    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NATION'S
                              PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEM

    =======================================================================

                                    (112-67)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 13, 2011

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    71-738 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    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 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        Columbia
    GARY G. MILLER, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 BOB FILNER, California
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                   LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            RICK LARSEN, Washington
    ANDY HARRIS, Maryland                MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire       RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota             MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         LAURA RICHARDSON, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
    JEFF DENHAM, California
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
    Tennessee

                                     _____

     Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
                                   Management

                       JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
    TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois         ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,               Columbia
        Arkansas,                        HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
      Vice Chair                         MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois             RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         BOB FILNER, California
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
    CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,      (Ex Officio)
        Tennessee
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)

                                      (ii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    iv

                                   TESTIMONY

    Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity
      Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency..................     3
    James Arden Barnett, Jr., Rear Admiral (Ret.), Chief, Public
      Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications
      Commission.....................................................     3
    Suzanne D. Goucher, President and CEO, Maine Association of
      Broadcasters...................................................     3
    Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
      CTIA--The Wireless Association.................................     3
    William Check, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Science and
      Technology, National Cable and Telecommunications Association..     3

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia..........    24

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Damon Penn.......................................................    26
    James Arden Barnett, Jr..........................................    32
    Suzanne D. Goucher...............................................    38
    Christopher Guttman-McCabe.......................................    51
    William Check, Ph.D..............................................    56

                             ADDITION TO THE RECORD

    John I. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and
      Communications, LG Electronics USA, Inc., letter and attachment
      to Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of California, December 13, 2011.........................    64

                       THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NATION'S
                              PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEM

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
                   Buildings, and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Denham. The subcommittee will come to order. Today's
    hearing is on the effectiveness of our Nation's public alert
    system. Many of us recall the old Emergency Broadcast System
    and periodic interruption of our TV viewing with an audio
    announcement and very distinctive annoying tones.
        Today we have the Emergency Alert System and EAS. However,
    the backbone of that system is still largely based on 1960s
    technology. Last month FEMA conducted the first-ever nationwide
    test of the EAS. To be clear, after almost 50 years, we just
    recently conducted the first nationwide test.
        In 2009 GAO raised this as a serious issue: How can we
    count on a national alerting system that has never been fully
    tested? And the test revealed several shortcomings. Some
    stations failed to rebroadcast; music of Lady Gaga seized some
    airwaves; and apparent feedback affected the transmission of
    the message to some locations.
        With that said, I am sure FEMA expected some problems, and
    thankfully we finally did a nationwide test so the problems
    could be identified and corrected.
        While a nationwide test is significant, the test only
    included EAS and the components of the legacy system consisting
    of TV and radio. Today it seems we are constantly bombarded by
    information through not only broadcast TV and radio, but also
    satellite TV and radio cable, cell phones, social networking,
    and the Internet. It would seem that today if the public needed
    to be alerted quickly to an impending disaster it would be
    fairly easy to get the word out.
        We saw just last week how important an effective alert
    system is to saving lives. At Virginia Tech, the University's
    Emergency Alert System kept students in place and out of harm's
    way in the moments following the tragic shooting. And as
    demonstrated this year with devastating tornados, hurricanes,
    and floods around our Nation, improving alerting capability
    will help save even more lives.
        In 2006 former President George Bush signed an executive
    order to direct our Nation's alert system was brought into the
    21st century. There is no reason with modern technology for the
    public not to expect that in a serious emergency, alert would
    be sent through many communication mediums as possible, not
    just TV and radio, but all communication devices. And modern
    technology opens up capabilities that in the past were not
    possible: transmitting information that can help facilitate the
    alerting of those with disabilities and people with limited
    English proficiency.
        So the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System was
    envisioned to be a system of systems, to use as many methods of
    communication as possible, to reach as many people as possible.
    Unfortunately, since IPAWS was conceived, there have been many
    setbacks and lack of strategic direction. These concerns raise
    serious doubts about whether we could properly warn the public
    of a disaster.
        Earlier this year, Ranking Member Norton and I introduced
    the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization
    Act. This legislation is modeled after the WARN Act that
    effectively provided a framework led by the FCC for the
    development of the Commercial Mobile Telephone Alerts, or CMAS,
    the wireless components of IPAWS. CMAS, when fully deployed as
    part of IPAWS, will transmit text alerts to wireless devices.
    While adding wireless devices is a first good step, great first
    step, ultimately sending more than simple text is what is
    envisioned with IPAWS.
        I hope today we can hear from FEMA and the FCC and some of
    the key industries involved in the development of IPAWS to help
    our subcommittee assess the work being done. At the end of the
    day we all share a mutual goal: the safety of the public. That
    is why Ranking Member Norton and I recently requested GAO
    review the current status of the development of IPAWS. We must
    ensure we have a reliable systems that will send a warning out
    to as many people as possible. With modern technology there is
    no reason we can't achieve that goal.
        I thank the witnesses for being here today to address many
    important issues. And I will allow Ranking Member Norton her 5
    minutes as soon as she arrives.
        Our first panel this morning: Mr. Damon Penn, assistant
    administrator, national continuity programs, Federal Emergency
    Management Agency; Mr. James Arden Barnett, Jr., chief public
    safety and homeland security bureau of the FCC; Ms. Suzanne
    Goucher, president and CEO of Maine Association of
    Broadcasters; Mr. Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president,
    regulatory affairs for The Wireless Association; and Dr.
    William Check, senior vice president of science and technology,
    for the National Cable and Telecommunications Agency. I ask
    unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be
    included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

      TESTIMONY OF DAMON PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
    CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; JAMES
     ARDEN BARNETT, JR., REAR ADMIRAL (RET.), CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY
         AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
       COMMISSION; SUZANNE D. GOUCHER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MAINE
     ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE
    PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA--THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION;
    AND WILLIAM CHECK, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF SCIENCE AND
     TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Denham. Since your written testimony has been made part
    of the record, the subcommittee would request that you limit
    your oral testimony to 5 minutes. Mr. Penn, you may proceed.
        Mr. Penn. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Norton and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure and
    an honor for me to appear before you on behalf of FEMA to
    discuss the progress we have made in the Integrated Public
    Alert and Warning System.
        FEMA serves as the Nation's focal point for Government
    continuity planning, guidance, and operational support. We are
    also responsible for ensuring the President is able to address
    the Nation under the most extreme circumstances, and IPAWS is
    the capability we use to accomplish this task. Our vision for
    IPAWS has not changed. We are tasked to provide timely and
    accurate alerts and warnings to the American people in the
    preservation of life and property. We do this by relaying a
    single message over multiple dissemination platforms to ensure
    redundant pathways to alert the public by multiple means. IPAWS
    is an integrated capability, accessible to all levels of public
    safety officials.
        We have made significant progress since I last testified
    before the subcommittee 2 years ago. We have adopted and
    accepted the common alert protocol to ensure all alerts and
    warnings equipment is compatible. We have extended the primary
    entry-point program from 36 stations to 63 stations, and we
    will increase that number to 77 by the end of next year.
        We have established, tested, and fielded the IPAWS
    aggregator, and that is the device that takes a single message
    and distributes it to the different alert disseminators. And we
    have developed and fielded a training program to help message-
    originating authorities produce valuable alerts and warnings
    and meet the standard criteria of urgency, certainty, and
    severity.
        Our two latest achievements are the fielding of the
    Commercial Mobile Alert System, CMAS/PLAN, and the conduct of
    the first nationwide Emergency Alert System's testing.
        And I would like to take a moment to expand on both of
    these projects. Adding to the CMAS/PLAN capability allows
    trained and authorized emergency management officials to pass a
    text message alert directly through IPAWS to participating
    wireless carriers, to any CMAS-capable cell phone or handheld
    device located in the geo-targeted area. CMAS/PLAN technology
    is immune to wireless call congestion so cell phones can
    receive emergency alerts even if wireless towers in the
    location are overwhelmed and can no longer support cellular
    phone calls or subscriber-to-subscriber text messaging.
        Additionally, by using IPAWS-compatible software, State,
    local, territorial, and tribal officials can, at no cost, use
    CMAS/PLAN to alert and warn individuals in particular areas
    about imminent threat events as well as AMBER emergencies.
        This is not emerging technology, but a capability that is
    currently being fielded. Thanks to overwhelming support by the
    wireless industry, the first capability of the system has been
    fielded in New York City and in the Washington, DC, area. Final
    testing will be conducted in DC later this month and final
    testing in New York City will take place on Thursday of this
    week. The initial capability will be available 4 months ahead
    of the originally mandated schedule. Nationwide, the deployment
    will continue over the next 2 years.
        Thanks to our partnership and support from the FCC, NOAA,
    radio and television providers, the cable industry and the
    satellite industry, emergency managers across the Nation, we
    conducted the first-ever nationwide test of EAS. The test was a
    success and an essential step in moving forward to improving
    the EAS system. Although data from the field will not be
    available until the end of the month, we have already begun
    work to solve some technical issues discovered during the test.
    We learned that parts of the system worked as envisioned or
    better. But more importantly, we learned what didn't work.
        For example, message propagation through the PEP stations
    was better than anticipated, but we also discovered that we
    have work to do to improve audio transmission quality and to
    improve the accessibility of the text to serve the deaf and
    hard-of-hearing community. And we have already done some work
    to begin addressing those issues. I can further explain during
    questions and answers if you would like.
        From here we will analyze results, determine root causes,
    develop and implement corrective actions, and retest as
    necessary to ensure we have a system that serves our whole
    community of Americans.
        Developing strategy for success in the future requires a
    shift in our basic approach. IPAWS moved from a requirements-
    based single technology network approach to an application-
    based open platform approach. This ensures that IPAWS can
    easily integrate with a broad range of information processing
    technologies, networks, and equipment from existing private
    sector communication systems.
        To support people with access and functional needs, FEMA
    remains engaged with agencies, organizations, and conferences
    and private industry to promote the IPAWS capability and
    integrate alerts and warning technology into their communities.
    We have also partnered with private and public organizations to
    demonstrate products and incorporate CAP-enabled technologies
    to alert persons with access and functional needs.
        In conclusion, the IPAWS vision of providing timely alert
    and warning information to the American people and the
    preservation of life and property remains clear and consistent.
    And, FEMA is fully committed to IPAWS and recognizes the
    importance of the whole community of American public.
        Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to appear and testify
    before the committee, and I will be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Barnett.
        Mr. Barnett. Chairman Denham, members of the subcommittee,
    thanks for the opportunity to come and talk to you today about
    the FCC's recent work in alerts and warning the public.
        One of the FCC's primary statutory obligations is to
    promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire
    radio communications. The FCC has a singular commitment to
    protection of the public through constantly evolving alert and
    warning systems. We recognize that this should be a team
    effort.
        I am very pleased to be here with my friend and colleague,
    Damon Penn, of FEMA. The FCC works closely with FEMA, with our
    other Federal partners, the National Weather Service, with
    telecommunications industry, to bring the future of alert and
    warning systems to consumers now.
        So pursuant to the WARN Act, the FCC in 2008 adopted rules
    for what we call the Personal Localized Alerting Network or
    PLAN, also as Chairman Denham mentioned CMAS, an emerging
    alerting system that wireless carriers sign up for voluntarily
    which will transmit emergency text-like alerts to subscribers'
    cell phones. Under the FCC's rules the carriers, the
    participating carriers, must begin to plan deployment by April
    7th of 2012. But in May of this year Chairman Genachowski, FEMA
    Administrator Fugate, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,
    and top executives from four of the major nationwide wireless
    carriers. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless
    announced that PLAN would be available in New York City by the
    end of the year, months ahead of schedule.
        PLAN will serve as an important complement to the other
    alert and warning systems, like the Emergency Alert System,
    EAS. The alerts will be geographically targeted, ensuring that
    they will reach the right people, at the right time, with the
    right messages, and this will ensure that alerts reach only
    those people who actually are in danger. It creates a fast lane
    for emergency alerts so that vital information is guaranteed to
    get through, even if there is congestion in the network.
    Moreover, PLAN has the additional feature of neither the alert
    originator nor anyone administering the system will know who
    receives the alert. PLAN cannot be used to monitor wireless
    devices or a consumer's location. Pursuant to the WARN Act,
    subscribers may opt out of receiving all but the national
    emergency alerts.
        The FCC has also taken action to enhance the EAS system.
    Last month the FCC, with FEMA, did in fact, as Damon mentioned,
    conduct the first-ever nationwide top-to-bottom test of the
    EAS. The purpose of the test was diagnostic, to allow the FCC
    and FEMA to determine how well the system would work if
    activated during an actual national emergency. Prior to the
    test, the FCC and FEMA, along with EAS participants, State and
    local governments, and other stakeholders took significant
    steps to educate the participants, public safety and other
    State, tribal, local governments, and consumers about the test.
        For example, the FCC released a step-by-step guide for EAS
    participants to use during the test. Some materials were
    briefed over 40 organizations representing State, tribal, and
    local governments about the test, and over 100 community and
    consumer organizations, including those who represent the deaf
    and hard of hearing, and people who do not speak English as
    their primary language.
        Under the FCC rules, EAS participants have until December
    27th, 2011, to submit test result data to the FCC. Once we
    receive this data, in conjunction with FEMA, we will analyze it
    to determine what worked and what didn't, and make
    recommendations for improvements as necessary.
        Some improvements actually are already scheduled. The first
    step to modernize the EAS will take place next year--or has
    taken until next year with introduction of work transmissions
    using common alerting protocol, or CAP. Once implemented, CAP-
    based alerting will enable the migration of the current EAS to
    a next-generation learning system to provide a host of features
    not possible under the current technology.
        The FCC will continue to explore whether other
    communication technologies can provide ways for Americans to
    receive alerts and warnings about imminent threats to safety of
    life. As recommended by the national broadband plan, the FCC
    will examine the role of broadband technologies, social
    networks, and other Internet-based tools and how they can play
    in emergency alerting. We will continue to work closely with
    FEMA and the National Weather Service, industry, and State and
    local governments to ensure that the public has access to
    emergency alerts, warnings and information over multiple
    communication technologies.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and
    I look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Denham. Ms. Goucher, you may proceed.
        Ms. Goucher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
    members of the committee. My name is Suzanne Goucher. I thank
    you very much for your interest in improving emergency
    communications to the public. I am honored to be here with you
    to share the valuable, often life-saving public service that
    full power local radio and television stations provide during
    times of crisis.
        When disaster strikes, Americans know they can turn to
    their local broadcasters for news and information. When the
    power goes out, when phone service and the Internet go down,
    broadcasters move heaven and earth to stay on the air,
    delivering vital information to their audiences. Through
    wildfires, floods, tornados, hurricanes, everywhere across our
    Nation, local communities depend on their broadcasters to keep
    them informed before, during, and after disaster strikes.
        Broadcasters are also proud of our keystone role in the
    Emergency Alert System. For 60 years, from the CONELRAD days of
    the Cold War, through the Emergency Broadcast System, to EAS,
    and now on to the next generation of alerting, broadcasters
    stand ready to be America's first informers. We consider the
    delivery of timely alerts and warnings to be the highest and
    best use of our spectrum, our facilities, and our resources.
        For example, after the abduction and murder of Amber
    Hagerman in 1996, Dallas area broadcasters initiated the
    creation of the first AMBER Alert program. The Oklahoma
    Association of Broadcasters subsequently developed the first
    statewide AMBER plan which became the model for similar
    programs across the Nation. To date, AMBER Alerts have aided in
    the successful recovery of 542 abducted children across the
    U.S.
        The hot new buzz in the alerting community is social
    networking, and broadcasters are also leveraging their news
    dissemination capabilities across these pathways. When you
    receive an email, a text alert, or a Facebook message from your
    local radio or TV station, you know you are getting reliable
    information from an authoritative source.
        The nationwide EAS was tested for the first time last
    month, and in my view the test was a success. It was the first
    time an official national alert message was purposely deployed
    end to end throughout the system. There were technical problems
    with the origination of the message, and there were also a few
    scattered problems with reception of the test message through
    the primary entry-point network. This is precisely why systems
    should be tested on an ongoing basis.
        We fully support the plan by FEMA and the FCC to test the
    nationwide EAS on a regular basis going forward. EAS is tested
    weekly by each radio and TV station, and monthly within each
    State. Such tests allow message disseminators to confirm that
    their equipment is working properly or to diagnose and fix any
    problems. It only makes sense that we should also be regularly
    testing the ability of the Federal Government to send an alert
    message throughout the Nation.
        The ongoing effectiveness of EAS depends on a few important
    factors.
        First, a training program for State and local public safety
    officials on how to use EAS is desperately needed. The
    knowledge and expertise of some local authorities as to how and
    when to deploy EAS is currently at what we consider an
    unacceptable level. We stand ready to deliver the message, but
    first we need someone to deliver it to us. We applaud our
    friends at FEMA for undertaking the development of a training
    program which will certify State and local officials to send
    alerts through the Federal IPAWS gateway.
        While this is a good first step, it does not address those
    State and local officials who don't have the fundamental
    understanding of or willingness to use EAS in the first place.
    Some sort of incentive for them to take this training, such as
    incorporating it into the National Incident Management System,
    would encourage a greater understanding of the beneficial uses
    of the system.
        Secondly, we thank the committee for considering H.R. 2904,
    which would direct the creation of a national advisory
    committee on emergency alerting, and we respectfully urge that
    this committee be made permanent. Governance authority for our
    national warning system is divided among several Federal
    agencies, while the primary use of the system is at the State
    and local level. At present there is no mechanism to bring all
    of the message originators and the message deliverers together,
    except on an ad hoc basis. As a result, the system not being
    used as effectively as it as could be.
        Creation of a permanent advisory committee would help to
    ensure that problems get addressed and ideas for continual
    improvement of the system are brought to the fore.
        The overarching significance of H.R. 2904 is that it also
    authorizes the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System in
    law. This demonstrates your recognition of the vital importance
    of this system. It a crucial step forward in ensuring that all
    parts of the system--broadcast alerts, cell phone text
    messages, and other communications pathways--will be developed
    as a unified whole that becomes greater than the sum of its
    parts.
        I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on
    emergency communications to the public and the indispensable
    role of broadcasters. And I look forward to working with you
    toward our shared goal of keeping the American people safe
    through timely alerts and warnings. Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
    Denham and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for affording
    CTIA the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
        My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, and I serve as the
    Association's vice president for regulatory affairs. In that
    capacity I have been involved in the wireless industry's
    efforts to implement the commercial mobile alert service called
    for by the WARN Act. And I am pleased to have the chance to
    share with you today that the wireless industry is doing what
    is necessary to deliver a state-of-the-art alerting system by
    early 2012.
        The approach taken in the WARN Act was consistent with and
    built upon previous public-private partnerships that led to the
    successful creation of both wireless priority service and the
    AMBER Alert program.
        In the WARN Act Congress secured the participation of
    interested nongovernmental parties in the development and
    deployment of what has been envisioned as a 90 character, geo-
    targeted, succinct alerting capability that would let consumers
    carrying a wireless device know that there is an imminent
    threat to health or safety.
        From CTIA's perspective it appears that Congress' vision is
    working as designed. In the first year after the WARN Act
    became law, the FCC established the Commercial Mobile Service
    Alert Advisory Committee, comprised of more than 40 individuals
    representing tribal, local, State and Federal Government
    agencies, communications providers, vendors, broadcasters,
    consumer groups, and other technical experts.
        I served on the advisory committee on behalf of CTIA. Over
    11 months the committee generated more than 600 documents, held
    hundreds of meetings, and spent thousands of man-hours to
    develop a thorough, workable, commercial mobile alerts systems
    plan. Following delivery of the advisory committee's
    recommendations, the FCC has issued orders initiating the
    process.
        Among other things, the FCC's orders set forth the alerting
    service architecture proposed by the advisory committee, and
    concluded that a Federal entity should aggregate, authenticate,
    and transmit alerts to the participating wireless providers.
    FEMA has agreed to play this role.
        The FCC has also required that participating providers must
    transmit three classes of alerts--Presidential, imminent
    threat, and AMBER Alerts--and consumers be permitted to opt out
    of the latter two, but not the first.
        Following issuance of the FCC's order, wireless carriers
    had to elect whether they would participate in the delivery of
    wireless emergency alerts well in advance of finalizing the
    technical specifications for implementing those alerts. I am
    pleased to report that approximately 100 mobile providers,
    representing 97 percent of wireless subscribers, have elected
    to provide emergency alerts, demonstrating the success of this
    public-private partnership. Moreover, this figure is likely to
    increase as additional carriers elect to offer the alert to
    their customers once the system is rolled out.
        Since providers made their initial elections in September
    2008, the wireless industry has been working in close
    consultation with both FEMA and the FCC to make the investments
    and modifications necessary to enable the wireless Emergency
    Alert System to be operational by April 2012. And I am pleased
    to report that providers have deployed and tested the elements
    of the wireless Emergency Alert System within their control,
    and currently have the capability to deliver wireless emergency
    alerts to New York City by the end of this year.
        While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the
    marks necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act,
    there are two key areas beyond wireless carriers' control that
    must be addressed if a seamless national deployment is to occur
    and be operational next year.
        First, FEMA must continue its hard work to stand up its
    wireless emergency alerts gateway and be capable of receiving
    and distributing alerts to all participating wireless carriers.
    The wireless industry has worked closely with FEMA and the FCC
    for well over a year to move this deployment forward, and we
    commend both agencies for their efforts to date.
        Second, substantial and ongoing care must be taken to
    ensure that potential alert at the State, county, and local
    levels are properly trained about when and how alerts should be
    originated. This is crucial because it is these alert
    originators who are responsible for disseminating critical
    information to the public in a timely manner. If consumers
    receive confusing, irrelevant, or overly frequent alerts, then
    even the best alerting system ultimately will fail.
        We urge you to exercise your oversight authority to ensure
    that these objectives are achieved. The wireless industry is
    committed to delivering wireless emergency alert capability
    next year and to working with FEMA and the FCC to ensure that
    subsequent generations of the system support additional
    functionality and granularity. With this in mind, we do not
    believe the wireless carriers that participate in the Emergency
    Alerting System should be subject to new requirements that
    emanate from the implementation of IPAWS.
        While IPAWS may help to modernize the distribution of
    alerts on other communications platforms, CMAS is the proper
    path to deliver and modernize emergency alerts provided over
    wireless networks. We hope you will keep this in mind as you
    consider legislative efforts like H.R. 2904.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today's panel. I
    look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Dr. Check.
        Mr. Check. Good morning, Chairman Denham and members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Bill Check. I am the senior vice
    president of science and technology, and the chief technology
    officer at the National Cable and Telecommunications
    Association, NCTA, the principal trade association representing
    cable operators and programming networks. Thank you for
    inviting me to testify today.
        Cable operators have been active participants in providing
    emergency alerts to their customers since the 1960s, and we
    recognize our role in ensuring that the public receives timely
    information during crises situations.
        By way of background, cable operators don't originate or
    alter emergency messages. FEMA transmits a message to a primary
    entry-point broadcast station, called a PEP, and then those
    stations transmit that message to local primary stations. Cable
    operators receive the message from these local primary stations
    and transmit it to their subscribers using automated equipment
    in the cable headend.
        Cable operators were among the participants in the recent
    November 9th first-ever nationwide test of the Emergency Alert
    System. Prior to the test, cable operators undertook
    significant outreach efforts to ensure that consumers were
    aware of the test. These efforts included running public
    service announcements, notices in customer bills, and the use
    of social media outlets. Our programming network members aired
    additional public service information about the test as well.
        We are still in the process of gathering and analyzing the
    test results from our member companies, and they expect to
    provide a full report to the FCC by December 27th. But
    preliminary analysis shows that most cable operators were
    successfully able to receive the transmitted Emergency Action
    Notification signal, known as an EAN, and to disseminate the
    EAN message to their customers.
        Some operators did experience various issues within their
    service areas, although most of the major problems originated
    upstream from cable systems. For instance, some cable providers
    didn't receive the emergency message from broadcast stations
    that they are required to monitor. And sometimes when cable
    systems did receive the emergency message, the message audio
    was muffled or distorted.
        Our companies also encountered some other technical issues
    that can be remedied. Cable operators look forward to
    continuing to work with the FCC, with FEMA, and others in an
    effort to resolve these issues.
        NCTA also appreciates efforts to further modernize our
    Nation's Emergency Alert Systems. And we support the goals of
    H.R. 2904. We support the initiation of a training program, the
    creation of an advisory committee, and that cable would be
    represented on this committee.
        We respectfully suggest, however, that legislation should
    take into consideration the work that has already been done in
    this area. The cable industry has devoted significant resources
    towards complying with the upcoming June 30th FCC deadline that
    requires systems to be able to receive emergency messages in
    what is known as the Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP. Any new
    standards, technology, and operating procedures should
    recognize and incorporate the work that has already been done
    and be consistent with existing regulatory directives.
        Finally, cable companies currently transmit the information
    as they receive it. While cable operators would, of course,
    pass through any alerts for non-English speakers and the
    hearing impaired, legislation should make clear that the
    obligation to make messages accessible should rest with the
    message originator.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today on this important issue. We stand ready to work with the
    subcommittee, Congress, FEMA, and the FCC to meet our
    responsibilities. I would be pleased to answer any questions
    that you have, thank you.
        Mr. Denham. And thank you for your testimony.
        We now turn to Members for opening statements. The chair
    now recognizes Ranking Member Norton for a 5-minute opening.
        Ms. Norton. I am simply going to ask, since I apologize
    that I could not be here at the opening of this hearing, a very
    important hearing, I am going to ask that my opening statement
    be included in the record.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Crawford.
        Mr. Michaud?
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
    like to thank all the witnesses for being here. I particularly
    would like to recognize Suzanne Goucher who is the president
    and CEO of Maine Association of Broadcasters. Suzanne has been
    part of of the Maine Association of Broadcasters since 1994.
    She has also served as cochair of the Maine Business
    Association Roundtable, and is former president of the Alliance
    of State Broadcasters Association. I have had numerous
    opportunities to work with Suzanne on a range of issues, and I
    have always found her to be a dedicated and thoughtful
    advocate. It has been an honor to work with Suzanne in the
    past, and have no doubt that the Maine broadcasters greatly
    appreciate her as their representative. I want to thank you for
    being here today, Suzanne, as well as the rest of the
    witnesses.
        I yield back. Do you want to do questions now?
        Mr. Denham. We will start with opening questions. The first
    question I have, I have a number of different questions on the
    nationwide test that we did. But it has come to my attention
    that yesterday there was an unannounced test in New Jersey. The
    text messages warning came out with a civil emergency and a
    call to action to take shelter. Was that a FEMA emergency?
        Mr. Penn. Mr. Chair, no, that was a provider doing some
    testing for our release of CMAS later this week and the test in
    New York City. One of the providers had a technological glitch
    where they connected the testing platform to the production
    platform and broadcast the message.
        Mr. Denham. So that was something that was coordinated with
    FEMA?
        Mr. Penn. No, sir, it was not. It was not part of their--
    the message origination did occur from us in the testing
    environment. The problem occurred when the carrier crossed the
    testing environment with the production and output, and that is
    what caused the message to be released.
        Mr. Denham. So the message was never supposed to be
    released?
        Mr. Penn. That is correct. The message was only working in
    a closed environment when we were doing final testing for
    Thursday's test. And, when they crossed it with their normal
    broadcast, that is when the message got released.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is
    correct. One of our carriers was in the process of the runup to
    the full test in New York City on Thursday. And as part of that
    they were testing their end, and a FEMA-originated message was
    unfortunately--found its way to the test gateway of one of the
    carriers. And as a result, it went out to several customers--to
    customers in several counties in New Jersey. And this I think
    was the result of both FEMA and the carriers working tirelessly
    to get ready 4 months in advance to deliver the service to New
    York. Hopefully, as soon as this Thursday, have it up and
    operational.
        Mr. Denham. When there is such a test, whether it is
    internal or external, are the local law enforcement agencies
    normally notified?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yes. I will defer to Mr. Penn, but
    usually they are. In fact, they will be notified in advance of
    Thursday's test. This was FEMA-designed, sent a message, and
    they thought it was only within their system; unfortunately,
    Verizon was testing their system at the same time and had the
    gateway inadvertently opened. And so this wasn't designed to be
    an actual test of the system by either party. It was an
    unfortunate event that happened, sort of in the leadup to
    Thursday.
        So it wasn't designed as a test. In a standard test
    authorities would be alerted and people would be made aware. We
    have something set up already for Thursday to alert authorities
    to let consumers know what is happening.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Penn, as a followup. Even in an internal
    test we would still notify local law enforcement, would we not?
        Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. But again, this was really a test
    designed to be directly between FEMA and the carrier and never
    to be rebroadcast. So, during the test that we are having on
    Thursday, the New York City Office of Emergency Management has
    put together a very comprehensive notification plan, to the
    effect that areas within the city and to the public, and have
    what I think is more than adequate preparation of the public to
    receive the message. But the one yesterday was an anomaly and
    was never intended to be broadcast at all. It was intended to
    stay within the testing environment, as Mr. Guttman-McCabe
    mentioned.
        Mr. Denham. Anything we learned from it?
        Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, we did. And that is just the technical
    aspects of keeping the production environment and the testing
    environment separated. I don't want to go into a lot of
    technical mumbo jumbo about exactly how it worked, but, yes,
    there is something to be learned from it, and I think we have
    taken those lessons. And, not just the one carrier affected,
    but the other three carriers have that message loud and clear
    as well, and understand what happened and how to prevent it
    from happening in the future.
        Mr. Denham. How about the community, the citizens in New
    Jersey that inadvertently received the message from a FEMA
    standpoint? Anything we learned from the action of taking
    shelter and working with local law enforcement as that message
    went out?
        Mr. Penn. I think most citizens did the correct thing, and
    they immediately went to their 911 or to their local emergency
    managers and asked a question about what to do and how to
    react, and I think the city and the providers concerned took
    appropriate actions and immediately released some press
    information. And I think they got the whole message quelled
    fairly quickly.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for
    this hearing. This has been a subject of considerable interest
    to this committee for some years.
        Now, this was, of course, the first test ever done. But you
    can't know if there are problems if you don't do a test. So we
    weren't looking for a perfect test. We were looking to find out
    what the problems were, so we could figure them out before the
    next thing was not a test but the real deal.
        Do you expect to do another test in the near future?
        Mr. Penn. Madam Ranking Member, if I could, I will answer
    that. Yes, we do. When exactly, I am not sure. A lot will
    depend on the information that we get on the 27th of December
    that we share with--that we will work with the FCC on to
    determine what the problems were and how to address them. It
    may be a call to do some localized testing, maybe a call to do
    a national test again. But we really won't know the timing of
    that until we get the full information assembled and analyzed
    and make sure that we solve the correct problem, that we don't
    solve the wrong problem. But we do look forward to regular
    testing in the future and think that it is a vital part of the
    Emergency Alert System.
        Ms. Norton. I was interested that this test lasted only for
    30 seconds and wondered what you would learn from a 30-second
    test, since FEMA itself believed that a 3-minute test was
    necessary.
        First, explain why you decided to go with a 30-second test.
    I would like to know whether a 30-second test gave you any data
    that would be considered reliable upon which to draw
    conclusions; for that matter, if any of the rest of the panel
    considers that the 30-second test feedback is information we
    should rely on.
        Mr. Penn. Ma'am, if I could, I will start. The decision was
    made to reduce the test from 3 minutes to 30 seconds because
    there was quite a bit of concern that the public would not get
    the message that it was a test and would overreact, thinking
    that it was an actual emergency. So the decision was made at
    FEMA and DHS to reduce the amount of time for the test.
        Two things that we wanted to test that we were not able to
    test by reducing the duration. The first is that the Emergency
    Alert System is normally limited to 2 minutes to broadcast a
    local alert. That is not supposed to be the limitation for
    Presidential alert. The Presidential message is supposed to
    continue until it is terminated. So one of the reasons that we
    wanted to have the test for 3 minutes was to test to see if
    that automatic turn-off happened at 2 minutes, or whether the
    message continued. So we were obviously not able to do that.
        The other part that we wanted to test with a longer
    duration was the stability of the system, and that once we
    brought it up and that once the rebroadcasting happened, that
    the system would stay up and stable for an extended period. We
    were not able to test that either. But those are certainly two
    objectives for future tests.
        Mr. Barnett. Ranking Member Norton, the major thing that
    the FCC really wanted to get out of the test and that we set up
    for with our rules for the EAS participants to report back to
    us, had to do with the connectivity. As Ms. Goucher mentioned,
    there are weekly and monthly tests, there are all sorts of
    tests like this, but the thing that has never been tested
    before in that 50 years is that connectivity from FEMA down to
    the primary entry-point stations, and then cascading down
    through all the EAS participants until you get full coverage.
    That is what we were able to get with a 30-second test. And we
    are going have to wait until December 27th to get really full
    data to report to you on exactly what we can learn in the steps
    going forward.
        We do know that the test was received and retransmitted to
    a large majority of the Nation. But there were, as we
    anticipated--and we anticipated because we had two prior tests
    that FEMA conducted in Alaska, so we knew that there might be
    some glitches. That is exactly what we wanted to concentrate
    on.
        Ms. Norton. But my question for both of you is,
    particularly given your answer about 3 minutes being necessary,
    I am struck by, other than the connectivity of the system,
    whether you could have learned anything from a 3-minute--a 30-
    second test. And I am concerned that there be a test, a
    realtime test of 3 minutes, and what do you think it would take
    to alert the public so we can get a real test.
        Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. As Mr. Barnett mentioned, the ability
    to make the basic connection was our primary reason for the
    test, and 30 seconds was long enough to make the basic
    connection and for the PEP stations to receive the message
    rebroadcast to the broadcast stations, and broadcast stations
    then to send that down to the other stations that they connect
    with. So the duration was 30 seconds for the message, but the
    actual propagation of the message lasted longer as it worked
    its way down through the chain. So if I sent the message to Mr.
    Barnett, the message went for 30 seconds. If he sent it to Ms.
    Goucher, that was another 30 seconds. So that part was in fact
    a 30-second duration, but the time that it took to propagate
    the message down lasted longer than 30 seconds. But that did
    answer our first question, and we will find out the full
    results at the end of the month; and that is, how many people
    were able to receive a message and interrupt their broadcast
    and rebroadcast the message?
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Crawford.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, if I could say, I think this is
    important to do, to see if the system is connected at all. This
    is not a test. This is not a test in the sense that we meant
    when we said the system should be tested. I understand why it
    is done this way, but I think we have to look forward to a test
    of the system, a 3-minute test. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Crawford.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Mr.
    Barnett about digital capabilities. IPAWS envisions more than
    just text and audio being transmitted. Additional data such as
    video or other visual aids may be transmitted in the future.
    What is FCC doing to ensure upgraded equipment is capable of
    transmitting and receiving more than text and audio?
        Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir. So you are talking about the total
    system, IPAWS. And the FCC is very much into the next
    generation technologies on this user broadband. That is why we
    have been working closely with FEMA on calling and alerting
    protocol. This was starting our rules back in--all the way back
    in 2007. Those rules indicated that EAS participants would have
    to have CAP ability to receive CAP alert messages. One hundred
    eighty days after FEMA adopted the technical standards that
    occurred in September 2010, within a couple months we actually
    issued another order, because we actually realized it was going
    to take a while for the manufacturers to actually be able to
    create the equipment or EAS participants to be able to
    incorporate that equipment. So in essence we waived it until
    the fall of 2011.
        We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in essence to
    shift over to the CAP system. It was an absolutely necessary
    precursor to IPAWS to be able to use that type of technology.
    And so we have an open rulemaking on that right now.
        I think the rules, also have also extended the deadline for
    EAS participants to do that until June 30, 2012, because we
    also realize there are other things that are involved. We want
    to deal with the question of certification--whether these
    things need to be certified--training. But I think you will see
    the rules come out very soon, within a matter of weeks.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Goucher, thank you for being here. I am a former
    broadcaster myself in my previous life, so thank you for being
    here.
        You mentioned States are developing their own systems such
    as the one in your home State that you talked about. How would
    you envision the State system is working with IPAWS?
        Ms. Goucher. Seamlessly. I would hope that would be
    seamless. It is my understanding that IPAWS will be an
    Internet-based system. We do think that Internet connectivity
    may pose some problems in some areas where, for example, a
    broadcaster may have their EAS equipment at their transmitter
    location. As a former broadcaster, you have been out to the
    transmitter site. You know that they can be remote. So we are
    looking at ways around that issue.
        We are hoping that some redundancies will be built into the
    system, particularly for Presidential alerts, such as possible
    satellite delivery, so that, you know, we ensure we have
    multiple redundant pathways to get the message through.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, ma'am.
        Mr. Penn, I want to talk about Internet and social media
    and some of the things that you are doing to integrate there.
    What we haven't spoken a lot about is using the Internet and
    social media to alert the public. Talk about how the Internet
    and social media will be incorporatedin the development of
    IPAWS in the future.
        Mr. Penn. Thank you, sir. We have done quite a bit of work
    already with the Internet providers and the ability for them to
    receive and rebroadcast the message. The technical part of that
    is actually not exceptionally difficult. The integration with
    them we think will be smooth and seamless.
        They also have a much greater capability to geo-target than
    we originally thought when we started dealing with them; that
    they do have the capability to target smaller areas and not
    just send a nationwide message. So that part has been very
    positive as well.
        We have just started our work with social media. Several of
    the major social media networks have come on board. One has
    even created some software that will help us integrate into
    them, but I think that is really the next big step for the
    program where we need to go from here and how we use those.
        In some recent trade shows, too, it became apparent that we
    not only have the general public with the State and local alert
    officials needing to be involved, but we have a separate niche
    involved when we talk about security for campuses throughout
    the country. And there are several products that we are testing
    to integrate in our system now to focus on the ability of that
    community on the campus to be able to alert itself. So maybe a
    Wi-Fi connection, where the campus can use social media and
    their own internal alerting, that would only go to the campus
    and not necessarily affect the surrounding county and the
    surrounding neighborhood.
        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe, real quick. Is there an app for that?
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Yeah, there is. And we saw it to some
    extent in the recent shootings in West Virginia. I think what
    we will see is a continuing evolution and almost a layered type
    of service, whether it is broadcast radio, cable, wireless, or
    social media. And I think that is exactly how this service
    should evolve. We should see that layer, because you are not
    always in front of a radio or a television or Internet
    connection, or don't always have a wireless device in front of
    you. And so what we are seeing is, as a runup to the launch of
    the wireless service, we are seeing some creative people
    putting together services that will work in the interim. We
    hope they continue to act as a complement to a wireless
    service, to a fully deployed IPAWS service.
        Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Michaud.
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Goucher, what factors set apart States where the
    national tests were--and States where they have experienced
    obstacles?
        Ms. Goucher. Thank you, Congressman. There were some
    technical issues with the national test, as Administrator Penn
    and Admiral Barnett have noted. There were some connectivity
    issues. A couple of primary entry-point stations didn't receive
    the message or failed to relay it. I think I would like to
    drill deeper down in that question, though, and give you an
    answer about why EAS works very well in some places and not in
    others on a State and local basis, which of course is the
    primary use of the system.
        We have a very good system in Maine. Our officials there
    have been very cooperative in setting up the system and testing
    it rigorously. We have a very easy one-hop system that relays
    the message throughout the State from end to end. It should be
    noted, as well you know, that it is a farther distance from
    Kittery to Fort Kent than it is from Kittery to Philadelphia.
    We have a lot of territory to cover, and we set up a very
    simple, elegant system to be able to do that.
        Buy-in in other States in terms of EAS is spotty, which is
    why we are so emphasizing the creation and deployment of the
    training program. Because as of right now, until this training
    program rolls out from FEMA, the only training that public
    officials receive on how properly to use the EAS is the
    operator's manual that comes with their EAS box, which only
    tells them how to plug it in and turn it on. We need rigorous
    training for these folks on how to use the system, when to use
    the system, how to properly craft an alert message. I think
    that is going to go a long, long way toward improving the
    overall use of the system.
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
        Mr. Penn, can you give us an example of the time that the
    Emergency Alert System wasn't activated in an emergency?
        Mr. Penn. Sorry, sir, I am not sure I understand your
    question. Did you mean the results of the test or when the
    system has been used before?
        Mr. Michaud. Well, no. In an emergency, has there been a
    time that the system has not worked?
        Mr. Penn. From a nationwide level, sir, prior to the test
    last month, the system had never been tested across the Nation.
    There are some States that use part and portions of the
    Emergency Alert System to do local and State message but no
    national message. And, I do not know of any specific cases
    where anyone at the State and local level has tried to use
    equipment and it hasn't functioned. But I am sure there are
    some instances where it did at least not fully function.
        Mr. Michaud. Ms. Goucher, in your former position and what
    you know, can you give us an example of a time that the
    Emergency Alert System wasn't activated in an emergency, either
    in Maine or in other States?
        Ms. Goucher. Not in Maine, no, I am happy to say. There
    have been situations in other States, however, when the system
    could have been used and it wasn't. My counterpart in Texas
    tells a very sad story about two women who burned to death in
    wildfires because they lived half a mile down a dirt road, and
    the local officials needed to warn people that the fires were
    heading their way, and the only thing they could think of to do
    was to drive up and down the road with a bull horn saying,
    evacuate, evacuate. These women were soap opera fans and they
    were probably watching TV at the time, and an EAS message would
    have reached them and told them to evacuate.
        Now, the times when we see that the system is not used when
    it should be, or not used properly, is generally as a result of
    a lack of training, buy-in, knowledge on the part of the
    issuing authorities.
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you.
        Mr. Barnett, do you know of any example, other than what
    Ms. Goucher had mentioned?
        Mr. Barnett. No, sir, I don't. Training is something we are
    obviously concerned about, particularly if we move into the
    CMAS/PLAN area, because that is another tool for local and
    State officials to be able to use. But I would direct it back
    to Mr. Penn with regard to that training program that FEMA has
    developed.
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Guttman-McCabe,
    you highlighted so far that 97 percent of wireless customer
    base is represented by companies that have agreed to
    participate in CMAS. I wondered what your thought is, first of
    all, how difficult that was to get to that 97 percent, and if
    you see it growing, higher, hopefully to 100 percent.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. It was sort
    of a leap of faith to get to 97 percent because the way the
    statute was organized, carriers had to make a decision to
    participate before they knew what they were participating in
    and before the technical elements or characteristics of the
    service were actually defined.
        And so I was, as someone who participated and testified
    numerous times on behalf of support of the WARN Act, I was
    ecstatic when we saw the number get up to 97 percent. I do
    believe it will get up higher than that, and hopefully 100
    percent, as sort of the costs and the benefits of scale from
    some of our larger carriers flow down, so equipment and
    certainty and understanding get to our smaller carriers.
        But right now the upside and why we think it is so
    beneficial to add wireless as an element to alerting is it
    does, as I said earlier, it adds a layer. And getting 97
    percent of consumers access to this is a tremendous, really,
    benefit to the alerting capabilities.
        Mr. Hultgren. Mr. McCabe, geo-targeting. You mentioned that
    briefly. I know that is an important element of alerting. How
    will CMAS allow for targeting alerts and tell me a little bit
    more how you see that playing out and why that is so important.
        Mr. Guttman-McCabe. Certainly. Right now, the way that the
    advisory committee established the recommendations, it was
    based on a county level. We believe the technology ultimately
    will allow to have even more targeted alerts, although I think
    as part of the group that was sort of investigating this, we
    realized that more often than not you probably don't want to
    alert something smaller than a county when you are talking
    about mobile consumers. If you take Virginia Tech's example,
    you don't want to just alert the campus. You want to be able to
    alert outside the campus so no additional people come into
    areas of danger.
        And so that is why we initially chose counties. And the
    reality is, I think we envision that alert originators will
    over-alert because of the mobile nature of our customers. And
    so from our perspective, we believe the granularity will
    improve over time as part of the evolution of the service, and
    yet it is quite possible that it is never a--you know, a more
    granular, more targeted message is potentially never used
    because of the mobility of the consumer base.
        Mr. Hultgren. Thank you.
        Mr. Penn, I wondered, GAO issued a report on IPAWS back in
    2009. At that time, GAO criticized the lack of strategic
    planning and direction. I wondered if you can talk about how
    that has been addressed and where you feel like we are at as
    far as some of the strategic planning and direction goes.
        Mr. Penn. Yes, sir. Thank you. I took over shortly after
    that report was released. My vision and focus has not changed.
    And we have assembled a great team together. Some of the
    accomplishments that I listed in my opening statement show how
    dedicated that team is and where we are headed.
        So the strategic focus is there. That is on delivering
    alerts and warnings. And the people that you see at the table
    and the organizations that they represent are fully in step
    with us on moving forward with the system. We have actually
    exceeded our expectations in many different areas.
        As an example, we were at a trade show recently, and a
    gentleman from National Public Radio service came forward. We
    did a demonstration with creating a message and disseminating
    it through our test booth. He had a piece of equipment that he
    took and plugged into an old weather radio. We initiated a
    regular alert. That piece of equipment he had took the audio
    message, turned it into text, and turned the text into Braille.
    That is the kind of technology that we have embraced. That is
    what the common alert protocol gives us, is the compatibility
    of existing equipment and the ability to use it.
        Our change from trying to build a single piece of equipment
    to solve a single problem, moving from that to an applications-
    based approach where we have a platform that people can bring
    technology into and plug into, I think has been the difference
    in our program. So now we can welcome a gentleman like the one
    from National Public Radio. We have done some work with some
    geo-targeting and plume modeling to develop alerting. And the
    list goes on and on. So I think that basic change is what makes
    a difference for us.
        Mr. Hultgren. Great.
        Again, thank you all for your work. This is very important,
    obviously. We all hope we don't have to use this much, but it
    is so important to have it there and it really does, I think,
    bring that confidence of some of the steps that are moving
    forward. So thanks for the work and I look forward to working
    with you as we move forward on this.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Ms. Holmes Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only one
    further question.
        I was interested, Mr. Penn, in the notion that you
    indicated in your testimony about educating the public that the
    test was coming and the overreaction that you were trying to
    guard against. I am not certain I, as a member of the public,
    received that education. So I would like some more detail about
    how you educated the public that a test was in the offing and
    when it would be occurring.
        Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. Really, we had an actual campaign for
    releasing information and a lot of the work was actually done
    on a voluntary basis by the broadcasters, satellite providers,
    and the cable providers. They provided public service alerts to
    their individual communities as well as broadcasting alerts
    that we did from FEMA and that Mr. Barnett did from the FCC.
        Also, the news and media outlets were all involved. They
    had quite a campaign as well for publishing it in local
    newspapers and other media outlets. As well, the administrator
    of FEMA went on the air with the major morning news programs
    and broadcast not really a public service announcement, but had
    interviews and warned people of the impending test and what it
    was going to amount to and what they could expect to see.
        If you would like, I can submit to you the entire package
    and the entire campaign and show you what other steps we took
    in some detail.
        Ms. Norton. I think that would be useful, Mr. Penn.
        We note that with the early results that are in, you saw
    some gaps or lapses in audio. That would be concerning because
    of the effect on particularly vulnerable populations like the
    elderly and the disabled. How will you ensure in the short term
    that you are able to reach such vulnerable populations?
        Mr. Penn. Yes, ma'am. We think we have corrected the major
    problem that we had with the audio quality, and that was a
    feedback loop that occurred when one of the encoder/decoders at
    the primary entry-point station rebroadcast a message backup
    stream into the message flow. So even though they got a very
    clear message, towards the end of the message started hearing
    in the background the repeat of the message. That is an easy
    fix. All we have to do there is mute the return phone lines so
    nobody can broadcast the message back in to us--something we
    never thought would happen, something that we didn't prepare
    for, but a lesson learned that is an easy fix.
        We have also already had a Webinar with the industry and
    discussed some other technical issues about the audio. And we
    think we have actually moved forward on that as well. So if we
    had to initiate it again right now, I think the audio would be
    much better. I can't give you a real feel for how much ``much
    better'' is, but by solving the first major problem we think
    that that took care of the biggest part of the problem that we
    had.
        The other issue, as you go further down line andrebroadcast
    the message, you lose some of the message quality anyway. So if
    you start with a bad message, the message quality continues to
    get worse. So by correcting it at the source, we think that is
    going to solve most of the problem.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Fleischmann.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question
    is for Ms. Goucher.
        Ms. Goucher, as you know, FEMA is in the process of
    increasing the number of PEP stations. These are stations which
    are hardened to operate during disasters. However, in places
    that are down the daisy chain of transmissions, there are risks
    that they won't receive a broadcast. Once all the anticipated
    PEP stations are complete, how much of the country would
    receive a broadcast directly from a PEP station?
        Ms. Goucher. It is my understanding that FEMA's goal is to
    be able to reach 90 percent of the population. Not 90 percent
    of the land mass of the United States, but 90 percent of the
    population.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Would any other witnesses like to confirm
    that?
        Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, that is correct. We started with 36
    stations. We have increased to 63. Our final plan is to go to
    77 stations by the end of next year. We think that will give us
    90 percent.
        If I could say as well, part of what we learned during the
    test was that the homework prior to the test is as important as
    the test is. And a lot of the work that Ms. Goucher mentioned
    earlier by the broadcasters, cable industry, and providers
    getting ready, I think set the tone for us to be able to have a
    much better message propagation capability than we had before
    the test.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Penn.
        My next question is for Dr. Check. As you have pointed out,
    the message is sent from FEMA to the PEP stations and then
    rebroadcast to other stations. Where does cable fall in this
    distribution chain? And as a followup, do cable operators
    receive broadcasts directly from FEMA or from the PEP stations,
    sir?
        Mr. Check. Cable operators' receivers are at the end of the
    chain. This may be, for example, the Mid-Atlantic area, just to
    give you an example here. So FEMA would send a message out to
    the PEP stations. In the Mid-Atlantic area, that station is
    WBAL in Baltimore. That resends the message out then to local
    area stations in the Washington, DC, area. That would be WTOP,
    the news station, and WMAL, an AM radio station. Then cable
    operators here in the Washington, DC, area listen to those two
    local Washington stations to receive the signal.
        Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Denham. Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Penn and Mr. Barnett, recently the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting entered into apublic-
    private partnership to begin a pilot program to test out a
    mobile emergency alert system which would use the existing
    mobile digital TV, the DTV systems, for alerts. That system
    would be able to send not only text and audio but also maps,
    videos, and photos. Are you aware of this pilot, and do you
    believe this could be incorporated into the IPAWS system?
        Mr. Penn. Sir, I am not personally aware of exactly the
    program that you are talking about. But there is, as I
    mentioned before, a lot of parallel development that is going
    on in the private industry for different products. We have a
    test lab that is set up through Science and Technology at DHS,
    where we can take technologies like that and ensure that they
    are compatible with the Common Alert Protocol and then label
    them as such so that the emergency managers in the field will
    know that they have a product that is capable of interfacing
    with IPAWS. That particular product, I am not aware of.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Barnett.
        Mr. Barnett. Yes, sir, I am aware of the tests that have
    been going on. Nevada is one of the places I know where they
    have done some testing with that concept of being able to get
    maps and things out to first responders and those types of
    things. I don't know that they are having discussions about how
    that would work in the IPAWS, or if it would.
        Mr. Denham. Ms. Goucher, you briefly talked about theDTV in
    your opening statement. Can you expand on that a little bit?
        Ms. Goucher. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, spoke about?
        Mr. Denham. Mobile DTV.
        Ms. Goucher. Mobile DTV and how that fits in. Absolutely.
    Broadcasters are rolling out mobile digital television
    capabilities throughout the country. It is available right now
    in Washington, DC. It is coming to more and more markets every
    day. And what this does is give just one more enormous
    capability of being able to stand on a street corner with a
    mobile device and watch a streaming TV signal with news and
    information and emergency alerts.
        During the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan,
    people were standing on the street in Tokyo watching this
    unfold live. It is an enormous capability and broadcasters are
    just extremely pleased to be able to deliver that capability to
    the American people, because we think it is just one more
    important pathway and an important enhancement to our ability
    to inform people in times of emergency.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        And Dr. Check, you mentioned in your testimony limited
    ability of cable operators to alter the message received. For
    example, if a language translation is needed, IPAWS envisions
    data being transmitted that may contain information that
    includes translations, video, or other forms of information. Do
    you believe the upgraded equipment will allow cable operators
    to receive more than just short text or audio?
        Mr. Check. Well, for multilingual messages, we will
    certainly be happy to pass that information through, and
    certainly with the IPAWS CAP system there is the ability for
    enhanced text messages. We believe, though, that
    formultilingual, the responsibility ought to be with FEMA or
    the message originator, either at the national or State level,
    to provide those different messages.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Mr. Penn.
        Mr. Penn. Yes, sir, I agree. That is a challenge that we
    are working now, is how to integrate languages other than
    English into the system. A large part of the solution is going
    to be local, though, because local communities have different
    requirements and different languages that they need to speak.
    So our initial vision is that there will be the broadcasting of
    some standard message in different languages that tell people
    that there is an emergency and that they need to consult their
    local emergency service providers. We haven't broken the code
    and we haven't gotten to the point now where we feel
    comfortable being able to give a multilingual message across
    the Nation.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you. I would like to thank each of you
    for your testimony today. Your comments have been very
    insightful in helping today's discussion.
        If there are no further questions, I would ask for
    unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing remain
    open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to
    any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
    unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
    any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
    witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I would like to thank our witnesses again for the testimony
    today. And if no other Members have anything to add, this
    subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]