[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ADVANCING PUBLIC ALERT AND WARNING SYSTEMS TO BUILD A MORE RESILIENT
NATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-113
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-043 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
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
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Lamar Smith, Texas
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Christopher Shays, Connecticut
Jane Harman, California Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Tom Davis, Virginia
Nita M. Lowey, New York Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia David G. Reichert, Washington
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida
Islands Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina David Davis, Tennessee
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Henry Cuellar, Texas Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Al Green, Texas
Ed Perlmutter, Colorado
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, Staff Director & General Counsel
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Norman D. Dicks, Washington Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Nita M. Lowey, New York David Davis, Tennessee
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Tom Davis, Virginia
Columbia Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Donna M. Christensen, U.S. Virgin Peter T. King, New York (Ex
Islands Officio)
Bob Etheridge, North Carolina
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (Ex
Officio)
Craig Sharman, Director
Nichole Francis, Counsel
Brian Turbyfill, Clerk
Heather Hogg, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member
(II)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 1
The Honorable Charles W. Dent, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Pennsylvania, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 2
Witnesses
Major General Martha T. Rainville (Ret.), Assistant
Administrator, National Continuity Programs, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 4
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
Ms. Lisa M. Fowlkes, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission:
Oral Statement................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
Mr. John R. Gibb, Director, New York State Emergency Management
Office, State of New York:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Mr. Randall C. Duncan, Vice Chair, Government Affairs Committee,
International Association of Emergency Managers:
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar............................ 39
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent.................... 40
ADVANCING PUBLIC ALERT AND WARNING SYSTEMS TO BUILD A MORE RESILIENT
NATION
----------
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Dicks, Lowey, Norton,
Christensen, Etheridge, Dent, and Miller.
Mr. Cuellar. The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response will come to order. The subcommittee
is meeting today to receive testimony from the Department of
Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Federal Communications Commission, and State and local
government officials concerning the state of our timely alert
and warning capabilities to the public before, during and after
an act of terror, disaster or some sort of emergency.
First of all, good morning and on behalf of the members of
subcommittee I certainly want to welcome all of you being here
with us today. We are glad that you are here to discuss the
roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies, State and local
governments and the private sector with respect to issuing
timely alerts and warning. I think we have seen instances why
those alerts have to be timely as we have seen in the past.
With the recent rash of tornados in the Midwest and
Southeast and with the 2008 hurricane season just weeks away,
enhancing the reliability, resiliency and the accuracy of
emergency alerts of the American public is of utmost important
to this committee and to the Nation. Communities and
individuals need to know what steps to take in the event of a
natural disaster or an act of terrorism.
I am looking forward to hearing about the efforts of FEMA
and the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, what steps
they are taking to carry out Executive Order 13407 on alerts
and warnings that President Bush issued on June& 2006, almost 2
years ago.
The executive order directed the Secretary of Homeland
Security to create a comprehensive public alert and warning
system for the United States. I am worried that the progress
has been a little slow, but I am sure that we will go ahead and
talk about how we are making progress on this.
I look forward to hearing from the Federal Communications
Commission about their role and furthering the development of
the next generation of alert and warning systems. I applaud the
efforts made by the Commission to comply with the WARN Act to
establish technical standards for the capability to send
nationwide emergency alerts by text messages to cell phones and
other devices during a crisis as technology improves. We
certainly need to make sure that our agencies, whether it is
State, Federal or local, we keep up with the technology
advances that we are seeing.
This committee will also look forward to the development of
the Commercial Mobile Alert System, CMAS, for all of the
millions of people in America who are attached to their cell
phones and their BlackBerrys. I am sure that we have a few in
this room who are attached to their cell phones and the
BlackBerrys.
It is my understanding that the FCC has included the Texas
State Broadcasters Association as a member of the Commercial
Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee. As a member from
Texas, I say thank you very much. I am sure that they are
providing valuable input to the committee's work.
Further, while I recognize that my State, Texas, is known
for being the only State that provides a 24/7 emergency alert,
especially for hearing impaired citizens, I want to encourage
other States to begin to provide the same capabilities to its
citizens.
Finally, I am interested in hearing from our own State and
local witnesses who will convey the importance of alerts and
warning to their constituents.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention the significant
role that the NOAA and the National Weather Service play in
alerts warning, and I hope in the future they can join us in
this critical discussion also.
As you know, alerts and warnings are the first and most
important responsibilities that State and local governments
have, especially during those emergency times. We need to
ensure that any national system that we implement allows
decision-makers at the State and local level to have access to
it.
Again I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I look
forward to having your testimony on behalf of the committee.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Today's hearing addresses an important element of emergency
preparedness--the ability to quickly communicate emergency
information with the public. Emergency alerts and warnings, be
it a tornado warning or an alert to shelter in place to avoid
toxic fumes, have the potential to save lives and property.
Currently many State and local governments rely on storm
sirens, local television, and radio broadcasters, as well as
the National Weather Service's communications network to
provide emergency information to the public. At the national
level, the Emergency Alert System exists to allow the President
to address the Nation in an emergency through radio, television
and satellite broadcasts.
The Federal alert and warning systems were developed years
ago and do not fully utilize today's technology, such as cell
phones and other wireless devices that we carry around with us.
In order to bring the Federal alert and warning systems into
the 21st century, the National Continuity Programs Division of
FEMA is developing the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System, referred to as IPAWS.
IPAWS seeks to improve public safety through the rapid
dissemination of emergency messages to as many people as
possible over as many communications devices as possible. IPAWS
includes a number of pilot programs to test how various
technologies can work together to ensure the public receives
timely information.
For instance, the Geo-Targeted Alerting System seeks to
give emergency managers the ability to predict hazard zones in
near real-time, collaborate on which areas to alert and what
the message should be, and deliver these alerts to residents in
a specific geographic area. Many State, local and even private
and not-for-profit organizations have been at the forefront of
improving their alert and warning systems. Many have begun
testing and implementing enhanced systems that will more
efficiently share target alerts and warnings. For instance,
after the shootings last April on the Virginia Tech campus,
some colleges and universities have implemented a text
messaging system to send alerts to students and faculty
members' cell phones.
My home State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has
implemented a statewide alerting system and recently the
southeastern counties have also implemented a free system that
will allow local officials to send emergency text alerts and
notifications to cell phones, BlackBerrys or e-mail accounts.
Other States like New York, as we will hear a little later
today, have also implemented similar programs to ensure their
citizens are alerted and are able to take timely action if
necessary.
I am pleased to have representatives from FEMA and the FCC
to discuss the Federal role in alerts and warnings through the
IPAWS program. I also look forward to discussing how the
Federal Government's capabilities will be integrated with those
of our partners at the State and local level, as well as which
Federal agency will administer the national system once it is
developed and implemented.
I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses from New
York and Kansas on their capabilities to issue emergency alerts
and warnings, and how the IPAWS program may complement these
capabilities.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this
hearing today, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Other members of the
subcommittee are reminded that under the committee rules
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
At this time I welcome witnesses today. Our first witness
is Major General Martha Rainville, a retiree, who is the
Assistant Administrator for the National Continuity Programs
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. Major General Rainville is
responsible for providing Federal agency leadership for the
Federal executive branch continuity of operations, as COOP, and
also the COG, continuity of governments and contingency
programs. Again welcome, Major.
Our second witness is Ms. Lisa Fowlkes, who is the Deputy
Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the
Federal Communications Commission. Ms. Fowlkes oversees the
Bureau of Management on critical infrastructure issues,
including monitoring and analyzing the status of communications
facilities during our emergencies. Again, welcome.
Our third witness is Mr. John Gibb, who serves as the
Director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. He
has been serving in this capacity since 2001 and has extensive
knowledge and experience in emergency response, local emergency
preparedness, emergency planning and emergency worker training.
Welcome.
Our fourth witness is Mr. Randall Duncan, who is the
Director of Sedgwick County Emergency Management, located in
Kansas. Mr. Duncan also serves as the Vice Chair of the
Government Affairs Committee of the International Association
of Emergency Managers and is testifying in this capacity today.
Again thank you very much, Mr. Duncan, for being here. We are
all pleased to have you present today.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his
or her statement for 5 minutes, and we will begin with Major
General Rainville.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MARTHA T. RAINVILLE (RET.),
ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
General Rainville. Good morning, I want to thank you for
this opportunity to talk to you this morning about FEMA's role
and further development of the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, known as IPAWS. The Emergency Alert System with
which we are all familiar has served us well, but it is based
on technology that is over 15 years old. Through IPAWS, FEMA
and our partners are transferring the alert system from an
audio-only signal sent over radio and television to one that
can support audio, video, text and data alert messages sent to
residential telephones, to Web sites, pagers, e-mails and to
cell phones.
The mission of the IPAWS program is simply to send one
message over more channels to more people at all times and
places.
My written testimony, as you said, has been submitted for
the record and it lays out in detail the importance of
interagency cooperation and public-private partnerships and
improving the Nation's alert and warning systems, lessons
affirmed through our 2007 pilot program in the gulf regions and
also the next steps that FEMA will take to develop IPAWS. In
the interest of time this morning I am only going to highlight
a few those issues.
The success of IPAWS depends heavily on interagency
cooperation and the public-private partnerships because no
single entity has the ability to create all of the integrated
public alert and warning system that is required. FEMA works
closely with our partners at the National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration and the Federal Communications Commission to
ensure coordination of effort when it comes to upgrading,
improving, securing and regulating IPAWS. We also coordinate
extensively with others like the Primary Entry Point Advisory
Committee and the Association of Public Television Stations on
system upgrades.
Congress allocated funds in the fiscal year 2005 Katrina
supplemental that enabled us to deploy a suite of new alert and
warning capabilities to Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi
during hurricane season 2007. For the first time these State
officials had ability to send alerts via American sign language
video to residents who are deaf and hard of hearing and to send
prerecorded messages in Spanish for their residents who did not
speak English.
These successful pilots ended on schedule in December 2007.
But FEMA now, through the Homeland Security Grant Program,
continues its support to State and local governments in seeking
to improve their alert capabilities. In fiscal years 2006 and
2007, twenty-seven States received about $13 million in
Homeland Security grant funds to improve their alert and
warning systems.
Over the next year FEMA is taking steps to improve the
alert and warning infrastructure and to increase the
dependability of the national system.
First, we are strengthening the Federal Government's
ability to send emergency warnings directly to the American
people by increasing the number of primary entry point stations
from 36 to 63. This will enable Federal warnings to reach 85
percent of the American people directly, up from the current 70
percent.
Second, we are increasing the survivability and resiliency
of the national alert and warning system through digital EAS.
Digital EAS adds the direct transmission of a voice, video or
text alert to stations across the country over the public
broadcast system satellite network. It will also allow the
distribution of alerts in multiple languages and in American
sign language.
Later this summer FEMA will roll out digital EAS to the
eight States and one Territory that previously participated in
the pilot. These States are Alabama, Alaska, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Texas, South Carolina and
Puerto Rico. We will also expand digital EAS beyond these
original nine locations to five more States. We are focusing on
Regions 4 and 6.
Third, we are increasing the capacity of the National Alert
System by incorporating NOAA and the National Weather Service
infrastructure in the IPAWS architecture. Through NOAA's
national network, IPAWS gains another redundant path to get the
message out to State and local entities, to broadcasters and to
the public.
Fourth, FEMA is coordinating with the FCC to extend the
reach of IPAWS through new technology supported by regulation
and rulemaking, and we are working with them to define the
aggregator role in how FEMA can best support the
recommendations in the FCC's first report and order.
Our goal is to ensure that a President can send an alert to
the public during an all-hazards event and to support alert and
warning capabilities chosen by the State and local officials to
send alerts to their residents. Together with our partners,
FEMA will ensure that IPAWS is reliable, resilient and secure.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dent and members, thank you
again for this opportunity to talk to you about the integrated
public alert and warning system. I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The statement of General Rainville follows:]
Prepared Statement of Martha T. Rainville
May 14, 2008
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dent and Members of the
committee. I am retired Major General Martha Rainville, Assistant
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
National Continuity Program (NCP) Directorate. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the progress that
FEMA has made over the past 2 years and to describe what we expect to
accomplish in the years ahead. FEMA is the Executive Agent for the
national Emergency Alert System (EAS).
It is my privilege to lead the dedicated professionals with whom I
work at FEMA. At NCP, our mission is to serve the public by protecting
our Nation's constitutional form of government in direct support of
National Security Presidential Directive 51/ Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 20 (NSPD-51/HSPD 20) and FEMA's recently
released Strategic Plan. FEMA serves as the Nation's center of
excellence for government continuity planning, guidance, and operations
support, in direct support of FEMA's Strategic Goal No. 1: Lead an
integrated approach that strengthens the Nation's ability to address
disasters, emergencies, and terrorist events. FEMA also is responsible
for assuring that the President can address the Nation under the most
extreme circumstances and is in alignment with FEMA Strategic Goal No.
3: Provide reliable information at the right time for all users.
Under the leadership of Administrator Paulison, FEMA has weathered
difficult times and today is better able to fulfill our mission of
reducing the loss of life and of property and to protect the Nation
from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and
man-made disasters. The agency has transformed into a ``New FEMA,'' one
that leads and supports the Nation in a risk-based, comprehensive
emergency management system of preparedness, protection, response,
recovery, and mitigation.
The emergency management landscape today is not what it was in
2001, or even in 2005 and it will not be the same 2 years from now.
Together with our partners, we are helping to shape the future of
emergency management. In this uncertain world, one thing is clear: No
one person, agency, or group has all the answers. To that end, we are
transforming our concept of ``emergency management'' into a disciplined
approach that entails collaboration with stakeholders, thoughtful
planning, and decisive execution.
FEMA's direction and authority with regard to alerts and warnings
are spelled out in various Federal Statutes, regulations and directives
including: Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(47 U.S.C. 606); Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, Title VI of
the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Pub. L.
109-347, 120 Stat. 1884 (2006); Section 202 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5132); 47 CFR Part 11; Executive Order 12472, Assignment of National
Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions, April
3, 1983 (amended by Executive Order 13286 of February 28, 2003; and
Executive Order 13407, Public Alert and Warning System, June 26, 2006.
Our focus is to raise the level of awareness about continuity
planning and increase interagency cooperation in the alert and warning
community to create a more resilient government at all levels. We have
laid the foundation for becoming an organization that is valued across
all jurisdictions as an engaged, agile, responsive, and trusted leader
and partner.
improving the nation's alert and warning systems
In the alert and warning community, we work closely with our
Federal partners at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure that
the Federal Government speaks with one voice when it comes to
upgrading, improving, securing, and regulating the EAS with support
from the FCC which is responsible for ensuring that broadcasters comply
with applicable Federal regulations. In 1994, the EAS replaced the
Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) which has been in operation since
1963. Under FCC regulations, broadcast radio and television, cable
television stations, direct broadcast satellite services, and satellite
radio operators are required to carry national (Presidential) EAS
alerts and to support State and local EAS alerts and tests.
We cannot always accurately predict the next disaster. But we can
plan for it, and we can alert the American people--we can tell them to
seek shelter before a tornado hits, we can tell them to evacuate before
the rivers swell up leaving behind a trail of devastation. The
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System is the Nation's next
generation alert system. IPAWS is a system of systems through which
FEMA is upgrading the existing EAS, creating a redundant path through
Digital EAS, and supporting the distribution of alert and warning
messages to residential telephones, to websites, to pagers, to e-mail
accounts, and to cell phones. We cannot do everything at once so later
this year we are rolling out the first increment to support digital
alerts. Later on, we will roll out additional increments to support
risk-based alerts, non-English language alerts and alerts for special
needs communities. Throughout the increments FEMA will improve the
resilience and the security of IPAWS.
We collaborate extensively with our nonprofit partners,
particularly the Primary Entry Point Advisory Committee (PEPAC), the
Association of Public Television Stations (APTS), and the Public
Broadcasting System (PBS). Our partnership with PEPAC and its member
Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations provides the foundation for FEMA's
ability to send a Presidential alert to the public and provides the
existing system over which most State, local, tribal, and territorial
alerts are sent today. FEMA's partnership with APTS and PBS brings the
PBS satellite network into IPAWS through Digital EAS. This initiative
provides a redundant and resilient path over which to distribute
national, State, local, tribal, and territorial alerts. It is only
through our public-private partnerships that we are able to sustain,
upgrade, add, and maintain the PEP stations and integrate the PBS
satellite network into the IPAWS.
We recognize that there is no single solution set that will meet
everyone's alert and warning requirements and that is why FEMA and our
partners are looking for the most appropriate interoperable solutions
for IPAWS. 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 by establishing common protocols for alerts and warnings. It is
only through a coordinated Federal response to Executive Order 13407
that we can remain focused on the primary reason for establishing
IPAWS--to provide life-saving information to the American people during
an emergency.
Since FEMA established the IPAWS program management office,
Congress has provided us with an appropriation of $25 million for
fiscal year 2008. We are focusing our fiscal resources on upgrades to
the EAS through improvements to and the expansion of the PEP stations;
developing plume modeling that support geo-targeted messages; using
satellite networks as a redundant path for alerts (Digital EAS);
deploying a mobile EAS asset (IPAWS truck); creating standards and
protocols, and engineering support.
President Bush in June 2006 issued Executive Order 13407, ``Public
Alert and Warning System,'' which established the national policy for
alerts and warnings and directed a series of actions meant to improve
and modernize the ability of government at all levels to communicate
rapidly with the American people. The EAS currently allows the
President to transmit an alert to the American people within 10 minutes
through the Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations, which then travels from
station to station in order to send the message over all broadcast
radio and television stations, cable television stations, and satellite
radio stations. While a President has never activated the national EAS,
carrying a Presidential message is mandatory and takes priority over
any other EAS message. To ensure that the infrastructure remains viable
for a national message, FEMA tests the connections to the PEP stations
on a weekly basis. If a Presidential message is ever sent, FEMA would
authenticate the sender and the message.
The EAS also provides a means for NOAA, state, local, tribal, and
territorial government officials to send warnings about local
emergencies such as AMBER alerts, hazardous material incidents, and
weather warnings. These warnings are the most common emergency
messages. State, local, tribal, and territorial government officials
determine the content of their alerts. The operating procedures that
govern the transmission of a state, local, tribal and territorial alert
are developed by the government officials and the local broadcast radio
and television stations. State, local, tribal, and territorial
officials include in their state plans measures to validate their users
and procedures to proscribe the frequency of alerts. The procedures
then become part of the state EAS plans which are filed at the FCC.
There is no Federal or other entity that reviews, validates, or
authenticates a state, local, tribal, or territorial alerts sent over
the EAS. FEMA does not receive data from NOAA, state, local, tribal, or
territorial officials about their use of the EAS or the content of
their alert messages.
The EAS has served us well, but the reality is that it is based on
technology that is 15 years old. Through IPAWS, FEMA and our partners
are transforming the alert system from an audio only signal sent on
radios and televisions to one that can support audio, video, text, and
data messages sent to residential telephones, to websites, to pagers,
to e-mail accounts, and to cell phones. The mission of the IPAWS
program management office is: ``Send one message over more channels to
more people at all times and places.''
We started by re-engaging the Federal alert and warning partnership
between FEMA, the FCC, NOAA, and DHS' Science and Technology
Directorate. Successful execution of Executive Order 13407 requires a
coordinated Federal response as no single entity has the authorities,
statutes, or appropriations to accomplish IPAWS alone. By more closely
working with NOAA, FEMA is developing an integrated national
architecture that will provide a redundant and resilient path for
alerts sent by the President, Federal, State, local, tribal, and
territorial officials.
FEMA is working with the FCC to conduct assessments of the PEP
stations, and with the NOAA to assess their State and local
architecture. It will take us approximately 1 year to complete. This
collaborative and coordinated approach will allow us to verify the
dependability and effectiveness of the cascading relay system. This
interoperability among Federal alert and warning systems and the States
will expand the message delivery capabilities for the President,
Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial officials.
We recognize the importance of establishing a forum for the diverse
alert and warning stakeholder groups. FEMA is working with DHS to
identify the appropriate departmental advisory committee that we should
use to establish a stakeholder subcommittee and comply with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. Until that process is complete, we are
connecting with our stakeholders through national forums such as the
International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference, the
International Association of Emergency Managers Conference, the
National Hurricane Conference, the Big City Emergency Managers'
Learning and Exchange Forum, and the National Association of
Broadcasters Show. We are also looking forward to participating in the
upcoming FCC Emergency Alert Summit later this month.
Once we finish our coordination for the first IPAWS increment
(Digital EAS), we plan to conduct town hall meetings this summer in
FEMA Regions IV and VI and with Regional representatives and State
emergency management personnel from the selected States.
lessons learned from the pilot projects
Since 2005, FEMA has deployed several pilot alert and warning
technologies to 14 coastal States. The proof of concept pilot projects
allowed FEMA and the participating States to explore the viability of
new alert capabilities including the ability to send targeted alerts
within a specific jurisdiction; the use of digital technology to send
alerts over public television stations; and the ability to send alerts
as text messages to cell phones, e-mail accounts, and pagers.
Congress allocated funds in the fiscal year 2005 Supplemental
Appropriations in Response to Hurricane Katrina. FEMA used $2.5 million
of the supplemental appropriations to provide for the first time a
suite of alert and warning capabilities to Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi. I am pleased to report that the pilot projects
successfully demonstrated the integration of new technologies into
State emergency operations centers. With the pilots, Alabama, Louisiana
and Mississippi emergency managers had the ability to send alerts over
the Internet as American Sign Language (ASL) video to residents who
were deaf or hard of hearing and to send pre-recorded messages in
Spanish for residents who did not speak English. These successful
pilots ended in December 2007. In fiscal years 2006 and 2008, 27
States, including Alabama and Mississippi, applied for and received
Homeland Security Grant Program funds to improve their alert
capabilities.
The pilots also served as a proof of concept and demonstrated that
State and local emergency management personnel could successfully
integrate modern technologies into their operations centers. The pilots
also took a large step toward addressing the GAO concern that the EAS
must adequately support residents who are not literate in English or
who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Thanks in large part to the participation of State and local
emergency managers, we learned that augmenting the reach of the EAS
with alerts sent to residential telephones, cell phones, e-mail
accounts, and other devices was popular with both officials and
residents. Over a 4-month pilot project period, 8,000 people across
three States signed up to receive alerts to their cell phones, pagers,
and e-mail accounts while another 600 signed up to receive ASL video
translations of alerts. Officials in the three States chose to send
audio alerts to residential phones totaling approximately 200,000
calls. The 2007 pilot projects demonstrated the State, local, tribal,
and territorial emergency operations centers could successfully
integrate new alert and warning capabilities into their operations. Now
emergency managers and State, local, tribal, and territorial officials
can identify and prioritize the capabilities that are best suited to
protect their residents and apply for funds through the Homeland
Security Grant Program to help offset the costs.
One lesson reaffirmed through these various pilot projects is that
the alert and warning tools preferred by one State may not be as useful
for another State. State local, tribal, and territorial officials are
well-suited to determine which alert and warning technologies will
provide the appropriate protection for their residents. This
complements FEMA's role to ensure that IPAWS provides an interoperable
platform to accommodate the options that State officials can choose
based on likely disasters in their regions and the needs of their
population. FEMA is partnering with the DHS Science and Technology
Directorate to establish alert and warning standards and protocols to
support the ability of State, local, tribal, and territorial emergency
managers to send alerts to their residents during emergencies. The
standards and protocols will allow for States to select the
capabilities that they need without any major reinvestments if they
need to change their capabilities in the future.
We also learned that not every technology works for every scenario.
While sending alerts to cell phones may be an ideal solution for a city
or county, a localized or regional alert would need to be geo-targeted
and sent only to a disaster-affected area to avoid overwhelming the
telecommunications infrastructure. FEMA supports the guidelines and
recommendations of the FCC to create a framework for delivering
emergency messages through a nationwide mobile phone alert system. We
are working with FCC to define the aggregator role and how FEMA can
best support the recommendations in the FCC's First Report and Order,
PS Docket No. 07-287.
We also successfully demonstrated the delivery of alerts to
residents with special needs and learned that there are many different
solutions for providing information to people who are deaf or hard of
hearing. There are State, local, tribal, and territorial officials who
prefer to use ASL translations of alerts while others like Dane County,
Wisconsin are sending alerts to a Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (TTY) to reach their residents during an emergency. The special-
needs NOAA Weather Radio is widely available (there are various options
ranging in price from $60 to $150 that can alert residents who are deaf
and hard of hearing about hazardous conditions). The radios use visual
and vibrating alarms to signify that an alert is coming and transmit
warnings to a liquid crystal display readout screen.
We find more and more States are using innovative approaches to
alerts by adapting existing technologies to provide their residents
with life-saving information. One example is Oklahoma's Weather Alert
Remote Notification program which sends alerts to residents who are
deaf and hard of hearing over their pagers and other wireless devices.
The program, started as a pilot in 2001 and funded in part by a FEMA
grant, was fully implemented in 2003. Through the Homeland Security
Grant Program programs, FEMA continues to support States that request
assistance for alert and warning improvements. In fiscal years 2006 and
2007, FEMA approved $13 million in Homeland Security Grant Program
funds for alert and warning initiatives to nearly half of the States.
We at FEMA know that improving the national infrastructure is
critical and we must ensure that the alert and warning system will
serve this and future generations. FEMA is setting the framework for
Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial officials to get critical
and life-saving information to residents. To ensure the viability and
survivability of the national backbone, we are devoting resources to
improving the PEP stations and, through Digital EAS, to creating
redundant pathways for emergency messages. In conjunction with our
partners at DHS S&T, we are developing standards and protocols that
will better inform State, local, tribal and territorial emergency
managers as they make choices about their alert and warning solutions.
In this way, FEMA is ensuring that there is a redundant and resilient
capability for a national message.
next steps for ipaws
Over the next few years, FEMA is taking a number of steps to
improve the alert and warning infrastructure and increase the
dependability of the national system.
First, we are strengthening the Federal Government's ability to
send emergency warnings directly to the American people by increasing
PEP stations from 36 to 63. This will enable these warnings to be
delivered to 85 percent of the American people, up from 70 percent. We
began the installation of 3 new PEP stations in fiscal year 2007 and
they were completed and operational in fiscal year 2008. Our immediate
steps this year are to award contracts to build an additional 24 PEP
stations that will provide up to 60 days of fuel and supplies, and
provide an all hazards shelter. These improvements will expand the
number of locations of entry point receiver stations and will ensure
their ability to support alerts for sustained periods without resupply.
This is a lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina and the outstanding
performance of WWL AM Radio Station 870, the PEP station in New
Orleans.
Second, we are increasing the survivability and resiliency of the
national alert and warning system by utilizing the satellite
technologies of the Public Broadcast System infrastructure. By
integrating the PBS satellite network into IPAWS through the Digital
EAS project, FEMA is improving the survivability of the alert and
warning infrastructure. Digital EAS will eventually provide video,
voice, and text messaging capabilities for a Presidential alert, and
will allow the President, for the first time, the ability to distribute
a message in multiple languages.
This year we will roll out the first increment of IPAWS--Digital
EAS--to the eight States and one territory that previously participated
in the Digital EAS pilot project: Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Jersey, Texas, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico. We
also will expand Digital EAS beyond the original nine locations to five
more States--those under consideration are Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky,
North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. We are currently
in the discussion stages with the FEMA Regions and State emergency
management personnel to finalize our plans. Depending on the results of
the 2008 installations, we plan in 2009 to roll out Digital EAS to 16
additional States that are prone to weather hazards such as hurricanes,
tsunamis, and earthquakes. The State Digital EAS will give State,
local, tribal, and territorial emergency managers the same
functionality as a Presidential message including the redundant path of
the PBS satellite network for message distribution. FEMA will continue
to roll out Digital EAS until there is coverage in all States and
territories.
Third, we are increasing the capacity of the national alert system
by incorporating NOAA's infrastructure--which is currently in use by
many of the State and local emergency operations centers--into the
IPAWS architecture. This year FEMA will provide NOAA with a mobile
platform (IPAWS truck) that NOAA can use to temporarily re-establish
alert and warning capabilities within an area affected by a disaster
and to provide redundancy between the Weather Forecast Office and its
transmitters if necessary.
We are also working with NOAA and the National Weather Service
(NWS) to develop secure interfaces to deliver a Presidential alert to
the public over the NWS infrastructure. By partnering with NOAA and
making our systems interoperable, we will build a solid framework for
State and local officials to use and ensure that the national EAS is
reliable, redundant, and secure.
Fourth, FEMA is coordinating and collaborating with the FCC to
extend the reach of the public alert system through new technology
supported by new regulations and rulemaking. FEMA is committed to
supporting and to building on the FCC's report and order to include
cell telephone in the distribution of emergency information. The
framework the FCC established is a critical step in executing Executive
Order 13407 to develop a system that will allow Federal, State, local,
tribal, and territorial officials to communicate with the American
people under all conditions. FEMA is working with the FCC and NOAA to
determine the best and most effective Federal solution to monitor and
manage the integration of cell phones into the IPAWS.
Our goal is to ensure that the President will be able to send an
alert to the public during an all-hazards event, and to support alert
and warning capabilities chosen by State and local emergency managers
to send alerts to their residents. Through the pilot project phase and
now as we prepare to deploy the first permanent increments of IPAWS,
FEMA is demonstrating how seriously we have taken our responsibility to
deliver life-saving information to the public.
summary
In summary, FEMA remains committed to providing the infrastructure,
the guidance, and the support to ensure that the national alert system
is more robust, more resilient, and more reliable so that when the next
catastrophic disaster strikes, the President and emergency managers at
all levels can provide quick and accurate information to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dent and Members of the committee,
thank you again for the opportunity to speak, for your support of FEMA,
and your interest in IPAWS. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much. Thank you. I would like
to recognize now Ms. Fowlkes for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LISA M. FOWLKES, DEPUTY CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND
HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Fowlkes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Dent and members of the House Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the FCC to
discuss our implementation of the Warning Alert and Response
Network Act, otherwise known as the WARN Act.
When the President signed the SAFE Port Act into law on
October 13, 2006, he enacted its component legislation, the
WARN Act, thus establishing a process whereby commercial mobile
service, or CMS, providers may elect to transmit emergency
alerts to their subscribers. The WARN Act requires the
Commission to undertake a series of actions to accomplish that
goal.
I will briefly summarize those requirements and the
Commission's efforts to date. By December 2006 the Commission
was required to establish and reconvene an advisory committee
to recommend technical requirements by which CMS providers
could voluntarily transmit emergency alerts. As required by the
act, the Commission established the Commercial Mobile Service
Alert Advisory Committee, a diverse and balanced group of
experts, including representatives of public safety
organizations, the wireless and broadcast industries, FEMA,
NOAA, and other experts. The committee held its first meting on
December 12, 2006 as required by the WARN Act.
Next, the WARN Act required that the committee develop and
submit its recommendations to the Commission by October 12,
2007. The committee submitted its report in a timely manner,
recommending an end-to-end alerting system by which alerts from
Federal, State, tribal and local governments would be received
by an alert aggregator which would aggregate and authenticate
alerts. The alerts would then be sent to an alert gateway which
would process the alert into a 90-character format that could
be sent to CMS providers. The alert would then be sent to CMS
provider gateways and infrastructure for processing and then
ultimately transmitted to subscribers' handsets. A key part of
the committee's recommendation was that the alert aggregator
and alert gateway functions be administered by a Federal
Government entity.
On December 14, 2007, the FCC issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking, seeking comment on implementation of the WARN Act,
including the recommendation of the advisory committee. The
Commission received over 60 comments.
As mandated by the WARN Act by April 9, 2008, the
Commission was required to adopt technical requirements
necessary to enable alerting capability by CMS providers. I am
pleased to report that the Commission released its first report
and order adopting those recommendations on that date and thus
complied with the statute.
The Commission's order adopted the end-to-end architecture
for the CMAS as proposed by the advisory committee. It also
concluded that a Federal Government entity should perform the
alert aggregator and alert gateway functions. The Commission,
however, did not designate a specific Federal Government agency
to fulfill those functions. Recognizing that no Federal
Government agency expressed a willingness and ability to assume
these functions and that FEMA had filed comments saying that it
could not legally perform those functions, the Commission
pledged to work with its Federal colleagues in Congress, if
necessary, to identify an appropriate government entity to
fulfill these roles.
The Commission's order also adopted functional capability
requirements for the CMS provider control elements of the
system. In addition, it adopted technologically neutral rules
requiring participating CMS providers to transmit three classes
of alerts, presidential, eminent threat and amber alerts,
requiring participating CMS providers to target alerts at areas
no larger than the county level, and requiring participating
CMS providers to include an audio attention signal and
vibration cadence on CMS capable handsets.
Due to implementation issues, including network congestion
concerns raised by wireless carriers during the committee's
deliberations and the rulemaking proceeding, the Commission
declined to require at this time that participating CMS
providers transmit alerts in languages in addition to English.
With the adoption of technical requirements last month, the
Commission has now turned to implementing other requirements of
the WARN Act. Specifically by July 8 the Commission must adopt
rules requiring noncommercial, educational and public broadcast
stations to install equipment and technologies to enable the
distribution and geotargeted alerts.
The statute also requires that by August 7 the Commission
must adopt rules that, among other things, established the
process by which CMS providers would elect to participate in
the CMAS. The Commission is on track to meet both of those
deadlines.
The Commission will continue to coordinate with wireless
industry, public safety organizations, FEMA, NOAA and other
stakeholders as we seek to advance the CMAS to full
implementation. We anticipate that our Federal colleagues in
FEMA and NOAA will be active participants as we move forward,
and we look forward to working with them as we seek to find an
appropriate Federal entity to perform the aggregator gateway
function.
We also look forward to working with the public and Members
of Congress to ensure that we provide an effective commercial
mobile alert system.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
This concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
I have also provided additional information on the FCC's
implementation in my written testimony.
[The statement of Ms. Fowlkes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa M. Fowlkes
May 14, 2008
Good Morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent and other
Members of the House Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,
Preparedness, and Response. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission to
discuss our work to satisfy the requirements of the Warning Alert and
Response Network (WARN) Act and establish the Commercial Mobile Alert
System (CMAS).
introduction
One of the FCC's primary statutory obligations is to promote the
safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communication. An essential element of that obligation is the ability
to alert the American public in times of emergency. In complying with
our statutory obligations under the WARN Act, the Commission has taken
a significant step toward implementing one of our highest priorities--
ensuring that all Americans have the capability to receive timely and
accurate alerts, warnings and critical information regarding impending
disasters and other emergencies irrespective of what communications
technologies they use. As we have learned from recent disasters, such a
capability is essential to enable Americans to take appropriate action
to protect their families and themselves from loss of life or serious
injury.
For over 50 years, the United States has had a mechanism in place
to deliver alerts to the American public, particularly for the
President to communicate with the public in the event of a national
emergency. Until recently, that primary mechanism was the Emergency
Alert System (EAS), a broadcast-based system that requires radio,
television and cable systems to deliver emergency alerts to the
country. The FCC has continued to develop the manner in which alert and
warning systems take advantage of current technologies, for example, by
expanding the EAS from its roots in analog television and radio to
include participation by digital radio and television broadcasters,
digital cable television providers, satellite radio and television, and
wireline common carriers providing video programming.
Wireless services are becoming equal to television and radio as an
avenue to reach the American public quickly and efficiently. According
to CTIA, the wireless trade association, approximately 258 million
Americans currently subscribe to wireless services. Wireless service
has progressed beyond voice communications and now provides subscribers
with access to a wide range of information critical to their personal
and business affairs. In times of emergency, Americans rely on their
mobile services for critical, time-sensitive information. Needless to
say, a comprehensive mobile alerting system would bring great benefit
to the public by quickly reaching people on the go, where they do not
necessarily have access to broadcast radio or television.
When the President signed the Security and Accountability For Every
Port (SAFE Port) Act into law on October 13, 2006, he enacted its
component legislation, the WARN Act, thus establishing a process for
the creation of a Commercial Mobile Alert System, whereby commercial
mobile service, or CMS, providers may elect to transmit emergency
alerts to their subscribers. The WARN Act required the Commission to
undertake a series of actions to accomplish that goal. I am happy to
report that the Commission has met all of its WARN Act deadlines to
date, and has taken significant steps to facilitate the development of
an effective Commercial Mobile Alert System. I will briefly summarize
those requirements and the Commission's efforts to date.
the commission's implementation of the warn act
First, by December 12, 2006, 60 days after enactment of the WARN
Act, the Commission was required to establish and convene an advisory
committee to recommend technical standards and other requirements by
which commercial mobile service providers could voluntarily transmit
emergency alerts. As required by the Act, the Commission established an
advisory committee, the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory
Committee (CMSAAC), consisting of a diverse and balanced array of
experts including: representatives of public safety organizations such
as APCO, the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the National
Association of State EMS Officials; local governments including Contra
Costa County, California and the city of New York; a federally
recognized Indian tribe; five major wireless carriers and an
organization representing rural carriers, equipment manufacturers and
vendors; the National Association of Broadcasters as well as the Texas,
Michigan and Florida State broadcasters associations; the Association
of Public Television Stations; organizations representing people with
disabilities and the elderly; and Federal Government agencies,
including FEMA and NOAA and other experts. As required by the WARN Act,
the committee held its first meeting on December 12, 2006.
Next, the WARN Act required that the CMSAAC develop and submit its
recommendations to the Commission by October 12, 2007, within 1 year
after enactment of the statute. The CMSAAC submitted its report to the
Commission in a timely manner, recommending an end-to-end alerting
system by which alerts from Federal, State, tribal and local
governments would be received by an Alert Aggregator which would
aggregate, authenticate and validate the alerts. The alerts would then
be sent to an Alert Gateway which would process the alert into a 90-
character format that could be sent to CMS providers. The alert would
then be sent to CMS Providers' gateway and infrastructure for
processing and then ultimately transmitted to subscribers' handsets. A
key part of the committee's recommendation was that the Alert
Aggregator and Alert Gateway functions be administered by a Federal
Government agency. Many of the wireless carriers indicated during the
committee's deliberation and in comments in the rulemaking that a
federally administered alert aggregator/gateway was essential to their
participation in the CMAS.
On December 14, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking seeking comment on implementation of the WARN Act, including
the recommendations of the advisory committee. The Commission received
over 60 comments on the issues raised in the Notice.
Within 180 days of receipt of the CMSAAC's recommendations, or
April 9, 2008, the Commission was required to adopt technical
standards, protocols, procedures and technical requirements based on
the CMSAAC's recommendations, necessary to enable alerting capability
for commercial mobile service providers. I am pleased to report that
the Commission released its CMAS Report and Order adopting those
requirements on that date and thus complied with the mandate of the
statute.
The Commission's Order generally adopted the CMSAAC's
recommendations. Specifically, the Commission adopted the end-to-end
architecture for the CMAS proposed by the CMSAAC. It also concluded
that a Federal Government entity should perform the alert aggregator
and alert gateway functions, as recommended by the CMSAAC. The
Commission, however, did not designate a specific Federal Government
agency to fulfill these functions. Recognizing that no Federal agency
expressed a willingness and ability to assume these functions and that
our sister agency FEMA had filed comments saying that it could not
legally perform these functions, the Commission pledged to work with
its Federal colleagues and Congress, if necessary, to identify an
appropriate government entity to fulfill these roles, whether it be
FEMA, another DHS entity, NOAA or the FCC.
The Commission's Order also adopted functional capability
requirements for CMS provider-controlled elements of the CMAS (i.e.,
the CMS Provider Gateway, CMS provider infrastructure and handsets). In
addition, the order adopted technologically neutral rules: (1)
addressing emergency alert formatting, classes and elements and
requiring participating CMS providers to transmit three classes of
alerts--Presidential, Imminent Threat, and AMBER alerts; (2) requiring
participating CMS providers to target alerts at areas no larger than
the county-level, as recommended by the CMSAAC; and (3) requiring
participating CMS providers to include an audio attention signal and
vibration cadence on CMAS-capable handsets in order to ensure that
people with disabilities had access to these alerts. Due to
implementation issues, including network congestion concerns raised by
wireless carriers during both the committee's deliberations and the
rulemaking proceeding, the Commission declined to require at this time
participating CMS providers to transmit alerts in languages in addition
to English. With respect to the availability of CMAS alerts while
roaming, subscribers will receive alert messages if the carrier
operating the network has a roaming agreement with the subscriber's CMS
provider and is participating in the CMAS, and the subscriber's mobile
device is configured for and technically capable of receiving alert
messages. Finally, the Commission determined that CMAS alerts may not
preempt an ongoing phone call or data session.
next steps
With the adoption of technical requirements last month, the
Commission has now turned to implementing other requirements of the
WARN Act. Specifically, within 90 days of our adoption of the technical
requirements or July 8, 2008, the statute requires the Commission to
adopt rules requiring non-commercial educational (NCE) and public
broadcast stations to install equipment and technologies to enable the
distribution of geographically targeted alerts by CMS providers that
have elected to transmit emergency alerts. The statute also requires
that, within 120 days of adoption of CMAS technical requirements, or by
August 7, 2008, the Commission must adopt rules that, among other
things, establishes the process by which CMS providers would elect to
transmit emergency alerts to subscribers. The Commission is on track to
meet both statutory deadlines.
The Commission has--and will--continue to coordinate with the
wireless industry, the public safety community, DHS, FEMA, NOAA and
others as we seek to advance the CMAS to full implementation. We
anticipate that our Federal colleagues at FEMA and NOAA will be active
participants as we move forward, and we look forward to working with
them as we seek to find an appropriate Federal entity to perform the
aggregator/gateway function.
We have also received, and continue to receive, valuable input from
interested individuals, State and local emergency management agencies,
and various elements of the communications sector on our implementation
of the CMAS. We look forward to working with these stakeholders, the
public and Members of Congress to ensure that we provide an effective
Commercial Mobile Alert System to the American people.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This
concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much for your testimony. At
this time I would recognize Mr. Gibb to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. GIBB, DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT OFFICE, STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Gibb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Dent, for
the opportunity to be here today. In New York we have addressed
the alert and warning issue by developing NY-ALERT, which is a
Web-based, all-hazards alert notification system developed by
my agency, the New York State Emergency Management Office. It
is in complete compliance with the Common Alert Protocol and
allows local and State officials to issue emergency information
simultaneously through a series of gateways, including posting
to the New York alert.gov Website, e-mails, blast faxes, text
messages and also voice messages to land lines and to cell
phones. It is a very robust system that we have developed over
the last 11 months. We have a subscriber base of over 1.4
million New York residents.
Over the last year we partnered closely with our State
university system and the City University of New York, so that
now NY-ALERT is the emergency alerting platform for 55 of our
State university campuses and 25 of our city university
campuses. We were rolling NY-ALERT out just at the time the
tragic shooting at Virginia Tech occurred.
We also have 24 of our counties in New York State are
utilizing NY-ALERT now. As I said, it is very robust. Over the
last 10 months, we issued over 6 million e-mails, millions of
text messages and hundreds of thousands of phone calls to New
York residents utilizing NY-ALERT.
We are also working with our State agencies to support
their continuity of operations plans via NY-ALERT. Also to
integrate Amber alerts and with our State Office of Homeland
Security to develop a system of providing emergency information
to the critical infrastructure community.
I am proud to say that NY-ALERT has been developed
completely in-house by our staff programmers. This year
Governor Paterson has made a commitment of $5.4 million to
further roll out NY-ALERT and support its operations.
One of our frustrations last year was our inability to use
hazard mitigation grant funds to further the efforts, and one
of our recommendations would be that the Federal Government
look at that guidance to allow these types of investments to be
made.
Later this year we will be unrolling a number of new
enhancements to NY-ALERT which will allow notifiers to actually
draw on a map the area that they want to send the emergency
information to. We will be increasing our dollar capacity and
making the sign-up process for users even more simplified.
I just want to say that NY-ALERT is not a pilot program, it
is not a test. We are using it every day to provide emergency
information to New York residents. This coming Monday our State
Department of Transportation will start issuing trans alerts
which will be emergency information regarding our highway
systems in New York State to individuals who sign up for that
feature.
We look forward to the IPAWS system as it rolls out, and we
are hopeful that the Federal efforts will look at local
infrastructures that are in place and integrate as effectively
as possible with State and local systems that are in place.
We are also very interested in cell casting or cell
bursting, the ability to issue messages to every cell phone
that would see a given tower, as the CMAS system intends to do.
I find it a little worrisome that for CMAS to work they will
expect local officials to get an emergency message up to the
Federal Government, up to the carriers and back down to the
local cell towers. Obviously it would be much more effective
for local emergency managers to have immediate access. We are
working with carriers in our State to try to integrate this
capability directly into NY-ALERT.
In closing, I will just say that NY-ALERT is our State
solution to alert and notification. We think it will serve us
very well in the years to come, and I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Gibb follows:]
Prepared Statement of John R. Gibb
May 14, 2008
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Dent and thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the critical
importance of having a modern and robust public alert and warning
capability for our Nation.
My name is John Gibb and I am Director of the New York State
Emergency Management Office. Emergency alert and warning has long been
a core responsibility of our government and the emergency management
community. Since the ride of Paul Revere, Americans have shown that if
they are provided with information about a potential threat or risk,
they will take actions to protect themselves and their property.
Stephen Flynn, a Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the
Council of Foreign Relations, recently cited the example of the brave
American passengers on United Flight 93. Having received information of
the unfolding events that morning of September 11, 2001, those selfless
citizens took action and made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their
fellow Americans. Given timely information, our citizens will seek to
help themselves in the face of great adversity. Recent advances in
technology have challenged us to re-examine how we can best disseminate
critical public information to our residents. I am especially pleased
to be able to discuss with you NY-ALERT which is the state-of-the-art,
web-based alert and notification system that we have developed in New
York.
Alert systems are not a new issue for our Nation. The Emergency
Alert System (EAS) and its predecessor, the Emergency Broadcast System
(EBS), have provided a platform for the dissemination of emergency
information to the public and met the Federal requirement for the
President to have the ability to provide information to the Nation on
short notice for decades. Local systems, which at one time included
civil defense siren systems in many parts of the country, now consist
of a patchwork of systems that include local access to the Emergency
Alert System, NOAA weather radios, reverse dialing systems, outdoor
siren systems and more recently blast email and commercial text
messaging services. Each of these systems is capable of notifying
segments of the population, but no single outlet provides a maximum
penetration of the emergency information to the public that needs to
receive it. Complicating and delaying dissemination of information
today is the requirement to create a message tailored to each
dissemination gateway.
Presidential Executive Order 13407 in June of 2006 declared the,
``policy of the United States to have an effective, reliable,
integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the
American people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural
disaster, or other hazards to public safety and well-being (public
alert and warning system), taking appropriate account of the functions,
capabilities, and needs of the private sector and of all levels of
government in our Federal system, and to ensure that under all
conditions the President can communicate with the American people.''
While the executive order may be a daunting charge, it is fairly
unambiguous. Twenty-three months later, however, we do not have a
comprehensive new national alerting capability and as late as last
month, Federal agencies were in disagreement over roles and
responsibilities in administering the Commercial Mobile Alert System
(CMAS) which is expected to be a national text messaging alert and
warning capability.
In New York State we have NY-ALERT which is a web-based, all-
hazards alert and notification system developed by the New York State
Emergency Management Office. This system, designed and built by a small
but visionary Information Technology staff at SEMO, is compliant with
the Common Alert Protocol (CAP) and allows public officials to
simultaneously broadcast emergency information through series of
gateways. From a secure website, local and State public safety and
elected officials can provide emergency information via the Emergency
Alert System (EAS); email; blast faxes; text messages to cell phones;
posting to the NY-ALERT website (www.nyalert.gov); RSS (real simple
syndicate) feeds from the nyalert.gov website; and voice messages to
landline and cell phones. The unique quality of NY-ALERT is that you
only create the message once. When the person making the notification
sends the message, all of the ``gateways'' chosen by the notifier are
activated simultaneously and the emergency information is delivered to
users as close to instantly as the individual technologies allow.
NY-ALERT allows subscribers to sign-up via the internet and dictate
how they want to be notified and what types of events they want to be
notified of. Subscribers can designate multiple email addresses, cell
phones, and landline phones to receive emergency information. They can
choose the geographic areas they are concerned with down to the town,
village or city level. Subscribers can also choose the type of
emergencies they want to be notified of and the severity or urgency of
the event. We will be announcing a number of enhancements of the system
in the next several months which will even further improve the service
to our citizens.
We have been utilizing NY-ALERT statewide for the past 11 months.
Last year as NY-ALERT readied completion, the tragic shooting at
Virginia Tech occurred. Much of our initial efforts shifted to adapt
NY-ALERT to campus alerting needs. Our NY-ALERT team headed by SEMO's
Assistant Director for Technology Kevin Ross worked closely with
university campus safety and information technology officials to tailor
NY-ALERT to the task. As a result, NY-ALERT is now the alert and
warning system for 55 of our State University campuses and 25 of the
City University of New York campuses. NY-ALERT has been activated
numerous times to disseminate campus related safety information
including campus closures for weather events and security related
issues.
Twenty-four New York counties are currently using NY-ALERT with
additional with additional jurisdictions coming on board each week. We
have more than 1.4 million subscriber records already accessible
through NY-ALERT. We are also able to import E911 data from
participating counties and support ``notification'' groups which allows
targeted, private notification of specific groups of individuals using
the NY-ALERT infrastructure. In the past 10 months NY-ALERT activations
have issued more than 6 million emails, millions of text messages, and
made hundreds of thousands of phone calls with emergency information.
With NY-ALERT's flexibility, our State Department of Transportation,
effective this coming Monday, May 19, will be sending email and text
message ``TransAlerts'' providing subscribers with critical information
regarding highway closures, accidents and significant delays. We are
working with the State Division of State Police to integrate NY-ALERT
for their use including the ability to quickly activate AMBER Alerts
via the system as well. Our State Office of Homeland Security is
preparing to use the system to share information with their public and
private sector partners by creating secure notification groups. Through
this system, the Office of Homeland Security will be able to alert
critical infrastructure sector partners of new information available,
provide threat intelligence, and send supporting documentation via
attachment quickly to their partners.
I am proud to tell you that NY-ALERT has been designed and built
using State resources. Governor Paterson has made a significant
commitment of $5.4 million in this year's State budget to further
enhance and support the system. One of our frustrations last year was
that we were not allowed to use available Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program dollars to enhance our NY-ALERT phone dialer capacity. Federal
guidance on the use of mitigation funding should be revisited to ensure
that investments in emergency alerting capabilities be allowed.
Later this year we will be announcing additional enhancements to
NY-ALERT including state-of-the-art capabilities such things as
additional dialer capacity, a geographic interface allowing the public
safety official making the emergency notification to designate on a map
the area that they want notified and the ability for people who receive
emergency information to respond back to the notifier.
This is not a test. NY-ALERT is not a pilot program. It is being
used on a daily basis to provide New Yorkers with emergency
information. Moving forward we know that we will have to work closely
with FEMA as the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)
evolves. It has not been made clear to us when the IPAWS implementation
timeline will impact New York, but it would seem to make sense that any
Federal efforts would leverage existing State capabilities like NY-
ALERT. NY-ALERT works now. It can as easily support Federal
notification needs as it does local needs.
Cell bursting or cell casting--the ability to send text messages to
all cell phones that ``see'' a given cell tower--is an important
capability and we are working with cell providers to add that function
to NY-ALERT. As I understand it, the Commercial Mobile Alert System
(CMAS) recently announced by the FCC, which uses this the cell bursting
capability, will require messages to get to the Federal officials
(agency yet undetermined) who will then activate the CMAS. We need to
find a way to integrate CMAS with existing systems like NY-ALERT that
would allow local emergency officials to access this capability. Every
emergency is local and the prospect of sending an important emergency
message from a local jurisdiction to the Federal Government, who will
then send it to the carriers, to ultimately get back down to local cell
towers, is worrisome.
In closing, I feel very confident in saying that NY-ALERT is our
State's solution to our alert and warning needs and a best practice
that other States and the Federal Government can draw upon in designing
an integrated State, regional or national alert, notification and
warning system.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Gibb, for your testimony. At
this time I would recognize Mr. Duncan to summarize his
statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RANDALL C. DUNCAN, VICE CHAIR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS
Mr. Duncan. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member
Dent, distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify. I am Randall C. Duncan. I serve as
the Emergency Management Director for the half million folks
who live and work in Sedgwick County, Wichita, Kansas.
We are subject to a number of different hazards in that
location, flooding, severe storms, both winter and summer,
tornadoes, and drought. In fact Kansas ranked third in the
Nation, unfortunately, for tornados on an annual basis. Warning
in Sedgwick County is accomplished through a multi-layered
system. We do that to ensure wide dissemination and redundancy
for the information.
The first layer of the system we utilize is outdoor warning
sirens. We have approximately 140 of them covering our county.
We also have a very close partnership with local radio and
television stations. Our next layer of warning relies on the
NOAA National Weather Service all-hazards radio.
For those who are served by the cable television provider
in our area there is also a limited override system that allows
displaying of a message, urging folks to tune to local
television stations to find out more information.
What ultimately makes all these layers of warning work,
however, is citizens with the training who know what to do,
when to do it, when they receive that alert and warning. In
fact, the most technologically sophisticated warning system
possible will fail if people don't take the right action at the
right time.
In order to ensure that our public knows what to do, my
staff and I provide annual training, reaching thousands of
people, and we have done so in partnership with the National
Weather Service now for more than 15 years. The National
Weather Service assessment after the May 3, 1999 Wichita/
Haysville F4 tornado credited that program with reducing the
loss of lives expected from such an event.
Sedgwick County also utilizes tools provided by FEMA in
alert and warning. One of the most important of those is the
National Warning System, or NAWAS. We utilize that for
discussions between counties and between the counties and the
National Weather Service to talk about hazards facing local
government as well as severe weather.
The multi-layer warning system we utilize in Sedgwick
County, however, can be improved. The outdoor warning sirens
are activated by a single radio signal that provides for
sounding them in either all or nothing format. Essentially this
is technology unchanged from World War II. We are looking into
improving the system. One alternative we are examining,
automated outbound telephone warning, would cost us about
$400,000 on an annual basis. Another alternative, changing the
radio system to allow for a higher level of technology, would
cost about $750,000.
We do want to emphasize, as our colleagues have here, alert
and warning is first and foremost a role of local government.
If changes are made to create a National Warning System to
support local governments in their responsibility for issuing
warnings, we need to make sure that these changes will not add
more time to the process.
Picture in your mind a sunny spring morning in Kansas. The
day starts with a breathtaking sunrise followed a short time
later with oppressive humidity. When there is a hint that
thunderstorms are beginning to form and they move into Sedgwick
County, we activate our volunteer severe weather spotter
system. Our system consists of specially trained citizens who
are also licensed amateur radio operators, in addition to
members of law enforcement and the fire department from the
County's 20 cities. Our spotters are linked with our EMA
program through our trunked radio system as well as with first
responders, the hospital community, the National Weather
Service.
If a tornado is indicated by radar or confirmed by
spotters, we discuss it with the National Weather Service.
Ideally the decision by the National Weather Service to warn
and the decision by our EMA to activate the outdoor warning
sirens will be reached simultaneously. This reinforces the
importance of the warning to the public.
In conclusion, alert and warning is first and foremost a
duty of local government. A mere minute can mean the difference
between life and death. Any Federal warning system must have
FEMA in a key role as they are the only Federal partner with a
mission covering all hazards. Congress should continue to
support the vital work of the National Weather Service and
recognize WFOs are a key link in this process. Improvement to
warning system consists not only of equipment and technology,
but training and outreach so people do the right thing at the
right time.
I am happy to stand for any questions the committee may
have at this time, and thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Randall C. Duncan
May 14, 2008
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Dent, and distinguished members of
the sub-committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to
testify today on the vitally important topic of public alert and
warning.
I am Randall C. Duncan, and I have the privilege of serving as
Emergency Management Director for the nearly 500,000 people who live
and work in Sedgwick County and the city of Wichita, Kansas. My staff
and I are responsible for mitigation, preparedness for, response to,
and recovery from emergencies and disasters whether natural,
technological, or homeland security in origin. I have served in my
current community for nearly 10 of my 22 years in this field. During
that time, I have administered nearly a dozen Presidential declarations
of major disaster and emergency for events ranging from tornadoes and
floods to severe winter storms. I had the opportunity to provide
support to FDNY in the aftermath to the events of September 11, 2001 at
the Incident Command Post in Manhattan (from September 18-28, 2001). I
have also served two Governors of Kansas as their appointee to the
Kansas Commission on Emergency Planning and Response (State Emergency
Response Commission). I have served as the chair of that body for the
last 2 years. I also serve as the vice-chair of the International
Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) Government Affairs Committee.
Although today, my remarks are addressed to you primarily in my
capacity as a local government emergency manager.
I would like to begin the discussion about this important topic
with you by describing the alert and warning system currently in place
within my jurisdiction, and some of the timing elements that are
associated with it. Then, I'd like to discuss a few broader issues
relating to the general powers of the various levels of government. I
would then like to take a few moments to try and paint for you a
portrait of severe weather in Kansas to illustrate the issue of alert
and warning from the local perspective. Then, I'd like to conclude with
some recommendations and suggestions for consideration of the
subcommittee.
Sedgwick County is the home to Wichita, Kansas, the largest city
within the State (nearly 360,000). It is also home to many aircraft
manufacturers--like Boeing Military, Spirit, Hawker Beechcraft, Cessna,
Bombardier and others. The county physically covers 1,008 square
miles--about average area for a county in Kansas. It includes densely
populated urban areas, suburban areas, and rural areas.
Wichita and Sedgwick County are subject to a number of hazards.
Foremost among them is flooding; followed by severe storms (both winter
and summer), tornadoes, and drought, according to the 2006 version of
the Sedgwick County Hazard Vulnerability Analysis (http://
www.sedgwickcounty.org/emermgmt/2006_hazardous_analysis_plan.pdf). The
State of Kansas ranks third in the Nation for the frequency of
tornadoes on an annual basis. This makes the issue of public alert and
warning very important.
warning system within sedgwick county
Warning within Sedgwick County is accomplished through the use of a
system with multiple layers--to ensure wide dissemination of
information and redundancy in the system. The first layer of the
system--and the thing people are probably most familiar with on the
high plains--is the outdoor warning system (some call them storm
sirens). In Sedgwick County, we have approximately 140 of them covering
the entire county (See Exhibit A). In addition to this layer of
warning, we also have a very close partnership with the electronic
media in the area--both radio and television. The next layer of our
system of warning relies on the NOAA all hazard radio system. For those
who are served by the cable television provider in the area, there is
also a limited ``over ride'' system allowing a message directing people
to tune to a local television station to find out more information
about the emergency causing the message to be displayed. What
ultimately makes all these layers of warning work, however, are the
citizens with training who know what to do and when to do it when they
receive the alert and warning. In fact, you can have the most
sophisticated warning system possible--but if people fail to take
survival-oriented action after receiving the warning, then the system
will fail.
In order to ensure that the public does know what the appropriate
actions are, my staff and I make appearances in each of the 20 cities
within Sedgwick County at the beginning of tornado season and provide
training that literally reaches thousands of people. This outreach
program is conducted in partnership with the National Weather Service,
and has been in existence for more than 15 years. In fact, in the
National Weather Service assessment conducted in the aftermath of the
May 3, 1999 Haysville/South Wichita tornado, this training program is
credited with saving many lives.
Sedgwick County--like most of the other counties in the State of
Kansas--also utilizes tools provided by FEMA to assist in alert and
warning. For example, the National Warning System (NAWAS) ``State''
side circuit (telephony) is utilized for discussions between counties
and the National Weather Service to communicate information about
severe weather and other hazards facing local governments. This allows
for the timely dissemination of warning through local means to the
people of the impacted jurisdiction. For example, if a tornado were in
the county to the west of mine moving into my county, that emergency
manager could pick up the NAWAS drop, activate the ``push-to-talk''
button and let me know what is happening with the storm as it crosses
jurisdictional boundaries. This tool has been utilized by emergency
management programs I have been associated with for over 15 years now--
and has existed for a longer period of time across the Nation. At the
Federal level, this system exists to allow information from the
President to be widely disseminated in case of a national emergency.
While local governments utilize this system on almost a daily basis,
the President has never utilized the system for its originally designed
purpose.
vulnerabilities of the existing warning system
The current warning system in Sedgwick County--especially the
outdoor warning sirens--has room for improvement. These sirens are
activated by a single radio signal that provides activation in an ``all
or nothing'' format. This is, essentially, technology unchanged from
World War II. In addition, these outdoor warning devices are connected
to commercial electrical distribution, and in the absence of commercial
power, they will simply not function. That is why our system of alert
and warning consists of multiple, redundant layers. We are looking into
improving this system, but the costs pose problems. One alternative we
are examining, which would shift the warning paradigm from outdoor
sirens to automated outbound telephone warnings, would cost
approximately $400,000 annually in service contracts. Another
alternative, changing the technology in the radio system to allow for
individual or group activation of the outdoor sirens is anticipated to
cost $750,000 for a portion of our existing system.
role of government in warning
Alert and warning is, first and foremost, a role of local
governments. If there is any change to the warning system, we need to
make sure that the change will not add more time to the process. In
addition, any system at the Federal level needs to be designed to
clearly indicate it supports the local governments in their alert and
warning role. Any proposed Federal system will also have to have
provision for local governments to access it as, for example, the
current NAWAS system does.
I would also be remiss if I failed to mention the close working
relationship between local emergency managers and the National Weather
Service Weather Forecast Officers.
a severe weather portrait
Picture in your mind a sunny spring morning in Kansas. The day
starts beautifully with a breathtaking sunrise. Not too long after
that, we begin to notice that things are getting a bit ``muggy.'' We
are small observers to a large aerial battle taking place between a
mass of warm, humid air moving northward from the Gulf of Mexico on the
low level jet stream and a mass of cool, dry Canadian air being
funneled eastward down the slopes of the Rocky Mountains. They will
clash along a front, most likely located over the State of Kansas. The
skirmishes between these air masses won't consist of Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs)--instead, they will consist of rapidly growing
and exploding cumulus clouds that will eventually produce severe
thunderstorms on the high plains.
Emergency Managers in the areas that might be potentially affected
will be in communication with their local Weather Forecast Office of
the National Weather Service. In my own case, I would be on the
telephone or exchanging e-mail with Meteorologist-In-Charge Richard
Elder at the WFO Wichita. Through the Internet and other sources, we
would follow the discussion between local meteorologists and the Storm
Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma to find out whether a weather
watch will be warranted.
Watches for this type of severe weather--whether thunderstorms or
tornadoes--are typically issued for a 6-hour period of time. Once the
watch is issued, emergency managers begin to make contact with
traditional first responders (law enforcement, fire, emergency medical
services, public works, hospital community, etc.) to make sure they are
aware of the potential for severe weather. Then, the sometimes long job
of watching for developments on satellite photos and radar systems
begins. When there is a hint that thunderstorms are beginning to
develop and that they may move into Sedgwick County, we activate our
volunteer severe weather spotter system to become ready to deploy. In
our case, this volunteer system consists not only of specially trained
citizen volunteers who are also licensed amateur radio operators, but
it also consists of members of law enforcement and fire departments
within the 20 cities located inside Sedgwick County. Our goal is to
have any severe weather met at the jurisdictional border by our
spotters, and observed constantly as it moves through and eventually
out of Sedgwick County. All of our spotters are linked with our
Emergency Management program through our 800 MHz Public Safety trunked
radio system. This allows key partners like the National Weather
Service, law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service, the hospital
community (through the Emergency Department) and the media to be
immediately apprised of what is happening with severe weather. Another
means of accessing this information is provided to the media and
general public through our web site (http://www.sedgwickcounty.org/
emermgmt/PublicLogList.cfm).
Once the National Weather Service has the indication of a tornado
beginning to form in the upper areas of the storm from their Doppler
radar system, they will communicate with us and our spotters over the
trunked radio system. Or, alternatively, if one of our spotters in the
field observes a tornado beginning to form, this information is
instantaneously transmitted both to us and the National Weather
Service. A short discussion will then ensue as to whether the NWS
believes they will issue a warning based on this observation. Ideally,
the decision for the NWS and us to warn will be reached at the same
time, and the systems will be activated simultaneously--to reinforce
the importance of the warning with the public.
Newspaper reports from the series of tornado events happening in
Oklahoma, Missouri, and Georgia over the Mother's Day weekend indicate
that in some areas, the NWS and local authorities were able to give as
much as 13 minutes of advance warning. This margin of time greatly
contributed to the fact that there wasn't an even greater loss of life.
This timeframe also illustrates the importance and criticality of not
adding additional time for local governments to activate alert and
warning functions. Those minutes may literally be the difference
between life and death for some.
recommendations
I would recommend for the committee to please consider the fact
that alert and warning is first and foremost a duty of local
governments. Help in accomplishing this function is always welcome from
our Federal partners, but the relationship of the Federal Government
supporting the primacy of the State and local government duty to warn
should exist through the effort or system.
I would also like to urge that Congress fully support the vital
work of the National Weather Service and recognize that the local
Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) are a vitally important link in making
sure the public has adequate alert and warning regarding sever weather
events. While the National Weather Service is an important Federal
partner in this relationship, they are by no means the only Federal
partner involved. FEMA also has a pivotal role to play in this process
since they are the only Federal Agency that has a mission encompassing
``all hazards.'' I know that as a local government emergency manager I
would have a great deal of discomfort if a Federal warning system were
implemented without FEMA playing a key role in that system.
conclusion
I would request that the committee remember the following elements
from our discussion today:
That alert and warning is, first and foremost, a duty of
local governments.
That a mere minute can mean the difference between life and
death in many alert and warning situations.
That any Federal warning system must have FEMA in a key role
as they are the only Federal partner with a mission covering
all hazards.
That improvement to warning systems consist not only of
equipment and technology, but training and outreach so people
understand how to respond in an appropriate manner to the alert
or warning.
I stand ready to address any questions the subcommittee members may
have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you again very much for your testimony.
To all of you, thank you. At this time I would remind each
member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the
witnesses. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the
questions.
One question apiece. First one, General Rainville, as you
know, the Nation has suffered greatly after the recent rash of
tornados in the Midwest and the Southeast. With the 2008
hurricane season just being weeks away, the time is now to
fully update, integrate and implement a comprehensive all-
hazards public alert and warning system that relates critical
information to the American people. Given the number of years
since the inception of the integrated public alert and warning
system, can you identify for the committee what has hindered
FEMA from meeting the goals outlined by the President's
Executive Order 13407 to actually create the integrated warning
delivery system of the national, State and local messages?
General Rainville. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. In early 2007,
FEMA and National Continuity Programs established a program
management office for IPAWS. That has allowed us to bring
structure and organization and some strategic planning to the
whole issue of integrated public alerts and warnings. So we can
in fact integrate the efforts that have been taken to date.
That and the funding from the Katrina supplemental allowed us
in 2007 during the hurricane season to offer the pilot
capabilities to Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama and to share
with the other States the lessons learned from those pilots.
What we have taken from those is, first, that it is
important to train and we offer training as a part of those
pilots. We have been able to establish that American sign
language video is another method of communicating alerts with
those who are deaf or hard of hearing. There are other means as
well and different States have chosen different means.
We also have understood some of the work that needs to be
done to fully employ ETN, or Enhanced Telephone Notification,
System issues of older infrastructure from the providers that
need to be worked on. What that has led us to is looking at
hurricane season 2008, realizing that what we will be doing
this year in conjunction with strengthening the national
infrastructure is rolling out in those States the first
increment of IPAWS. It is not a pilot but the first increment
being laid down, which is to roll out of digital EAS in the
eight States and one territory where we had piloted 2 years
previously, and to add five more States into the digital EAS
capability. That adds for those States that satellite
redundancy over PBS. Our statistics show that 67 percent of
American households tune into PBS during the month.
We are also using our 2008 funding to expand the number of
primary entry point stations, which are absolutely key to
getting the message out quickly direct from the FEMA operation
center to the PEP station. Also NOAA uses our EAS system as
well.
So those are some concrete things that we have done
progressing along with IPAWS.
Mr. Dicks. Would the gentleman yield on this point? Just
one point.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Dicks. What worries me here, and I heard this in the
statement, in fact the broader IPAWS program with CMAS as a
component has yet to have a Federal agency designated to
administer the system once it is developed and implemented.
This thing sounds like an orphan. Why is this? Why wouldn't we
have some idea of who would administer this at this point? Why
wouldn't it be FEMA?
General Rainville. Sir, it very well may be FEMA.
Mr. Dicks. Who has to make this decision?
General Rainville. Right now that issue is internal in FEMA
and we are working it with the Federal Communications
Commission as a result of the rulemaking that came out and the
work that went into the rule. We just needed to clarify that in
a noncrisis environment that FEMA had clear legal authority to
become involved at that level with State and local messaging.
We want to thank the FCC for allowing us that time and not
naming FEMA specifically in the rulemaking, but we take that
very seriously and we see that as a critical role and we agree
with the FCC and other members of the committee that made
recommendations that this is a critical role, and we expect
resolution of that very, very shortly.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that we have seen
a number of things with Homeland Security and this whole area
where we are going to make a decision and it just don't happen.
That is one thing Congress is very concerned about. I mean, can
you give us any time frame? Are we 60 days, 30 days? Who is
going to make this decision? Who is the great decider here? I
am sure it is not the President. Who is going to make this
decision?
General Rainville. Internally this decision rests with the
Administrator and I don't want to get out in front of him this
morning.
Mr. Dicks. The Administrator of?
General Rainville. Of FEMA.
Mr. Dicks. Of FEMA. He is a good man. We have all the
confidence in the Administrator. If you tell me he will make
the decision and he will make it promptly, I would feel much
better about this.
General Rainville. Yes, sir. I can tell you that this
morning.
Mr. Dicks. I thank you for yielding.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, there is a letter from FEMA, from the FCC
to FEMA I believe. The other way around, saying that you all
don't have statutory authority; is that correct?
General Rainville. Yes, sir. That was a letter that I
signed that we sent just prior to----
Mr. Cuellar. From FEMA over to the FCC.
General Rainville. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That letter was a
result of our receiving the draft rulemaking, not for any
reason other than some errors on our part and realizing that
there were some legal questions about the scope or the
extension that an aggregator would require in FEMA's role and
the need to clarify those authorities before we committed FEMA
as the Federal entity. So I wrote that letter to the FCC at
their request. They were very gracious and just took FEMA out
specifically and gave us the time, the last couple of months to
work with them and with NOAA and internally to make sure that
we clarified all those issues and could move forward.
That is what I am saying. I think we are very, very close
to moving forward.
Mr. Dicks. How long has this decision-making process been
underway so far? How long has this been out there waiting to be
decided upon?
General Rainville. We realized this as an issue the first
week of February.
Mr. Dicks. 2008?
General Rainville. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. So this is rather recent then?
General Rainville. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir, Mr. Dicks. My time is up, but let me
ask you----
Mr. Dicks. You can have my time.
Mr. Cuellar. No, that is all right. Can you explain why
FEMA feels it might be in the best position to perform these
responsibilities? Do you feel FEMA should be the agency?
General Rainville. Sir, we see FEMA's long role in the
emergency alerting system and our role in working very closely
with State and local governments in alerts and warnings as well
as continuity of operations really across the spectrum of
emergencies. So we do feel that we have the technical ability
and that if you use these last few months to really define what
that aggregator and Federal gateway function is and to see how
it would really fit into integrated public alert and warnings
for the cell industry and other ways of delivering the message.
So I believe this is very important for FEMA to seriously look
at, and that is what the Administrator will be deciding on.
Mr. Cuellar. Let me just follow up on what Mr. Dicks
mentioned a few minutes ago. What I would like for you to do
and submit to the committee is the goals under the Executive
order, where we are in meeting each of the specific goals and,
if there has been a problem why you haven't been able to meet
one of those goals, tell us why, the reason. I also want to see
some timelines, because, like Mr. Dicks said, how long is the
decision-making process going to be going on until we take some
positive steps in that direction.
Mr. Dicks. There needs to be legislative clarification, as
you suggested. I think this is the committee that would have to
do it.
General Rainville. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Absolutely.
Mr. Dicks. We would be prepared to do it. If this is what
is holding it up, we need to hear from you on this.
General Rainville. We will get that to you as soon as
possible.
Mr. Cuellar. So I need each goal to make sure we have the
integrated system, why we have not been able to meet those
goals, what do you need for it to be done and whether it is
statutory authority or whatever it might be and timetables. I
think that is what Norm was talking about. We need timetables
provided to the committee 7 days from today.
General Rainville. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Cuellar. I have some other questions. I will wait on
the second round. At this time I would like to recognize Ms.
Miller, who is standing in for Mr. Dent, and she will be the
next person. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I actually
had a different question, but I find this line of questioning
from the Chairman and my colleague very interesting as well. So
let me just follow up on that. I had some verbiage here from
this letter that was in February 2008 that we are talking about
from FEMA to FCC, saying that the agency does not have
statutory authority to transmit alerts originated by States and
local authorities. You lack the clear legal authority during
emergencies, et cetera.
As you are responding back to the committee as the Chairman
had asked you, could you also take a look at--I mean, I don't
know, it would seem to me what about Congress just shifting
this? I don't want to take your job away from you, but
shouldn't it go perhaps to NOAA? NOAA really is the responsible
agency at this point for the warning mission, et cetera. I
don't know if you have any comment on that. Maybe it is too
simplistic. But perhaps it should just go to the agency that is
responsible for it, sort of streamlining the process. Could we
streamline the process by doing such a thing?
General Rainville. Well, I will respond briefly. I am not
sure it would streamline the process, because what we have and
we are partnering very closely with NOAA, because we can both
add redundancies to our alert and warning systems. As you know,
NOAA offers all the alerts and warnings right now. FEMA and
IPAWS has as a mission the maintenance of the emergency
alerting system and maintaining the ability for the President
to send the national message out to all Americans.
So what we are doing with IPAWS is we are taking that
mission, that key mission, enabling it and updating its
technology, and then having the infrastructure that the States
and locals can piggyback on to use their State and local
messaging. The legal question that came up and the reason that
we asked for a little bit of time to work it out was the
question of whether an aggregator would require us to get down
into the States and locals and become involved in their
messaging, which would have been something different for FEMA
to do.
I believe that the EAS is appropriately in FEMA, that this
is a good responsibility for us. I know that we are working all
of these questions out, but we provide each other redundancy
between FEMA and NOAA, and I think that is a very good for the
country.
Mrs. Miller. Well, let me also mention that I certainly
appreciate all of the witnesses that we have here today. I do
not envy you your jobs, because it is a very difficult thing.
You have to be right 100 percent of the time or someone is
second-guessing you about when you didn't notify them or the
kinds of information that was in the notification process. I
think this committee and Congress certainly recognizes that the
largest room is always the room for improvement. That is what
we are really about here, as we to try to improve the
notification system.
In regards to NOAA--this may be a question for the General
again--but I am a lifetime boater. So I am quite familiar with
the NOAA weather buoys, I use them all the time. We do long
distance racing, et cetera, and they are great. You have a lot
of black--I don't know how many, maybe that is my question, how
many black zones there are, where the NOAA weather buoys are
not as all inclusive as they need to be. In fact in my
district--I am holding my district up, because in Michigan we
always have a map of the State at the end of our arm. I have
this area here, from about this knuckle up to the tip of the
thumb. Just recently this year, NOAA is putting in a new
weather buoy because up at the tip of the thumb we have been
sort of a black zone where they haven't been able to get the
weather information that they need. Yet we have some of the
best wind in the country. We are putting huge wind farms in
right now.
But I am just wondering how many, if anyone is familiar,
with how many black zones there are out there or how we may be
able to improve some of the weather buoy systems that we have.
I think there are at least one other that we think is necessary
in Michigan, in the Great Lakes area, that I am aware of.
As part of that question I am aware now that DHS is
partnering with NOAA to give out other information through this
system. What is that exactly? Would you be able to pick up if
there is terrorist activity and you are listening to the
weather service there? What other information are going to be
conduit through this?
General Rainville. Well, first I would have to ask you to
refer to NOAA the questions about the black space because I
really can't answer that.
I can tell you what IPAWS is working with with NOAA, but
other parts of the Department of Homeland Security are also
working with NOAA because they have a tremendous amount of
capability that we can all use in our areas. We are working
with NOAA particularly on their geotargeting capability, and
their plume modeling, being able to add that to our quiver, if
you will, and to be able to incorporate that into emergency
managers using it to send out alerts.
We are also working with NOAA, we are going to be deploying
as part of the hurricane season some mobile capability that
will allow NOAA to reconstitute the connectivity between their
offices and their transmitters for the weather field offices.
Anything else I would have to defer to others, ma'am.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Gibb. I am almost out of time here.
Mr. Gibb. I would like to say we have partnered very
closely with the National Weather Service. We have five
forecast offices that serve the State of New York. We are
working closely with them to make automatic their warnings and
advisories so they go automatically through NY-ALERT to the
intended recipient population.
We are going to update our user portal this summer so that
individuals can sign up for the exact kind of weather
information they want. You can either sign up for all the
weather products. You may get dozens of different updates
during the day or as an individual you may only want to know if
there is a severe thunderstorm warning or a tornado warning,
and the users will be able to identify the exact type of
weather information that they want. We are working to automate
that completely across our system.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar [presiding.] At this time I recognize Mr. Dicks
from the State of Washington.
Mr. Dicks. This is for Major General Rainville and Lisa
Fowlkes. What would happen to a country if a variety of alert
management functions were activated based on a spoofed message?
General Rainville. I think we will team on this answer,
sir, if that is all right. We do have within the Emergency
Alert System security to help prevent a spoof message from
going through. When we look at the improvements we are speaking
of to IPAWS, even to increase security as a part of that. So
that any local emergency management official, State or local,
that puts a message in has to be approved by the system. They
have certain authorities they have to match in the system
itself. Based on that person limits the frequency that can be
used, which limits the area the message can be received. That
is a part of each State's EAS plan which is on file with the
FCC.
So I will defer to the FCC for further discussion.
Mr. Fowlkes. I can speak in the context of the CMAS. One of
the functions of the Commercial Mobile Alert System and in fact
one of the functions of the alert aggregator is to authenticate
better alerts that are coming in. In other words, what the
committee recommended was a function where the alert
aggregator, using what they called a trust model. What the
trust model is it lays out a bunch of procedures that the
aggregator would use to authenticate an alert that is coming,
whether it is coming in from a Federal, State, local or tribal
government to ensure that, for example, it was coming in from
an authorized public safety agency. It is in essence a valid
alert.
Mr. Dicks. Yeah.
Mr. Fowlkes. The point of that is to authenticate that
alert before it goes further into the system, into the other
pieces of the system.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Duncan, you mentioned the need for
coordination between the Federal Government, the State and
local governments, but emphasized that this is really a local
responsibility. What is it you expect from the Federal
Government? What is the appropriate role for the Federal
Government and how do you see them best helping you?
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you for that question. I think this
is a great opportunity to kind of discuss roles and
responsibilities with regard to warnings. I think there is a
very clearly established Federal interest in the President
being able to communicate with the public in case of a national
alert. But I think that the largest number of alerts that
happen are first and foremost a local government
responsibility, and I think what we would look for here is
support from the Federal Government that doesn't add additional
time or difficulty in getting the alert and warning message
out.
One of the key points we would kindly request you all to
remember is that particularly with regard to tornados and other
fast moving emergencies, minutes may make the difference
between life and death. So we ask that whatever process is
created, it not add too much additional time. We would also be
very----
Mr. Dicks. In other words, from getting the message from
NOAA and the Weather Service out there, don't run it through a
bunch of hoops, right?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dicks. Are you worried that that is going to happen or
is it happening now?
Mr. Duncan. We are worried that there is a potential for
that, sir. We are also worried that if FEMA does not have a key
role in this mission that there would be some other issues,
because again we would remind you FEMA is the only Federal
partner that has the all-hazards mission.
Mr. Dicks. Mr. Gibb, do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Gibb. Only to say that with modern technology there is
really no reason why the alerts cannot be automated. Again with
respect to especially tornado warnings, it is one thing if you
are putting out a winter storm warning that has the forecast
for tomorrow. You have the luxury of time. I think NOAA's
performance standard for tornado warnings is along the lines of
13 minutes. They might be predict a tornado and so local
emergency managers are really under the gun to get that message
out.
Tornado warning in New York State, local emergency manager
would be able to go to the NY-ALERT Web page, put in the
message or cut and paste the NOAA message, get that information
simultaneously out to every subscriber in the EAS system. Then
go a second route to get the message through to the Federal
Government to come back down through the CMAS system. It is
going to be dated, it will be late information. Again, I think
we should work together to make sure that those processes are
as automated as possible.
Mr. Dicks. General, are we going to do that? Are we going
to work with these local people to make sure that time is of
the essence?
General Rainville. Yes, sir, absolutely. We are very
sensitive to the concerns of the States and locals with the
timing of the message and the control of their messages and to
their residents. We have used this time since that letter went
out also in defining the aggregator and gateway functions to
make sure that there would be no delay. Right now just remember
that that rulemaking pertains only to the cell alerts. There
are many other alerts going out as well and we look forward to
working even more with State and locals, but FEMA has that
network and we absolutely hear what he is saying and we agree.
Mr. Dicks. I know my time has expired. Let me ask Mr. Gibb,
you mentioned something about money, that there was some
concern about utilization of money. Can you explain that to us?
I'm on the Appropriations Committee as well.
Mr. Gibb. Through the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
when a State has a declared disaster there are mitigation funds
that are made available to the States. Typically alert
notification systems fall out outside of fundable projections.
There is a 5 percent set-aside for States. We had wanted to use
those funds to increase our dollar capacity from $250 to 1250
dial lines, but we were not allowed to use the funding. We have
already found another source of funds to do that, but we just
feel that there should be latitude on the part of local and
State agencies to use available Federal funds to make these
types of investments.
Mr. Dicks. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. In fact let me modify
what I asked you to do, Ms. Rainville. Instead of 7 days, make
it 10 days. But I will ask you to talk to Ms. Fowlkes, talk to
Mr. Gibb, talk to Mr. Duncan, get their input, just following
the line that Mr. Dicks brought up. I need for you to go ahead
on the timetables and the goals that are not being met, make
sure we give the local folks the opportunity to bring in some
of the thoughts. So instead of 7 days it will be 10 days. I do
want you to work with both committee staffs to make sure that
we get this correctly. Okay?
At this time I recognize Mr. Etheridge, the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank each
of you for being here. Let me ask a question in a little
different way. Before I came here I was a State superintendent
of schools in North Carolina and I always like to know what we
are doing in terms of education simply because children spend
most of their days in public schools, and emergencies, man-made
or natural, tend to hit when they are in school. I would like
to know as it relates to make sure that the robust emergency
notification systems are available at schools and that
development of the Integrated Public Awareness and Warning
System considers the systems that are in place in our public
schools.
So General, how does DHS consider the needs of local school
agencies in developing the emergency notification system, or
are they?
General Rainville. Thank you for that question. I can talk
to you about what we have considered with the schools as it
relates to the integrated public alert and warning system. We
worked with NOAA to distribute weather--alert weather radios to
systems----
Mr. Etheridge. To all school systems?
General Rainville. I believe it was to all public school
systems, and there are still some left to be distributed. From
my understanding that was a program that predated the program
management office here.
We also, though, want to be sure and we are working to
ensure that a system that we devise and develop through IPAWS
is one that will integrate the systems that the local and State
governments have, including our schools, so that the systems
they choose are compatible and will work with that national
infrastructure.
We also as part of IPAWS have as a goal coming out with
standards and protocols, so that when a school system wants to
purchase alert and warning hardware they will know that
whatever company they are contracting with can meet the
guidelines that have been developed so that it is all
compatible.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. That being said then, Ms.
Fowlkes, let me ask you: Has the FCC considered the special
needs of schools and their planning and do the rules for cell
phone alert consider the impact for such alerts on children and
school facilities so that they are integrated?
Ms. Fowlkes. The rules that have been adopted thus far have
focused narrowly on the technical requirements that the
carriers will have to comply with if they decide to participate
in the program, in addition to which the entire architecture
takes into account alerts coming from all sectors.
Mr. Etheridge. So is that a yes or a no?
Ms. Fowlkes. I don't think it is a yes or a no.
Mr. Etheridge. Can you get the answer and get it back to
us?
Ms. Fowlkes. Yes.
[The information follows:]
The Commission's Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules are designed to
ensure ubiquitous transmission of national-level alerts and require
broadcast radio and television, cable television, satellite radio and
television, and IPTV providers to participate in the EAS, unless they
have a waiver from the Commission. Receipt and transmission of State
and local alerts is voluntary, but most broadcasters participate at
this level as well. Therefore, all schools that are equipped with one
or more TV or radios would have adequate EAS coverage. In addition,
FEMA/DHS, the Department of Education, and NOAA have developed a
program to distribute Public Alert Radios to schools. For more
information on that program, see: http://public-alert-
radio.nws.noaa.gov/.
Under the rules adopted by the Commission in April 2008, commercial
mobile service (CMS) providers who elect to transmit emergency alerts
must receive and transmit the following information as part of the
Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) alert: (1) type of alert; (2) the
area affected; (3) recommended action; (4) expiration time; and (5) the
agency from whom the alert was sent. See In the Matter of Commercial
Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, First Report and Order, FCC
08-99, 1, 20, para.para. 41-42 (rel. April 9, 2008) (``CMAS First
Report and Order''). It is expected that CMAS alerts will contain
information similar to what would typically appear in a standard
National Weather Service message--a simple, declarative statement that
should be understandable and actionable by children with cell phones.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay. That will be helpful. Thank you. One
other question. In just about 9 months, the Nation will be
making the transition to digital television. In that it means
that television stations will stop broadcasting with analog
signals and switch to digital transmissions. My question is
that a lot of folks who live in rural areas in America have
radios that are tied to their TV that broadcasts the signal not
in the visual but in the sound. By and large, those folks may
not have gotten notice from the emergency alert system when
that goes off, because you have got that tied, when the
emergency alert, as you know, goes off, it sounds across the TV
and they will pick it up on the radio. So my question to you,
has the FCC looked into this issue, and if so, how do you
propose to address it? Do people need to go out and buy weather
radios or find a good AM/FM radio that will work in this
regard? You know, I think these are some things we may not have
thought through, but we sure need to let folks know, especially
in rural areas more so than in urban areas.
Ms. Fowlkes. I actually cannot speak to that issue. What I
can certainly do is----
Mr. Etheridge. Get that information and get it back to us?
Ms. Fowlkes. Yes.
[The information follows:]
A primary mission of the FCC is to ensure that all radio listeners
receive effective EAS coverage. All radio broadcasters are required to
carry the national emergency alert message. The transition to digital
TV in February 2009 will not affect that requirement or the ability of
listeners of AM and FM stations to receive emergency alerts. The vast
majority of radios that operate in the TV band also operate in the AM
and FM bands. Therefore, these radio owners will continue to have full
access to EAS alerts after the DTV transition. To the extent that there
is a sufficient demand for a DTV audio receiver to allow people to
continue to listen to the aural signals of their TV stations,
manufacturers would develop audio receivers to meet that demand.
Mr. Etheridge. Would you please, and do that within 10 days
if that is possible. Thank you. Finally, one of the reasons
given for the digital transmission is to free up the analog
spectrum for first responders. My question is, how will this
new use of the spectrum fit into an integrated alert and
warning system? Can either of you respond to that? If not, can
you get that information and get it back to us.
Ms. Fowlkes. Speaking on behalf of the FCC, I will get that
information and get back to you.
Mr. Etheridge. Would you work that with the General,
because that is important, because that spectrum will be
available for our emergency first responders?
Ms. Fowlkes. Yes.
[The information follows:]
Answer. Spectrum designated for use by first responders in the 700
MHz is not used in alert and warning systems for the public. Spectrum
recently auctioned in the 700 MHz band for commercial use will provide
commercial wireless providers with spectrum that can support the
voluntary transmission of emergency alerts to subscribers' mobile
devices through the CMAS as contemplated by the Warning Alert and
Response Network (WARN) Act.
General Rainville. We will work with the FCC to see if
there is a role for IPAWS in that, yes, sir.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Etheridge. At this time I
recognize the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands--she is not
here. So the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms.
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As you know,
Mr. Chairman, I have an interest, as you do, in this area
because my subcommittee has the all-hazards jurisdiction of the
Stafford Act. What we are talking about, the existing authority
we are talking about comes from Section 202, Disaster Warnings,
and section 611(d) Communications and Warnings of the Stafford
Act. FEMA was given the authority for these alerts. I was
particularly interested in testimony about the pilots. On June
26, 2006, the President issued an executive order, 13407, which
requires the modernization of the EAS. It identifies the
Secretary of Homeland Security as the lead. He has delegated
that to FEMA.
So as a result of that, my Republican counterparts began
working on a bill for the modernization of the system, and, in
fact, have asked me to join them, and I have, and have
introduced a bill to modernize the system. It has a name, in
any case. We were concerned with modernization. We know that
FEMA is running the program and has always run the program
administratively under both the executive order and the
Stafford Act. Now, I want to--I was particularly interested in
pilot projects. First, let me ask, in both my own subcommittee
and in this committee, after 9/11 we have, as you might expect,
focused on interoperable communications or equipment.
Now, when we modernize, that is certainly part of what we
are talking about. But is that all we are talking about? When
we talk about the communications and the interoperative
necessity here, what else besides the equipment is in mind,
bearing in mind that almost always, as your pilot projects
demonstrate, we are not talking about terrorist events at all.
God willing we will never be talking about terrorist events.
So I want to know since what we are talking about every
year are hurricanes, what we are talking about every year are
earthquakes, what we are talking about every year are floods.
So I want to know is what else is there to this communication
besides the equipment? If we have the equipment, is that all to
it? Can we all go to bed and have a good night sleep?
Mr. Duncan. Good morning, Representative, and thank you for
the question. I think you asked an extremely interesting and
insightful question, because one of the first thoughts that
comes into my mind as a local person is typically we define
interoperable communications as the ability of everybody to
speak with everybody, yet if everybody can speak with everybody
all the time, essentially what you have is chaos. So I would
like to suggest that it is kind of like the crowd in advance of
a performance at the symphony or whatever. There is lots of
different conversations going on, everybody can talk, but real
interoperable communications doesn't begin until the crowd gets
quiet and the players actually begin to perform.
So I would like to suggest that equally as important as the
equipment is essentially the rules and the governance that
operate interoperable communications.
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Mr. Gibb. I would also like to add that modern alert
warning systems, again, like NY-ALERT, that we can take
interoperability sort of off the table. We can broadcast a
message across radio systems if we need to, as well as get the
information to people's cell phones, you know, or to their e-
mails, so that there is multiple pathways by which first
responders or citizens can be notified.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Rainville, part of your testimony that
interested me were these pilot projects. I don't believe
anything until it is tested in real-time. You indicated that
you tested this in places where we would expect these alerts in
our country to be most needed; in Alabama, Louisiana and
Mississippi. Of course, FEMA has been doing this all along.
What were the differences that you found given the fact that
you have been routinely doing this since 1979, you have been
doing this in all kinds of natural disasters, what were the
differences you found this time?
General Rainville. Thank you for bringing that up. We found
that there is more to this than equipment. Some of the
differences we found, we have States like New York that have a
very robust alert and warning capability. We went into the
pilots in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama and found States
that did not have that robust capability. In fact, when we were
working with the service providers and the States on the pilot
for the ETN or enhanced telephone notification, about the push
calling, we have a capability to push 60,000 calls in 10
minutes to targeted counties at the call of the governor or
those emergency managers. But we found that the telephone
structure in the State couldn't support that, that they have
old switching and they need to do that.
Ms. Norton. Was this part of what happened in Katrina, by
the way?
General Rainville. That I don't know. We weren't piloting
these capabilities there. But that is why we felt it was
important to get into those States and really work with them.
We provided training, because it is also about training, to
emergency managers so that they understand how to use the EAS
and what these new capabilities can do. So I would suggest that
in addition to interoperability, it is important that we have
integration, and that we work with each other and we integrate
these capabilities, that we have standard protocols that we all
understand, so that, again, with upgrading the Federal system
and really making that a much more powerful system, those
States and locals can piggyback off of that and have those same
capabilities to offer to their residents.
Ms. Norton. Well, finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill, and I
hope you will join me because of our joint interest in this
subject, our modernization won't be worth much unless we deal
with what you have just spoken about. We can have all the
capability in the world, and we are not going to pay for this.
Obviously, the States and the localities are going to have to
understand what it takes in equipment. I am pleased to say I
think many of them, as I witnessed as already indicated,
understand what they need to do on the ground. Because they
have been working together for a very long time on natural
disasters.
The notion of robust equipment across the States is very
troubling, because New York has it, because New York
experienced, and may have had it all along, but it experienced
the ultimate disaster. However, that was in one city, it was in
one place in that city, it was certainly not like a flood
plain, for example, and it didn't resemble at all a hurricane.
So I suppose my final question would be, are the States aware
of the fact that even given the bill that we just introduced,
that it will be necessary for them to perhaps overhaul their
own equipment in order for this process to be complete and
whole?
General Rainville. I know that the States that we have
worked with and the feedback that we are getting through our
FEMA regions would lead us to believe that it is a mixed bag.
Some States are aware, some States aren't.
Ms. Norton. Well, what is FEMA doing to make them
understand that this is not even half of the problem? Most of
what we are going to be talking about, the alert isn't even
going to start in Washington. Most of what we are talking about
is going to start on the ground in a locale. Washington is good
only if there is some terrible horrible thing that happens. We
better be prepared for that the next time.
But essentially, 99-point-whatever percent of the time we
are talking about, yes, FEMA getting down there because it may
be a Stafford Act event, but we are basically talking about us
dealing with you and getting some people down there. So I am
very worried that the focus on our own interoperability,
important as it is, something we have done all along, because
after all, this is the Homeland Security Committee and we have
got to concerned with that 1 percent, or whatever it turns out
to be, I am concerned that if there were an event, a Homeland
Security event, a terrorist event or some kind of natural
disaster which needed to use the system where Washington, in
fact, was well suited, but the people on the ground were not
prepared, for example, for a Katrina or anything even remotely
like it, then we are really not dealing with all parts of the
problem. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. At this time I recognize the
gentlewoman from New York, Mrs. Lowey, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
all of the witnesses appearing before the committee today. I
would particularly like to welcome Director Gibb from the New
York State Emergency Management Office. He has been with the
State for more than 20 years. I know that if the unfortunate
event ever happens again, the State is in good hands and well
prepared. It is a pleasure to see you today. In order to build
resiliency, all of the DHS component agencies must work closely
with one another. One concern that I have had for a while is
that some in DHS do not heed the calls to support State alert
systems such as NY-ALERT.
Last week, the full committee heard testimony from
Assistant Secretary Baker, who appraised alert systems. I gave
him an overview of NY-ALERT, and he said it was exactly the
type of system his office encourages. Unfortunately, that
sentiment is not shared by the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
that prohibits funds for being used for alert networks. Well,
frankly this defies common sense, as a benefit of an alert
system is to mitigate the impact of all hazards. This is
indicative of a larger problem with grants. When public safety
agencies in New York receive Federal funds, it doesn't mean the
State can go on a shopping spree at the mall. It means the
Federal Government is assisting with vital State programs. We
need to reform our grant process so that the most pressing
needs are addressed first, instead of providing an equal share
to those with unequal needs first. Doing so would ensure that
funds are available for vital programs such as NY-ALERT.
So Director Gibb, has DHS provided any justification for
explicitly preventing certain grant programs from being used
for alert systems?
Mr. Gibb. Well, thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for
your continued support for NY-ALERT and for all your efforts to
reauthorize the predisaster mitigation program, which is a big
issue for the States as well. Our disappointment with the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program was that the 5 percent set
aside for serious disasters, including one in the Nor'easter
that impacted severely your district in April 2007, that those
disasters generated hazard mitigation grant funds, a percentage
of which are typically made available to the States to support
a host of State projects.
We requested that to FEMA, that we would really like to
invest that money, not to pay for all of NY-ALERT, but just to
upgrade our dialer capacity, the number of phone lines that we
could utilize to notify residents of an emergency situation. It
was on the order of $1.6 million. The FEMA mitigation folks let
us know that they thought it was too large amount of money for
one project and a precedent in setting approval for alert
notification systems.
So that is the reasons we were given for its denial. That
being said, you know, we could have potentially used Homeland
Security grant funds, I think, to support NY-ALERT initiatives.
But as you know, in New York State, our State office Homeland
Security is very concerned about making sure that maximum
amounts of those dollars get down to the local levels and 80
percent of those dollars are required to be at the local
levels. We haven't tapped that State 20 percent. Governor
Patterson again this year wants to keep the ball rolling in
terms of NY-ALERT and its allocated State funds to make sure
that the system would bill it down. The savings that we are
generating for local governments and for the university systems
around the State can't be understated.
As opposed to each of the 57 counties, or Westchester
County or State university systems going out and procuring
their own alert notification systems. The investment is well
justified at our State level because we are supporting
literally dozens and dozens of local entities in their alert
and warning requirements.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I thank you. What about General
Rainville, do you agree with Assistant Secretary Baker's
assessment that alert systems strengthen resiliency?
General Rainville. I would absolutely agree with that
statement. We through the integrated public alert and warning
want to encourage States to look out and to prioritize the
capabilities that are right for their State for alerts and
warnings. All the different types of capabilities we piloted,
some will work well for some States based on their hazards than
others, so we certainly agree with that.
Mrs. Lowey. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can follow up
because to have this difference of opinion within the
Department certainly doesn't serve us well. I want to thank
particularly Mr. Gibb, and of course all our panelists, for
appearing before us today at this hearing, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. They are going to call
us probably in the next 5, 10 minutes to vote. I think we
pretty much finished the line of questioning. The only thing I
would like to, again, restate, that General, if you can get
together with all folks here and give them an opportunity to
set up the request that we have made of you all. The only thing
I do ask, and I am just going on past experiences, if it is 10
days, we mean, 10 days and not 2 months. So you all need to
work pretty hard to get us that information, okay?
General Rainville. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. I want to thank all the witnesses for their
testimony and the members for their questions. The members of
the subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses. If they do have some, we will ask you to respond to
them as soon as possible in writing to those questions. Hearing
no further business the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar to Major General Martha Rainville
(Ret.), Assistant Administrator, National Continuity Programs, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security
Question 1a. In a letter dated February 19, 2008 you request the
FCC to refrain from identifying a Federal agency to take on the role of
alert aggregator and gateway--a critical component of the Commercial
Mobile Alert System or CMAS.
How can FEMA expand the traditional alert and warning system to
include modern technologies like mobile cellphones--when in the same
letter, you state that FEMA lacks the statutory authority during non-
emergency periods to develop, implement or operate elements of the
cutting-edge delivery of messages over wireless devices?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1b. On what basis do you believe that FEMA lacks the
statutory authority to implement a nationwide Integrated Public Alert
and Warning System?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 1c. Do you have a legal opinion from the Office of the
General Counsel at FEMA on this interpretation of your lack of
statutory authority? If so, we would like a copy.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. What is the exact role of the Disaster Management
Interoperability Services (DMIS) in alerting and warning the public
during a time of disaster?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Lisa M. Fowlkes, Deputy
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission
Question 1a. As you state in your testimony, one of the key
recommendations from the CMSAAC was that the Alert Aggregator and Alert
Gateway function be administered by a Federal Government agency.
What are the specific roles that an Aggregator performs?
Answer. The Alert Aggregator serves as the point of entry into the
Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) for alerts that will be
transmitted by participating Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) providers
(i.e., those that elect to participate in the CMAS). The Alert
Aggregator would ``receive, aggregate, and authenticate alerts
originated by authorized alert initiators (i.e., Federal, State, tribal
and local government agencies) using the Common Alerting Protocol
(CAP).'' In the Matter of The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket
No. 07-287, First Report and Order, FCC 08-99, 10 (released April 9,
2008) (``CMAS First Report and Order''). The Alert Aggregator would
authenticate alerts received from initiators using a ``Trust Model,'' a
list of security procedures designed to ensure the validity of alerts
received into the CMAS. Id.
Question 1b. Can you explain what the next steps are to get CMAS
off the drawing board and into the hands of the American public?
Answer. The WARN Act requires the Commission to adopt rules by July
8, 2008, requiring noncommercial educational (NCE) and public broadcast
stations to install equipment and technologies necessary to enable
geographic targeting by CMS providers that choose to transmit emergency
alerts. WARN Act, 602(c). Next, the WARN Act requires the Commission
to adopt rules by August 7, 2008, governing, among other things, the
process whereby CMS providers must notify the Commission whether they
plan to participate in the CMAS. WARN Act, 602(b).
Next, CMS providers must notify the Commission of their decision to
participate in the CMAS within 30 days after the Commission issues
rules governing the election and other processes related to
participation in the CMAS. WARN Act, 602(b).
The timeline for initial CMAS deployment will depend on how quickly
both the Federal Aggregator/Gateway and the wireless industry can
complete and test their respective portions of the CMAS.
Question 1c. Can you explain why FEMA, as you state may be in the
best position to perform these functions?
Answer. As the Commission noted in the CMAS First Report and Order,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and more specifically FEMA,
traditionally has been responsible for origination of Presidential
alerts and administration of the Emergency Alert System (EAS).
Moreover, Executive Order 13407 gives DHS primary responsibility for
implementing the United States' policy ``to have an effective,
reliable, integrated, flexible and comprehensive system to alert and
warn the American people in situations of war, terrorist attack,
natural disaster or other hazards to public safety and well-being.''
Public Alert and Warning System, Executive Order No. 13407, 71 Fed.
Reg. 36975, 1 (June 26, 2006) (Executive Order 13407).
Moreover, FEMA played an integral role in the development of the
CMSAAC's recommendations. FEMA chaired the Alert Interface Group (AIG),
which was responsible for addressing issues at the front-end of the
CMAS architecture (e.g., receipt and aggregation of alerts, development
of trust model to authenticate alerts from various sources). It also
represented the AIG before the CMSAAC Project Management Group (PMG),
which coordinated the work of all the other CMSAAC working groups and
assembled the CMSAAC recommendations document. In addition, FEMA voted
to adopt the CMSAAC recommendations in October 2007, which include CMAS
reliance on a single Federal authority to fulfill the alert aggregator/
gateway functions. CMAS First Report and Order, 16-17.
Question 1d. What specific recommendations were adopted in the FCC
Report and Order to include the disabled community and others with
special needs?
Answer. To address the needs of people with disabilities and the
elderly, the Commission required that all CMAS-capable handsets must
include a unique audio attention signal and vibration cadence. CMAS
First Report and Order, at 65-67.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Major General Martha
Rainville (Ret.), Assistant Administrator, National Continuity
Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security
Question 1a. As indicated by the line of questioning at the recent
hearing, there is still some confusion regarding statutory authorities
to administer the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)
once it is established.
Does the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) believe it has
the statutory authority to administer and implement the IPAWS program
nationwide?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 1b. When can we expect a Federal agency to be appointed to
receive and transmit warnings?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 1c. When is full operational capability of a completely
integrated national alert and warning system expected?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2a. In April 2008, Oregon police reported that false AMBER
Alert text messages were being sent to the public. False information
can impact the effectiveness of alert and warning programs and damage
public confidence.
How will IPAWS prevent such false messages?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Currently, the Federal Government is working to
consolidate the number of internet access points to enhance the
security of Federal networks. IPAWS would likely add an additional
access point. By adding a gateway or increasing the traffic flow over
Federal networks, would the government be increasing security risks and
adding delays in message transmission?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 3. A 2007 Congressional Research Service report on the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) indicated that there was a lack of
involvement of stakeholders and recommended that the Department of
Homeland Security increase its stakeholder outreach.\1\ What is FEMA
doing to ensure that stakeholders at all levels are actively engaged in
the development of new alert and warning capabilities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Emergency Alert System and All-Hazards Warnings (RL32527),
Congressional Research Service, Updated May 5, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 4a. It is my understanding that FEMA and its Federal
partners are working to test elements of IPAWS through pilot programs
at 14 locations across the country, including New York City and the
Gulf States.
How would you characterize the outcomes of the pilot programs?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 4b. Have the programs been successful?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 4c. What lessons have been learned that will better inform
the development of new alert and warning capabilities?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 4d. How much advance notice were the States given prior to
the termination of any pilot programs?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 4e. What has been done to ensure that the alert and
warning capabilities provided by pilot programs did not immediately end
upon termination of a pilot?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 5a. One of the businesses involved in the IPAWS pilot
programs continues to allow the State to utilize its system despite
discontinued funding from FEMA. Additionally, as Mr. Gibb noted in his
written testimony, New York currently funds the NY-ALERT program with
State resources.
What is the traditional funding mechanism for alert and warning
programs?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 5b. Will States require additional funding to integrate
their systems with IPAWS?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 5c. What plans are in place to review any applicable grant
programs that might provide funds to supplement State costs in
creating, enhancing, or integrating their alert and warning systems?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 5d. What is FEMA's position on the use of Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funds to develop and support alert and
warning systems?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 6. Congress and the Department remain committed to
strengthening the Nation's ability to plan and prepare for all-hazard
disaster scenarios. As part of this effort, satellite communications
have proven to be uniquely capable of providing reliable, survivable,
and redundant communications to our first responders during times of
crisis.
How does FEMA use satellite communications in alerts and warnings?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 7. FEMA recently participated in the Federal Continuity of
Operations (COOP) exercise.
Were the national alert and warning systems tested as part of this
exercise? If not, are there plans to include this portion in an
upcoming senior level exercise?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 8a. A formal public-private partnership to develop and
implement IPAWS has yet to be formalized due to a delay in receiving
approval to establish an Advisory Committee that would allow
communication between FEMA and private stakeholders.
When can we expect that this committee will be stood up?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 8b. Why has it taken so long to formalize this
partnership?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 8c. Has FEMA taken steps to facilitate the informal
involvement of the private sector in the development and testing of
IPAWS?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 9a. The Disaster Management Interoperability Services
(DMIS) program, operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
is intended to provide interoperability services to the responder
community and integrate with the National Weather Service warnings.
What specific office at DHS is administering this program?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 9b. How does the DMIS program relate to the IPAWS program?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Lisa M. Fowlkes,
Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission
Question 1. In April 2008, Oregon police reported that false AMBER
Alert text messages were being sent to the public. False information
can impact the effectiveness of alert and warning programs and damage
public confidence.
Currently, the Federal Government is working to consolidate the
number of internet access points to enhance the security of Federal
networks. The Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) would
likely add an additional access point. By adding a gateway or
increasing the traffic flow over Federal networks, would the government
be increasing security risks and adding delays in message transmission?
Answer. The FCC does not have responsibility for the IPAWS and,
therefore, cannot comment specifically on its security measures. With
respect to the CMAS, one of the functions of the alert aggregator would
be to authenticate the alerts received from alert initiators. In fact,
as part of their recommendations, the CMSAAC proposed security measures
for the CMAS including CMAS alerts received by the Alert Aggregator and
the Alert Gateway.
Question 2. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is administered by the
Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency
with support from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which
ensures compliance with existing regulations.
What specific work does the FCC perform as part of its supporting
role in administering the EAS program?
Answer. The FCC's role is to prescribe rules that establish
technical standards for EAS, procedures for EAS participants to follow
in the event EAS is activated and EAS testing protocols. The FCC also
enforces its EAS rules and takes enforcement action, where appropriate.
Question 3a. On April 10, 2008, the FCC adopted rules for the
Nation's wireless carriers to transmit timely and accurate alerts,
warnings, and other critical information by short message service (SMS)
or text-based alerts to cell phones and other devices.
What is the status of the industry involvement in developing these
new rules to facilitate timely transmission of alerts and warnings?
Answer. The Commission's April 9, 2008 Order did not specify that
participating CMS providers must deliver emergency alerts using SMS
technology. Rather, the Commission, in adopting technical rules
governing the transmission of CMAS alerts, adopted a technologically
neutral approach which allows participating CMS providers to use any
technology so long as they are able to comply with the Commission's
technical rules. CMAS First Report and Order, 35-36 (noting CMSAAC's
concern about the suitability of SMS and other point-to-point
technologies for the CMAS, the Commission neither required nor
foreclosed the use of these and other technologies for the transmission
of CMAS alerts).
Wireless industry representatives played an integral role in the
development of the CMSAAC's recommendations. In addition, the wireless
industry has, and continues to be, active participants in the
Commission's ongoing rulemaking proceeding.
We understand the wireless carriers have begun industry
standardization in conjunction with standards-setting organizations
such as the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS). With the
issuance of the CMAS First Report and Order, it is the Commission's
expectation that those CMS providers planning to participate in the
CMAS have begun designing their elements of the CMAS in a manner
consistent with the technical requirements adopted in the Order.
Question 3b. Have all of the major carriers agreed to participate?
If not, what are the major concerns that may limit their involvement?
Answer. Under the WARN Act, CMS providers are not required to
inform the Commission of their intent to participate in the CMAS until
30 days after the Commission issues rules governing, among other
things, the election process. Accordingly, we do not expect to hear
officially from the major carriers on this issue until early Fall.
In its CMAS First Report and Order, the Commission generally
adopted the CMSAAC's recommendations which were supported by wireless
carriers who participated in the rulemaking proceeding. It is our hope
that this action, in conjunction with FEMA's decision to serve as the
Alert Aggregator/Gateway, will encourage strong participation by the
wireless industry.
Question 3c. The wireless service providers can send messages using
any technology but most are planning to use cell broadcast. Will this
require the purchase of a new phone? If so, what will be the burden on
consumers?
Answer. The Commission imposed baseline technical requirements for
all handsets that will be used to receive emergency alerts over the
CMAS, but left it to carriers to decide how best to implement those
requirements. In some cases, handsets may only require software
changes, but in most cases, new handsets may be required. The burden on
consumers, if any, will depend on the equipment and network needs of
their service providers.
Question 3d. How will the use of cell broadcast impact the
effectiveness of alert systems and the public's ability to receive
messages?
Answer. In adopting technical requirements for the CMAS, the
Commission did not require the use of cell broadcast or any other
specific technology for the transmission of alerts. Rather, it allowed
participating CMS providers the flexibility to determine what
technologies would be most appropriate for their systems. CMAS First
Report and Order, at 33-38.
It is our understanding that some participating CMS providers may
choose to use point-to-multipoint technologies, such as cell broadcast,
for the transmission of CMAS alerts. Such one-to-many technologies
allow a single message to be delivered to many recipients utilizing
minimal network resources in contrast with point-to-point technologies,
such as SMS, which require that each recipient receive a unique
message.
Question 3e. What rules have been adopted that will ensure that
those members of the public with disabilities or special needs are able
to receive alerts and warnings?
Answer. To address the needs of people with disabilities and the
elderly, the Commission required that all CMAS-capable handsets must
include a unique audio attention signal and vibration cadence. CMAS
First Report and Order, at 65-67.
Question 3f. What is the timeline for implementation of the rules
issued in April by those wireless providers that choose to participate?
Answer. The timeline for initial CMAS deployment will depend on how
quickly both the Federal Aggregator/Gateway and the wireless industry
can complete and test their respective portions of the CMAS. In its
recommendations, the CMSAAC recommended a timeline whereby
participating CMS providers would be able to begin initial deployment
by October 2010. The CMSAAC indicated, however, that this proposed
timeline depends largely on whether the Federal Government meets
certain deliverables.
Question 3g. A 2008 Congressional Research Service report indicates
that there has been uneven implementation of the Commercial Mobile
Alert System (CMAS). How will the FCC ensure that a standard baseline
capability is being implemented?
Answer. The Commission's April 9 Order adopted baseline technical
requirements for those portions of the CMAS controlled by CMS
providers. These are the minimal standards with which all participating
CMS providers must comply and our expectation is that any CMS provider
that elects to transmit emergency alerts as part of the CMAS would be
required to implement these baseline standards. Further, one of the
benefits of a unified Aggregator/Gateway is to ensure consistent
processing, formatting, routing, security and other administration
functions for the CMAS.
Question 4a. A formal public-private partnership to develop IPAWS
has yet to be formalized due to a delay in receiving approval to
establish an Advisory Committee that would allow communications between
FEMA and private stakeholders.
Based on the FCC's role, is your office assisting FEMA in
coordinating with the private sector to ensure stakeholder buy-in on
the front end of the IPAWS development?
Answer. We are assisting FEMA in coordinating with the private
sector and ensuring stakeholder participation in industry summits. Last
month, the Commission hosted a summit on Next Generation EAS which
brought together industry and government stakeholders, including FEMA.
In addition, we regularly attend meetings with FEMA and speak on panels
at EAS conferences and other industry forums.
Question 4b. How is the FCC involved in encouraging the
incorporation of innovative solutions into common technologies to
increase the effectiveness of alerts and warnings?
Answer. Over the past 2 years the Commission has adopted rules that
expand the reach of EAS to newer technologies, such as digital TV,
digital radio, direct broadcast satellite systems, and IPTV systems. We
have required the use of the common alert protocol (CAP) when adopted
by FEMA so that all EAS can utilize a common platform. In addition, as
required by the WARN Act, our April 2008 Order represents a significant
step in providing the American public with a mobile device mechanism
for receiving emergency alerts. This will provide the public with
another method of receiving alerts, particularly in situations when a
person doesn't have access to a broadcast radio or television.
Question 4c. What tests or training will be required to utilize
these technologies?
Answer. We adopted customized testing regimes as well as EAS
operations handbooks for each of the technologies that are now subject
to EAS. The Commission plans to address CMAS testing in a future order.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for John R. Gibb,
Director, New York State Emergency Management Office, State of New York
Question 1. One of the main goals of the Integrated Public Alert
and Warning System (IPAWS) is to convert the current audio-only system
that relies on radio and television broadcasting into a multi-faceted
system that leverages various technological mediums to transmit alerts
and warnings.
Will the implementation timeline for IPAWS impact the functionality
of New York's alert and warning system? Specifically, will the systems
be interoperable?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 2. In April 2008, Oregon police reported that false AMBER
Alert text messages were being sent to the public. Other areas of the
country, including New York and Mississippi, were also reporting the
same false alert message. False information can impact the
effectiveness of alert and warning programs and damage public
confidence.
How did New York respond to this situation?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 3a. States and localities may utilize the Emergency Alert
System (EAS) as available, but participation by broadcast stations is
voluntary.
How often does New York State use the EAS to issue alerts?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 3b. Since participation is voluntary, have you ever
encountered a situation where a station opted not to broadcast an EAS
message that negatively affected the public's ability to prepare for or
respond to an event?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 3c. Do you feel that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has sufficiently included State and local stakeholders in
the development of new alert and warning capabilities?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Question 4. Currently, FEMA and its Federal partners are working to
test elements of the IPAWS program. FEMA is conducting pilot programs
at 14 locations across the country, including New York City and the
Gulf States.
How would you assess the pilot programs as they relate to New York?
Answer. Response was not provided at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Charles W. Dent for Randall C. Duncan,
Vice Chair, Government Affairs Committee, International Association of
Emergency Managers
Question 1. One of the main goals of the Integrated Public Alert
and Warning System (IPAWS) is to convert the current audio-only system
that relies on radio and television broadcasting into a multi-faceted
system that leverages various technological mediums to transmit alerts
and warnings.
Will the implementation timelines for IPAWS impact the
functionality of your State and local alert and warning systems?
Specifically, will the system be interoperable?
Answer. The timeline for implementing the IPAWS system does not
appear to present any major challenges to local emergency managers. At
this time, I do not see how that timeline would impact local alert and
warning systems. Our local alert and warning system in Sedgwick County
utilizes a number of layers to make sure there is redundancy in the
message being communicated to the public. These layers include an
outdoor warning system, interaction with the local electronic media
(radio and television) and the use of EAS in those areas presently
served by our major cable provider. At the current time, Sedgwick
County does not utilize automated outbound telephone systems to deliver
alerts and warnings. Regarding the issue of interoperability--as long
as State and local authorized authorities have the ability to initiate
the IPAWS system when it is in place, then the issue of
interoperability is somewhat moot. Systems communicating the same
message need to be coordinated, but do not necessarily need to be
interoperable. The issue of coordination is fully addressed by having
the local authorities initiate it.
Question 2a. States and localities may utilize the Emergency Alert
System (EAS) as available, but participation by broadcast stations is
voluntary.
How often does your county use the EAS to issue alerts?
Answer. As of the date on which this response was prepared,
Sedgwick County has not independently issued a warning utilizing EAS.
The reason for this is that the most common alert and warning issued
for our area relates to severe convective weather. Since Sedgwick
County Emergency Management works in extremely close partnership with
the National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office (WFO) at Wichita,
typically, they have triggered the EAS for these events. However,
Sedgwick County has the capability to initiate EAS alerts through the
use of an authorized EAS ENDEC. We are still working with local
broadcasters in an inclusive fashion to finalize a plan on what EAS
alerts and warnings broadcasters will voluntarily carry and/or forward.
Question 2b. Since participation is voluntary, have you ever
encountered a situation where a station opted not to broadcast an EAS
message that negatively affected the public's ability to prepare for or
respond to an event?
Answer. Because of the extreme nature of severe convective weather
events, we have never had the experience of encountering a negative
situation with failure to broadcast an EAS message. Various media
outlets have well known styles of coverage for emergencies within our
community. Local listeners and viewers are well aware of which stations
carry emergency information and which stations do not.
Question 2c. Do you feel that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency has sufficiently included State and local stakeholders in the
development of new alert and warning capabilities?
Answer. We think FEMA always has a better outcome when they consult
stakeholders early in the process. Our participation, to this point,
has been limited to those States active in the pilot program--however,
Project Manager Lance Craver has been reaching out to us, and we look
forward to expanded involvement in the process as the IPAWS program is
implemented on a nationwide basis.