGRATED NATIONAL ALL-HAZARDS ALERT SYSTEM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Jim DeMint,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Good morning. I want to thank everyone for
coming. We've got other Members, including our Ranking Member,
on the way, but, in deference to those who are here, let's get
started with this hearing.
Somewhere in America today, a community will likely be
impacted by a disaster, be it an accidental manmade disaster or
a natural disaster of some sort. And as the tragic events in
Britain and Egypt have shown us, the threat of a terrorist
disaster still looms large. Regardless of the nature or scale
of these disasters, the Nation's emergency responders need the
capability to promptly and effectively communicate with the
citizens in their communities.
For a number of years, America has employed a variety of
alerting methods; most notably, the Emergency Broadcast System
and the NOAA Weather Radio. These systems have saved numerous
lives. But in this increasingly wired and wireless world, we
need to be aware that if we're going to communicate more
effectively with citizens, we need to look hard at modernizing
and improving the system. This means moving beyond the
hodgepodge of alerting technologies that are spread throughout
Federal agencies. It will mean increasing coordination with
state and local governments, beyond what we do today. It will
require the Federal Government to move out of the analog era
and embrace the digital revolution.
This will not be the work of the Federal Government, alone.
If this system is truly to be an effective tool to alert the
public, it must continue to embrace the public-private
partnership that has served the system well in the past.
For the past five decades, the public alert system has
effectively separated the generation of alerts from the actual
dissemination of alerts. It has always been, and should
continue to be, the responsibility of the government to assess
the threat and generate an alert. This is clearly a core
responsibility of the local, State, and Federal governments,
and there should be no liability for carriers who transmit
these alerts to citizens.
The actual distribution of the alerts should remain with
the private sector. The broadcasting community has been
extremely cooperative with governments in delivering alerts.
Their cooperation has been a true public service. I am
optimistic this cooperation will continue as the next-
generation system develops.
I'm looking forward to the testimony of our witnesses this
morning. Appearing before the Committee this morning are
representatives of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Federal Communications Commission, and the NOAA Weather
Services to discuss how the various agencies of the Federal
Government are working together to improve the Federal
Government's alerting capabilities and to improve the current
analog system.
I'm also looking forward to the comments of our private-
sector witnesses. As I mentioned earlier, the private sector is
going to play an essential role in making sure the system
works. I'm interested in getting an assessment from the
cellular industry on how we can work with them to ensure their
subscribers are alerted to potential threats. I'm also looking
forward to reviewing the capabilities of the DTV towers to
transmit data and information to our communities in a time of
crisis. Finally, it's the first-responders who are going to be
charged with responding to a crisis, and I look forward to
hearing from them on what type of tools they need to
communicate with the public.
This hearing is essential. The Committee is moving forward
with developing a National All-Hazards Alert System.
Legislation is being developed now. The system is too important
to the Nation not to get it right. The input of today's
witnesses will provide us with the guidelines for a system that
will serve the Nation well. When we get the system right, it
will help protect our citizens from the threat posed by natural
and manmade disasters.
With that, I yield to my Ranking Member for any opening
comments he may have, and then I'd like to introduce our first
panel of witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to thank you for bringing together the
witnesses and calling this hearing today. I want to thank all
the witnesses, as well. It's an important issue, as the
Chairman has indicated, and I appreciate your taking time to be
here today to enlighten us.
When our Nation's system of alerts was first established,
it was in response to the threat of a possible attack from
another nation. Now, today Americans rely on a patchwork of
largely voluntary systems to inform them of a range of hazards,
from thunderstorms and tornadoes, to AMBER Alerts, to acts of
terrorism.
While several efforts are currently underway by various
government agencies to make this system of public warnings more
useful and timely, we're still relying on this patchwork of
technologies and methods of dissemination. To be effective,
though, a warning system must be able to detect a hazard,
disseminate a warning, and suggest a response in a timely
fashion. For predictable long-lead-time hazards, like
hurricanes, the current warning system seems to be relatively
effective. But for hazards with little or no lead time, like a
tsunami or tornadoes or acts of terrorism, we must ensure that
the delivery of emergency alerts is both effective and timely.
In addition, the systems used to transmit these warnings
must be reliable and include redundant facilities to ensure
that notification is not disrupted or hampered by inadequate
systems or damage to infrastructure.
Chairman DeMint, I thank you for this hearing, and I look
forward to hearing more about what our Federal agencies are
doing to better coordinate their efforts to make these warning
systems more robust and cohesive. I think it's important that
we be aware of our shortcomings, at the same time, though, in
this area.
This hearing will, hopefully, help us to learn more about
what Congress can do to help all of you who are working to make
sure that we have these systems and help deliver the best
warning system possible. I hope this hearing will focus our
attention on what technologies we can, and should, be taking
advantage of to ensure the safety of our citizens. But, at the
same time, I hope we will not become so enamored by the most
cutting-edge advanced technologies that we forget the common-
sense things that we can do to make sure that warnings reach
all people, whether we're in a large metropolitan area or
someone working in a cornfield.
I look forward to the testimony, and I'm anxious to hear
the witnesses.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Appearing before the Subcommittee this morning is Mr.
Reynold Hoover. Mr. Hoover is the Director of the Office of
National Security Coordination at FEMA. Mr. Hoover's office is
the program manager for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System Project, and he will be discussing the result of phase
one of the project, and plans for phase two.
Joining him is Mr. Mark Paese, Director of Maintenance,
Logistics, and Acquisition Services at the National Weather
Service. Mr. Paese will be discussing the NOAA Weather Radio
System and NOAA's work to improve and modernize the system.
Finally, on this panel is Mr. Kenneth Moran, and he's the
Acting Director of the Office of Homeland Security at the
Federal Communication Commission. Mr. Moran will discuss the
Commission's recent notice of proposed rulemaking on
improvements of the Emergency Alert System and the comments the
Commission has received.
With that, I'll start with Mr. Hoover. Mr. Hoover, if you
will please provide a short summary. These lights will be your
guide. I think you have 5 minutes. And the red lights indicates
you might be going over. And we will appreciate your comments.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF REYNOLD N. HOOVER, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF NATIONAL SECURITY COORDINATION,
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA),
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Chairman DeMint and members of the Committee.
My name is Reynold Hoover. I'm the Director of the Office of
National Security Coordination in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, FEMA, which, as you know, is a part of the
Department of Homeland Security.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the role and activities in the Department of Homeland
Security and FEMA to support the important mission of public
alert and warning using an Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System, or IPAWS, approach. FEMA, through my office, serves as
the Lead Agent for the Federal Government's continuity of
operations and continuity of government programs, as the
Executive Agent for the national-level Emergency Alert System,
or EAS, and the Department's Program Manager for the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System Initiative.
This morning, I'd like to take a few moments to tell you
how the Department and our partners are improving and building
an enhanced capability to provide nationwide all-hazards alert
and warning using digital and other cutting-edge technologies
in an integrated and coordinated manner.
The current EAS system is designed to provide the President
the capability to transmit to the nation, within 10 minutes,
from any location at any time. State and local emergency
managers can, and do, activate the EAS for state and local
public alert and warning messages, such as AMBER Alerts,
hazardous-material incidents, and severe weather warnings.
With that as a point of reference, let me briefly describe
to you and the Committee our efforts toward building a next-
generation, all-hazards alert and warning system.
This fiscal year, we began a digital alert and warning
system pilot in the national capital region with the
Association of Public Television Stations. Significantly,
through the voluntary cooperation and full participation of
public and commercial broadcasters, satellite radio, the
cellular telephone industry, technology developers, pager
service providers, cable operators and others, we have
successfully demonstrated an ability to transmit a variety of
alert and warning messages via digital television and satellite
to a full range of retransmission medium using a common
alerting protocol. We are especially pleased that NOAA and the
FCC have been full partners with us in this digital alert and
warning pilot.
This pilot has enabled us to establish a foundation for a
unified national all-hazards system and, building upon the
success in the national capital region, we're moving the
digital EAS pilot into a second phase of testing and
development to demonstrate a national capability, identify
technological challenges, and develop a nationwide
implementation plan.
Because the next-generation national warning system must
incorporate an ability to deliver a message to a precise group,
we have partnered with NOAA to pilot a Geo-Targeted Alerting
System, called GTAS, under the IPAWS umbrella to demonstrate
the ability to provide geographically-targeted warnings.
Mr. Chairman, our IPAWS solution recognizes the ubiquity of
the Internet and the powerful tool it can be in our national
toolbox of alert and warning systems. In that regard, we are
finalizing a cooperative agreement with the National
Association of State Chief Information Officers to pilot an
AMBER-Alert-like portal for all-hazards alert and warning. This
effort will build upon the success and lessons learned that the
Department of Justice has demonstrated in providing an
effective web-portal solution for its AMBER Alert Program.
In order to assure connectivity for Presidential emergency
messages, we are upgrading the Primary Entry Point, or PEP,
system as part of the IPAWS to a satellite distribution system,
and we'll be expanding the number of PEP broadcast stations so
that each state and territory will have a direct satellite-
receive capability. By leveraging public-private partnerships,
these critical upgrades will ensure the survivability of radio
broadcast systems in the event of a catastrophic attack on the
homeland.
And we recognize, Mr. Chairman, that there is no single
solution set that will meet everyone's alert and warning
requirements. That's why we are seeking the most appropriate
interoperable solutions to develop the Integrated Public Alert
and Warning System approach.
We believe that IPAWS, using digital technology, in
combination with upgraded Primary Entry Point EAS capabilities,
will provide Federal, state, and local emergency managers and
leaders with the tools they need to protect America from both
manmade and natural disasters. But, more importantly, the IPAWS
solution is intended to complement, not compete or interfere
with, existing alert and warning systems. Moreover, the IPAWS
is based upon the premise of providing alert and warning
messaging in a coordinated manner over as many platforms as
possible to ensure the widest public dissemination and receive
capabilities.
Of equal importance, we are reaching out to stakeholders
and alert and warning system users through a series of IPAWS
seminars. Significantly, our most recent seminar included
representatives from the disabled community who told us about
the challenges they face with regard to alert and warning. As
we continue that dialogue, we will incorporate their concerns
with IPAWS solutions.
Mr. Chairman, these are just some of the examples of how
FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have taken
seriously its responsibility to ensure quick and accurate
dissemination of alert and warning information to our homeland
security partners and to the American public.
Thank you, again, for the invitation to speak and for your
support of the Department's mission and for your interest in an
effective next-generation all-hazards alert and warning system.
And I'll be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoover follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reynold N. Hoover, Director, Office of National
Security Coordination, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
Department of Homeland Security
Good morning, Chairman DeMint and members of the Committee. I am
Reynold N. Hoover, the Director of the Office of National Security
Coordination (ONSC) within the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the role and activities of the Department of Homeland Security
and FEMA to support the important mission of public alert and warning
using an Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) approach.
FEMA, through my office, serves as the lead agent for the Federal
Executive Branch's Continuity of Operations (COOP) and Continuity of
Government (COG) programs and as the Executive Agent for the national-
level Emergency Alert System (EAS). Our office also functions as the
Department's Program Manager for the IPAWS initiative of which EAS is a
component. As such, we are working in close cooperation with the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) Directorate
to facilitate coordinated efforts within the Department. I also serve
as one of the managing Co-Chairs of the White House Task Force on
Effective Warning that was chartered by the Office of Science
Technology and Policy and Homeland Security Council. This recently
established Task Force has representation from key public alert and
warning stakeholders in the Federal Executive Branch and is Co-Chaired
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). On all
of these public alert and warning initiatives, we share close
relationships with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which
generally regulates EAS technical standards, procedures and protocols,
and with NOAA which is a primary EAS user.
We appreciate the Alert and Warning funds Congress has provided to
the Department to improve our alert and warning capabilities. Your
funding will help us provide Americans with critical and timely
information alerts and warnings that will save lives and property. This
morning I would like to take a few moments to tell you about the EAS
and IPAWS which is the foundation upon which the Department is
improving, and building, an enhanced capability to provide nationwide
alert and warning using cutting edge technologies, in an integrated and
coordinated manner.
The EAS in its current form was established in 1994 and is
essentially a cascade, trickle down, distribution system from the FEMA
Operations Centers to 34 designated Primary Entry Point (PEP) radio
broadcast stations. At the request of the President, we distribute a
Presidential level message to the PEP stations, which in turn re-
broadcast the signal to monitoring stations down stream which then
broadcast the message over TV and radios. The system is designed to
provide the President the capability to transmit within 10 minutes from
any location at any time. This Presidential message is mandatory, must
take priority over any other message and must preempt other messages in
progress. All other broadcasts of emergency messages are voluntary.
Nevertheless, state and local emergency managers can, and do, activate
the EAS for state and local public alert and warning messages such as
AMBER alerts, hazardous material incidents and weather warnings. NOAA,
and the National Weather Service, serve as the originator of emergency
weather information, and play a significant role in the implementation
of EAS at the state and local level. While FEMA tests on a weekly basis
the connectivity to the 34 PEP stations, the national level EAS has
never been fully activated.
As you are well aware, the tragic events of September 11 caused a
paradigm shift in how we think about homeland security and, in
particular, alert and warning. As efficient and useful as the EAS has
been, we in FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security realize that
the alert and warning system that so many millions of people depend
upon is not everything to everyone all of the time. With the alert and
warning funding provided this year, FEMA, IAIP and our partners in the
Federal Government are making great progress in our ability to reach
more of the people, more of the time. We believe in a very short period
of time, leveraging public-private partnerships and using existing
digital and other cutting edge technologies, the Department will be
able to provide all hazards alerts and warnings to the greatest number
of people. This includes persons with disabilities and individuals for
whom English is a second language.
For example, we have been conducting a Digital Emergency Alert
System pilot project in the National Capital Region with the
Association of Public Television Stations. This pilot has successfully
demonstrated how the capabilities of America's public broadcasters can
be utilized to dramatically enhance our ability to provide the American
people with critical, and lifesaving, information. Significantly,
through the voluntary cooperation and full participation of public and
commercial broadcasters, satellite radio, the cellular telephone
industry, technology developers, pager service providers, cable
operators, and others, we have successfully demonstrated an ability to
transmit a variety of alert and warning messages via digital television
and satellite to a full range of retransmission media using a common
alerting protocol. We are especially pleased that NOAA and the FCC have
been full partners with us in this Digital Alert and Warning System
pilot and have recently added the Department of Justice and The Weather
Channel to our list of pilot participants.
Building upon the success of our Digital EAS pilot we have begun a
second phase expansion in which we will replicate our experience in the
National Capitol Region at other sites across the country using public
television's existing digital infrastructure. Our intent in this second
phase of the Digital EAS pilot is to demonstrate a national capability,
identify technological challenges, and develop a nationwide
implementation plan.
Because there is no single solution set available that can provide
for all of the alert and warning systems requirements for Federal,
State and local users, our IPAWS uses a ``system of systems'' approach
and does not totally rely upon the digital infrastructure of Public
Television. Working in partnership with NOAA we are including under the
IPAWS umbrella a Geo-Targeted Alerting System (GTAS), which uses
reverse 911 technology, to demonstrate and test the ability to provide
targeted warning down to the individual household or business. This
GTAS pilot will be conducted in the National Capital Region with the
goal of expanding alert and warning capabilities to include plume
hazard warning.
Since the beginning of the IPAWS initiative our focus has been
demonstrating and developing the best technologies available without
regard to the emergency message content. Moreover, because we are
incorporating common alerting protocols and using digital technology we
have better positioned a national alert and warning system to be an all
hazards system. In this regard, the recent passage of the Intelligence
Reform Bill directed the Department to work with the National
Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) to demonstrate
an Amber Alert like web portal. We have been working with NASCIO to
finalize a Cooperative Agreement that will help us add another powerful
dimension to the IPAWS. This effort will also build upon the successes
and lessons learned that the Department of Justice has demonstrated in
not only partnering with the wireless community to provide missing
child alerts, but also providing an effective web based portal solution
for its Amber Alert program.
A primary mission of our office remains assuring the ability of the
President, and senior government leaders, to address the Nation under
the most extreme circumstances. This year, we are upgrading the Primary
Entry Point (PEP) system from its current ground-based dial up
capability to a satellite distribution system. We will also be
expanding the number of PEP broadcast stations so that each state and
territory will have a direct satellite receive capability. These
critical upgrades will ensure the survivability of radio broadcast
systems in the event of a catastrophic incident. Moreover, by
leveraging public-private partnerships with satellite and public radio,
we are able to significantly enhance the Emergency Alert System without
a major investment in new infrastructure.
We recognize that there is no single solution set that will meet
everyone's alert and warning requirements, that is why FEMA, IAIP and
the Department has teamed up with NOAA, the FCC, DOJ and the private
sector to find the most appropriate interoperable solutions to develop
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System approach. We believe
that IPAWS, using digital technology in combination with upgraded
Primary Entry Point EAS capabilities, will provide Federal, state and
local emergency managers and leaders with the tools they need to alert
America about both man-made and natural disasters. At the same time we
are aware of the concerns of our state partners who have invested in
their own alert and warning systems. With that in mind, IPAWS is
intended to be fully interoperable with those systems using common
alerting protocols. As we proceed, we will continue to reach out to
state and local users to integrate a national alert and warning system
into their existing capabilities which will result in significant
improvements in public awareness during hazardous events.
Because our IPAWS framework is based upon the premise of providing
alert and warning messaging in a coordinated manner, over as many
platforms as possible, to ensure the widest dissemination and public
receive capabilities, the Department of Homeland Security is also
providing funds to NOAA for system upgrades to the NOAA Weather Radio
All Hazards network. In addition, in partnership with the Department of
Education and the Department of Commerce, IAIP is funding a pilot
program to purchase NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards receivers for
certain public schools across the Nation. We are also reaching out to
the many stakeholders and alert and warning systems users through a
series of IPAWS seminars. Our first seminar was conducted in April and
brought together Federal, state, local, and private sector groups to
begin a dialog with us on IPAWS. Significantly, the seminar attendees
included representatives from the disabled community who told us about
the challenges they face with regard to alert and warning. We are
continuing that dialogue and working to incorporate their concerns with
IPAWS solutions. The Department, and our Federal partners, will
continue these IPAWS outreach seminars as a means to educate the public
and ensure we are adding needed alert and warning capabilities--not
adding another burden on those who use and depend upon such systems to
save lives and protect property.
We are pleased that the FCC, last year, issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking with regard to the Emergency Alert System. We believe that
the FCC's efforts in this matter will help us strengthen and improve
alert and warning for the general public and we look forward to
continuing our close cooperation with the Commission as they move
toward a decision.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Task Force on Effective Warning that I
mentioned at the outset of my remarks is working to develop a national
alert and warning policy that recognizes the IPAWS solution. Moreover,
with the help of the Department of the Interior's USGS, and other
emergency message originators in the Federal Government, we will be
able to build upon their experiences and capabilities to incorporate
tsunami, earthquake and other warnings to the public into a national
all hazards IPAWS.
Mr. Chairman these are just some examples of how FEMA and the
Department of Homeland Security has taken seriously its responsibility
to ensure the quick and accurate dissemination of alert and warning
information to our homeland security partners and the American public.
Thank you again for the invitation to speak, for your support of
the Department's mission, and for your interest in effective alert and
warning systems. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Hoover. We'll save our
questions until the panel has completed their statements.
Mr. Moran?
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MORAN, ACTING DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ENFORCEMENT BUREAU,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC)
Mr. Moran. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Nelson.
I'm Kenneth Moran, Acting Director of the Enforcement Bureau's
Office of Homeland Security at the Federal Communications
Commission. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the FCC's activities regarding the Emergency Alert
System.
For over 50 years, the United States has had a mechanism in
place to allow the President to communicate with the public in
the event of a national emergency. Currently, that mechanism is
the Emergency Alert System, or EAS.
Under our EAS rules, radio, television, and cable systems
are required to deliver Presidential-level emergency messages.
In addition, EAS has been used on a voluntary basis for
delivery of State and local emergency messages.
Today, we face new homeland security threats and
challenges, and the Commission is acutely aware of the
importance to the American public of timely and effective
emergency warnings. In addition, in recent years, there have
been many important advancements in communications technologies
that may afford opportunities for improving EAS.
As a result, EAS has been the subject of an extensive
examination to ensure that we do our part to contribute to an
efficient and up-to-date public alert and warning system. The
Commission is conducting a rulemaking proceeding to consider
whether EAS is the most effective way to warn the American
public of an emergency; and, if not, how the system can be
improved. Because this proceeding is ongoing, my comments in
this hearing are limited to the record that has developed so
far.
In its rulemaking proceeding, the Commission raised broad
questions regarding whether EAS's capabilities are consistent
with the Commission's mission to ensure that the public warning
system takes full advantage of current and emerging
technologies. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on
whether EAS should be adapted or redesigned to take advantage
of digital, satellite, and other wireless technologies.
What we've learned is that most parties advocate improving
the existing system rather than completely redesigning it. The
Commission also raised the issue of whether the voluntary
nature of EAS at the state and local levels remains appropriate
in today's world. Some of the commentors argue that it should
be mandatory; others have suggested that voluntary
participation by media to deliver state and local emergency
messages has proven to be effective and should be allowed to
continue.
We also asked comment on a number of other issues, such as
the respective roles of the Federal departments and agencies
involved in the implementation of EAS, the security of the
public warning system, improvements to the testing of the
program, how a public warning system can most effectively
provide emergency warnings to the disabled community and to
those for whom English is a second language. Indeed, a key
focus of our work is how to reach each and every citizen with
the right emergency-alert warning information at the right
time. The FCC has, and will continue to, coordinate with the
Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, NOAA, and others as we
examine these issues. We anticipate that our Federal partners
will continue to be active participants in our proceeding, and
we also expect to continue to receive valuable input from
interested individuals, state and local emergency management
agencies, tribal governments, and various elements of the
communications sector.
And we look forward to working with the Congress, Federal,
state, and local emergency managers, industry, and the public
to ensure that we can provide an effective warning system to
the American people.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear.
This concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you or the other Members may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Moran, Acting Director, Office of
Homeland Security Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission (FCC)
Executive Summary
Since the Cold War era, the United States has had a mechanism in
place for the President of the United States to communicate with the
public in the event of a national emergency. Under the current
Emergency Alert System (EAS), all analog broadcast radio, television,
and cable systems are required to deliver a Presidential-level
activation of EAS, but their use of EAS in response to State and local
emergencies, while encouraged, is voluntary.
In light of today's homeland security threats, the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) remains acutely aware of the
importance of timely and effective warnings. In addition, there are
exciting changes in our communications media that may allow for
improvements in our warning systems. As a result of these changes, EAS
has recently been the subject of much examination. To ensure that the
Commission does its part to contribute to an efficient and
technologically current public alert and warning system, the Commission
is conducting a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether the current
EAS is the most effective way to warn the American public of an
emergency and, if not, how the system can be improved.
As part of the current EAS proceeding, the Commission raised broad
questions about whether the technical capabilities of EAS are
consistent with the Commission's mission to ensure that public warning
systems take full advantage of current and emerging technologies,
particularly digital broadcast and wireless telecommunications media.
For instance, the Commission noted that some parties argue that the
purely voluntary nature of EAS at the state and local level results in
an inconsistent application of EAS as an effective component of an
overall public alert and warning system. The Commission also is
considering issues such as what the respective roles of the Federal
Government departments and agencies involved in the implementation of
EAS should be, how the delivery pipeline for public warning can be made
more secure and how it can be tested, how both emergency managers and
the public can use and respond to a public warning system in the most
effective manner, and how a public warning system can most effectively
provide emergency warnings to the disabled community and those for whom
English is a second language. Indeed, a key focus of the Commission's
inquiry is how to reach each and every citizen.
The Commission has coordinated closely with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and its component, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), and with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and its component, the National Weather Service
(NWS). The Commission values these agencies' continued participation in
our review of EAS.
The Commission looks forward to working with Congress, our
colleagues at other Federal, state and tribal agencies, and the public
to ensure that it can provide such a warning system to our citizens.
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Good morning. I am Kenneth Moran, Acting Director of the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) Enforcement Bureau's Office of
Homeland Security. I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the Emergency Alert System, or EAS.
The Commission is well aware that an effective public alert and
warning system is an essential element of emergency preparedness, and
that such a system is impossible without effective communication and
coordination within the Federal Government, as well as with the active
participation of the states and the private sector. Accordingly, the
Commission has been working with other Federal agencies, state
governments, and industry to ensure that the American public is
provided with a robust, efficient, and technologically current alert
and warning system.
Background
The forerunner of our current Emergency Alert System originated in
the early days of the Cold War when President Truman established the
``CONELRAD `' system as a means to warn the public of an imminent
attack. Since that time, CONELRAD has given way to the Emergency
Broadcast System, which in 1994 was replaced by EAS. From the early
CONELRAD days to the present, the Commission has played a critical role
in ensuring that the President of the United States would be able to
communicate with the American public in the event of a national
emergency. Today's EAS uses analog radio and television broadcast
stations, as well as wired and wireless cable systems, to deliver a
national Presidential message. When activated, EAS would override all
other broadcasts or cable transmissions, national and local, to deliver
an audio Presidential message. This system is mandatory at the national
level, but is also available on a voluntary basis for states and
localities to deliver local emergency notifications.
The Commission, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Weather Service (NWS),
implements EAS at the Federal level. Our respective roles currently are
based on a 1981 Memorandum of Understanding between FEMA, NWS, and the
Commission, on a 1984 Executive Order, and on a 1995 Presidential
Statement of Requirements.
The Commission's EAS rules are focused on national activation, and
the delivery of a Presidential message. The Commission's rules
prescribe: (1) technical standards for EAS; (2) procedures for radio
and television broadcast stations and cable systems to follow in the
event EAS is activated; and (3) EAS testing protocols. Under the rules,
national activation of EAS for a Presidential message is designed to
provide the President the capability to transmit from any location at
any time within 10 minutes of the system's activation, and would take
priority over any other message and preempt other messages in progress.
Currently, only analog radio and television stations, and wired and
wireless cable television systems, are required to implement the
national EAS. Other systems, such as digital television (DTV), Direct
Broadcast Satellite television (DBS), Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite
systems, paging, Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), and In-
Band-On-Channel Digital Audio Broadcasting (IBOC DAB) are currently not
required to participate in EAS.
The decision to activate the national-level EAS rests solely with
the President. FEMA acts as the White House's executive agent for the
development, operations, and maintenance of the national level EAS and
is responsible for implementation of the national level activation of
EAS, as well as EAS tests and exercises.
EAS is essentially a hierarchical distribution system. FEMA has
designated 34 radio broadcast stations as Primary Entry Point (PEP)
stations. At the request of the President, FEMA would distribute the
``Presidential Level'' messages to these PEP stations. The PEP stations
are monitored in turn by other stations in the hierarchical chain.
Commission rules require broadcast stations and cable systems to
monitor at least two of the EAS sources for Presidential alerts that
are specified in their state EAS plans. Initiation of an EAS message,
whether at the national, state, or local level, is accomplished via
dedicated EAS equipment. The EAS equipment provides a method for
automatic interruption of regular programming and is capable of
providing warnings in the primary language that is used by the station
or cable system.
Along with its primary role as a national public warning system,
EAS--and other emergency notification mechanisms--are part of an
overall public alert and warning system, over which FEMA exercises
jurisdiction. EAS use, as part of such a public warning system at the
state and local levels, while encouraged, is voluntary. Nevertheless,
the public receives most of its alert and warning information through
the broadcasters' and cable systems' voluntary activations of the EAS
system on behalf of state and local emergency managers.
Current Issues and the Commission's Rulemaking Proceeding
As noted above, the public relies heavily on EAS for emergency
information. EAS therefore serves a critical purpose, but it currently
only applies to analog radio and television stations, and wired and
wireless cable television systems. In August 2004, the Commission began
a rulemaking proceeding to review whether we need to either update EAS
or replace it with a more comprehensive and effective warning system.
In initiating its rulemaking, the Commission encouraged commenters
to consider recommendations from two public/private partnerships that
have studied EAS issues extensively: the Media Security and Reliability
Council (MSRC), an industry-led Federal Advisory Committee comprised of
representatives from the radio, television, multi-channel video, public
safety, and disabilities communities, and the Partnership for Public
Warning (PPW), a not-for-profit, public/private partnership that was
incorporated with the goal of promoting and enhancing effective,
integrated dissemination of public warnings.
The Commission has received comments from numerous interested
individuals, Federal entities, State and local emergency planning
organizations, and various sectors of the telecommunications
industries. We have coordinated with DHS and its component, FEMA, and
with the Department of Commerce and its component, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service, and
we will continue to do so.
The overarching question addressed in the proceeding is whether EAS
in its present form is the most effective mechanism for warning the
American public of an emergency, and, if not, how EAS can be improved.
Most of the parties who commented agree that our warning system should
be improved. Most--including MSRC and PPW--also advocate upgrading,
rather than replacing EAS, to take advantage of the existing EAS
infrastructure.
The Commission's rulemaking proceeding addresses a number of
specific and timely issues. For instance, the Commission noted that
some parties argue that the purely voluntary nature of EAS at the state
and local level results in an inconsistent application of EAS as an
effective component of an overall public alert and warning system. To
address these arguments, the Commission is examining whether permissive
state and local EAS participation remains appropriate today, and
whether uniform national guidelines should apply to state and local EAS
implementation. Some parties who commented on this issue support
continuing voluntary participation, at least for the present, while the
Commission considers broader changes to EAS. Some parties also stated
that participation, though voluntary, is widespread. These parties
generally support continuing the voluntary nature of EAS
The Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) initiating
the open proceeding focused on the fact that EAS is currently mandated
only for analog television and radio, and for cable systems, which
represent an increasingly smaller part of our information sources. The
Commission is considering whether and how EAS obligations should be
extended to services not currently covered--e.g., digital television
and radio, and satellite radio and television. Many commenters support
the Commission's efforts to extend the EAS rules to digital
broadcasters.
The NPRM also asked questions about whether the technical
capabilities of EAS can or should be applied to other communications
platforms. Along with digital broadcast, new digital wireless
technologies, including cellular telephony and personal digital
assistants, are rapidly redefining the communications landscape, making
available to the public warning technologies that are far more flexible
and effective than the analog broadcast mechanism currently employed by
EAS. The Commission is considering whether there should be an effort to
use such technologies to form a comprehensive national public warning
system capable of reaching virtually everyone all the time by combining
EAS with alternative public alert and warning systems. We received a
number of comments about methods, such as cell phone broadcasting, that
could expand the reach of our warning systems in the future. In their
comments, DHS and FEMA also noted that they are investigating new
technologies for this purpose.
The Commission also is examining security and reliability issues
relevant to EAS and on the important question of how best to supply an
effective public warning system to the disabled community and non-
English speakers. The Commission is also considering the role of
various Federal Government departments and agencies, as well as local
authorities, in implementing EAS.
In addition, the Commission is involved in other initiatives,
beyond its rulemaking proceeding, to address the effectiveness of our
Nation's warning systems. For instance, the Commission is participating
in the Task Force on Effective Warnings Materials, a group of Federal
departments and agencies that has been assembled to examine existing
and planned disaster warning and communications systems, and to make
recommendations to ensure that these systems are effective. We will
continue to share our expertise and views, and to seek the expertise
and views of others, on these important issues.
Conclusion
The Commission looks forward to working with Congress, our
colleagues at other Federal, state, and tribal agencies, and the public
to ensure that we can provide an effective and technologically advanced
warning system to our citizens. The Commission also is aware that the
Congress is taking an active interest in the issue of public alert and
warning, and stands ready to provide whatever technical assistance that
the Congress would find helpful in this regard.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
Our Chairman has joined us. Mr. Chairman, we're hearing
from FEMA, the FCC, and getting ready to hear from Mr. Paese,
from NOAA. They are giving us an update on the development of a
national all-hazards alert system.
So, Mr. Paese? Have I got that name anywhere close to being
right?
Mr. Paese. Perfect.
Senator DeMint. OK.
STATEMENT OF MARK PAESE, DIRECTOR, MAINTENANCE,
LOGISTICS AND ACQUISITION DIVISION, NATIONAL
WEATHER SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)
Mr. Paese. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee.
I am Mark Paese, Director of Maintenance, Logistics, and
Acquisition for the National Weather Service at NOAA. I am
pleased to be here today to discuss NOAA Weather Radio, All
Hazards. Known as ``The Voice of the National Weather
Service,'' NOAA Weather Radio, All Hazards, is provided as a
public service. The NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards Network
includes 935 transmitters covering all 50 states, adjacent
coastal waters, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and U.S.
Pacific territories. The nationwide network of radio stations
provides coverage to over 97 percent of the U.S. population.
This extensive system of radio transmitters allows the National
Weather Service to transmit routine observations and forecasts,
as well as alerts and warnings of severe weather and other
hazardous information, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
In June 2004, NOAA and the Department of Homeland Security
signed an agreement providing DHS the capability to send
critical all-hazards alerts and warnings through the NOAA
Weather Radio Network. Now NOAA Weather Radio broadcasts
warnings and posts that information for all types of hazards--
natural, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and
volcanic activity; manmade, such as chemical releases or oil
spills; and terrorist alerts. NWS warnings are carefully
developed to ensure critical information is conveyed as
directly as possible. Each warning contains several components
that are based on discussions with users, including the private
sector, emergency managers, and the public. We also work with
sociologists and others to ensure the information in our
message is worded as clearly as possible for the public to
understand what to do.
While the current network works well, NOAA Weather Radio
has some challenges. We need to ensure a fully-functioning
network through continued maintenance, upgrading older and
solid-state transmitters, installing backup power at locations
without this capability, and provide the connectivity between
alert sources and the transmitter. Existing dissemination
systems were developed to meet specific user requirements for
information. Warning systems must look toward the future and
include graphical forms of information readily available
through advanced technology, such as cell phones and PDAs.
Future systems should also improve on existing geo-
targeting to be able to reach people where they are--work,
home, or on the move--and reduce unnecessary warnings to people
who are not in hazardous zones.
Recognizing the need for a national all-hazards alert
system, Department of Homeland Security and NOAA serve as Co-
Chairs of the White House Task Force on Effective Warnings. The
effort was chartered by the Office of Science Technology Policy
to develop a government-wide plan for an integrated Public
Alert and Warning System, or IPAWS. There will be many--there
are many warning systems across the country, and an integrated
system of systems will be far better than any one system.
In Fiscal Year 2004, NOAA began developing a capability to
reduce the time it takes for an emergency manager to input a
hazard warning into NOAA Weather Radio and reduce the
possibility of any transcription errors. This system, known as
HazCollect, will reduce the amount of time it takes to input a
message into the system from 7 minutes to less than 2 minutes.
This capability is expected to be fully operational in Fiscal
Year 2006.
NOAA's vision for the future is to ensure access and
delivery of environmental warnings, forecasts, and information
to every person in the United States. To achieve this vision,
it is essential to use emerging technologies to make warnings
and information available via convenient methods and formats to
as many individuals as possible. We are working with the
private sector to make this happen. Government and the
emergency community must work together to develop an integrated
Public Alert and Warning System adaptable to change.
Standards and protocols such as Common Alerting Protocol,
or CAP, recently agreed upon by the emergency-management
community, is one example of how the collaboration of the
emergency management community and the government has increased
interoperability.
The Department of Homeland Security, in partnership with
NOAA and the Department of Education, is funding a pilot
program to develop NOAA Weather Radios at public schools in the
top urban-area security initiatives in two rural states.
NOAA Weather Radio is a proven technology. It works, and it
saves lives. Seven weeks ago, in Endicott, New York, the
Principal at Charles F. Johnson Elementary School received a
severe-thunderstorm warning on their school NOAA Weather Radio.
He implemented his school safety plan and moved the 340
students and faculty out of harm's way. Twenty minutes later,
70-mile-an-hour winds ripped the roof off the kindergarten wing
and devastated the building.
In conclusion, NOAA Weather Radio is a proven dissemination
network that has saved lives. We will continue to work with
other agencies to achieve the vision to reach every person in
the United States.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Paese follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Paese, Director, Maintenance, Logistics and
Acquisition Division, National Weather Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Mark Paese,
Director of Maintenance, Logistics, and Acquisition Services for the
National Weather Service (NWS), of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. I am pleased
to be here today to discuss NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards (NWR). I
will outline how our system currently works and our vision for the
future.
Introduction and Background
Known as the ``Voice of the National Weather Service,'' NOAA
Weather Radio All Hazards is provided as a public service. The NOAA
Weather Radio All Hazards (NWR) network includes 935 transmitters,
covering all 50 states, adjacent coastal waters, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Territories. The NWR nationwide
network of radio stations provides coverage to over 97 percent of the
population. This extensive system of radio transmitters allows the
National Weather Service to transmit routine programming containing
observations and forecasts, with this routine programming interrupted
to broadcast alerts and warnings of severe weather and other hazardous
information 24 hours a day. Each transmitter is automatically fed
information from the local NWS weather office typically via telephone
lines, while some more remote locations use microwave transmissions. It
takes only seconds from when the forecaster hits the send button until
the message is transmitted on the network. NWR requires a specific
radio receiver or scanner, readily available at most electronic stores,
capable of receiving the broadcast. This NWS direct broadcast includes
special codes identifying alerts and warnings, with many receivers
equipped to monitor these codes.
NWR receivers should be as common as smoke detectors especially
given their capability to wake people in the middle of the night when
hazardous conditions threaten. In addition to the traditional weather
radio that many are familiar with, NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards
receivers can be integrated into devices to turn on alarms, lights, bed
shakers, and other equipment especially useful for the hearing impaired
community and those with special needs.
Agreements with local, State, and Federal emergency managers and
first responders, and working with the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC's) Emergency Alert System, allow NWR to act as a
direct, official source for comprehensive weather and emergency
information--an ``all hazards'' warning system. In June 2004, NOAA and
the Department of Homeland Security signed an agreement allowing DHS to
send critical all-hazards alerts and warnings directly through the NOAA
Weather Radio All Hazards network, further leveraging NWR as a backbone
of a national emergency alert and warning system. With this agreement
in place, NWR is the only Federal Government warning system that can be
targeted to specific areas to deliver a message from the President.
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards also broadcasts warning and post-event
information for all types of hazards--both natural, such as
earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and volcanic activity, and man made,
such as chemical releases or oil spills. Many emergency dispatch
centers, institutional (day care, elder care, hospitals, schools, etc),
building and manufacturing security operations centers monitor NWR for
emergency warning information as a public safety tool.
NWS warnings are carefully developed to ensure critical information
is conveyed as directly as possible, regardless of the transmission on
NWR or any of the other dissemination systems. Each warning contains
several components, which are included based on NWS discussions with
users, including private sector, emergency managers, and the public. We
also worked with sociologists and others to ensure the information in
our messages is worded as clearly as possible for the public to
understand what to do. The messages include appropriate ``call to
action'' statements advising people of actions to take (seek shelter
indoors, avoid crossing high water, etc.). The messages also contain
critical event and geographic information for other dissemination and
computer systems to decode and retransmit. For example, the Emergency
Alert System (EAS) operated under FCC rules is automatically activated
by NWR broadcasts of warnings.
Upcoming Challenges for NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards
While our current network works well, NWR has some challenges. We
need to ensure a fully functioning network through continued
maintenance, upgrading older solid state transmitters, public education
and awareness about the capabilities of the network, installing backup
power at locations without this capability to ensure continued service
when commercial power fails, and upgrading the telecommunication feed
from the NWS office to the transmitter.
The number of NWR transmitters has more than doubled in the past
decade. Today, 935 transmitters are in operation, with three more
scheduled to come on line by the end of the September. NWR intends to
upgrade older transmitters to new technology standards. These upgrades
to 400 transmitters will be completed by FY 2011. We will be increasing
coverage to 100 percent for areas of the Nation particularly vulnerable
to severe weather and tornadoes, such as tornado alley. Current
projections call for meeting this goal in 2007. We also plan to provide
backup power to all NWR stations by 2012, which includes about 440
currently without that capability. We have a plan to provide a more
reliable and robust communication feed directly to the transmitters.
Converting to this new process should be complete in FY 2009.
Next Generation Warning System
Existing dissemination systems were developed to meet user
requirements for information. Any future warning system must go beyond
direct radio broadcasts and include visual forms of information readily
available through advancing technology (e.g., cell phones, Personal
Digital Assistants, etc). Future systems should also improve on
existing geo-targeting/referencing to be able to reach people where
they are--home, work, or on the move--and to reduce warnings to people
who are not in the hazardous zones.
Hazardous weather and water forecasts, warnings, and other hazards
information are delivered as quickly as possible using ``push'' and
``pull'' dissemination technologies, which respectively send
information and allow information to be retrieved. ``Push'' occurs when
messages and information are broadcast or sent to the recipient (e.g. a
radio is push technology). ``Pull'' technology includes mechanisms in
which information is transmitted in response to a request from a user
(e.g., using Internet browsers to request information).
Push (send) capabilities distribute scheduled and unscheduled
warnings, forecasts, and information using a predetermined priority.
Warnings are given the highest priority. For example, NOAA Weather
Radio All Hazards is a ``push'' technology; it provides 24-hour access
to weather information and other all-hazards information. NWR is one
component of the existing NWS dissemination infrastructure, which also
includes NOAA Weather Wire Service, Emergency Managers Weather
Information Network or EMWIN, Family of Services, and NOAAPort. Pull
(retrieve) capabilities make warnings, forecasts, and information
available for people to acquire as needed. The Internet is our primary
use of a ``pull'' technology; it enables users to retrieve
environmental information as needed from NOAA web pages and other
locations.
Recognizing the rapid advances in information technologies, the
Department of Homeland Security and NOAA co-chair an effort to develop
a government-wide plan for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System (IPAWS). The government's ability to effectively warn the public
of danger will be greatly improved by implementing IPAWS. Public safety
is a fundamental responsibility of Federal, state and local
governments. Public warnings save lives by informing, reducing fear,
recommending action, and assisting emergency managers. The
Administration is formulating an overall plan for emergency broadcasts
and warning systems. There are many warning systems in place across the
country, ranging from local phone warning capability, local sirens,
paging systems, Internet notification, to national level-warning
programs, including the NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards. Each of these
systems by themselves can reach the public directly, but each has
limitations. An integrated system employing all of these capabilities
will be far better than any single system.
In FY 2004, NOAA began developing a capability to reduce the time
it takes for an emergency manager to input a hazard warning into NOAA
Weather Radio All Hazards and reduce the possibility of transcription
errors. This system, known as HazCollect, will reduce the amount of
time it takes to input a message into the system--from 7 minutes to
less than 2 minutes. This capability will allow emergency managers
direct access to Emergency Alert System (EAS) via NOAA Weather Radio
All Hazards, and is expected to be fully operational in FY 2006.
A Vision for the Future
Our Vision--Reach each person in the Nation. NOAA's vision is to
ensure access and delivery of environmental warnings, forecasts, and
information to every person in the United States. This dissemination
system should provide climate, water, weather and other hazard
information the public wants, when they want it, where they want it,
how they want it, and should ensure persons at risk receive timely
alerts. Warnings do not become effective until those in harm's way hear
the warning and take appropriate action. Advanced, universally
accessible dissemination technologies are necessary to deliver
environmental information for the protection of life and property.
Universal access depends upon partnerships within communities to
increase awareness and coverage.
To achieve this vision, it is essential to use emerging
technologies to improve communication performance measured by
operational availability, latency, cost effectiveness, and most
importantly, customer satisfaction. We need to make warnings and
information available, via convenient methods and formats (e.g.,
industry standards such as GIS, XML and Real Simple Syndication (RSS)),
to as many individuals as possible. We are working now to make this
happen.
The emergency information community and the government must work
together to develop a dissemination program that is integrated and
adaptable to change. The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), recently
agreed upon by the emergency management community, is one example of
how the collaboration of the emergency management community and the
government has increased the effectiveness of the alerting system.
HazCollect will use the CAP format for emergency messages.
To be most effective, emergency information must penetrate all
technologies--radio, TV, satellite radio, satellite TV, fixed
telephony, mobile telephony and the Internet, including voice over
Internet provider (VOIP), in addition to system-specific receivers like
NWR--and recognize the limitations of each. No single technology or
system will reach all end-users. The most critical information must be
``pushed'' to the end users.
We must account for a broad spectrum of users, from those who want
simple access to basic information to those who want customized access
in order to extract information to meet their needs and, finally, those
who want to download data in bulk.
Current and future technologies must be leveraged to combine common
functions into a streamlined dissemination process. Because many push
systems share common features, current and future technology advances
will facilitate merging the functionality of the various systems while
fulfilling their individual requirements. A properly planned network
will yield reliable, and cost effective services.
The NWS depends on close working relationships with media and
vendor groups to disseminate NWS information, especially warnings and
forecasts, and must consider the essential role of its partners in
dissemination. We will work more closely with industry leaders so NWS
will be able to reach the public through such target technologies as
satellite radio, satellite television, cable television, broadcast
television, mobile/cellular telephony, fixed telephony (land lines),
commercial radio, and the Internet (including VOIP).
Flexibility must be ``built in'' to formats, standards and
protocols used to disseminate information. NWS and the entire all-
hazards community should adopt policies to put themselves in a position
to efficiently modify the formats and protocols used for dissemination
as industry standards evolve and as new technologies become available.
For example, the Internet text format known as Extensible Markup
Language (XML) is necessary to support more sophisticated and automated
data discovery, selection and retrieval mechanisms. XML is a simple,
very flexible text format originally designed to meet the challenges of
large-scale electronic publishing. XML is also playing an increasingly
important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the
Internet and elsewhere. NWS will also need to respond to the growing
popularity of GIS formats.
We need to improve performance to keep pace with the need for more
data and information in various formats by maintaining adequate
processing speed, appropriate latency, and cost effectiveness. As
science and technology continue to advance, more data sets, and more
information will become available. Data compression techniques will
allow more information to be transmitted by fully exploiting the
communications infrastructure.
Finally, we need to investigate emerging technologies to fulfill
dissemination requirements beyond the next few years. Technologies such
as software-defined radio (SDR)/cognitive radio would allow the user
more precision and flexibility in deciding which information to hear.
Cognitive radio knows where it is, what services are available, and
what services interest the user. WiFi (wireless fidelity) and voice
over wireless LAN (VoWLAN) provide an expanded opportunity to reach a
more mobile public.
Conclusion
NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards is a proven dissemination network
that has saved lives. We will continue to exploit our existing
technology. However, technological advances will continue to drive how
we can best communicate critical information to an ever more mobile and
technology equipped public. It is our responsibility to ensure critical
emergency information is available and can reach the people as easily
and conveniently as possible. We will continue to work to achieve our
vision to reach every person in our great Nation.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, would you like to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I've come over to really put in the record the fact that,
at my request, we've put $10 million in the budget now, for 2
years, and there's $5 million in the bills that are pending
now, to pursue this effort. I hope that it will--I think that
money also includes a pilot project on using the NOAA Weather
Radios, and they're being tried out in the offshore states, I
believe. But I do hope that we can find a way to really bring
about the total coordination that you've mentioned.
And my basic question is, Is this money enough? Are we
going to be able to get this job done with the money we've got
now and appropriated in the past? Who wants to answer that? It
went to Homeland Security, so why don't the Homeland Security
people answer?
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are correct, in the Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 budgets,
the Congress appropriated $10 million in each year to the
Department of Homeland Security. Those funds went to IAIP, the
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection directorate.
We have coordinated with IAIP over the last 2 years, the last
two fiscal years, and, in fact, have coordinated our efforts
with regard to the alert and warning upgrades.
As part of the funding that you've mentioned, we have
provided funds for the upgrade of the NOAA All-Hazards Radio
Network. We have provided funds for providing radios, NOAA
Weather Radios, to schools, as Mark had just previously
testified to. And the monies that we are using is really--the
10 million this year and last year--are funds that are for that
IPAWS initiative, that, both within the Department, we're
coordinated on, and, as well, across the government, that we're
coordinated on to move forward to bring the next-generation
alert and warning system into being.
The Chairman. At a recent meeting I attended, I was told
that the--really, the key to this effort is software. Are you
developing software so there will be, really, a continuity
throughout all systems using the same software?
Mr. Hoover. There is some software development that's going
on in the background, and I am not that technical to be able to
tell you all the software pieces of it. And the key, I think,
is--as you're alluding to--is the integration piece. The
technology's out there. And I think today, in the next panel,
you'll see a demonstration from--what we're doing with the
digital emergency alert system. The technology is there. The
challenge is the integration of all of those systems so that we
can reach all of the American public at the right time with the
right information.
The Chairman. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I have to go
to another meeting.
But I don't think you quite answered my question about
money. Is that five million going to be sufficient to complete
this initial phase of this integration?
Mr. Hoover. We believe that--if that's in the--if the
Congress is going to give us $5 million, Mr. Chairman, that
will be sufficient for us to continue to move forward with the
IPAWS program.
The Chairman. What is your time frame? What is the target
date for initiating the system?
Mr. Hoover. Mr. Chairman, we're actually in the process now
of rolling out a second phase of the digital pilot that we're
working with, APTS, to demonstrate a nationwide capability for
distribution, to identify some additional technological issues
that are out there, and then develop a nationwide
implementation plan. And we're moving forward with that right
now.
The Chairman. You still haven't answered me. What--do you
have a target date?
Mr. Hoover. I can't give you a target date, Mr. Chairman,
in terms of when the system actually will be in place and
operational. I can tell you that, as we move forward--and I
would expect, by the end of next fiscal year, we would be in a
position to have the basics of the backbone system in place so
that we can move forward to have a full implementation.
The Chairman. Maybe time-sensitive about that. Do you know,
my state has more natural disasters than any part of the United
States? Hawaii comes second. Now, the two of us from the
Pacific are very concerned about this, and we think there ought
to be a date when people can understand this system will be in
place.
Mr. Hoover. Well----
The Chairman. Now, when will you be able to answer the
question of, When will the system be in place and operable?
Mr. Hoover. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's important to recognize
that there already is a system in place to warn the public for
emergencies, and that is the Emergency Alert System, and it is
used every day. What we're doing now is taking that one step
further and implementing--using new digital technologies to be
able to reach out to more people, more of the time.
The Chairman. That relies on----
Mr. Hoover. So, we do have a system in place.
The Chairman.--just on radio, doesn't it?
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. I mean, the foundation of the EAS
system is based on the broadcasters and the broadcasters'
participation.
The Chairman. That was a wonderful system for its time, but
I don't know many people that carry around radios in their
pocket any longer. They're carrying cell phones, they've
carrying BlackBerrys, they're carrying all sorts of devices for
communication, and we need to get in touch with the future on
this system. When is that integration date?
Mr. Hoover. Mr. Chairman, I can't give you an exact date. I
can tell you that by the end of next year we will be well along
the way to fully deploying an Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System.
The Chairman. OK. Then, Mr. Chairman, you can tune in the
same station next year, I'll ask you the same question next
year.
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you probably understand, we might need to come up with a
date at----
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir.
Senator DeMint.--this point.
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint. And, Mr. Hoover, my respect----
Mr. Hoover. Got that loud and clear, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint. Good, I'm glad we--we're understanding the
same message here.
Mr. Hoover, my respect for you has gone way up. I've never
heard anyone in a Federal agency say they have enough money, so
I appreciate----
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint.--us starting that way.
Let me start with a couple of questions, and then I'll ask
the Ranking Member to help me here.
And I'll start with you, Mr. Hoover. You mentioned IPAW.
And I know it's the process of identifying the technical
challenges to what we want to accomplish. What are some of
those technical challenges that we're facing? And how can we
address them?
Mr. Hoover. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
It's important to realize that, as we've tried to put this
system in place, we've focused, really, on the method of
distribution, and we haven't looked at what the message is
and--because we want to make sure that we have those
technological challenges, we understand what they are, so that
as we transmit an emergency message to a cell phone provider,
for example, they don't have to do anything to the message, and
it can go right straight through their system. So, one of the
technological challenges that we're working with--and I would
say there are two of them--the first one is what I would call
that middleware. There needs to be some type of a software
application that will allow us to send a message to, for
example, the cell phone carriers or the satellite radio
providers, some software that will allow the message to go
right from an authorized, authenticated originator of a message
into their system without the provider having to manipulate the
message and then go out to their service customers. So, that's
the first challenge, is trying to develop that, sort of,
middleware piece, and we have----
Senator DeMint. Are you working with the private companies
on doing--my concern is, I think, too often in government we'll
develop our own ideas of what should be done, and then tell the
carriers, ``Here, use this.''
Mr. Hoover. Right.
Senator DeMint. And they may have to spend incredible
amounts of money to adapt to what we've developed. And it would
seem a much better approach that if we find out from them how
they need this information, so that they can pass it straight
through--and you're telling me, that is----
Mr. Hoover. We're doing that.
Senator DeMint.--your approach.
Mr. Hoover. And, actually, we are doing that, and we're
doing that with all the participants in our digital pilot that
we're doing here with the--in the national capital region, and
we're getting ready to move out into phase two.
All of the folks that are at the table with us, through
voluntary participation--the cell phone folks, the satellite
radio folks, commercial broadcasters, all the different people
involved, even the technological--the technology development
folks--are involved with us, and we have put together a group
to address those technological issues that really are going to
make the system work.
Senator DeMint. So, your perspective may be that the
Federal agencies, working together, may actually create
different methods of distribution in order to work with all of
your customers, which, in effect, are the various carriers,
cell phone, whatever, that----
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir.
Senator DeMint.--you're going to try to adapt to them.
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. And the key to it is that Common
Alerting Protocol that we've adopted and we've been using in
our pilot programs, so that the message is in a digital format.
It's a packet of ones and zeros, basically. It doesn't matter
what the message is. If we can keep it in a Common Alerting
Protocol format, any type of a receiver device that's in the
digital age should be able to take that message and send it
out.
Senator DeMint. Just--and this question could be to any of
you. Going through the process of setting this whole system up
is, obviously, our responsibility. But a part of that is trying
to understand how people will respond. And, in many cases, we
may spend a lot of time and money doing something where people
will not necessarily respond in a constructive way. But is that
part of this consideration? And I know we've maybe observed,
through weather alerts or whatever, how many people actually
will do anything about it. Are we into the behavior of our
final customer, here, the citizen, and how they might behave
when they get an alert?
Mr. Hoover. Sir, let me start with that, and then maybe
Mark can finish up, because I know they've done a lot of work
in the social-behavior piece.
As I mentioned, our focus has been on the technology, at
the moment, and we haven't so much focused on the message. But
that will be the next piece of it, as we move forward, is to
figure out, OK, what are those messages that we want to send so
that we do give people the right information that can save
lives? And I know that NOAA has done a significant amount of
research in social behavior in that area.
Mr. Paese. Yes, thank you, Reynold.
Yes, as Reynold mentioned, we believe that setting the
architecture and the protocols and the infrastructure, I think,
are our first stage to get the architecture set up, and
learning from the lessons that NOAA has and with the behavioral
scientists that we've spoken to on--when a message goes out,
what actions to take and what message to provide them. We're
going to use that as a basis, then, to continue on.
Senator DeMint. Senator Nelson?
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, as you have seen, Chairman Stevens is quite subtle.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ben Nelson. I want to examine your approach to
dealing with how you bring together architecture and
differentiation of message in the ordinary course of things,
where you have to start out with the ability to notify and then
you have to decide what it is that you want to say and, of
course, ultimately, the audience for the message. But this is
probably very time sensitive because of the terrorist threats
that are represented today.
Therefore, I think people will feel more secure if there's
notification. They'd feel most secure if they don't think
there's going to be a terrorist activity. On the other hand, I
think people are wise enough to know that zero tolerance may be
our goal, but it's hard to achieve. So, the second best is to
have some degree of notification, because of what that would
represent in their preparedness.
As you're doing this, with the technology, the hardware,
and the software, are you going to be in a position,
ultimately, to where the use of the technology would permit you
to alert people, through the BlackBerry or through the cell
phone, of a tornado in a certain area? Also, I assume that
you're probably looking at area codes. There may be some other
technology that you use that would identify it. Are you going
to be able, at some point, to be that specific in your alerting
system? As you choose.
Mr. Hoover. Yes, Senator. In fact, one of the parts of the
IPAWS is a partnership we're doing with NOAA for GTAS, the Geo-
Targeted Alert and Warning System, where we'll actually be able
to use the reverse-911 database to provide targeted warnings to
precise groups of people, based on the 911 database and other
systems that NOAA has in place, to give them warning, to say,
``There's a tornado coming,'' and, ``Head in a different
direction,'' or some specific message and instruction. So, we
are doing that. And I think in the next panel you'll see a
demonstration where we're able to use an alert and warning
message and generate it through a number of different devices,
including the BlackBerry and other devices that are out there.
Senator Ben Nelson. Mr. Paese?
Mr. Paese. Yes, if I may. Yes, we believe that is the wave
of the future. Obviously, FIPS codes, the way we alert and warn
people today by county and--it can be broken up into a ninth of
a county. But GIS, we believe, is the future. If a person in a
location can get a message, a signal, if you will, on their
BlackBerry, on their cell phone, on their device, that, we
believe, is the way to geo-target individuals. And the
technology is there today. We feel that integrating that
technology into the front end of the message to get it to those
individuals is the key, and we feel that is the future.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, as you proceed, I think the
question is, how quickly can you achieve that, and what sort of
timeline can you put in place so that your progress can be
measured, not only by yourselves, but by others from the
outside? I think that's the frustration you're sensing. When we
don't know whether you're 50 percent toward your objective, or
35, or 5 percent toward it, it's difficult for us to provide
the kind of oversight that we think we need to provide.
In that regard, because there's more to this, at times,
than the technology and the differentiation, Mr. Moran, how do
you expect the FCC to proceed in the rulemaking that is
probably going to be necessary? Because we're talking about
some of the basic nuts and bolts, as well as the technology and
the program itself.
Mr. Moran. Yes, Senator.
We have--last summer, we opened a proceeding on improving
the alert and warning systems, and we got an extensive--we have
an extensive written record from that proceeding. We asked a
number of questions, many of them you've actually--you and
the--Chairman DeMint have touched on. We've asked many of those
questions in our proceeding. We got an--we have an extensive
record, and we've been in--recently, we've been in touch--we've
had a series of meetings with all the major media players to
try to figure out how we can improve the EAS system and what
additional augmentation to the processes, to the alert and
warning systems, may be necessary.
So, we have quite an extensive record. We expect to be able
to deliver, perhaps, an initial order that would make some
initial improvements to the EAS system in the next several
months.
Senator Ben Nelson. Could you narrow that down just a
little bit?
Mr. Moran. We expect to be able to bring something for
Commission decision in the next several months on some basic
issues of participation in the EAS program by digital
broadcasters, by satellite, direct-to-home TV and radio
broadcasters--or service providers.
Our approach is to set some basic goals and obligations
that would--missions, goals that we would try to meet, and to
allow some flexibility so that the cost to the providers would
not be that much to implement what is desired.
So, we do intend to have some flexibility to make sure that
the basic goal, that all American citizens would have access to
an excellent emergency warning system--that's the goal. We
would allow some flexibility, if that's what it takes to make
it happen, with the infrastructure that's out there.
Senator Ben Nelson. A short question to follow up on that
is, will the rulemaking proceed at an appropriate pace to make
sure that we don't get to the end of the line with the
technology all ready to go and we've got several months waiting
for the rulemaking to be complete?
Mr. Hoover. Maybe I can take that one, Senator. We--part
and parcel with the FCC's rulemaking initiative, as NOAA had
pointed out--Mark mentioned in his testimony--we co-chair a
Task Force on Effective Warning that has all the major players
in the Federal Government involved in alert and warning. Our
objective there is to develop a national policy that will lay
out the architecture for a national alert and warning system.
And we hope that that policy will fit part and parcel with the
FCC's rulemaking. And I think we're working to try to get that
done, as a----
Senator Ben Nelson. So, we could----
Mr. Hoover.--on a very timely basis.
Senator Ben Nelson.--we could reach closure on the actual
system and the authority that is there, any authority that's
required, and not be held up by even pending legislation that
might become necessary.
Mr. Hoover. That's correct. We're trying to marry up a
national policy for alert and warning that we think will
include--and we're pretty confident will include--this IPAWS
solution that we're talking about today, and marry that up with
the rulemaking so that the policy will help the rulemaking, as
opposed to the rulemaking driving the policy or being hindered
by anything else.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, I think that's excellent. And it
needs to work that way, or I don't think you'll want to attend
the next hearing when the Chairman is here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hoover. Thank you, sir.
Senator DeMint. I'm, kind of, sitting here wondering why
we're working on legislation if you're doing the policy and
rulemaking here. So, you're initiating this without
legislation. Is----
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. One of the things that--we've started
this about a year and a half, almost 2 years, ago.
Senator DeMint. Yes.
Mr. Hoover. And we started with this IPAWS solution, when
APTS, Public Television folks, came to us and said, ``We want
to be a partner with Homeland Security in providing alert and
warning messaging.'' At the same time, the FCC had their Media
Security and Reliability Council that came and made
recommendations on improvements to the EAS. At the same time
that that hit, the Partnership for Public Warning produced a
report that had a number of recommendations in there. We think
we're implementing most of those recommendations. And we
started moving down the road to developing this IPAWS solution,
and what we realized is--between us and NOAA, that we need the
policy that will show us what the architecture is, at the end
of the day, because we can put all these things together--the
technology is there; it's that integration piece. And so, the
White House stood up this Task Force on Effective Warning, just
in the last 2 or 3 months, and we're on a pretty fast track to
try to deliver a policy so that it lays out what does that end
state look like for a next-generation alert and warning system.
And we're working very closely with the FCC so that all of
those things happen together.
Senator DeMint. So, if we don't develop legislative
guidelines, you're going to do it anyway, right?
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir.
Senator DeMint. OK. I guess that's a good challenge to have
here.
[Laughter.]
Senator DeMint. Mr. Moran, let me ask you a question,
because I'm very concerned about us developing something that--
issuing mandates to the private market that could cause
considerable cost and maybe not necessarily take advantage of
evolving technologies. You mentioned some flexibility. You
know, my hope would be that--and I would like your opinion on
this; maybe I should state it that way--is, if we make the
messaging, the distribution available in a lot of different
formats that can be accepted by a vast array of carriers, is
there any reason that we cannot make the acceptance of this
voluntary by the carriers?
Mr. Moran. In our proceeding, we've actually asked the
question--currently the delivery of the state and local message
is voluntary under our current rules. We've asked the question
whether it should remain voluntary----
Senator DeMint. So, are you actually considering issuing a
mandate that all--everyone would have to take whatever----
Mr. Moran. Well, we've----
Senator DeMint.--you send out?
Mr. Moran.--asked the question, and we've got quite an
extensive record on that. There are some parties who believe it
should be mandatory, on the record, and there are others who
believe that voluntary is fine. Some have argued that the
voluntary aspect has worked very well over the years and it
should be allowed to continue.
All I can tell you is, we have parties on both sides of
that issue in this proceeding, and we are looking at that and
studying that, and it would have to be brought to the
Commission for a decision on that.
Senator DeMint. Well, if my opinion matters, I happen to
believe, at this point, that it's likely, if it's voluntary
with full disclosure--in other words, if I get a cell phone and
it has disclosure that it does not include the warning, that
our carriers would very quickly create a competitive advantage
for themselves by doing it better and better, and we would have
a best-practices system that could allow the system to evolve
and improve, other than stick to a standard that we create here
this time. But that's just my opinion at this point.
And one other--just a quick question. I assume hard-line
phones are being considered as part of this, as a message,
because--since a lot of people are at work. Right? They're in--
--
Mr. Hoover. Yes, sir. And that's part of that whole--the
GTAS, the Geo-Targeted Alert and Warning, can use the land-line
phone system.
Senator DeMint. Senator Nelson, any additional questions?
Senator Ben Nelson. Would the differentiation of warnings
and message and the audience that would receive the warnings--
in narrowing that down, what would you encounter, in terms of
difficulties, or will that be coming forth in the second panel,
where they do a demonstration? Will there be some sort of
regulatory problem? Is there a privacy issue here? What would
be involved?
Mr. Hoover. I guess I'm not quite clear on what the
question is.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, would I have to sign and say that
I want to be notified, or will it be an automatic benefit or
service included within the technology that I happen to have?
Mr. Hoover. I think one of the pieces of the IPAWS that
we're doing, and I mentioned in my remarks, is that we're
looking at an AMBER-Alert-like portal, and we're trying to
build on the success that the Department of Justice has had in
disseminating alert and warning messages using their AMBER
Alert system, so that in the--at the present time, what we're
considering is an opt-in situation, so that you would go to a
website that would allow you to opt into the types of messages
that you would like--alert and warning messages you would like
to receive, and that the only real mandatory message, at this
point, as we move down the road, would be the carriage of a
Presidential-level national emergency message that you're going
to get regardless of if you sign up for it or not. We just
believe that if you require every message to be carried, it's
going to go the way of the car alarm and people aren't going to
pay attention to the ones that really are important to them,
but folks will go online--and you can go on to this website, to
the portal, and say, ``I want to be notified of earthquakes and
tsunamis and tornadoes,'' whatever those things might be,
terrorist attack, and you would get those appropriate messages.
Senator Ben Nelson. If you get this perfected--and I hope
that you do--will you promise me that you'll take over the
warning system as to when we need to evacuate the Capitol?
[Laughter.]
Senator Ben Nelson. Get that at some level that we can
appreciate it?
Senator DeMint. Yes, let's just hope we don't have to
evacuate, this week, right?
Senator Ben Nelson. That's right. Will there be an extra
cost to the consumer for the messages? Will I have to pay for
my equipment?
Mr. Hoover. You know, Senator, I can't answer that
question. Perhaps the private-sector folks in the next panel
may be able to better address the costs that may be involved.
Senator Ben Nelson. OK.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all.
Senator DeMint. It's been very productive. I appreciate it.
Let's switch out panels. We go from the first to the
second. I thank all of you, gentlemen.
[Pause.]
Senator DeMint. Thank you folks for being here. This second
panel is composed of Mr. Richard Taylor. He's Chair of COMCARE
Alliance. Mr. Taylor will be providing a perspective of the
emergency-management community on what tools they need in a
public-alert system.
Joining him is Mr. Christopher E. Guttman-McCabe, Assistant
Vice President of Regulatory Policy and Homeland Security at
CTIA.
Senator DeMint. Mr. Guttman-McCabe will be discussing the
cellular industry's participation in recent emergency-alert
projects and discuss the industry's perspective on their
participation in the next-generation emergency-alert system.
And finally appearing is Mr. John Lawson, of the
Association of Public Television Stations. I understand Mr.
Lawson is going to run through a demonstration of the digital
emergency alert system.
I'll ask Mr. Lawson to begin the demonstration and provide
a short summary of his testimony.
So, Mr. Lawson, if you can begin?
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. LAWSON, PRESIDENT/CEO, ASSOCIATION OF
PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS
Mr. Lawson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Nelson. Thanks for inviting me to testify today on behalf of
our members, which are the local public stations across the
country. I'm here to address the development of an all-hazards
multiple-devices warning system and the dual-use contribution
that public digital television can make.
Digital television, DTV, is really a very powerful wireless
data distribution platform, in addition to HDTV and/or multiple
programming streams, where we now have just one. DTV also can
send very high-end data to a number of devices. When we
broadcast data, also called datacasting, information is
embedded in the over-the-air digital signal. This data can be
received on PCs and laptops equipped with commercial off-the-
shelf DTV tuner cards. This little silver box on the front of
this table here is an example of that. This means very low-cost
access for first-responders, as well as schools, hospitals, and
other institutions. Datacasting uses only a fraction of the
digital spectrum, and it can run simultaneously with HDTV or
whatever the station that's broadcasting to viewers. If needed,
the data can be encrypted so that only certain computers--for
example, in police departments--can access it.
Datacasting is completely scalable and is bottleneck-free.
Just as with broadcasting to TV sets, the information can be
received by one viewer or one million viewers without fear of
overload. Typical DTV signals can reach 50 to 60 miles from a
single transmitter.
As you heard from Reynold Hoover, APTS, last fall, entered
into a cooperative agreement with FEMA at DHS to launch a pilot
project in the national capital region. This pilot is serving
as the basis for the new Digital Emergency Alert System, or
DEAS. APTS is joined by PBS and public stations WETA, here,
Maryland Public Television, the New Jersey Network, WHRO, in
Norfolk, and KAKM, in Anchorage, as well as commercial media
and wireless partners.
Our pilot is demonstrated graphically on the flowchart at
the side of the room, and I'd be glad to take you through that
during Q&A.
We're now going to demonstrate for you the capabilities of
our DEAS pilot. At this moment, an official at FEMA is sending
a test alert to the PBS Satellite Operations Center in
Springfield. PBS is uplinking the alert, and it's being
received by WETA. Instantaneously, without anyone at the
station touching it, WETA DTV retransmits the alert over the
air within its digital signal. DHS has the ability to provide
text, as well as audio and video. In this case, we're
transmitting all three.
We can also--once a Presidential message from FEMA comes
through, however, it takes priority. All of this comes over the
air to a computer here via the small antenna on the table in
front of the panel. This is off-air. This small v-shaped
antenna here, a Radio Shack antenna, is actually receiving the
WETA signal off-air. It's connected to a laptop computer over
there, which is projecting the alert on the screen.
So, we can send video, as is opening up right now, which
shows you the flexibility of this system. We can send the text
messages. We can send the audio alerts. This is live from FEMA.
This is coming over XM satellite radio. And the cell phones
are ringing, because, embedded in the alert, is data that goes
to the headends of the cell phone companies, and they can
retransmit that as a text message.
So, as Reynold described this morning, we are feeding these
alerts to other radio and TV stations. We're feeding it to
cable headends and cell phone and pager services. The cell
phones are ringing because of the alert.
Along with the alerts, we can datacast text and animation
files over WETA. One of those files is something you all, in
the Senate, are quite familiar with, a quick-card evacuation
information sheet. You can see on the screen, the file has just
opened. This was sent as a file over the air, again, to PCs. A
map you're familiar with is also being displayed. This
information also can be sent through wireless through your
BlackBerrys, all in a matter of seconds.
Datacasting can send just about any type of file. In the
next example, we developed a simple animation, based on a dirty
bomb going off at Metro Center. It forecasts the movement of
the radioactive plume and indicates the traffic patterns that
should be followed as part of the evacuation plan.
We can also datacast full motion video and audio of the
President addressing the Nation, if necessary, or a mayor
addressing a city.
The best practices developed during the DEAS pilot also are
serving as a model for local jurisdictions. Stations around the
country are entering partnerships with public safety and other
agencies from areas around nuclear power, chemical plants, and
the Las Vegas casinos. Alert systems are being tested. Stations
also provide training, such as the port-security video we're
seeing again.
As we work with FEMA to plan the national rollout of the
DEAS, our members, the local public television stations, stand
ready to play an integral part at the national, regional,
state, and local levels.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John M. Lawson, President/CEO,
Association of Public Television Stations
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nelson and Members of the
Subcommittee:
It is my privilege to come before you today to discuss how Public
Television's digital infrastructure can play a role--a dual-use role--
in developing a new, robust and efficient digital emergency alert and
warning system. No doubt this month's bombings in London continue to
reverberate in the minds of the Members of this Subcommittee. To me, it
is also a vivid reminder that our Nation's current Emergency Alert
System is built on an aging analog infrastructure and must be upgraded.
But I am here to bring you good news. That state of affairs is
beginning to change, and I'm pleased to report that Public Television,
working directly with the Department of Homeland Security, is playing
an integral role in the development of an all-devices, all-hazards,
digitally-based emergency alert and warning system.
Digital Emergency Alert System: DEAS
The next generation of a national emergency alert system is called
the Digital Emergency Alert System, or DEAS. It will be based on Public
Television's digital transmission infrastructure. Like the current
system, the DEAS is designed to ensure that the head of our national
government--the President or his successor--can quickly communicate to
the American public during an emergency. The current system--which, by
the way, was never utilized during 9/11--is limited to two basic
reception devices: radios and televisions. And yet today, Americans
have become fluent in an impressive array of other--often, more
portable--devices, including cell phones, personal computers,
Blackberries and other PDAs. Under the DEAS, the President could
potentially reach almost all Americans quickly with an important
message delivered to any one or all of these devices.
It is also important to note that the current Emergency Alert
System was conceived during the cold war era to provide warning for
threats that were national in scope--namely, a nuclear attack. Today's
most potent threat, acts of terrorism, are by their nature more local
or regional in scope, as the residents of New York, Washington, Madrid
and London can attest. That is why the new DEAS will provide a backbone
that can be interconnected to deliver alert and warning at the local,
regional and national levels.
Role for Public Television
Public Television is a mission-driven institution. When our system
was faced with the prospect of undertaking a daunting conversion from
an analog to digital transmission platform, we naturally began to
explore the many ways that this exciting new digital technology could
be used to benefit the American people. With the emergence of a digital
broadcasting application called datacasting, which I will discuss
further, we quickly grasped that local digital public television
stations could play a role in enhancing public safety. At first the
idea focused on natural disasters such as tornadoes. And then came 9/
11.
The other critical feature of the Public Television system is our
penetration: we reach nearly 99 percent of American households with
analog service and, soon, with digital. Indeed, our system's breadth is
impressive, but so is our depth. We are deeply rooted in our
communities, typically among the most trusted local institutions and
ones that have forged strong linkages to other community institutions
and populations.
In short, Public Television is building out a fully integrated
digital infrastructure which, once complete, will reach nearly every
American community. The DEAS is a very cost-effective, dual-use
application that builds on this infrastructure.
What is Datacasting?
In order to appreciate the capabilities of a DEAS, it is necessary
to understand the central application involved--namely, datacasting.
Digital television, or DTV, is most closely associated with high-
definition television (HDTV). But DTV is really a powerful, wireless
data transmission system. It is also very flexible. From a single
transmitter, a broadcaster can send any mix of HDTV, multiple standard-
definition channels, or high-end data to any DTV reception device
within 50-60 miles.
One of these applications, called datacasting, is a one-way
broadcast transmission of Internet Protocol (IP) information. The data
being transmitted can take the form of text, video, audio, and
graphics. Datacasting uses only a portion of the broadcast spectrum.
Moreover, datacasting can deliver large amounts of data embedded in the
broadcast signal at a rate of up to 19.4 megabits per second (MBPS)--
the equivalent of up to 13 T-1 lines.
Datacasts are encoded within the digital television signal and then
decoded by an inexpensive receiver that is easily hooked up to a
personal computer, laptop or computer network. Reception can be
achieved through a small portable antenna that sits on top of the PC
(or laptop in the field), or users can receive the signal through a
conventional rooftop TV antenna or cable. The signal can also be
instantly retransmitted over wireless and other networks.
Advantages of Datacasting
Datacasting boasts several key attributes:
Datacasting is highly scalable and congestion-free. It
avoids the communications bottlenecks we saw in New York and
Washington on 9/11. Because it is a broadcast medium, it takes
no more bandwidth to reach millions of end-users simultaneously
than it does a single end-user.
Datacasting is secure. Through additional technology, data
can be encrypted, rendering it far less vulnerable to hackers
than Internet-based communication.
Datacasting is flexible. It can be ``addressed'' through
conditional access to a select group of end-users (such as a
Federal agency, a local fire department or a school district)
or made available to the widest possible audience--anyone with
a digital antenna and receiver.
Included at the end of this testimony are several examples of
current and ongoing Public Television datacasting projects, ranging
from educational partnerships to robust public safety and training
efforts. I highly recommend that the Subcommittee review these examples
in order to appreciate the wide range of services being offered and
explored by Public Television stations and their local and regional
partners.
Department of Homeland Security-APTS Pilot Program
At this time, however, I would like to focus the Subcommittee's
attention on one particularly important project that is being pursued
jointly between the Department of Homeland Security and APTS.
In October, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security's Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) signed a cooperative agreement with
APTS to conduct a Digital Emergency Alert System--National Capital
Region Pilot Project (DEAS-NCR). The pilot was launched to demonstrate
how public television's digital infrastructure could be used to support
the distribution of Presidential messages to the public and of digital
all-hazards Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages to TVs, radios,
personal computers, telephones and wireless networks.
Public broadcasting participants in the pilot include APTS, the
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), WETA-TV and FM, Maryland Public
Television, WHRO (Norfolk, VA), KAKM (Anchorage, AK) and the New Jersey
Network. These Public Television entities were joined by WTOP-AM radio,
WRC-TV (both in Washington, D.C.), Comcast Cable, the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and XM Satellite Radio.
Participating telecommunications industry organizations include
Cingular Wireless, Nextel, T-Mobile, the Cellular Telecommunications
and Internet Association (CTIA) and USA Mobility, among others.
Phase I of this pilot project focused primarily on testing whether
emergency alert and warning messages could be successfully transmitted
to end-users in a workable format--known as the Common Alerting
Protocol (CAP) format. The Pilot was formulated around the concept of
real-time activation by FEMA of simulated emergency alert and warning
messages into the DTV network of PBS and WETA, who redistribute the
alert messaging to other participants in the pilot.
I am pleased to say that Phase I of the pilot project was a
resounding success. We were able to demonstrate that this
infrastructure works and works well.
Phase II of the DEAS-NCR Pilot
Based on the success of the first phase of the DEAS-NCR Pilot, the
Department of Homeland Security has extended the pilot by an additional
6 months. The extended pilot program will lay the foundation for the
national roll-out of a digitally-based Federal public safety alert and
warning system.
Phase II has three major components.
First, the Pilot will spend additional time on testing and
evaluation, as well as provide an opportunity to further
develop the components of the pilot system. Additional testing
sites beyond those in Phase I of the pilot, including one or
more state emergency operations centers (EOCs) and several
additional public broadcast stations outside the National
Capitol Region, are being incorporated in Phase II.
Second, APTS will work in coordination with other alert and
warning pilots and vendors, such as the one that DHS is
developing to provide satellite connectivity to the Nation's
current Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations. These other pilots
are also consistent with DHS's goals for an Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) framework. The goal here is to
ensure that a DEAS can work with, and be complementary to,
other aspects of an improved national alert and warning system.
Third is the development of a DEAS National Deployment Plan
as well as a final DEAS Pilot Report for Congress. The DEAS
National Deployment Plan will include construction and timeline
estimates, technical risk determinations and other technical
implementation options.
Next Steps
We at APTS are gratified to play a role in this effort, and our
member stations are fully committed as well. We could not be more
pleased with the way the DEAS-NCR Pilot has progressed and how that
might translate to a fully developed, robust national alert and warning
system. I would also like to commend Reynold Hoover and his colleagues
at FEMA for their foresight in recognizing the dual-use features of
DTV, and for forging a very productive working relationship with us.
Going forward, there are two elements that I have not yet mentioned
that I believe are critical to the ultimate viability of the DEAS.
Satellite Interconnection
First is the replacement of Public Television's satellite
interconnection system. As you are probably aware, national programming
is currently distributed from PBS to the more than 350 local public
television stations via a satellite interconnection system. That system
is wearing out and is scheduled to go dark in October 2006--when the
current leases on satellite transponders expire. Congress has funded
two of four installments for a replacement, Next Generation
Interconnection System over the past two appropriations cycles.
Continued appropriations in FY 2006 are extremely important to secure
long-term leases on new satellite capacity as well as enhanced
terrestrial distribution capabilities. This is relevant to the subject
of today's hearing, because the same infrastructure that ensures
distribution of national programming also forms the backbone for
distribution of emergency alert and warning messages under DEAS.
Local Origination
At the local level, it is also important that we plan for and
provide resources for local origination equipment. The purpose of local
origination is to allow local communities to take advantage of the
Federal DEAS whenever emergencies of a local or regional nature occur.
If, for example, a tsunami were to develop in the northern Pacific
Ocean, headed toward Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, it would be
essential that local stations have the ability to augment and enhance
the level of communication about the tsunami to the affected citizenry.
Similarly, any number of communities that lie within the range of
hurricanes--from Gulf States to the Atlantic seaboard--would benefit
from a fully integrated local and national warning system that would
enhance the NOAA weather service. Datacasting can be used not only to
provide initial warning but also to distribute detailed information
such as evacuation routes, instructions for sheltering in place and
other safety tips. Information is crucial in any crisis, whether a
chemical spill at an industrial site, an incident at a nuclear power
plant, or other man-made or natural disasters.
The ability to create and distribute local and regional messages
and data packets is vital to a fully integrated emergency alert and
warning system. It is in the best interest of the American people, who
expect local and national coordination in times of crisis. Fortunately,
the capability necessary to accomplish this is within our grasp.
Conclusion
Public Television is gratified that we can play a role in helping
to shape our Nation's next generation emergency alert and warning
system, and most importantly to deliver that capability. It is a
natural extension of our public service mission. We believe that one
day in the near future Public Digital Television will play a crucial
role during a crisis that will save lives and calm fears.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today.
Senator DeMint. Just a quick question and I want to get to
the other panelists. As far as our BlackBerrys are concerned,
would our server have to coordinate with you for it to come
through my BlackBerry, or could that just be automatic?
Mr. Lawson. By arrangement with the service provider--and I
don't know who you use, in the Senate--it would be passed
through automatically.
Senator DeMint. OK.
Mr. Lawson. Your server would not--as I understand it; and
I don't understand the Senate firewalls--but, generally
speaking, no one's touching this data. If, by prior
arrangement, your service provider has agreed to handle this
messaging, no one touches it; it goes right through.
Senator DeMint. So, the servers of these BlackBerrys,
regardless of the Senate or what--does not--they don't
necessarily have to have a lot of new technology, or whatever,
to do it?
Mr. Lawson. This is why--the Common Alerting Protocol and
the Integrated--the IPAWS that the witnesses testified about
this morning, make sure that it passes through. There is
nothing extra on the receive end, in terms of the text
messaging, that would be necessary.
Senator DeMint. I'll save my other questions. But, since
I've spoken, Senator Nelson, if you wanted to say anything----
Senator Ben Nelson. Now, for example, a cell phone was
ringing. Is that technology aimed at some sort of GPS or by
area code? What if I have an area code from Nebraska on my cell
phone, but I'm located here? Does it contact me? What may be
important here, in terms of a localized disaster, might not be
important out there, vice versa.
Mr. Lawson. I know that FEMA and NOAA are working on the
geographical targeting. Our pilot doesn't do that. But I can
tell you that it does--this system fully supports conditional
access. The signal goes out to everyone, but only certain
devices, such as Senate BlackBerrys, might have the
authorization to receive it. It might be card, it might a code,
it might be a thumbprint. So, we can segment that way. Also,
although we're sending information, this test data, over the
PBS satellite, so anything public state or state network, like
Nebraska ETV in the Nation, can take it. You automatically have
geographic localization of that kind, at least on the state and
national--regional level.
Senator Ben Nelson. OK, thank you.
Senator DeMint. Mr. Guttman-McCabe?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-McCABE,
ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, HOMELAND SECURITY AND
REGULATORY POLICY, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATIONTM
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman DeMint and Senator Nelson. I am
Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Assistant Vice President for
Homeland Security and Regulatory Policy at CTIA--The Wireless
Association.TM
I am privileged to appear before you today to discuss the
wireless industry's efforts regarding an all-hazards network.
The wireless industry recognizes the importance of this
effort. CTIA and the industry have dedicated significant
resources to address this issue. We have coordinated our
efforts through the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA.
The industry also recently launched a wireless AMBER Alert
project that not only will help to protect our Nation's
children, but also will provide a useful template as the
industry moves forward with an emergency alert service.
The wireless industry, like many other high-tech
industries, is in a process of continual change and renewal.
The industry has invested billions of dollars in its networks,
and consumers have invested billions of dollars in their
handsets, their wireless PDAs, and their data cards.
Manufacturers and service providers unveil new capabilities
almost daily. New technologies and services are likely to
extend both the reach and the capacity of wireless. A sensible
emergency alerting policy must take into account both the
massive investment in place today and investment that defines
the capabilities that can be used this year, as well as next,
and the technological developments that propel the industry in
the long run.
CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part
approach to the emergency alert issue. The goal is to balance
the industry's existing capabilities with the perceived
requirements of emergency alert service, at the same time
recognizing that the industry is evolving. Unlike the existing
emergency alert service which operates on a broadcast network
designed to transmit messages from one point to multiple
points, the existing wireless was designed to be point-to-
point, one customer to another customer.
Accordingly, the industry is partnering with FEMA on a
pilot project, that you heard Mr. Hoover talk about earlier,
that will initially utilize the industry's text-message
capability, its SMS capabilities. While there are both
limitations on the number of SMS messages that can be sent
during any one period of time, as well as on the number of
characters that can be contained in any one single message,
there is one significant benefit to the short-term use of SMS,
and that is that it is available today. However, this initial
service must be approached with caution, as the limitations and
concerns regarding both capacity and message content are likely
to arise during an emergency.
As part of the second, longer-term element of the
industry's effort, CTIA and the industry are investigating
mechanisms for geographic delivery of messages. This second-
stage effort is designed to take advantage of the constant
evolution that is a hallmark of our industry. The industry is
looking into what role, if any, capabilities such as cell
broadcasts could play in the emergency alert environment.
Additionally, the industry is investigating other potential
delivery mechanisms, including whether the existing NOAA
service could be incorporated into a wireless phone, as well as
whether SMS messages can be targeted geographically.
Several of the capabilities being investigated for longer-
term delivery would require the industry to address issues
including standardization, product development and deployment,
and, possibly, handset replacement. In the interim, CTIA
continues to work with FEMA on the creation of a framework for
development of an alert service that ultimately can be
transmitted on multiple retransmission media. CTIA and the
industry believe that any emergency alert service should not
focus solely on the wireless network, as the networks are not
currently designed to pass messages to all active subscribers
simultaneously. Rather, an emergency alert service should
utilize the full range of communications devices, such as
phones, e-mail, and instant messaging, radios, television sets,
and satellite.
The efforts discussed above are only part of the work being
done in this area. More work needs to be completed, and,
ultimately, government can help. A true government-industry
partnership, as occurred during the creation of the wireless
priority service, will aid in that development. CTIA and the
industry believe that it is counterproductive to have a
statutory mandate in this environment. Application of the
wireless priority service model of government-industry
partnership will lead to a solution that takes advantage of the
industry's creativity and ingenuity.
As government and industry move forward with both a short-
term and possibly longer-term solution, addressing issues
including liability relief, establishment of a service
description, designation of an authority for development, as
well as operation of the alert service, and funding, will be
beneficial. CTIA and the industry look forward to continuing
the partnership between government and industry.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity to discuss the
wireless industry's efforts. We look forward to working with
you and your staffs toward a service that will benefit
American. And I look forward to addressing any questions that
you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guttman-McCabe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Assistant Vice
President, Homeland Security and Regulatory Policy, CTIA--The Wireless
Association TM
Good morning Chairman DeMint, Ranking Member Nelson, and
distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Christopher Guttman-
McCabe, Assistant Vice President for Homeland Security and Regulatory
Policy at CTIA, The Wireless Association.TM CTIA is the
international organization that represents all sectors of the wireless
communications industry: wireless carriers, manufacturers, and data
companies. I am privileged to appear before you today to discuss the
wireless industry's efforts regarding creation of an all hazards
network and what role government can play in that effort.
The wireless industry recognizes the importance of this effort.
CTIA and the industry have dedicated resources to examine this issue
and are working toward an emergency alert capability. CTIA and the
industry have coordinated their efforts with the Department of Homeland
Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as well as
with the Federal Communications Commission. As discussed below, the
industry also recently launched a voluntary Wireless AMBER Alert
Service that not only will help to protect our Nation's children, but
also may provide a useful template as the industry moves forward with
an Emergency Alert service. While the AMBER alert service differs from
an Emergency Alert service in that the AMBER Alerts are not necessarily
initiated during a time of severe network congestions (as is likely the
case in the context of an Emergency Alert), the industry already has
begun to learn from the provision of this service.
Background
The wireless industry, like many other high-tech industries, is in
a process of continual change and renewal. The wireless industry has
invested billions of dollars in their networks. Additionally, consumers
also have invested billions in handsets, wireless PDAs, and data cards.
The industry runs on a mix of technologies varying from first
generation analog to the latest third-generation designs. Manufacturers
and service providers unveil new capabilities every few days. New
technologies and services are likely to extend both the reach and
capacity of wireless. Unfortunately, we do not know today what all
those new capabilities will be or when they will become available. A
sensible emergency alerting policy must take into account both the
massive investment in place today--an investment that defines the
capabilities that can be used this year and next--and the technological
developments that propel the industry in the long run.
Developing a national emergency alerting policy should not be a
one-time event. Going forward, there should be a continuing process for
identifying the emergency alert environment, as well as industry
capabilities. Uses and expectations of the service will indicate what
may be appropriate for capacity of message delivery in the short term
and long term. Further, the scope of who uses the system and for what
purpose is very important to understand as it relates to the cost to
develop, the management of the service, and effectiveness of the
system.
CTIA, working with the industry, has initiated a two-part approach
toward development of an Emergency Alert capability. The goal is to
balance the industry's existing capabilities with the perceived
requirements of an Emergency Alert service, at the same time
recognizing that the industry is evolving. The continued evolution of
the industry likely will result in different options being considered
for delivery of Emergency Alert messages. For example, currently there
is nothing deployed in the network for delivering messages to a
specific targeted geographic area. Handsets and/or networks would have
to be upgraded or replaced in order to provide such a service, and
development and deployment of any geographic service would take time.
Accordingly, CTIA and the industry are initially working within
existing capabilities to establish and initiate a voluntary effort to
deliver Presidential-level Emergency Alert messages via Short Message
Service (SMS), or text message, to those subscribers that opt in to a
participating carrier. As discussed below, CTIA and the wireless
industry are partnering with FEMA on a pilot project that initially
will utilize the industry's existing SMS, or text message,
capabilities. The SMS capability exists in the majority of handsets,
and is provided by the overwhelming majority of carriers.
While there are both limitations on the number of SMS messages that
can be sent during any one period of time, as well as limitations on
the number of characters that can be contained in any single message,
there is one significant benefit to the short-term use of SMS--it is
available today. Utilizing SMS initially will work to avoid a
significant amount of the development time frame that will accompany
the solutions discussed below. However, this initial service must be
approached with caution, as the limitations and concerns regarding both
capacity and message content are likely to arise during an emergency.
Unlike the existing Emergency Alert network, which operates on
broadcast networks designed to transmit messages from one point to
multiple points, the existing wireless network was designed to be point
to point--one customer to another customer, where the network has to
route calls and text messages using switches and databases to direct
traffic to individual users. In this environment, utilization of SMS to
retransmit messages likely will result in latency of delivery of the
message to consumers. However, as was concluded in the Wireless AMBER
Alert context, an SMS offering--despite its expected limitations--is
the best existing, short-term option for delivery of alert messages.
Second, as part of the longer term effort going forward, CTIA and
the industry are investigating mechanisms for geographic delivery of
messages. This second stage effort is designed to take advantage of the
constant evolution that is the hallmark of the wireless industry. The
goal is to address the capacity issues that are part of any SMS-based
alert service, as well as to develop a capability for targeting
messages geographically. The capability to deliver messages
geographically currently does not exist in wireless networks in the
United States. Wireless service is based on point-to-point
communications, and has not been designed for point-to-multipoint
broadcast.
The industry is looking into what role, if any, services such as
cell broadcast could ultimately play in the Emergency Alert
environment. Additionally, the industry is investigating whether the
existing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) service
can be incorporated into a wireless phone, as well as whether SMS
messages can be targeted geographically. Recent developments, including
but not limited to broadcast offerings on wireless phones, as well as
services such as Qualcomm's proposed MediaFlo offering, highlight how
the industry and its technology are in transition.
Several of the capabilities being investigated for a geographic-
based service would require the industry to address issues including
standardization (both of the underlying product as well as the alert
development and delivery process), product development and deployment,
as well as the need for handset turnover if the service is not
available in existing handsets. In the interim, CTIA continues to work
with FEMA on the creation of a framework for development of an alert
service that ultimately can be transmitted on multiple retransmission
media, including wireless. CTIA and the industry believe, however, that
while wireless can be a component of any alerting service, any
Emergency Alert service should not focus solely on the wireless
network, as the wireless networks are not currently designed to pass a
message to all active subscribers simultaneously. Rather, an Emergency
Alert service should utilize the full range of communications devices,
such as wireline and wireless telephones, e-mail and instant messaging
systems, radios and television sets.
FEMA Capitol Region Pilot Project
CTIA has been working diligently with carriers, manufacturers, and
FEMA on a digital Emergency Alert pilot project in the national capitol
region. The pilot project, being directed by FEMA, coordinated with the
Association of Public Television Stations (APTS), and utilizing the
digital broadcast spectrum, is designed to provide the Nation with an
enhanced alert system. The goal of the first phase of the project was a
``proof of concept'' that Emergency Alert messages can be sent from
FEMA to public broadcasters, imbedded in the digital broadcast
spectrum, and then re-transmitted to third parties, including wireless
carriers. A portion of the imbedded Emergency Alert message contained a
text file that the wireless carriers were able to extract. Phase 1 of
the pilot project has successfully been completed.
As part of the second phase of the pilot project, FEMA, APTS, and
the five nationwide wireless carriers that are participating in the
project will now focus on making the service scaleable so that messages
that are initiated by FEMA ultimately can be passed through directly to
the wireless carriers' networks. To date, several of the carriers have
successfully re-transmitted a test message to a small portion of their
employee base. The goal is to ensure that a system is in place whereby
a message can originate at FEMA, and be transmitted and retransmitted
without ever being edited, touched, or handled by any of the
participating companies. Ultimately, Phase II of the pilot project
envisions that an Emergency Alert message will be retransmitted to some
portion of the carriers' customer base.
As discussed above, the carriers, initially, will utilize their
existing SMS capabilities to retransmit a text message to customers
that opt-in to receive the alerts. Ultimately, carriers may use one of
the other longer-term methods being considered to retransmit the
message to a specific geographic location. Whatever method a company
chooses to utilize for retransmission, the industry is looking forward
to completion of an Emergency Alert process that ultimately can take
advantage of any of the new capabilities or services that will emerge
from this highly innovative industry.
AMBER Alerts
The industry already is pursuing use of the wireless phone for the
safety of the country. On its own initiative, the industry has launched
a Wireless AMBER Alert Service that will provide another level of
safety to its customers and the American public. This service enhances
the industry's vast array of socially responsible initiatives.
Partnering with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
(NCMEC) as well as the Department of Justice (the designated national
AMBER Alert coordinator), the wireless industry is making potentially
life-saving AMBER Alert text messages available to wireless subscribers
who ``opt-in'' to the offering. The carriers currently participating
collectively provide service to more than 90 percent of U.S. wireless
customers. The service has been designed to be scaleable so that
additional carriers can continue to join the effort going forward.
Wireless AMBER Alerts will significantly increase the reach of the
AMBER Alert notification program. Past experiences indicate the first 3
hours are critical to the successful recovery of an abducted child, and
the Wireless AMBER Alerts will be an invaluable tool in assisting the
search process. According to the NCMEC, Wireless AMBER Alerts will
potentially serve as a preventive tool as well. People who prey on
innocent children will perhaps think twice before carrying out their
malicious acts, knowing that almost any cell phone owner they pass
could identify a perpetrator and have access to the immediate means to
guide law enforcement officials to their location.
Under the program, the subscribers of participating carriers may
``opt-in'' to receive Wireless AMBER Alerts, and may do so at
www.wirelessAMBERalerts.org, or by visiting their wireless service
provider's website.
Going Forward
The efforts discussed above are only a part of the work being done
in this area. More work needs to be completed, and, ultimately,
government can help. A true government/industry partnership will
facilitate development and deployment of the service. The wireless
industry has in its immediate past an example of what can happen when
government and industry partner voluntarily on the creation of a new
service--Wireless Priority Service. Wireless Priority Service is a
White House-directed National Security/Emergency Preparedness program,
through the National Communications System, that utilizes the
commercial wireless networks to deliver priority access to key
government officials during times of crisis and high call volume.
Government, through both the National Communications System and the
Federal Communications Commission, worked with industry on development
of the requirements for the service, but did not mandate a solution.
Instead, government has provided funding to manufacturers and vendors
for development of the capability, resulting in rapid deployment of the
service in two phases.
CTIA and the wireless industry believe that it is counter-
productive to have a statutory mandate in this environment. Application
of the Wireless Priority Service model of government/industry
partnership will lead to a solution that takes advantage of the
industry's creativity and ingenuity. As government and industry move
forward with both a short-term and possibly longer-term solution, the
following are some of the issues that would benefit from joint
government/industry consideration:
Liability relief. As with the Broadcasters that currently
provide the Emergency Alert service, the industry requires full
liability protection for delivery of any Emergency Alert
message, both for any short-term solution and any longer-term
solution.
Service Description. A joint government/industry partnership
to develop the requirements of any emergency alert service that
ultimately would result in the development and adoption of
standards. This partnership will allow manufacturers to build
to specific requirements.
Designation of Authority for Development of an Emergency
Alert Service. Designation of a specific authority responsible
for balancing local, state and Federal requirements against
industry capabilities.
Designation of Authority for Operation of an Emergency Alert
Service. Designation of a specific authority tasked with
operation of the Emergency Alert service as well as creation of
a clear set of rules governing who is permitted to generate
messages and under what circumstances they can be generated,
coupled with a process to authenticate and secure any Emergency
Alert messages. Due to the possibility of a hoax transmission,
this process must guarantee the integrity of the messages from
the point of origination to delivery.
Research, Development, Deployment and Implementation
Support. The provision of funding to support research and
development, as well as deployment and implementation, will
benefit the establishment of a nationwide alert service.
Conclusion
CTIA and the industry look forward to continuing the partnership
between government and industry toward development of an Emergency
Alert service. Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the
wireless industry's efforts that could contribute to an all hazards
network and what role the Government should play in that effort. We
look forward to working with you and your staff toward a service that
will benefit America.
Senator DeMint. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor?
STATEMENT OF RICHARD TAYLOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH CAROLINA
WIRELESS 911 BOARD; CHAIRMAN, THE COMCARE ALLIANCE AND E-911
INSTITUTE; PARTNER, THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY ALERTING AND
RESPONSE
SYSTEMS INITIATIVE (NEARS)
Mr. Taylor. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Nelson.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Richard Taylor. I'm the Executive Director of
the North Carolina Wireless 911 Board. I also have the
privilege of chairing the COMCARE Alliance. I am also Chair of
the E-911 Institute. And today there are few issues that are
more important to our members than the one that we're
discussing here and now.
COMCARE is a national nonprofit alliance dedicated to
advancing emergency response. COMCARE is unique in that we
represent the wide diversity of the emergency-response
community.
I am also testifying on behalf of the National Emergency
Alerting and Response Systems Initiative, or NEARS. The 17
national organizations that are NEARS partners represent over
40,000 individual agencies and over 400,000 individuals in the
emergency-response profession.
The most effective public warning system is one that
achieves the greatest possible reach. It is one that is used
for all-hazards reporting, not just for specific incidents.
However, there will never be one system that solves the
problem. An interoperable solution for public warning will not
be achieved by purchasing a new national emergency-alert
network for the 100,000-plus emergency agencies, much less
solve the other public and private organizations that need to
be part of an emergency network.
We must focus on connecting these emergency agencies
through one system of systems, or an internetwork. This
emergency internetwork will allow these organizations to
contact the public through growing numbers of consumer devices.
Another key component is emergency data standards for
public warning. The Common Alerting Protocol fundamentally
solves that problem. Now we need vendors to build interfaces to
those standards. Agencies have invested millions of dollars to
equip themselves. We need to leverage these investments instead
of replacing them.
Progress is already being made. DHS and DOJ are leading the
development of emergency data dictionaries, models, and
emergency message standards. SAFECOMM and related efforts are
making significant progress on the radio interoperability
front. As evidenced by NEARS and other developments, the
leadership of a significant number of emergency professions has
put their turf aside, in favor of cooperation.
A critical missing piece is a new idea, the need for a
routing directory. Almost every one of the emergency warning
systems has a different owner with different jurisdictions or
geographical interests, different incident interests, and
different electronic addresses. These differences have always
existed, but the advancements in technology have created new
questions. How does an agency sending an alert know who the
right organization is for public alerting in the target area,
much less their correct computer address, incident interest, or
geographic area of those interests? The answer is that no
central entity can. That is why the shared registry, the
emergency provider access directory, or EPAD, makes so much
sense. If an organization wants to receive alerts and/or public
warnings, either for itself or to pass on to others, it would
simply need to register in the EPAD, with proper authorization.
Instead of the inefficient creation of single-purpose
directories, there should be one shared routing directory for
all-hazards messaging, owned and managed on a nonprofit basis
by the emergency-response profession.
We also need a similar shared rights-management system.
What agencies are allowed to send alerts? What agencies are
allowed to receive different types of alerts?
COMCARE has been working on these exact issues for more
than 4 years. The result was a prototype of EPAD designed by
teams of emergency practitioners and contributed by DICE
Corporation. I would be delighted to schedule a time to show
this to you.
Thanks to a major grant from the Department of Justice, we
have run a series of national demonstrations using EPAD. We've
funded the development of more than one-hundred pages of vetted
final design and detailed technical architecture for both
routing and rights management modules, and we have them right
here today. We are ready to build the production version. The
next step of the NEARS initiative is to obtain the funding.
NEARS is a unique plan to make a successful all-hazards
alerting system possible. NEAR brings together leading
emergency-response organizations around a common architecture
and a specific plan, not a particular product. The detailed
NEARS proposal is available on the Internet, at NEARS.us. The
NEARS proposal provides for national demonstrations, building
the production EPAD routing and rights management tools, and
detailed beta field testing. It serves multiple missions, so it
should be funded from multiple pockets of already appropriated
funds. We believe it can move to a self-sustaining basis in 2
years, with interim Federal funding of less than $20 million.
The NEARS partner organizations have created a unique
multi-professional effort. We need your support to deliver on
this promise for the American public. We request that Congress
strongly encourage agencies to fund NEARS from already
appropriated funds.
Thank you so much for your attention, and I'll entertain
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Taylor, Executive Director, North
Carolina Wireless 911 Board; Chairman, the COMCARE Alliance and E-911
Institute; Partner, the National Emergency Alerting and Response
Systems Initiative (NEARS)
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on this critical topic. There
are few issues more important to our membership than the one you are
discussing today.
COMCARE is a national non-profit alliance dedicated to advancing
emergency response by promoting modern, interoperable emergency
communications systems, and the development of new procedures,
training, and tools to maximize value for emergency responders. COMCARE
encourages cooperation across professional, jurisdictional and
geographic lines, and works to integrate the emergency response
professions, government, private industry and the public. COMCARE's
100+ organizational members represent the wide diversity of the
emergency response community. For more information visit
www.comcare.org.
COMCARE's goal is to promote an integrated, coordinated approach to
emergency communications and support the development of a comprehensive
``end-to-end system'' to link the public to emergency agencies, and to
link those agencies together. Introducing 21st Century information and
communications technologies to the often-antiquated communications
infrastructure of emergency agencies will save thousands of lives each
year, substantially reduce the severity of injuries, and enhance
homeland security.
Our members have a vision of an integrated emergency communications
and information system linking the public to emergency agencies, and
linking the agencies to each other in a seamless network. This
integrated network would equally serve to protect Americans during both
daily and mass emergencies. The goal is to incorporate today's systems
with tomorrow's technology under the cooperative guidance of local and
national leadership.
I am also testifying on behalf of the National Emergency Alerting
and Response Initiative (NEARS). Our NEARS partners include the
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the American Public
Health Association (APHA), the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF), COMCARE,
the Emergency Interoperability Consortium (EIC), the Emergency Nurses
Association (ENA), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the George
Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (GWHSPI), the
International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), the National
Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP), the National Association of
EMTs (NAEMT), the National Association of State EMS Directors
(NASEMSD), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), the
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), the Public Broadcasting
Service, and others. See www.nears.us.
Summary of Testimony
We believe there are five essential building blocks for an
effective, interoperable national public warning system.
Interoperable pathways for agencies to exchange information
Multiple communications channels from emergency agencies to
the public
A standards based system
A series of shared Facilitation Services
Use rules defined by emergency leaders and implemented
through the Facilitation Services
Functional interoperability will not come from building a single
new network, or multiple ones for specific types of warnings. There are
close to 100,000 emergency agencies. There are hundreds of high quality
communications systems in the emergency response and communications
community now, and in the media. The physical networks to connect these
organizations mostly already exist. We must take advantage of the
extensive networks that are already in place and the tools that are
used everyday by our emergency agencies. We should think of this as an
``internetwork'', and focus on connecting a wide variety of wireline
and wireless networks that are controlled by a large number of separate
entities.
This emergency internetwork will allow organizations to contact the
public through all the burgeoning number of devices they have, not just
one or two: wireless voice and data messaging, television, radio,
beepers, ISPs, mass calling, and the like. Most discussions of public
warning focus on this part of the process, the end point in the hands
or living rooms of citizens. The COMCARE and NEARS focus has been on
the other necessary pieces to make an all hazards system work.
Standards create a common language that enables data sharing
between thousands of individual agency proprietary systems, and with
the public. For public warning, the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)
standard fundamentally solves that problem, particularly when the EDXL
Distribution Element becomes a standard as we hope it will later this
year. Now the primary standards challenge is getting vendors to use
them, to create interfaces to them.
The next issue is shared Facilitation Services. How does the
sending agency know who the right organizations for public alerting in
a target area are, much less their correct computer addresses, incident
interests, and the geographic areas of those interests? Instead of the
inefficient profusion of single purpose directories (and the inaccuracy
that flows from such proliferation), there should be one shared routing
directory system (actually a federated system of directories) for all
hazards messaging, owned and managed on a non-profit basis by the
emergency response professions. The same comments and shared system
apply to the needed rights management system. The Emergency Provider
Access Directory (EPAD) NEARS and we advocate performs these routing
and rights management functions.
Finally, it is important to separate technical capabilities from
policy rules governing their use. Technically, we need a system that
connects every emergency related organization together in the
internetwork. That does not mean that any agency is allowed to send or
receive any message or have access to any data. We need organizations
at local, tribal, state and national levels to develop the policies and
protocols that determine the rights and roles of agencies in the
system, and management rules for it.
The National Emergency Alerting and Response Systems (NEARS)
Initiative has a unique plan to make a successful All-Hazards Alerting
system possible. NEARS brings together a wide variety of leading
emergency response organizations around a common architecture and
specific plan, not a particular product. With several regional and
national demonstrations, using a prototype of EPAD (a map-based
directory of agencies for routing data), we have proved that sharing
data messages between agencies according to data standards is an
extremely effective way to communicate with a wide variety of public
warning systems. Thanks to a significant grant to COMCARE from the
Department of Justice, EPAD has been specifically defined by teams of
emergency practitioners, and an extremely detailed design has been
created. We have more than 100 pages of design and a detailed technical
architecture for both routing and rights management modules that are
awaiting funding.
The 16 national organizations that are NEARS partners represent
over 40,000 individual agencies and over 400,000 individuals in the
emergency response professions. Our proposal serves multiple agency
missions, from public warning, to emergency agency communications, to
public health. We request that Congress strongly encourage DHS and HHS
to fund NEARS from already appropriated funds.
Overall Comments
A public warning interoperability solution will not be achieved by
the Federal Government purchasing a new national emergency alert
network or buying a software application for the 100,000-plus emergency
agencies--much less all the other public and private organizations that
need to be part of an emergency network. Instead, emergency agencies
and their communications capabilities should be viewed as a single
``enterprise'', with tens of thousands of agency owners. This
enterprise needs to provide full interoperability among all agencies
(and related organizations), delivering secure information and
communication to/from response agencies and responders. It needs to
include comprehensive public warning and education. To be cost
efficient, it must be multi-user, multi-use, and all hazards.
The most effective public warning system will be one that gets
emergency messages to the widest variety of possible alerting
mechanisms ensuring that the greatest levels of penetration are
achieved. It will be one that is used for all hazards reporting, not
just tsunamis, or weather, or homeland security alerts. More
importantly, it will be one that allows agencies to communicate
directly with the public and those organizations authorized to send out
disaster warnings directly to citizens. Finally, there will never be
one ``system'' that solves the problem. We must have a capability that
links all alerting solutions and allows for multiple methods of
communication. That means it must be driven by data standards and based
on an open architecture. It should not have single points of failure.
The National Emergency Alerting and Response Systems (NEARS)
Initiative meets these criteria and can provide a solution to help our
country achieve its goals. I am here today to ask you to support it as
part of your broader, overall effort.
The Problem
Public warning rests on a simple action: some government agency
needs to send out a warning. Sometimes this goes directly to the
public; sometimes it goes to other emergency agencies or organizations
for them in turn to notify the public. Sometimes the key targets of
alerts are the individual employees of an agency or profession (e.g.,
first responders, physicians).
In an era where technology can bring news, current events and
entertainment to the farthest reaches of the world, to almost any
electronic device, most U.S. emergency response agencies and personnel
cannot share data with each other, even within the same jurisdiction,
much less with the public they serve.
Most new cell phones can take and transmit pictures to any person
on the Internet. If there were a small pox outbreak, it would be
enormously valuable for CDC to be able to send pictures of pustules to
911, EMS, the media, and other key organizations so they could
communicate them to the public. ``If you have skin that looks like
this, stay at home. Do not come into the hospital or contact others.''
But most emergency response agencies cannot send or receive such
data.
9/11 challenged the security of the United States and the safety of
its citizens. Those challenges have identified weak spots in effective
communication. Such emergencies demand real-time data and inter-
operable communication across all jurisdictions and professional
boundaries so that agencies can provide information and service to the
public. There is an urgent need for broadband digital network
capability for real-time, inter-agency, emergency communication, with
seamless and effective communication capability from and to the public.
Telephone and fax will not meet the need. Unfortunately, because we
don't have standards or an open architecture, to achieve functional
interoperable data communications today requires the construction of
innumerable, specialized interfaces as demonstrated in Figure 1. Each
of these interfaces needs to be replicated in every community. This is
an unworkable model.
It is simply impossible to achieve the National Incident Management
System (NIMS) requirements for Communications and Information
Management \1\ without interoperable, interagency data communications.
Yet today there are more than 100,000 emergency response agencies and
the vast majority of them are not able to rapidly, accurately and
easily communicate data with each other, much less the public. Except
at the highest levels of government (e.g., State EOCs and Governors
that have been given data sharing tools by DHS), there is no regional
or national emergency data communications capability. In simple terms,
the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Governor, or the
EOC of any state, county, tribe or city do not have the ability to send
or receive secure emergency messages to most of the more than 100,000
emergency agencies in our country or those in a particular state.
Indeed, there is no comprehensive electronic directory of these
agencies that would enable the routing of such messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NIMS Chapter 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Underlying this is a clear lack of a comprehensive local, State or
national emergency communications and IT infrastructure. Most of the
communications platforms used today are designed as one-off systems and
solutions. The current system is voice-centric, and filled with stove
pipes of information. There is little data sharing between agencies,
much less with the private sector. Different agencies' information
systems--computer-aided dispatch, emergency-management tools, public
health applications, wireless data systems in the field, alerting and
warning systems of all kinds--need to exchange up-to-the-minute
information, but they cannot.
Solution Overview
Emergency responders are being asked to do one of the most
important jobs in our society with generally the least advanced
communications and information technology. The emergency community
needs an integrated communications and information system for efficient
preparedness, public warning, and response. This system needs to
connect all emergency agencies with voice, data and video, not simply
provide wireless voice and data connections to agency staff at the
scene of incidents (which is a critical need). It also needs to connect
the public to agencies and vice versa. The system needs to exploit the
latest commercially available technologies, be highly secure, and
provide emergency agencies with control over their data. Finally, we
believe it needs to empower responders, giving them the flexibility to
use emergency information in the ways they (not vendors or some central
authority) choose, reflecting the different needs and capabilities of
agencies in the communities of our country. Evacuating a town in rural
Montana is quite different than evacuating Atlanta.
Recent Progress
There has been important progress in the last year. DHS and DOJ are
leading the development of both emergency data dictionaries/models and
emergency message standards. Project SAFECOMM and related efforts are
making significant progress on the radio interoperability front. DHS
and leading technology companies are supporting a range of data
interoperability trials. A vision and plan for future emergency
communications structure is emerging from the FCC's Network Reliability
and Interoperability Council (NRIC) and similar proceedings. As
evidenced by NEARS and other developments, the leadership of a
significant number of emergency professions has put ``turf '' aside in
favor of cooperation. These developments are new and incomplete, but
encouraging nonetheless.
Public Warning or Interagency Emergency Communications?
Some draw a distinction between public alerting and interagency
emergency communications. Certainly at a policy and specific use level,
these can be different, but in general we do not think the two topics
can be distinctly separated. Often at the state or local level the
agency with information that needs to be communicated to the public (or
the one with the tools that contact the public) is the state or local
911 center, police department or Emergency Manager. We must first make
certain that emergency response agencies have the ability to
efficiently receive and share emergency information of all types.
Without that assurance there will be no accurate information to share
with the public. We must also ensure that these agencies know who the
right outlets are to notify the public and how to share information
with them in real-time. As the train collision in South Carolina in
January showed, this is usually not the case in complicated
emergencies.
What Systems Are Involved?
Right now there are scores, indeed thousands, of emergency
notification outlets to the American public. And they are generally
controlled by thousands of independent emergency response agencies, few
of which are connected to each other electronically (except by voice
telephone). Here is a partial list.
*Reverse 911 systems installed at or controlled by some of
our 6,500 911 centers.
*A wide variety of public individual notification
registration systems (e.g., D.C. Alert) in many of the 4,000
state, city and county emergency operations centers.
Commercial registration warning systems (e.g., some of the
Amber Alert initiative; wireless company SMS systems).
*Similar systems for senior officials (e.g., RICCS and Roam
Secure in D.C.).
*Public Health Alert Networks from health departments
linking physicians, hospitals, labs (e.g., Virtual Alert in
Virginia).
*NOAA, National Weather Radio.
Commercial and public media: TV, radio, cable, satellite.
Non-traditional media: XM Radio, Sirius, Internet Service
Providers.
Wireless carriers; paging companies.
*Specialized community warning systems (e.g., around DOE and
DOD facilities).
*The traditional Emergency Alert System using broadcast
systems.
*DOT 5-1-1 and private traffic services.
*DOT intelligent transportation public systems (e.g.,
electronic road signs).
Telematics suppliers and/or their customers (e.g., OnStar
and ATX).
Internal corporate notification systems.
We have placed an asterisk next to the ones that are generally
considered government emergency agencies--and might be initiating
public warnings on their own, or because some agency like DHS told them
to do so. We believe the definition of ``agency'' should include the
entire above list, although the private ones would probably not be
initiating alerts on their own). We also have over 140,000 schools--and
they generally aren't on all hazards warning systems although some have
weather radios now and they are now almost all connected to the
Internet due to the e-Rate program.
The Directory Problem
Almost every one of the systems listed above has a different owner,
with different jurisdiction or geographical interests, different
incident interests, and different electronic addresses.
How are you going to find out that critical warning/alerting
information distribution data and then keep it current? The answer is
that no central entity can, local, state or Federal. That is why a
shared registry where the organizations themselves enter this
information--in other words, the EPAD we advocate--makes so much sense.
If an organization wants to receive alerts and/or public warnings,
either for itself, or to pass on to others, it simply needs to register
in EPAD, and be authorized to do so. In about 10 minutes using a web
interface, any such organization can enter what kinds of alerts it
wants to get, for what geographic area, and delivered to what
electronic address(es). Then any authorized messaging system can query
the database and deliver the alerts.
Indeed, using the directory to enable (provide the addressees for)
all emergency messages, not just the subset that are national alerts,
makes it much more likely that agencies and other organizations will
register and keep their information up to date--so that they can be
reached by public alerts and warnings.
NEARS offers the ability to reach any organization (i.e., the above
list) that is registered to receive or disseminate a public warning
message based on a geographic location. The detailed design of EPAD is
done; it is ready to be built.
Current Warning Procedure
Let's look at a generic public warning message that does not
originate at the Federal level.
911 receives a call about flooding in a large area that affects
roadways, public buildings and a residential area. 911 calls the
responsible emergency operations center (EOC) to notify them about the
flood. It may also call other agencies.
The EOC determines that other agencies like traffic management and
law enforcement must be called. The EOC enters the incident information
into its system. It then looks up the telephone numbers for the
agencies to be notified in its own directory--if it has one--and calls
them one-by-one. It determines that a public warning message must be
disseminated to those located in that area. However, it can only do so
by using a zip code to target the message. Some may get the warning and
are not affected. Others may not get the warning and could be affected.
Currently, the EOC uses three different systems to send out public
warning messages--a text alert system, a voice alert system, and a
website. The EOC enters the flood-warning message into each system so
that warning messages can be disseminated.
The process involves making many phone calls and manually entering
the incident message into each agency's system and each alerting
system. The result--valuable time wasted, with an increasing
possibility of message errors due to multiple manual entries.
For there to be an effective public alerting system there must be
only one communications system for all events. One system should be
created to contact the public for all events, ranging from child
abductions, to hurricanes, to terrorist attacks. Having multiple
systems for different types of alerts is wasteful because it creates
several systems which have a limited range of contact, instead of
creating one, all-inclusive system. One system will allow all
registered agencies and organizations to send and receive messages
about any event.
Saying that there should be one system, does not mean there should
be one set of rights, one set of use protocols, or any similar
capability which is unique to an incident type. The point of
Facilitation Services is to have electronic tools that allow those
different capabilities and rules to be implemented.
Essential Parts of a National All-Hazards Alert System
There must be one system for all warnings, not one for each kind.
There are tens of thousands of alerts that are sent to emergency
agencies, the media, and the public each year, and there are thousands
of agencies who are responsible for reporting these warnings. Cellular
phones, Internet, CAD systems, text messaging, beepers, television,
radio, cable should all be used for public alerting. The technology
exists to create this integrated alerting system.
There are five essential building blocks or layers for an effective
interoperable national emergency communications system; they are the
same for a national public warning system. Some of these layers will be
provided on highly competitive terms by multiple parties, some are
shared Facilitation Services offered by collections of emergency
response agencies, while others are components that will be unique to
individual agencies:
1. Pathways for agencies to exchange information.
2. Pathways from the agencies to the public.
3. Emergency communications standards.
4. A set of shared Facilitation Services for routing, rights
management, security and the like.
5. Institutions to define rules and policies.
1. Interagency Communication
For a successful integrated public warning system to exist there
must be interoperable communication between agencies. Local 911
centers, HSOC, NOAA, FEMA, and emergency responders should be linked by
an alerting network that allows these agencies to receive and
disseminate the information they need as quickly as possible. We don't
need to build a new network. Commercial telecommunications entities,
and state and local governments, have already deployed massive fiber,
satellite and wireless infrastructures. We need to assume an
``internetwork'', connecting a wide variety of wireline and wireless
networks, controlled by a large number of separate entities.
This can be the public Internet; that has the advantage of being
available to almost any agency immediately, and for very low cost.
However, many localities and states have developed their own private IP
networks; these provide better performance. The primary policy issue--
and one that is very familiar to this Committee--is getting all
emergency agencies to establish broad band connections.
2. Standards
Standards create a common language that enables data sharing
between the thousands of individual agency proprietary systems. It is
no solution to require all agencies to use the same information
technology tools. Most agencies will not be willing to let someone else
make these decisions for them, nor will they be comfortable or
efficient using tools that they do not use on a daily basis. The costly
alternatives are to develop individual interfaces for each source of
data, or to acquire complicated and expensive systems that sit between
agencies and translate each agency's data language into the others.
Common standards allow data communication among the disparate
systems that are already in use, along with new applications as they
are introduced into the system, by essentially building a single
interface for all such purposes.
Standards have to be national. National standards mean local and
state technology choices will expand and prices should improve,
following the experience of the private sector with the commercial
computer industry. It is equally important that representatives from
the full range of emergency response professions be at the table during
the national standards development process.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through OMB's Disaster
Management eGov Initiative identified the need for data
interoperability using common standards. DHS is facilitating a process,
in which COMCARE is proud to be a partner, that brings together leaders
of the emergency professions that need to share data during emergency
response operations. The project is developing and field testing a
common set of emergency message standards (the Emergency Data Exchange
Language, EDXL). It is also supporting broader efforts to develop
common data terms and models, specifically the National Information
Exchange Model (NIEM) project, that is based on the excellent
pioneering work of the Global Justice XML Data Dictionary and Model. We
strongly support these efforts, and are using these standards in NEARS
and our other demonstrations.
3. Communications to the Public
To get to the public, you first have to get the alert to emergency
agencies and other organizations (e.g., the media). Agencies and
organizations will receive alerts and warnings on a wide variety of
information technology tools before they can decide to (or
automatically) re-transmit those warnings to the public each serves.
There are numerous emergency applications in use today, including
complex Computer Aided Dispatch Systems (CAD), web-based emergency
management tools, alerting systems for notifying emergency staff, mass
residential communications systems, and other applications. Each of
these systems has their own unique functionality; agencies should be
encouraged to purchase the tools that are best suited for them.
However, it is critical that these applications all have a standardized
interface: the ability to send and receive XML messages to other
applications in standardized formats. When 911 is in charge of public
alerting, it should not matter to a 911 CAD system that it is receiving
data from an emergency management tool about a flood, a bioterrorism
alert from CDC, or data about a 911 call from a wireless company. The
same data interface should be used. That is what the standards are all
about.
Another set of applications and services are those that compete to
deliver information from these agency-based applications to the public.
These can range from traditional ones that provide links through
landline telephones, radio, or data connections, to NOAA weather
radios, to beepers, warning radio systems, and even the traditional
sirens. Broadcast television, radio, cable, Internet service providers
and others provide other outlets to the public. In some cases these are
linked to more sophisticated systems which enrich incident messages
with associated data from multiple sources.
Much of the debate about public warning has tended to revolve
around the issues of consumer devices: which is ``best''? Should there
be mandates?
We believe that public warning is today like a doughnut. There is a
lot of capability at the edges where the vast array of systems touch
the public. There is a large hole in the middle. Our preference would
be to focus on filling the whole, making warnings available in
standardized forms to all these outlets as appropriate, and then see
what other steps need to be taken.
4. Facilitation Services
``Facilitation services'' are shared tools, services and/or
resources that are offered by collective effort of the emergency
response community, and are available to authorized emergency entities
to enable interoperability. These include, but are not limited to,
security, diagnostics, routing directory, agency rights management,
data rights management, and authentication.
Without a directory of agencies and their electronic addresses,
public warning messages cannot be routed. Rather than the inefficient
profusion of single purpose directories that is growing today, we
believe there should be one shared directory system, owned and managed
by the emergency response professions. This should be a secure registry
where authorized agencies enter their name, contact information,
professional function, level of government, incident interests (and the
geographical area of both jurisdiction and interest for each type of
incident), and emergency data delivery address(es). Only authenticated
and authorized agencies will have access to it on a non-discriminatory
basis.
Authentication and rights management are critical as well. There
must be a trusted way to credential agencies and individuals, provide
them with appropriate authorizations (both sending and receiving), and
allow them access to and use of the network. Linking networks will
require systems that will assure only authorized parties may
participate, assign them appropriate rights and roles, and authenticate
communications from them. Rights management also needs to be applied to
data itself.
COMCARE has been working on these exact issues for more than 4
years. The result is the Emergency Provider Access Directory (EPAD). A
routing prototype developed as a contribution to the public interest by
our member DICE Corporation is available at http://www.epad.us. We are
using this in field trials and demonstrations all over the country.
Thanks to a major grant from the Department of Justice the EPAD
concept has been advanced a long way. There is now a detailed design of
the production version of EPAD. More than 100 pages of design and a
detailed technical architecture are awaiting funding to do the coding.
This will provide both routing and rights management modules.
5. Policies and Protocols
It is important to separate technical capabilities from policy
rules governing their use. Technically, we need a system that connects
every agency together in a network. And the word ``agency'' must
include many private sector entities. But that does not mean that any
agency should be allowed to send or receive any message or have access
to unregulated data.
COMCARE believes that emphasis should be placed on system
flexibility, and local control, using the rights management
Facilitation Services to allow for messages to be generated from local
and state emergency managers (to their appropriate audiences) as well
as national sources. After all, most emergencies are local.
We need to develop the policies and protocols that determine the
rights and roles of agencies in the system, and management rules for
it; a local 911 center should not have the same access within the
system as a Governor. Some of these policies (and the decision-making
bodies) are already in place today, whether they are officially written
policies or not. Many are not, and most lack all the parties they need
to be effective in this regard. The local, state and Federal law
enforcement communities are most advanced in this regard. Most other
emergency agencies are not involved because sharing emergency
information between them has not been done before. All of these
policies and protocols will need to be addressed in terms of electronic
communication.
Applying this architecture results in a very different approach
than Figure One. Figure Two shows a more rationalized system where
appropriate functions are shared.
NEARS
The National Emergency Alerting and Response Systems (NEARS)
Initiative implements national emergency message standards, commercial
information technologies, and the EPAD shared, electronic directory of
agencies being developed by a non-profit public/private partnership.
NEARS is endorsed and led by a growing and diverse coalition of
emergency response and industry organizations. Participation by others
is actively encouraged. It is a three-track initiative that promotes
the concept, develops the service, and tests the service for national
implementation with actual deployments in several regions.
NEARS was created to bring together the respective players in the
emergency alerting area, and to provide a forum for government,
industry and other interested parties to work together to improve the
Nation's public warning and emergency messaging capability. Together we
plan to demonstrate and deploy interoperable emergency data messaging,
using national emergency message and data standards, commercial
information technologies, and the EPAD shared, electronic directory of
agencies. This directory gives agencies the ability to distribute
emergency messages based on geography, incident or agency type, for all
types of emergency events.
Our NEARS partners include the American College of Emergency
Physicians (ACEP), the American Public Health Association (APHA), the
Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF), the ComCARE Alliance, the Emergency
Interoperability Consortium (EIC), the Emergency Nurses Association
(ENA), the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the George Washington
University Homeland Security Policy Institute (GWHSPI), the
International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), the National
Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP), the National Association of
EMTs (NAEMT), the National Association of State EMS Directors
(NASEMSD), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), the
National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC), the Public Broadcasting
Service, and others.
Some criticize responders for only communicating within their
professional silos. However, the growing number of organizations who
support NEARS clearly demonstrate that there is willingness to change.
Collectively, the NEARS partner organizations represent a large cross
section of the emergency response community--Law Enforcement, Fire,
EMS, Public Health, 911, Emergency Management, and the media. We do not
have all the groups we want, but the current partners represent over
40,000 individual agencies and over 400,000 individuals in the
emergency response profession. This is a solid foundation and the
initiative continues to add partners. We hope you will strongly
encourage DHS to fund this project, providing the ability for emergency
response organizations of all types to share information amongst
themselves and with the public during emergencies. It serves a variety
of homeland security purposes.
The NEARS partners seek to attract involvement from all the
leadership groups of these professions and from additional segments
such as hospitals, transportation, state and local government and keep
it growing.
Once NEARS is deployed, this is how this same scenario would play
out.
911 receives the call and enters incident information into its
system and requests that the message be sent to all appropriate
agencies in the area. The 911 system then queries EPAD and using an
EDXL Distribution Element sends a CAP message to all agency addresses
that are returned.
The message is entered once--into the 911 system and disseminated
electronically to all appropriate agencies as well as to the public
alerting systems if the EOC elected to do so. The EOC can then schedule
public dissemination once the message is reviewed and approved. The
whole process is quick and efficient and the public is notified in time
for them to react--no phone calls, no multiple entries, no errors.
When a user or other entity initiates a login or message, EPAD
Identity Rights Management authenticates it and indicates what
privileges are allowed.
If the user and/or system or device is allowed to create and send
an incident message, the message can be created and EPAD can be queried
for instructions as to where to send it. The system or device can query
EPAD directly or it can use a message broker service that will query
EPAD and disseminate it for the entity. In either case, a web service
query is sent indicating the type and time of the incident, where it
occurred and, if applicable, what types of agencies should be notified.
EPAD will search the directory to determine the entities that requested
this type of information. It will send back a list of all entities
indicating how the entity wishes to be contacted. It can be a system to
system transmission, an automated phone call to certain individuals
and/or other types of contact.
The system or message broker then sends the message to all entities
simultaneously. If the user and/or entity is authorized to do so, it
can review the list first and make changes to the distribution list
before dissemination.
Public Broadcasting
A special word about public broadcasting is in order. I am
delighted that they are represented at this hearing.
Public broadcasting can play a critical role in emergency
preparedness, emergency communications and public warning. As John
Lawson of APTS has testified, there have been successful experiments in
data casting using digital capacity of stations and the PBS
interconnection. We commend APTS and DHS for those forward thinking
trials. We encourage the proliferation of this capability. But to limit
public broadcasting to this role would be to give up some critical
strengths it can offer. In addition to whatever data casting capability
public broadcasting might have in the future, we should take full
advantage of three unique attributes it can offer us today:
Network capacity provider: PBS has a national backbone
digital satellite and terrestrial network reaching every state
and significant community in the country.
Local television and radio signals reach out from that core
network to cover over 99 percent of Americans. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Beyond pure technical contributions, we just recognize that
public broadcasting is made up of respected and ``neutral'' local
station organizations directed by community leaders; a similar national
organization which can play a convening role in the key public and
private partnerships needed. They also have highly experienced and
successful local and national programming capabilities which can be
used to build training and other content for alerts.
Public broadcasting is made up of trusted and respected
local and national public service organizations that could be a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Switzerland'' in bringing together all the relevant parties.
PBS is a NEARS partner. We think PBS could be a national leader in
convening the coalition partners to identify the connectivity and
interconnection requirements locally, regionally and nationally of the
various agencies and organizations. Second, PBS would work in
collaboration with the initiative partners to incorporate agreed to
standards, routing and authorization applications, data messaging
formats and any necessary trial/pilot demonstrations. The NEARS
Initiative is exactly such a nonprofit public service coalition
project.
Conclusion
The detailed NEARS proposal is available at www.nears.us. It is
based on the important investment by the Justice Department in EPAD,
and the DHS investment in common emergency messaging standards. The
NEARS proposal provides for national demonstrations, building
production quality EPAD routing and rights management tools, and
detailed beta field testing of them. Because it serves the missions of
multiple government agencies, it is the priority of none of them.
Because it serves multiple missions, it can and should be funded from
multiple ``pockets'' of already appropriated funds. We believe it can
move to a self-sustaining basis in 2 years, with Federal funding of
less than $20 million.
Thanks to the leadership of my colleagues from the other NEARS
partner organizations we have created a unique, multi-professional
effort. We have overcome the turf concerns. We need your support to
deliver on this promise for the American public.
Senator DeMint. Mr. Guttman-McCabe, let me ask you a
question. One of my concerns in this process is, we'll come up
with mandates, for instance, that wireless services will have
to broadcast a message. And, you mentioned that wireless
servers, like the one I have for this, are not set up to
broadcast, so we'd have to change their technology in order to
do that. I'd like to make sure we have thought of other
options. And my question, just a technical question--this is
designed to receive a signal from only one server. Is there any
way this could be easily adapted so that, in an emergency, that
it could receive, directly, a signal from public broadcasting
digital, and not even go through the central server that it's
designed to pick up from?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Mr. Chairman, let me answer that with a
strong caveat that it would probably be beyond my technical
expertise. But I--the systems, I think, are designed--and the
handsets, whether it be a BlackBerry handset or a wireless
handset--are designed to be operational solely with that
wireless provider.
Senator DeMint. Right.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. So, our industry is made up of
different technologies and different platforms, and, even
within those platforms, there are different generations of
technologies. That's part of what makes moving forward with an
emergency alert service a difficult concept, a difficult
process.
Senator DeMint. Well, do you think there will need to be a
Federal mandate that wireless companies cooperate, that they
all basically do the same thing in order for there to be
cooperation from the wireless industry?
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Mr. Chairman, I would say that I think
we would support exactly the opposite contention, that if left
to the ingenuity and the creativity of the industry, you're
going to get a solution that makes most sense with the existing
technology, but also that recognizes that there will be an
evolution in the networks. And I fear that if something were to
be mandated--and I think you, in the earlier panel, stated such
fears--I fear that government could get it wrong and that a
choice could be made on a technology that, by the time the
process is developed and the standards are developed and the
equipment is developed, it's already a generation behind what
actually exists.
So, I think I would--the industry, I think, would
wholeheartedly support a voluntary effort and a cooperative
effort with government.
Senator DeMint. Senator Nelson?
Senator Ben Nelson. Maybe any one of you could respond to
the concern with the 100,000 agencies and the potential of
multiple warnings instantaneously around the country. At what
point do we run the risk of an overload? Is the capacity--that
you currently have from public broadcasting--capable of
receiving such warnings from so many different locations and
then disseminating them?
Mr. Lawson. Senator, we have the capacity even to do video
through--this is all browser-based, this is Internet protocol--
even to do video requires just a fraction of what we have. I
think the----
Senator Ben Nelson. But if you have multiple warnings--I
doubt that you could have 100,000--coming from all at one
instant in time, would there be an overload point for the
technology?
Mr. Lawson. Since we're talking about regional, for a local
public television station, there is a limit to what we can put
over the satellite, certainly, but you wouldn't have 100,000
coming in to us--one public station. You might have a dozen or
so agencies. The real question is the overload of information
that the public receives.
Senator Ben Nelson. Well, that's a given, yes.
Mr. Lawson. Right. So right now, under the analog EAS, we
and the other broadcasters do have a responsibility to pass
along Presidential messaging in the event of a national
emergency, but there is a voluntary system in place, in terms
of what is carried from local and state governments. And I
think one of the challenges we face is to work out the
protocols, we, in FEMA, are planning to roll out a national
Federal alert system. The challenge of connecting local and
state emergency managers to that system, to that backbone, to
use local stations, is partially financial, but it's also
working out the exact kinds of protocols I think you're
alluding to, in terms of what is emergency data, what is
emergency information, and what is our responsibility to pass
it on, on a metropolitan-wide basis, if it's only affecting a
certain part of the community.
Senator Ben Nelson. What about security? In other words,
with the advent of so much information, the potential for
warning information to be put out in alerts, what kind of
assurance can we have that will be authorized, that you won't
have the equivalent of spam or people intervening and putting
out their own misinformation?
Mr. Lawson. Well, I can tell you, in our situation, we're
looking at a dedicated communication link between FEMA and our
satellite system of the local station transmitter. That has to
be secure, and it has to be hardened. And I'm sure that will be
part of the rollout. But in terms of what leaves the station,
what leaves the transmitter, in terms of over-the-air, it's
pretty much unhackable at that point. And we can encrypt it, so
that only certain people, authorized users, can have access to
that information.
Senator Ben Nelson. Therefore, the chances of an April
Fool's joke is probably remote or nonexistent.
Mr. Lawson. In the system that we're testing here in the
national capital region, yes, sir, I think it would be pretty
difficult.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Senator, that is a concern of ours, and
it's something that we think--we agree, that is being worked.
And part of the process of working with FEMA and Mr. Hoover is
getting to a policy and a process whereby--as Mr. Hoover
mentioned, whereby messages are originated, at some point, and
then not touched as they move throughout the process. So, when
they move through a wireless network, we--our industry
understands that it has not been corrupted, it's not
corruptible, it has been authenticated, and that no one on the
wireless side has to touch the message. And I think that is a
key concern and a key element of any network, going forward.
Senator Ben Nelson. So, it wouldn't be as amateurish as the
signals between the pitcher and the catcher in a baseball game.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. One would hope not.
Senator Ben Nelson. All right. Thank you.
Senator DeMint. I think you were here to hear the first
panel. I'd be interested in your comments. We're completing
legislation at this point. I have a new sense of urgency to
complete it and get it passed, because it's going to be a rush
to get it done before the FCC completes their rulemaking,
without the legislation, apparently. But based on what you
heard, what are your concerns about the rulemaking, about the
legislation, or what would you like to make sure that we
include in this? And I'll just ask each of you to give just a
very brief comment before we close.
Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have voiced, actually, some of our concerns, the
concern that a technology choice will be made, or that a date
certain will be set that doesn't make sense, in terms of
development of a solution. That's why CTIA and the industry
have approached this with a two-part solution, the first part
being working with FEMA on the pilot project, utilizing an SMS-
based solution, existing technologies, sending a text message
to devices, and utilizing an opt-in service, but also
simultaneously looking at some longer-term solutions that
address issues like capacity and the ability to target messages
geographically. So, I would be concerned and would want to
ensure that any legislation, from our perspective, would
recognize those limitations.
Also, addressing issues such as an actual description of
what the service should be. It's difficult for manufacturers to
build a technology to a service that they don't know exactly
what the parameters are, of yet. Again, who can send a message?
When can they send a message? What should the message contain?
Does it contain data? Does it contain pictures and maps? How
quickly does it have to be disseminated, and to whom?
So, all of those things will inform the standards groups,
and the standards groups will turn around and develop standards
by which the manufacturers can build equipment.
So, this is a process that actually is ongoing, much like
Mr. Hoover and their effort to develop a coordinated government
effort. These efforts are ongoing, and we would hope that any
legislation wouldn't, sort of, either short-circuit that
process or derail it in a way that actually harmed the actual
development of a service.
Senator DeMint. Mr. Taylor?
Mr. Taylor. I come from a rural area of Eastern Carolina
that's had its share of hurricanes, but it also has its share
of 911 centers that have invested what little bit of money they
have into systems that they feel like they can work with, that
they can afford. Our concern is that we don't need to go out
and build new wheels; we have wheels that work right now. We
have rural areas, we have PSAPs, we have emergency managers
that are using notification systems that fit their budgets,
that fit their needs. And we're not wanting to change that. We
want to interface all of those different systems, instead of
going out and rebuilding a whole network. Let's take the
networks that we have today, and let's create standards of
interface. And that's what we would encourage, is that, let's
work on the standards for interfacing all the different systems
that we have. Interface the BlackBerrys, interface the wireless
carriers, interface the public television system, interface
NOAA. All these different emergency notification systems are
wonderful, they work great. We're not trying to rebuild the
dots, we're just trying to draw the line between the dots. And
that's what we're concerned with. We don't want to rebuild a
good system. We want to take what we have and make it able to
talk to each other, able to communicate with each other,
without having to spend millions and millions of dollars
replacing what's already there.
Senator DeMint. Mr. Lawson?
Mr. Lawson. Mr. Chairman, with public television we're
talking about a classic dual-use opportunity. And our stations
have raised about 1.1 billion to convert to digital, which was
a subject of the full Committee's hearing a couple of weeks
ago. Most of that's non-Federal. To use a system as the
backbone for a Federal emergency alert system requires an
incremental investment, and it requires the continuing
maintenance of the infrastructure that we have. So, in our
testimony we're asking the Committee to continue to support,
the rebuilding of our satellite interconnection system, which
is getting old and has to be replaced. And, second, FEMA is
handling the national Presidential-messaging part of our system
from their own resources, but to take--to provide resources for
national and local connection to this backbone, for national
and local origination, for messages of that level, extra funds
are required, and that would be our request.
Senator DeMint. Thank you. This has been most helpful. I
appreciate everyone being here, everyone in our audience and
the media.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. In the
aftermath of the deadly Indian Ocean tsunami, we in the Senate, like so
many around the world, asked two simple questions: ``Why couldn't we
warn people that this tsunami was coming?'' and ``Would we receive an
adequate warning if a disaster happened here?''
Unfortunately, the issue of effective warnings is more complicated
than it seems at first blush. As we have learned over the course of the
year, there are several elements to an effective warning:
1. It must detect or predict the hazard;
2. It must communicate the warning to those in danger; and
3. It must offer sound advice on how to find safety.
Our witnesses today are likely to focus on the second problem--
getting the warnings to affected people. Coordination and the use of
new technologies are very important. However, I would like to urge our
witnesses not to forget the other two pieces of effective warnings. We
need to invest in improving our detection and prediction of all
hazards, including tsunami, volcano, earthquake, and weather hazards.
In addition, we must ensure that people know what to do when they are
warned. That means that Federal, state, and local governments need to
have a coordinated response and need to educate at-risk communities on
how to respond to natural or man-made disasters.
With regard to communicating warnings to those in danger, I am
excited to hear about new, off the shelf technologies that can improve
and personalize warnings.
Particularly in communications-saturated cities, like Washington,
D.C., these technologies can help spread the word quickly and
effectively.
Of course, many places in this country, particularly the Western
Pacific, lack ubiquitous telecommunications. In these places, we must
focus on deploying robust, low tech solutions like sirens or radios on
a stick that can deliver warnings where they are needed.
NOAA, FEMA, and the White House have established a task force on
effective warnings under the auspices of the National Science and
Technology Council. The task force is working to improve both natural
disaster and homeland security warnings.
As you continue integrating the various Federal systems, I
encourage you to involve a variety of state and local emergency
managers and first responders to ensure that we preserve our existing
capabilities at NOAA with respect to warnings for weather and other
natural disasters; we improve, rather than interfere with, access to
such warnings by local emergency managers and first responders; and we
develop and deploy technologies appropriate to each community.
The United States can do better at warning its population. I look
forward to hearing our witnesses help us find a way forward so that we
can make people throughout the Nation safer from whatever hazards
threaten us.