U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

37–299 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–653 

THIS IS NOT A DRILL: AN EXAMINATION OF 

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 25, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

JON TESTER, Montana 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRIS DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

RENAE BLACK, Senior Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on January 25, 2018 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Thune ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Nelson .................................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Klobuchar ............................................................................ 31 

Statement of Senator Sullivan ............................................................................... 33 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 34 

Statement of Senator Capito .................................................................................. 36 

Statement of Senator Markey ................................................................................. 38 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 40 

Statement of Senator Cortez Masto ....................................................................... 42 

Statement of Senator Duckworth ........................................................................... 43 

Statement of Senator Wicker .................................................................................. 45 

WITNESSES

Lisa M. Fowlkes, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission ...................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Scott Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA .................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Michael Lisenco, The National Association for Amateur Radio .......................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Sam Matheny, Chief Technology Officer, National Association of Broadcasters ................................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

APPENDIX

Letter dated January 23, 2018 to Chairman Ajit Pai, Commissioner Mignon 

Clyburn, Commissioner Michael O’Reilly, Commissioner Brendan Carr and 

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel from Barb Graff, Chair, Big City Emergency Managers; and Director, City of Seattle Office of Emergency Managers ...................................................................................................................... 49 

Letter dated January 25, 2018 to Hon. John Thune and Hon. Bill Nelson 

from Steven K. Berry, President and CEO, Competitive Carriers Association ........................................................................................................................ 51

Response to written questions submitted to Lisa M. Fowlkes by: 

Hon. John Thune .............................................................................................. 52 

Hon. Brian Schatz ............................................................................................ 52 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 53 

Response to written questions submitted to Scott Bergmann by: 

Hon. Brian Schatz ............................................................................................ 54 

Hon. Tom Udall ................................................................................................ 54 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 56 

Response to written questions submitted to Sam Matheny by: 

Hon. Gary Peters .............................................................................................. 58 

(1) 

THIS IS NOT A DRILL: AN EXAMINATION OF 

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEMS 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Wicker, Blunt, Fischer, Sullivan, Heller, Capito, Gardner, Nelson, Cantwell, Klobuchar, 

Schatz, Markey, Udall, Peters, Duckworth, Hassan, and Cortez 

Masto. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing 

on our country’s Emergency Alert Systems. I hope to hear from our 

panel this morning about what’s working, what’s not, and what we 

can do better to prevent false alerts like we saw with the Hawaii 

ballistic missile warning earlier this month. 

Ensuring state and local governments have the proper tools and 

safeguards to properly alert the public of an impending emergency 

is absolutely critical. False alerts not only create unnecessary 

panic, but they undermine the integrity of the Emergency Alert 

System, leading to public distrust and confusion. What happened 

in Hawaii is inexcusable and must be addressed to ensure an incident like that never happens again. 

It is essential that Americans have an Emergency Alert System 

that they can trust, and, overwhelmingly, by and large, I believe 

they do. There is much that is working well with the Emergency 

Alert System. In fact, it’s arguably a model public-private program, 

operating as envisioned by this committee through the WARN Act. 

Industry partners, including those represented here today, have 

been investing to improve the system and are working collaboratively with government and public safety officials to carry out the 

mission. We certainly do not want to overlook these successes, but 

as recent events have shown, there are problems that must be addressed. 

Today’s hearing will be the first of two hearings on Emergency 

Alert Systems. In the near future, we will hold a field hearing in 

Hawaii to further address the January 13 ballistic missile false 

alarm and to follow up on the issues that are discussed today. 

2 

Since the early days of the cold war, the United States has been 

building and improving an Emergency Alert System to warn our 

citizens, first from the risks of a Soviet attack and later expanded 

to include natural disasters like fires, floods, tornados, and 

tsunamis. We have continued to build on this lifesaving system to 

include AMBER Alerts, which seek the public’s assistance when a 

child is in danger. Soon, we will also have Blue Alerts, which can 

be issued when there is an imminent and credible threat to a law 

enforcement officer. 

From the beginning, our Emergency Alert Systems have harnessed the immense resources of commercial communications systems—broadcast television and radio in the beginning, and eventually cable and satellite TV and mobile phone networks—to reach 

the American public as quickly and effectively as possible. 

Here is how the system works, or should work. Our alert system 

relies on Federal, state, and local officials authorized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to decide when an 

alert is appropriate and what it should communicate. These alerts 

are then sent to FEMA. When FEMA receives an alert, it validates 

that it is from an authorized entity before forwarding it to the 

broadcasters, mobile phone service providers, and others, who, in 

turn, send the alert out on televisions, radios, and mobile phones 

in the affected areas. 

The Federal Communications Commission regulates the interface 

between those sending the messages and the communications companies that deliver the messages to us. Ensuring that people get 

the information they need and that alerts are credible and make 

sense to the recipients is an ongoing process, but it is fundamental 

that messages must be credible. 

Messages sent in error like the Hawaii ballistic missile alert run 

the risk of undermining the entire alert system by reducing people’s confidence in alerts. While we do not want to prevent authorized officials from communicating alerts to the public when they 

see fit, we must ensure that such officials are better trained. There 

are additional improvements we can undertake as well. 

For example, there is no question that the National Weather 

Service’s watch and warning system saves lives, but it can also be 

enhanced. That is why I included provisions in the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, which became law 

last spring, that require the National Weather Service to use the 

latest behavioral science and stakeholder feedback to improve its 

watch and warning system. We should make sure that lessons 

learned from one incident inform and improve future alerts. 

The FCC is also taking steps to make improvements to the alert 

system through the use of better geo-targeting of messages, which 

is being considered at its current proceeding, that is, targeting 

messages to those who need to receive them and not sending them 

to those who don’t. This helps avoid alert fatigue and also addresses the concerns expressed by some local officials during the California wild fires last year that an overly broad alert could result 

in traffic jams with those unnecessarily leaving their homes and 

hindering the evacuation of those who truly do need to leave. 

As we’ll hear today, the goal of providing timely emergency information to our communities is also advanced by private citizens, 

3 

like those amateur or ‘‘Ham’’ radio operators who have helped keep 

people connected after tragedies like Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and 

Maria. 

Today, I am pleased to welcome Ms. Lisa Fowlkes, Chief of the 

FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Mr. Scott 

Bergmann, Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at CTIA— 

The Wireless Association; Mr. Sam Matheny, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of the National Association of 

Broadcasters; and Mike Lisenco, a representative of the Amateur 

Radio Relay League. 

Thank you all for being here. I look forward to today’s discussion. 

I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Senator Schatz, for 

any opening remarks that he may have, and I think he can speak 

personally to the impact of this issue. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For many people in Hawaii, one of the most harrowing hours of 

their lives started just a few minutes after 8 a.m. on January 13, 

2018. Cell phones across the state lit up with a warning that a ballistic missile attack was imminent. For the next 38 minutes, both 

residents and visitors panicked. People were terrified as they 

scrambled to get in touch with loved ones. I know, because I was 

home in Honolulu that morning, and I started to get dozens of 

texts with screenshots of the push alert asking me what was happening. 

Meanwhile, within a minute or two, officials at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency had spoken to the Pacific Command 

and confirmed that there was no missile attack—only nobody told 

the rest of us. The people of Hawaii may be relieved about the false 

alarm, but they are also angry. All of this was avoidable, from the 

false alarm itself to the series of mistakes at multiple junctures 

surrounding the incident. Human and bureaucratic errors made 

the crisis worse, but there are also inherent flaws in the system 

itself. 

We are here today because of problems in our Emergency Alert 

Systems, from Hawaii’s false alarm to issues in communications related to the recent California wildfires. So I want to thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for holding this hearing 

and for agreeing to hold a field hearing in Hawaii in the near future, and I want to thank the FCC, including Ms. Fowlkes, who 

came to a meeting I convened last week with FEMA, the DoD, and 

the Department of Homeland Security, for helping us determine 

what happened and how to fix it. 

What happened in Hawaii raises some basic policy questions. 

Right now, any city, county, or state can choose to participate in 

this program on missile alerts, and when they do, they gain the 

technical ability to get the word out, but that does not make them 

experts in knowing when a missile is coming. That rests with the 

Department of Defense. It is increasingly clear to me that if we get 

all 50 states and all the territories and 3,007 counties across the 

country participating in this program, the likelihood of another 

4 

mistaken missile alert as a result of human or bureaucratic error 

is not zero. 

Local officials have led on disaster response and recovery, but if 

the Federal Government knows a missile is coming, it is worth asking if they should be the ones to tell everyone. States are laboratories of democracy. They should not be the laboratories for missile 

alerts, which is why this is an important question for Congress to 

consider. 

We have lively debates about federalism, about the role of local 

versus Federal Government. But a missile attack is Federal. A missile attack is not a local responsibility. Confirmation and notification of something like a missile attack should reside with the agency that knows first and knows for sure. In other words, the people 

who know should be the people who tell us. 

That is why I’m introducing legislation with Senators Harris, 

Gardner, and others to make it clear that the authority to send 

missile alerts should rest with the Departments of Defense and 

Homeland Security. These agencies have to work with the state 

and local emergency management agencies when they get the word 

out so that the public is safe and informed. 

Thank you again, Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, for your leadership on this issue, and I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses on where we stand and what we can do better. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Schatz, and thank you for 

sharing your experience, and we all look forward to working with 

you to make sure something like that never happens again to your 

constituents or anybody else in this country. 

So the Ranking Member, Senator Nelson, is here. 

Senator Nelson, an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, I 

thought yesterday’s hearing down at the auto show on autonomous 

vehicles was outstanding. So thank you. I think there’s going to be 

a lot of good to come out of that hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. I hope you’re right. Very interesting. 

Senator NELSON. If you were told that a ballistic missile was inbound, and your loved ones were spread out, what in the world 

would go through your mind? It’s exactly what went through the 

mind of Senator Schatz. Regrettably, he knows the answer to that 

question, and he knows it’s very real and it’s very personal. He was 

there. He received the alert, and it’s because of that personal connection to this situation and the leadership that he has shown in 

the aftermath that I’m going to be here simply to support him in 

this. 

Nobody should have to go through what the folks of Hawaii did. 

But the flip side of that is we want to make sure that there is a 

system in place so if there is an inbound nuclear warhead, our people are alerted. 

When disasters occur, Americans rely not only on emergency 

alerts, but also on our 911 system. But the infrastructure is aging, 

and, frankly, it has been left behind in the digital revolution. Congress must make modernizing the 911 system a national priority, 

5 

which is why I’ve worked with Senator Klobuchar to introduce the 

Next Generation 911 Act of 2017—we need a template for moving 

ahead on a bipartisan basis, and this is a good bill to start moving 

ahead on this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. That’s something, 

hopefully, this committee can work together on and get done for 

the good of all the people in this country and, of course, most specifically, for the people of Hawaii. 

We do have a great panel, and we look forward to hearing from 

them this morning. We’ll start with Ms. Lisa Fowlkes, who is the 

Chief of Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission, which has jurisdiction over the 

integration of all these forms of communication; Mr. Scott 

Bergmann, who is Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA; 

Mr. Mike Lisenco, who is Chairman of the Advocacy Committee, 

Amateur Radio Relay League, and member of the Board of Directors; and Sam Matheny, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at the National Association of Broadcasters. 

We’ll start, Ms. Fowlkes, with you. 

If you all could confine your oral remarks to five minutes or 

thereabouts, we will make sure that all of your testimony is made 

a part of the written record, and it will give us some time to ask 

questions. 

So, Ms. Fowlkes, please proceed. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LISA M. FOWLKES, CHIEF, 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Ms. FOWLKES. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Thune, 

Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our Nation’s 

emergency alerting systems. 

The false ballistic missile warning issued on January 13 by the 

State of Hawaii was absolutely unacceptable. It resulted in widespread panic, and the extended period it took to correct the error, 

nearly 40 minutes, compounded the problem. Looking beyond the 

immediate consequences of the mistake, which were serious in and 

of themselves, this cry of wolf damaged the credibility of emergency 

alert messaging, which can be dangerous when a real emergency 

occurs. 

The Commission acted swiftly to open an investigation into the 

matter. That investigation is ongoing, but based on current information, it appears that the false alert was a result of two failures. 

First, simple human error. Second, the state did not have safeguards or process controls in place to prevent the human error 

from resulting in the transmission of a false alert. 

Last week, the FCC sent two employees to interview representatives of the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency and other 

stakeholders. The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency tells us 

that it is working with its vendor to integrate additional technical 

safeguards into its alert origination software and has changed its 

protocols to require two individuals to sign off on a transmission 

of test and live alerts. 

6 

We are quite pleased with the level of cooperation we have received from the leadership of the Hawaii Emergency Management 

Agency thus far. We are disappointed, however, that one key employee, the person who transmitted the false alert, is refusing to cooperate with our investigation. We hope that person will reconsider. 

Moving forward, the Commission will focus on ways to prevent 

this from happening again. Federal, state, and local officials 

throughout the country need to work together to identify any 

vulnerabilities to false alerts and do what is necessary to fix them. 

We also must ensure that should a false alert nonetheless occur, 

a correction is issued promptly in order to minimize confusion. 

Emergency alerting systems provide timely and lifesaving information to the public, and we must take all measures to bolster and 

restore the public’s confidence in these systems. While the incident 

in Hawaii is very present in our minds, we cannot lose sight of the 

fact that the Wireless Emergency Alerts, or WEA, has greatly enhanced public safety. 

In the last 5 years, WEA has been used to issue over 33,000 

emergency alerts. In California, WEA was used four times in response to the 2017 wildfires in northern California and 16 times 

for the Los Angeles area wildfires. WEA was also used extensively 

in all areas affected by the 2017 hurricanes. 

The Commission has taken significant steps to enhance alert capabilities by leveraging advancements in technology. In September 

2016, the Commission adopted rules to enable wireless alerts to 

contain more content and to enable support for alerts written in 

Spanish. 

When the WEA program launched in 2012, participating wireless 

providers were generally required to target alerts to a county or 

counties affected by the emergency. As of last November, all participating wireless providers are now required to transmit alerts to 

a geographic area that best approximates the area affected, even 

if it is smaller than a county. To further improve WEA, next Tuesday, the Commission will vote on an order that would require participating wireless providers to target alerts with an overreach of 

no more than one-tenth of a mile and require carriers to preserve 

WEA alerts for 24 hours. 

In closing, we look forward to partnering with emergency management professionals from your jurisdictions on the alerting capabilities that they need to use America’s public alert and warning 

systems with confidence during times of crisis. 

Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fowlkes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LISA M. FOWLKES, CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND

SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our Nation’s emergency alerting systems. 

The false alert issued on January 13th by the State of Hawaii, in which recipients 

were warned of an imminent ballistic missile attack, was absolutely unacceptable. 

It resulted in widespread panic, and the extended period it took to correct the 

error—nearly 40 minutes—compounded the problem. Looking beyond the immediate 

consequences of the mistake, which were serious in and of themselves, this cry of 

7 

‘‘wolf’’ damaged the credibility of alert messaging, which can be dangerous when a 

real emergency occurs. 

The Commission acted swiftly in the wake of this incident to open an investigation into the matter. That investigation is ongoing—we had investigators on the 

ground in Hawaii just last week—but based on information gathered to date, it appears that the false alert was issued as a result of both human error and the state 

having insufficient safeguards and process controls in place to prevent that human 

error from resulting in the transmission of a false alert. The Hawaii Emergency 

Management Agency has advised us that it is working with its vendor to integrate 

additional technical safeguards into its alert origination software, and has changed 

its protocols to require two individuals to sign off on the transmission of tests and 

live alerts. 

Moving forward, the Commission will focus on what steps need to be taken to prevent a similar incident from happening again. Federal, state, and local officials 

throughout the country need to work together to identify any vulnerabilities to false 

alerts and do what’s necessary to fix them. We also must ensure that corrections 

are issued immediately after a false alert goes out in order to minimize panic and 

confusion. Emergency alerting systems provide timely and life-saving information to 

the public, and we must take all measures to bolster and restore the public’s confidence in these systems. 

The incident in Hawaii is very present in our minds. But I don’t want this incident to detract from the benefits of and success stories behind wireless emergency 

alerts. In this respect, I would like to describe the FCC’s efforts to support Wireless 

Emergency Alerts, commonly known as ‘‘WEA,’’ since the system was deployed in 

April 2012. In the last 5 years, WEA has been used to issue over 33,000 emergency 

alerts. WEA helps individuals take protective action in cases of threats to life and 

property. The National Weather Service alone has sent well over 21,000 WEA 

alerts. For example, we understand that local California officials used WEA four 

times in response to the 2017 wildfires in Northern California, and sixteen times 

for the Los Angeles area wildfires. Representatives from the California Governor’s 

Office of Emergency Services and officials in Marin and Mendocino Counties reported successful use of WEA to move citizens in their jurisdictions to safety. WEA 

was also used extensively in all areas affected by the 2017 hurricanes, including 21 

WEA alerts sent in Puerto Rico alone. 

WEA also helps to recover missing children. In 2016 alone, 179 AMBER Alerts 

were issued in the U.S. involving 231 children. Since the system was deployed in 

2012, WEA has been credited with the safe return of 25 missing children. For example, on May 14, 2016, in North Las Vegas, Nevada, a 22-month-old child was abducted and driven off in a stolen car. An AMBER Alert was immediately activated 

and sent out to cell phones using the WEA system. The kidnappers took the child 

to their friend’s house, and while they were there, the WEA Alert began to arrive 

on everyone’s phone. The abductors tried to flee, but the friend took the child and 

the car keys, called 911, and brought the child to a police station. The child was 

safely rescued, and the kidnappers were arrested. 

The Commission places the highest priority on ensuring that emergency management authorities and first responders have the most up-to-date tools available to respond to such events. Since WEA was first deployed in 2012, the Commission has 

taken significant steps to enhance federal, state, and local alert and warning capabilities to leverage advancements in technology. 

In September 2016, the Commission adopted rules to enable wireless alerts to 

contain more content by increasing message length from 90 to 360 characters and 

by supporting embedded phone numbers and URLs. It also took action to enable 

support for alerts written in Spanish and make it easier for state and local authorities to test WEA, train personnel, and raise public awareness about the service. 

The Commission also recognized that it is critical for emergency managers to be 

able to geographically target alerts to only those phones located in areas affected 

by an emergency. When the WEA program launched in 2012, participating wireless 

providers were generally required to send the alerts to a geographic area no larger 

than the county or counties affected by the emergency situation. As of last November, all participating wireless providers are now required to transmit alerts to a geographic area that best approximates the area affected by the emergency situation, 

even if it is smaller than a county. 

But the Commission is not stopping there. Next Tuesday, the Commission will 

vote on an Order that would require participating wireless providers to target alerts 

with an overreach of no more than one tenth of a mile. Public safety officials strongly support our proposed action. For example, APCO recently hailed the Chairman 

Pai’s proposal as a ‘‘dramatic enhancement to WEA’’ that will provide public safety 

professionals with increased confidence that the system will be able to deliver emerVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
8 

1 Ex Parte Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, APCO, PS Docket No. 15–91 (Jan. 12, 

2018). 2 Ex Parte Letter from Francisco Sanchez, Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator, Harris County, PS Docket No. 5–91 (Jan. 19, 2018). 

gency information more efficiently.1 State and local governments also support the 

Chairman’s proposal. For example, Harris County states that the Chairman proposal ‘‘will empower local public safety officials with the tools necessary to keep 

WEA relevant’’ and that if ‘‘adopted in a way that clearly outlines intended expectations and requirements, it will be the single most important improvement to the Nation’s alerts and warnings infrastructure in years.’’ 2

Enhanced geo-targeting is one among several pertinent improvements currently 

before the Commission that would make WEA a more powerful tool for saving lives 

during emergencies. By matching alerts to phones actually located within the affected area, the Commission’s proposal would assist emergency response efforts and 

instill confidence in the public’s reliance on WEA. Because people will be receiving 

alerts that are relevant to them, they will be less likely to opt out of the program 

and more likely to take the alerts they receive seriously. We are also currently considering how to provide emergency managers with the ability to transmit alerts in 

languages in addition to English and Spanish, alerts that can contain pictures, and 

alerts that could provide the public with the ability to reply. While WEA is a powerful alert and warning tool, it is also important to note that it is only one among 

several tools available to emergency managers to alert and warn their communities. 

For example, the Emergency Alert System, or EAS, is the traditional system used 

to provide alerts and warnings to the public over broadcast, cable and satellite systems, and remains a vital tool for emergency managers, state and local authorities. 

The Commission has been working to modernize the EAS to ensure that it remains 

a relied upon and useful tool. For example, just this past December the Commission 

adopted a new ‘‘blue alert’’ code for both EAS and WEA that will allow alert originators to provide targeted information to the public regarding threats to law enforcement and to help apprehend dangerous suspects. In addition, in November the 

Chairman circulated an item for the Commission’s consideration that would modernize and streamline the filing process for EAS state plans. 

Over the past several years, the FCC has also worked closely with FEMA to conduct nationwide tests of the EAS to assess its reliability and effectiveness. The FCC 

has also successfully deployed the EAS Electronic Reporting System, or ETRS, a 

user-friendly database that allows the over 25,000 EAS participants to report test 

results in close to real time. The most recent test was conducted on September 27, 

2017, and our initial analysis of the ETRS results shows improvements in most 

areas. For example, results indicate more than 95 percent of participants received 

the test alerts, and nearly 92 percent successfully retransmitted the alert—both up 

from the previous year. Further, more than twice as many EAS Participants retransmitted the Spanish language version of the alert than was the case in 2016. 

In all, we are encouraged by the results and will continue to strive to find ways 

to enhance the EAS as well. 

In closing, we look forward to partnering with emergency management professionals from your jurisdictions on the alerting capabilities that they need to use the 

EAS and WEA with confidence during crises when every second counts. 

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to any questions you may 

have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Fowlkes. 

Mr. Bergmann. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA 

Mr. BERGMANN. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and 

members of the Committee, on behalf of CTIA, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify about the critical and successful role of Wireless Emergency Alerts. 

CTIA commends this Committee for its focus today on this issue 

and for your leadership on it over the last decade, extending back 

to the passage of the WARN Act in 2006 which created the WireVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
9 

less Emergency Alert, or WEA, program, a partnership between the 

wireless industry, government, and public safety officials. 

Since its launch 5 years ago, Wireless Emergency Alerts have become a critical resource for hundreds of millions of Americans who 

rely on mobile phones every day. Today, wireless providers serving 

more than 99 percent of U.S. subscribers voluntarily participate in 

WEA. More than 33,000 WEA alerts have been sent, helping to locate those in danger and warn of imminent threats or dangers. 

CTIA members are deeply committed to ensuring that we remain 

a trusted and effective source for the American public. So the recent false alert in Hawaii underscores the importance of the 

functionality, integrity, and credibility of our Nation’s Emergency 

Alert System. With that in mind, my testimony will address the 

vital role that WEA plays, our ongoing efforts to enhance its capabilities, and the importance of maintaining the system’s integrity. 

A decade ago, this committee recognized the value of Wireless 

Emergency Alerts to reach nearly every American. Now, as more 

than half of American households are wireless only, WEA has become an essential tool for public safety officials to reach Americans 

wherever they are. WEA is part of our broader national alerting 

system. 

Federal, state, and local authorities transmit emergency messages to FEMA. FEMA authenticates and formats messages for distribution to the various national alerting systems, and wireless providers deliver authorized WEA messages to the targeted area as 

determined by alert authorities. Wireless providers do not control 

message content and do not exercise discretion over whether to 

transmit messages. 

Because local authorities can target WEA alerts to a particular 

area, they’re extremely effective at reaching those Americans directly impacted by an emergency. WEA’s unique sound and vibration help ensure that everyone is aware of the alert. Wireless 

Emergency Alerts have helped to return abducted children; they 

have warned millions of people in the path of severe weather 

events, like flooding, tornadoes, and wildfires; and they’ve helped 

law enforcement catch terror suspects in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and 2016 Chelsea bombing in New York City. 

We continue to expand WEA’s capabilities. In the past year, the 

FCC has adopted rules to expand the content that authorities can 

send to consumers, adding additional characters, Spanish language, Blue Alerts, and downloadable content from embedded 

links, as well as support for additional state and local testing. 

We’ve supported these enhancements because our members are 

committed to the proven lifesaving success of WEA. 

Next week, the FCC plans to adopt an order that further enhances WEA’s geo-targeting capabilities. Today, WEA alerts can be 

targeted down to the cell sector level, a significant improvement 

over WEA’s initial county level targeting. Given the expanding public safety mission for WEA, CTIA supports the FCC’s proposed enhanced geo-targeting framework, which can help public safety minimize over-alerting through innovative, device-based solutions. Significant standards, deployment, and testing work still needs to be 

done to support this capability. For this reason, we’ll be challenged 

10 

1Wireless Emergency Alerts, Order on Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 9621, 9625 n.28 (2017); 

see also, CTIA, How Wireless Emergency Alerts Help Save Lives, https://www.ctia.org/consumer-tips/how-wireless-emergency-alerts-help-save-lives (last visited Jan. 23, 2018). 

to meet the FCC’s proposed timeline of November 2019, but the 

wireless industry will work intently to do so. 

Finally, the false alert in Hawaii underscores that public confidence in our national alerting systems must remain our highest 

priority. Alert originators must send warnings appropriately and 

judiciously, FEMA must authenticate messages quickly and accurately, and providers must deliver messages to the targeted area. 

We commend this committee and Chairman Pai for working quickly to identify lessons learned from this event, and we appreciate 

Commissioner Rosenworcel’s call for additional best practices. 

There will be many lessons learned, but this event also demonstrated that the technical capabilities of the WEA system work. 

For this reason, policymakers and the public should have confidence that in the event of a real emergency, authenticated information can be disseminated rapidly and effectively through the 

Wireless Emergency Alert System. CTIA is proud of the critical 

role that WEA plays in our national alert system and is committed 

to working collaboratively to maintain public confidence. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA 

Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the Committee, on 

behalf of CTIA and our member companies throughout the wireless ecosystem, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the critical and 

successful role of Wireless Emergency Alerts within our Nation’s emergency alert 

system. 

CTIA commends the leadership of this Committee for its passage of the Warning, 

Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act, which created the Wireless Emergency 

Alert (WEA) program, a public-private partnership between the wireless industry, 

government, and alert originators. The Wireless Emergency Alert system was 

launched in 2012 and is jointly implemented and administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). In the five years since the launch of the Wireless Emergency Alert system, 

it has become a critical resource for the hundreds of millions of Americans who rely 

on their mobile phones every day. 

CTIA and its member companies are proud of the wireless industry’s role in the 

Wireless Emergency Alerts system. Today, all four national wireless providers and 

dozens of regional providers, serving more than 99 percent of all U.S. subscribers, 

are voluntarily participating in the Wireless Emergency Alert system; transmitting 

thousands of alerts each year and helping our public safety professionals save lives.1

Ensuring that Wireless Emergency Alerts remain a trusted source of emergency information for the American public is one of our highest priorities. 

The mistaken alert that was issued in Hawaii on January 13, 2018 is of course 

at top of mind for policymakers, CTIA and its member companies, all WEA stakeholders, and the public writ large. The Hawaii incident underscores to all of us the 

importance of the functionality and integrity—and credibility—of our Nation’s emergency alert systems. Any incident that affects the public’s confidence in emergency 

alerts risks undermining the effectiveness of all alerting systems, including WEA. 

We lose the effectiveness of emergency alerting if people simply ignore or opt-out 

of receiving these critical messages. 

For this reason, we are deeply committed to doing our part to ensure that Wireless Emergency Alerts remain a trusted and effective tool for public safety. With 

that in mind, I would like to address the program’s success, the cooperative voluntary framework on which WEA operates, ongoing efforts to enhance the geoVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
11 

2Stephen J. Blumberg & Julian V. Luke, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, Nat’l Ctr. 

for Health Statistics, Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health 

Interview Survey, July–December 2016 (May 2017); see also, Alina Sleuth, Nat’l Pub. Radio, The 

Daredevils Without Landlines—And Why Health Experts Are Tracking Them (May 4, 2017), 

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/12/03/458225197/the-daredevils-without 

-landlines-and-why-health-experts-are-tracking-them. 3 Aaron C. Davis & Sandhya Somashekhar, The only California county that sent a warning 

to residents’ cellphones has no reported fatalities, Wash. Post, Oct. 13 2017, https://www 

.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-only-california-county-that-sent-a-warning-to-residentscellphones-has-no-reported-fatalities/2017/10/13/b28b5af4-b01f-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story 

.html?utm_term=.cd24bb9ecf9chttps://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-only-califor 

nia-county-that-sent-a-warning-to-residents-cellphones-has-no-reported-fatalities-/2017/10/13/b2 

8b5af4-b01f-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.cd24bb9ecf9c. 4Mark Lucero, Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency, Integrated Public Alert & Warning System16 

16 (Aug. 8, 2017), https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap 

sgfoundation.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F08%2FFEMA_IPAWS_Keynote_MarkLu 

cero_20170708.pptxhttps://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.- 

napsgfoundation.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F08%2FFEMA_IPAWS_Keynote_ 

Mark-Lucero_20170708.pptx. 5 Amber Alerts, Nat’l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, http://www.missingkids.com/ 

gethelpnow/amber (last visited Jan. 23, 2018). 6See generally CTIA, Hurricane Harvey: Resiliency & Relief, https://www.ctia.org/hurricaneharvey/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2018); Davis & Somashekhar, supra note 3; Richard Perez-Pena, 

Fire Alert Sent to Millions of Cellphones Was California’s Largest Warning Yet, N.Y. Times, 

Dec. 7, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/cellphone-alerts-california-fires.html. 7 Rick Wimberly, Powerful Wireless Emergency Alerts Success Stories at Congressional Hearing, Emergency Management, Oct. 24, 2013, http://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/ 

alerts/Powerful-Wireless-Emergency-Alerts-Success-Stories-at-Congressional-Hearing.html; see 

Continued 

graphic targeting (geo-targeting) of alert messages, and, finally, the importance of 

maintaining the system’s integrity. 

The Success of Wireless Emergency Alerts 

The Wireless Emergency Alert system is the newest and most effective means the 

Nation has for warning Americans of imminent dangers and other incidents requiring immediate action. A decade ago, Congress and this Committee wisely recognized 

the value of wireless in reaching nearly every American and set in motion the creation of the Wireless Emergency Alert system. Now, as more than half of American 

households have cut the cord and are ‘‘wireless only,’’ 2 alerts and warnings sent to 

our mobile devices are the obvious choice for public safety officials to make sure we 

can take action wherever we are, whatever we are doing. 

Wireless Emergency Alerts delivered to wireless devices in a targeted area—with 

their unique sounds, high volumes, and forceful vibrations—save lives. The WEA 

system sends out Amber Alerts and shelter-in-place directives, warns citizens of 

fires, floods, and tornados, and otherwise keeps the public apprised of real threats. 

Because WEA messages are delivered to consumers with capable mobile devices in 

an area targeted by local authorities, they are an extremely effective mechanism for 

reaching those Americans that are directly impacted by an emergency. It is no wonder that some have called Wireless Emergency Alerts ‘‘the government’s most potent 

public notification system.’’ 3

Since 2012, more than 33,000 Wireless Emergency Alerts have been sent to consumers with WEA-capable devices.4 These messages have asked the public for help 

in locating someone in danger or warned Americans of imminent threats or disasters. 

For example, in 2015, an AMBER Alert for a missing child was sent through the 

WEA system to wireless consumers in Minnesota. A citizen in the area received the 

alert on their smartphone, saw a black Honda Civic that matched the description 

issued in the alert, and called 9–1–1. Authorities responded and rescued the child 

from the abductor. This is just one of many such stories—a total of 910 children 

have been successfully recovered through the AMBER Alert system, as of January 

8, 2018.5

Wireless Emergency Alerts have also been used extensively to warn the public of 

severe weather emergencies. This past fall, more than 300 Wireless Emergency 

Alerts warned people around Houston, Texas about Hurricane Harvey and its rising 

floodwaters, more than 200 Wireless Emergency Alerts warned Floridians about the 

strong winds of Hurricane Irma, and Wireless Emergency Alerts played a critical 

role in warning many Californians about the devastating wildfires.6 In 2013, 29 children were saved from a tornado ripping through a soccer building in Windsor, Connecticut when the camp manager received a Wireless Emergency Alert seconds before the tornado touched down.7 Even as the system was only months old in 2012, 

12 

also, David Owens & Chloe Miller, National Weather Service Confirms Two Tornadoes Monday, 

Hartford Courant, July 2, 2013, http://articles.courant.com/2013-07-02/news/hc-tornado-warning-0702-20130701_1_windsor-locks-dome-national-weather-service-confirms. 8Wimberly, supra note 7. 9 Id. 

10David Goodman & David Gelles, Cellphone Alerts Used in New York to Search for Bombing 

Suspect, N.Y. Times, Sept. 19, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/nyregion/cellphonealerts-used-in-search-of-manhattan-bombing-suspect.html. 11Wireless Emergency Alerts, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

31 FCC Rcd 11112, 1113711137–38 (2016). 

public safety officials were using Wireless Emergency Alerts to warn the people in 

the path of Superstorm Sandy.8

Local emergency officials have also used Wireless Emergency Alerts to inform the 

public of ongoing law enforcement and terrorist threats, and to enlist their assistance. In 2013, Massachusetts authorities sent a shelter-in-place Wireless Emergency 

Alert while apprehending the suspects in the Boston Marathon Bombing.9 And in 

2016, the City of New York sent a description of the suspect in the Chelsea Bombing 

through a Wireless Emergency Alert, leading to the suspect’s arrest within hours 

of the alert.10

For more than a decade, the wireless industry has worked diligently to develop 

and deploy this capability in its networks and devices. Through cell broadcast technology unique to the WEA system, mobile providers can broadcast Wireless Emergency Alerts from cell-sites in areas targeted by local emergency officials to wireless 

devices in a timely manner. Today, there are millions of devices throughout the U.S. 

that are capable of receiving these critical messages. 

Wireless Emergency Alerts are part of the broader national alerting system, 

known as the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), managed by 

FEMA. Through IPAWs, authorized federal, state, and local authorities, known as 

alert originators, transmit emergency messages to a FEMA-operated system. 

FEMA’s system authenticates and formats the message for distribution across a variety of channels, including the WEA system. Of note, the substance and distribution channel of an alert is determined by the federal, state, or local government that 

originates the alert. Wireless providers deliver authorized WEA messages to the target area identified by the alert originator without input into the content of a message or discretion over whether or not to transmit it. 

Reflecting the evolution of our mobile wireless networks and devices, the capabilities of the Wireless Emergency Alert system continue to advance in a remarkably 

short timeframe. In less than six years since the voluntary Wireless Emergency 

Alert system was first launched, the FCC has adopted various updates and improvements—and is poised to adopt another one next week. In 2016, the FCC put rules 

in place to increase the maximum alert length from 90 characters to 360 characters 

for LTE wireless systems and future networks, as well as support additional local 

and state testing capabilities, Spanish-language alerts, and embedded links and 

phone numbers. In particular, the FCC noted that allowing embedded references to 

be included in WEA alerts ‘‘will dramatically improve WEA’s effectiveness’’ and that 

commenters identified this capability as ‘‘the most critical among all of our proposed 

improvements to WEA.’’ 11

CTIA’s member companies are working hard to add these new capabilities into 

the WEA system, and have already answered public safety’s call to ensure that 

alerts are capable of including embedded links so that consumers will be able to go 

to a website to see a photo of the missing child, or a suspected terrorist. 

Enhanced Geo-targeting Requirements 

In the coming days, the FCC plans to adopt another order focused on the geo-targeting capabilities of the WEA system. The FCC initially mandated targeting at the 

county level, but many participating providers began voluntarily supporting geo-targeting of Wireless Emergency Alerts well below the county level to enable local officials to minimize over-alerting. An appropriately targeted WEA message can mitigate the possibility that an alert will cause distress or panic in areas not actually 

at risk and enhance public confidence in the emergency alert system. Today, participating providers deliver Wireless Emergency Alerts to a targeted area that best approximates the area identified by the alert originators down to the cell-sector level. 

While the ability to geo-target Wireless Emergency Alerts down to the cell-sector 

level will remain a constant feature of the system, we share the expressed goal of 

public safety leaders to harness innovative location technologies to further minimize 

the possibility of over-alerting. For this reason, CTIA supports the framework for 

enhancing the geo-targeting capabilities of the WEA system that the FCC will consider next week. If adopted, a participating wireless provider would be required to 

13 

match the alert area by distributing the WEA message to 100 percent of the alert 

area that the carrier’s network serves with no more than a tenth of a mile overshoot. To deliver this new capability, wireless providers will shift from a solely network-based approach to target the alert area to one that also harnesses location capabilities within mobile devices. Once available, this capability will give local alert 

originators an additional tool to minimize the possibility that someone will receive 

an irrelevant Wireless Emergency Alert. 

The draft geo-targeting order proposes an aggressive implementation timeline 

that will present a significant challenge for wireless providers and device manufacturers. As the proposed Order notes, significant standards, deployment and testing 

work remains to support this enhanced geo-targeting capability throughout the 

chain of the alert—from alert originators to FEMA’s gateway to wireless networks 

to mobile devices. If adopted, the wireless industry—including participating providers and device manufacturers—will work intently, as it always has, in an effort 

to meet the FCC’s aggressive deadline. 

Maintaining Public Confidence After Hawaii 

The January 13, 2018 incident in Hawaii has underscored for all of us—government and industry alike—that the success of Wireless Emergency Alerts relies on 

the public’s trust. Trust in the system hinges on execution. Alert originators must 

send Wireless Emergency Alerts appropriately and judiciously; the FEMA authentication and verification process must be expeditious and robust; and participating 

wireless providers must deliver WEA messages to the targeted area. Only this way 

will the public know that when a Wireless Emergency Alert is sent, the danger is 

real. 

This Committee should be commended for focusing on what errors led to the mistaken Hawaii alert and on drawing out lessons learned. Going forward, we should 

strive to make sure that another harm does not take root—namely, the danger that 

the next time an alert is issued, that some will not take it seriously or refuse to 

evacuate. 

CTIA and the wireless industry also commend FCC Chairman Pai for swift action 

to investigate the cause of this incident and appreciate FCC Commissioner Jessica 

Rosenworcel’s recent recommendations and suggestions for new best practices 

around the training and use of our Nation’s emergency alert system. Notably, Congress recognized the need to train and equip our alert originators to more effectively 

use our Nation’s emergency alert system when the IPAWS Modernization Act became law in 2015. And in 2016, the FCC encouraged emergency management agencies to engage in proficiency training exercises that could help minimize system failures and ensure that any failures are corrected during a period when no real emergency exists. CTIA strongly supports all of these efforts and encourages FEMA and 

other public-safety authorities to offer training opportunities for alert originators 

that promise to bolster WEA’s utility and credibility going forward. 

While we expect there are many lessons to be learned from the experience in Hawaii, and many will be cautionary, we should also acknowledge that wireless networks and devices performed exactly as designed and effectively delivered and presented the alert message as received from the FEMA gateway. The speed and effectiveness of its delivery should give policymakers and the public confidence that in 

the event of a real emergency, the Wireless Emergency Alert system will disseminate information rapidly and accurately to Americans—wherever they may be. 

* * * 

CTIA and the wireless industry are proud of the critical role that Wireless Emergency Alerts play in our Nation’s emergency alert system, and are committed to continue working collaboratively with public safety professionals at every level of our 

government to maintain public confidence in Wireless Emergency Alerts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. If CTIA can provide any additional 

information you would find helpful, please let us know. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bergmann. 

Mr. Lisenco. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LISENCO, THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR AMATEUR RADIO 

Mr. LISENCO. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member 

Nelson, and distinguished members of the Committee. It is a great 

14 

privilege to address you this morning in my capacity as a member 

of the Board of Directors of the American Radio Relay League, the 

National Association for Amateur Radio. 

ARRL has approximately 175,000 members throughout the 

United States, and we represent the interest of the 750,000 licensed amateur or ham radio operators in the U.S. Amateur radio 

is an avocational pursuit. We are radio experimenters and we are 

communicators, but there’s also a very serious side to amateur 

radio. It is far more than a hobby. 

With our license from the FCC comes a responsibility to promote 

emergency communications during times of disaster. The ARRL 

maintains memoranda of understanding with the U.S. military, 

FEMA, and DHS. We provide all of the emergency communications 

for the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army. To quote 

former FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, ‘‘As much as we think 

we are sophisticated with technology, things break. Seeing how 

amateur radio in a disaster, in a crisis, oftentimes was the one 

thing that was still up and running, a ham transmitting can mean 

the difference between life and death.’’ 

Amateur radio operators are included in emergency communications plans in every state of the union. The role played by hams 

in disasters was on full display in the fall of 2017, which saw four 

major hurricanes make landfall in the United States and its territories. These storms caused significant damage of Florida, Texas, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In advance of, during, and in 

the aftermath of each one, trained amateur radio operators using 

radio stations in their homes and portable and mobile facilities responded in large numbers. 

Hams provided critical weather spotting information from their 

residences to the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center. They joined dozens of their brethren in Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands after Hurricane Maria to provide restoration communications for the U.S. military, FEMA, DHS, and 

first responders. They provided health and welfare communications 

where no other method of communication was available. 

They provided all of the communications for the Red Cross and 

the Salvation Army. The Red Cross requested an ARRL dispatched 

an additional 50 amateur radio operators equipped with emergency 

communications kits outfitted free of charge by ARRL to help restore communications in the immediate aftermath. And, as discussed in my written testimony, they did a multitude of other 

things, all at no cost to the public or to the Federal Government. 

In Hawaii, our teams are prepared to assist in the case of any 

emergency, whether natural or manmade. For example, in the immediate aftermath of Maria, an amateur operator in Maui was 

highlighted on Hawaii News Now for his work in connecting a 

Maui family with relatives in Puerto Rico. He did so using an effective outdoor antenna and a station from his residence, which he 

would also utilize in the event of a disaster in Maui. 

After the January false alarm, MSNBC’s Left Field reported 

that, ‘‘In the case of electromagnetic pulse from a blast, 90 percent 

of the people will be without communication, and ham radio is actually one of the ways that you will be able to hear what is hapVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
15 

pening throughout the islands, whether or not people are OK, who 

is alive.’’ 

While ARRL and the amateur radio community rarely need anything from the Federal Government, what we must have is an effective outdoor amateur radio antenna in order to practice our avocation on our properties. The ability to practice our craft is crucial 

to our being ready to perform when needed in a crisis. To do that, 

we must have some sort of effective outdoor antenna. Deed restricted communities undermine the ability of the amateur radio 

community to be ready when disaster strikes. These restrictions 

prevent any outdoor antennas of any size or height. Today, 90 percent of all new housing starts are done so under the restrictions, 

all of which preclude amateur radio antennas. 

What Senators Wicker and Blumenthal have done with the Amateur Radio Parity Act is to strike a necessary balance between a 

ham’s desire to install an antenna and the HOA’s right to govern 

the size and placement of these antennas. It is important to note 

that the bill is different than the legislation opposed by Ranking 

Member Nelson in 2015. At that time, the distinguished senator 

from Florida expressed reservations about the legislation, stating 

that he supported amateur radio, but, ‘‘there must be a happy compromise.’’ 

Based on his stated concerns, ARRL began intense negotiations 

with Community Associations Institute, the only national association for homeowners’ associations, lasting several months. These 

discussions culminated in a happy compromise endorsed by CAI 

and ARRL, as well as the American Red Cross and the Salvation 

Army, and the compromise bill has passed the House by voice vote 

twice. We hope that this committee will extend its support to the 

Wicker-Blumenthal bill, S. 1534, to ensure that the amateur radio 

community can continue to be relied upon when a disaster strikes. 

Again, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you 

today about the role of amateur radio in a disaster. I look forward 

to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lisenco follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LISENCO, ON BEHALF OF ARRL, THE NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION FOR AMATEUR RADIO

I. Summary of Testimony 

1. In emergencies, prior to and during disasters and their immediate aftermath, 

when other communications systems have failed or are overwhelmed, volunteer 

Amateur Radio operators are ready, willing, able and prepared to provide alerting 

information, restoration communications; interoperable communications for first responders which lack that capability; health and welfare message traffic, and operations and support communications for disaster relief organizations and served 

agencies. 

2. Radio Amateurs quickly re-establish communications during that critical window of time between a disaster’s occurrence and the re-establishment of normal 

communications. 

3. Amateur Radio operators contributed substantially to the dissemination of accurate information following the recent missile alert in Hawaii; and Amateur Radio 

is a key component of communications planning in the event of an actual ballistic 

missile attack in Hawaii. 

4. The extensive Amateur Radio deployment of 50 volunteers from the U.S. mainland to Puerto Rico, and the long-term dedication of more than 75 resident Amateur 

Radio operators in the first few days of the recovery effort following the devastation 

there was the best example of the value of Amateur Radio in disaster relief communications. Virtually all communications infrastructure on the Island was destroyed 

16 

or crippled by the high winds. Amateur Radio operators provided restoration communications for weeks following the hurricane, and in fact local radio Amateurs are 

still providing communications for power utilities. 

5. The value of Amateur Radio in disasters, and in emergency alerting, weather 

spotting and in message traffic relay for served agencies is due not only to the extensive training and the ubiquitous geographic distribution of residential Amateur 

Radio stations throughout the United States. It is due also to the fact that hardened 

Amateur Radio stations with effective outdoor antennas capable of operation on 

multiple frequency allocations throughout the radio spectrum at a moment’s notice 

are available ahead of time. Absent that, Amateur radio cannot provide the kind of 

volunteer public service communications for which it is deservedly well-known. 

6. Had the level of devastation that occurred in Puerto Rico happened in Hawaii 

instead, the Amateur Radio response that was provided so effectively after Hurricane Maria could not have been provided to the same extent in Hawaii. The difference is that in Puerto Rico, there is not the same level of ubiquitous, preclusive 

private land use regulations that preclude the installation of effective outdoor antennas at the licensees’ residences. These must be in place and operational well before 

a disaster occurs. 

7. Given the prevalence and increasing numbers of private land use regulated 

communities in the United States, residential Amateur Radio antennas cannot be 

installed or maintained in most of them. An Amateur Radio licensee who must live 

in a deed restricted community currently will almost inevitably be subject to either 

(1) a complete prohibition of his or her Amateur Radio operation, or (2) the unlimited jurisdiction of a community association or architectural control committee or 

board which makes decisions concerning Amateur Radio antennas without any 

standards or limits whatsoever. 

8. There is now pending before this Committee the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 

2017. The House version of this Bill, H.R. 555 passed the House unanimously in 

January of 2017. The current Senate Bill, S. 1534 was introduced in July of 2017 

by Senators Wicker and Blumenthal. This is a balanced, completely bipartisan bill 

that would fully protect both the entitlement of Amateur Radio volunteers to be able 

to utilize their FCC-issued licenses to provide emergency, disaster relief and public 

service communications, while at the same time protecting the aesthetic concerns 

and the jurisdiction of homeowners’ associations. The Bill is supported by ARRL and 

the Community Associations Institute (CAI) which is the only national association 

of homeowners’ associations. ARRL and CAI, at the urging of members of this Committee, cooperatively and carefully negotiated the precise, current language of the 

Bill, and both organizations have stated their support for it. Homeowner’s associations can enact reasonable written rules governing height, location, size and aesthetic impact of, and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support 

structures for amateur communications. Absent this legislation, the volunteer emergency communications services provided by Amateur Radio will be precluded. We 

urge the Committee in the strongest terms to please approve and send this legislation forward without delay. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LISENCO ON BEHALF OF ARRL, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR AMATEUR RADIO

‘‘. . . After sheltering in place, you basically turn on AM/FM radio for word from 

Hawaii Civil Defense and other authorities. The story we are working on for MSNBC 

Left Field is that, in the case of electromagnetic pulse from a blast, and they expect. . .90 percent of the people will be without communication, and ham radio is 

actually one of the ways that you will be able to hear what is happening throughout 

the islands, whether or not people are OK, who is alive, where that might be. Again, 

let’s be very clear, this is a false alarm, but if it were to happen they have a system 

in place, a very specific, stringent, structured system for this, if this was to happen.’’ 

Joel Soboroff, reporting for MSNBC’s Left Field from Waikiki Beach on Saturday, 

January 13, 2018. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/breaking-down-the-falsealarm-hawaii-missile-threat-1136479811623 

****** 

Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and other members of the 

Committee for this opportunity to testify on the topic of emergency alerting and 

emergency communications. 

The Amateur Radio Service 

I have had the privilege of serving for the past 5 years as a member of the Board 

of Directors of ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio (formally known 

17 

as the American Radio Relay League, Incorporated). I also chair its legislative advocacy committee. ARRL is a Connecticut non-profit association which has for more 

than a century represented and advocated the interests of the Nation’s 750,000 

Amateur Radio operators, all of whom are licensed by the Federal Communications 

Commission to serve the public, especially in times of natural and other disasters. 

Amateur Radio exists for a number of reasons, principal among which (as the FCC 

regulations put it) is its value ‘‘to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications.’’ 

The FCC has at various times described the Amateur Service as a ‘‘model of volunteerism’’ and a ‘‘priceless public benefit.’’ 

Amateur Radio operators are not first responders. But in emergencies, and during 

disasters and their immediate aftermath, when other communications systems have 

failed, volunteer amateur radio operators are ready, willing, able and prepared to 

provide restoration communications; interoperable communications for first responders which lack that capability; operations and support communications for disaster 

relief organizations and served agencies such as the American National Red Cross 

and the Salvation Army, and as ubiquitous sources of information for emergency 

alerting. Amateur Radio is durable and is not susceptible to the same disruptions 

caused by disasters as are broadband networks; cellular networks; and even public 

safety dispatch systems. This is because Amateur Radio does not rely on centralized 

or decentralized infrastructure. Because of Amateur Radio operators’ technical selftraining and flexibility, they can and do provide emergency communications with no 

infrastructure at all. Amateur Radio mobile and portable facilities can be established on site and at strategic locations off-site to provide reliable, immediate disaster relief communications instantly, within or outside the disaster area, over any 

path distance and to any location whatsoever. This flexibility makes it possible to 

provide communications for first responders and served agencies, as well as temporary interoperability facilities for first responders. As but a single example, in the 

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Amateur Radio operators provided communications 

from helicopters to first responders on the ground to facilitate rescue operations. 

Amateurs are best known for their immediate responses to hurricanes, tornadoes, 

earthquakes, snow and ice storms, floods and other natural disasters, and their preparedness for immediate, organized deployment in large numbers. They are immediately available in large numbers during and in the aftermath of such events, and 

they provide communications in support of public safety and disaster relief agencies 

and state emergency response agencies without any advance request to do so. The 

level of organization and preparedness comes from regular drills, exercises and 

emergency simulations and they are integrated into emergency planning at all levels of government. ARRL conducts emergency communications certification courses 

that provide the educational background necessary for such serious work. 

The large volume of public-spirited volunteer communicators in the Service stems 

from the fact that reliable, hardened Amateur Radio stations capable of local, regional or worldwide communications, with effective, outdoor antennas are widely 

and evenly distributed throughout the country, located in the residences of the licensees. There are, as the result, always going to be radio Amateurs inside and outside a disaster area, already on site before the disaster strikes, ready to transmit 

local conditions to first responders and state offices of emergency management. Because of this ubiquity, Amateur Radio serves as an early weather alerting service 

through programs designed to prepare the public for natural disasters and weatherrelated emergencies. 

Emergency Alerting Via Amateur Radio 

The Amateur Radio Service interfaces with the National Weather Service (NWS) 

and the National Hurricane Center (NHC). The SKYWARN program of the NWS 

provides thousands of volunteers nationwide to serve as the ‘‘eyes’’ of the NWS 

using Amateur Radio stations at their residences when severe weather is imminent. 

These spotters also provide critical meteorological data that cannot be observed at 

ground level by NWS radar systems. While there are some trained SKYWARN spotters who participate from their personal vehicles as mobile units positioned at certain strategic locations, the majority of SKYWARN participants provide their detailed observations from their home station locations. Effective and reliable stations 

and antennas are needed in order for these home stations to provide these detailed 

observations to NWS and NHC. The timeliness of SKYWARN reports submitted via 

Amateur Radio confirms what NWS sees on weather radars; it substantially increases the precision of severe weather forecasting; and it allows NWS to increase 

the warning and preparation times for those citizens in harm’s way. The program 

works very well: according to statistics from the NWS, approximately 290,000 

trained SKYWARN spotters—the majority being licensed Amateur Radio operators— 

18 

assist the NWS in providing accurate, reliable and immediate information on approximately 10,000 severe thunderstorms, 5,000 floods and 1,000 tornadoes on average each year. 

The NHC, on the campus of Florida International University in Miami, is the second major National Weather Service program supported by Amateur Radio. For the 

past 32 years, volunteer operators at the NHC’s dedicated Amateur Radio station 

(FCC callsign WX4NHC) have been present during any hurricane activation. Because reports arrive from the Atlantic and Pacific basins, High Frequency (HF) communication serves as a core component of this valuable NWS tool. The utility of HF 

communications in this life-saving effort requires that Amateur stations provide 

their information to the NHC via effective, reliable HF stations from the residences 

of licensees. 

The Resiliency of Amateur Radio Disaster Relief Communications 

Radio Amateurs have proved over and over again that because of their training 

and their willingness to bring personal radio gear into disaster areas that they can 

quickly re-establish communications during that critical window of time between a 

disaster’s occurrence and the re-establishment of normal communications. These are 

the times of great threat to life and property: the ‘‘hottest’’ phase of the disaster’s 

aftermath. Radio Amateurs are also trained and prepared to provide supplementary 

communications after normal communications have been restored. We have always 

been interoperable. For us it is not a goal, it is a fact. Although we are not first 

responders, we have a long history of cooperating with first responders when needed 

to help them perform their essential tasks for the public. 

The absence of disaster-susceptible communications infrastructure inherent in 

Amateur Radio insures a unique level of resilience in times of disaster and afterward. This is not found in broadband networks, conventional or trunked public safety communications systems or cellular architecture. Surely enough, improvements 

in public safety systems and interoperability permit more reliable communications 

and a better level of organization among disparate public safety agencies and at different levels of government. That said, however, no one should believe that current 

generation public safety interoperable networks, be they broadband or narrowband, 

and regardless of the way these networks are designed, will be sufficiently durable 

in all disaster incidents. Because of their system architecture, all are subject to disruptions, overload, or failure under certain circumstances. It will continue to be necessary in the future for Amateur Radio operators to provide emergency alerting 

data, temporary communications and facilities for first responders and disaster recovery agencies at the outset of local and regional disasters and it will be necessary 

to provide temporary interoperability between and among first responders and disaster relief agencies. Former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director Craig Fugate, at an FCC earthquake forum concerning emergency communications planning several years ago, stated that: 

‘‘Finally, I have got to get back to Amateur Radio. . .They are the first ones 

in the first days getting the word out as the other systems come back up. I 

think that there is a tendency (to believe) that we have done so much to build 

infrastructure and resiliency in all of our other systems, we have tended to dismiss that role -when everything else fails, Amateur Radio often times is our last 

line of defense. And I think at times we get so sophisticated, and we have gotten so used to the reliability and resilience in our wireless and wired and our 

broadcast industry, and in all our public safety communications, that we can 

never fathom that they will fail. They do. They have. They will. When you need 

Amateur Radio (operators), you really need them.’’ 

Amateur Radio is available, ready, willing and able to do provide these services 

at no cost to anyone. As former FEMA Administrator Fugate noted, Amateur Radio 

operators are always there, using their own radios, on their own frequencies, and 

‘‘nobody pays them.’’ Indeed, we will be there ‘‘when all else fails.’’ 

The Hawaii Missile Alert 

It is indeed an instructive time to discuss the value of Amateur radio in emergency alerting, emergency communications generally and disaster relief communications. Amateur Radio was involved in the effort to achieve normalcy in Hawaii after 

the recent ballistic missile alert. The Hawaii State Radio Amateur Civil Emergency 

Service (RACES) network was activated on UHF frequencies and also using a VHF 

inter-island repeater network. Amateur stations monitored the alert/cancellation activity. Only 20 hours earlier, the RACES network had completed an Amateur Radio 

communications exercise State Emergency Operations Center. The phone lines into 

the State EOC were soon overwhelmed and congested, and the website was overVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
19 

whelmed with public inquiries. At these times, Amateur radio volunteers are normally present at either or both of the state or county EOC offices and at the State 

Warning Point, Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. 

The Hawaii false alert notice (i.e., the cancellation notice) was circulated on various information mechanisms after 13 minutes. That was picked up and relayed 

through the Amateur Radio networks. The cellphone alert system could not be used 

for the cancellation notice until prior FEMA approval was obtained. Once that was 

obtained, the cancellation alert went out to the cellphone network after 38 minutes 

from the initial alert. There were lessons learned by the Hawaii Amateur Radio 

community from this event. The emergency communications certification training 

that Amateurs in Hawaii are given urges use of the warning siren as an alerting 

mechanism to trigger for Amateur Radio emergency communications networks, but 

in this case the sirens were not activated, thus causing some confusion. Amateur 

Radio emergency communications certification classes specifically teach about warnings, the three kinds of siren warning sounding in Hawaii (including the attack or 

wailing sound) and about preparedness for all hazards. This incident has expanded 

discussions in Hawaii about the means by which Amateur Radio networks are activated. 

Hawaii Amateur Radio operators report that Amateur Radio played an important 

role in relaying the cancellation notice. For example, an early Coast Guard cancellation notice was relayed by an Amateur Radio operator to the Amateur Radio networks and disseminated very quickly. The State Warning Point waited to obtain 

FEMA authorization to send out a particular type of message that would show up 

on cellular phones similarly to the original alert message. Many people had received 

the warning first on their cell phones through the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) 

system, but a cancellation on that same system was substantially delayed; the result was that Amateur Radio networks disseminated validated cancellation information long before the cellular networks were able to do so. 

There is no single model for effective communications in advance of, during and 

after disasters and emergencies. Emergencies range from a localized situation affecting one community, or an insular area such as Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands, 

to regional events affecting multiple counties or larger areas. Wide area disasters 

may affect multiple states or entire regions of the country (such as a hurricane 

which, in its course, can impact states from Florida up the entire Eastern portion 

of the United States to Maine, as occurred in Hurricane Sandy, and/or the entire 

Gulf coast and southern United States into Texas as occurred with Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita). Because of the differences in propagation at various times of the 

day and the distances and paths that emergency communications may need to cover, 

the ability for Amateurs to utilize any and all of their authorized frequency allocations [from medium-frequency (MF) through ultra-high frequency (UHF) and above] 

efficiently is necessary in order for the Service to be fully effective in disasters and 

emergency relief. All of these allocations require the use of an effective outdoor antenna. 

Hurricane Maria and Amateur Radio’s Role in Recovery Operations in 

Puerto Rico 

Because of the utter devastation that occurred in Puerto Rico from Hurricane 

Maria recently, the approximately 500 local Amateur Radio operators who are actively and regularly available there for emergency communications purposes were 

not all available to provide restorative and other emergency communications because many of the operators were concerned at the outset with basic survival for 

themselves and their families. ARRL estimates that there were approximately 75 

Amateur Radio stations throughout the Island providing communications at all 

times during the entire process—from before the Hurricane hit until very late in the 

recovery effort. Indeed, even today, local Amateur Radio operators are providing 

communications for power utility workers doing power grid restoration. However, it 

was obvious at the outset that additional resources were going to be needed. ARRL 

called upon the mainland Amateur Radio community to provide up to 25 two-person 

teams of highly qualified licensees. Amateur Radio volunteers responded immediately, without hesitation. Fifty of the Nation’s most accomplished Amateur Radio 

operators responded within 24 hours to the call to deploy to Puerto Rico and provide 

emergency communications for a three-week tour of duty, sponsored by the American National Red Cross. 

The group’s principal mission was to move health-and-welfare information from 

the Island back to the U.S. mainland, where that data was used by the Red Cross. 

The group remained on the island for 3 weeks. ARRL equipped each two-person 

team with a modern digital HF transceiver, special software, a wire antenna, a 

power supply and all the connecting cables, fitted in a rugged waterproof container. 

20 

In addition, ARRL sent a number of small, 2,000-Watt portable generators as well 

as solar-powered battery chargers of the variety the U.S. military uses on extended 

deployments, and some VHF and UHF equipment for local use. ARRL’s Ham Aid 

program adapted and provided nearly $75,000 in Amateur Radio equipment to the 

volunteers that deployed to Puerto Rico and to the ARRL members resident in Puerto Rico. Some of this equipment is still being used in Puerto Rico for the recovery 

effort. Because Hurricane Maria devastated the island’s communications infrastructure, without electricity and telephone service, and with most of the cell sites inoperative, millions of Americans were cut off from communicating. Shelters were unable to reach local emergency services. Nor could people check on the welfare of 

their family members. The situation was dire and the Amateur Radio response was 

timely in order to address the crisis. Referred to as the ‘‘Force of 50,’’ the Amateur 

Radio volunteers provided communications for local law enforcement and utility 

managers; island-to-mainland health-and-welfare traffic, and outgoing communications from the more remote areas of Puerto Rico in the mountains to San Juan and 

other municipios. Fire officials in Puerto Rico facilitated safe passage, food, shelter, 

and water for the volunteers at fire stations on the island, as needed. The volunteers initially gathered at the convention center in San Juan, which served as the 

Puerto Rico Emergency Management Agency (PREMA) headquarters. The Force of 

50 and local radio Amateurs staffed VHF and HF nets at the American Red Cross 

temporary headquarters, despite severe damage to their own homes. The nets covered nearly two-thirds of the island. In addition to the health and welfare traffic 

and Red Cross information transfer, the volunteers handled traffic to and from the 

power company, Autoridad de Energı ́a Ele ́ctrica (AEE), and state and local authorities relative to power restoration efforts. Twelve team members were assigned to 

provide communication for engineers tasked with repair to the island’s power distribution centers. 

The Red Cross Headquarters net, staffed by radio Amateurs, provided 24-hour operation in preparation for an anticipated emergency involving the Guajataca hydroelectric dam. Amateurs provided notices to residents in the districts of Quebradillas, 

Isabela, and San Sebastia ́n of the danger. An Amateur volunteer was stationed in 

Quebradillas to provide emergency communication if needed and to maintain contact 

between AEE and its Monacillo control center. An Amateur Radio station was installed and an operator embedded at the Puerto Rico Emergency Operations Center 

(PREOC). Local radio Amateurs established VHF communication capabilities at 51 

hospitals throughout the island, so they could have direct contact with the PREOC. 

The Amateur embedded at the PREOC served as liaison between the PREOC and 

the FEMA Emergency Support Function (ESF–2) task force, relaying information 

among the Red Cross, ARRL, FEMA, and the ESF–2 task force. 

Two team members deployed in the westernmost end of the Island. ‘‘Team Oeste 

(Mayagu ̈ ez)’’ were stationed at a Red Cross shelter in Mayagu ̈ ez, providing the only 

emergency communication link from that city to San Juan initially. That team relayed needs and conditions of those living in and around Mayagu ̈ ez and coordinated 

water delivery and other urgent necessities, such as non-perishable food items, extended-life dry milk, blankets, baby formula, and dust masks. They provided communications for the medical staff set up at the Palacio de Recreacion y Deportes, 

a sports facility in Mayagu ̈ ez converted to a medical facility. Lists of medical needs 

were relayed to the Red Cross as well as to FEMA and Puerto Rico’s Emergency 

Management Agency. An HF station with data transfer capability and a VHF/UHF 

station were set up in the FEMA disaster field office, and volunteers reported in 

by radio from around the island to post situation reports. Amateur operators were 

also posted at four power-generation facilities, at the request of the power company. 

Superacueducto, the water utility, asked for several Amateur Radio Operators to 

help in re-establishing water flow from Arecibo to San Juan. Four Amateur Radio 

volunteers were positioned to accompany and provide VHF communication at Red 

Cross distribution centers on a daily basis. Two volunteers also were sent to Culebra 

Island to establish VHF and HF communication there. Those volunteers provided 

the first communications from Culebra following the storm. 

Critical to the value of the Amateur Radio response to Hurricane Maria were the 

partnerships that had been established long before the event. ARRL has national 

partnerships with, inter alia, the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and The Salvation Army. ARRL worked closely with the Red Cross 

in Puerto Rico and, due to the work of local volunteers associated with ARRL in 

Puerto Rico, a network of relationships across the island has been in place for many 

years. Amateur Radio emergency and disaster preparedness through building partnerships allows our volunteers to be integrated into response in an effective way on 

exceptionally short notice. The radio Amateurs in Puerto Rico are extremely wellorganized, and, given the severity of the damage and personal deprivations suffered 

21 

by everyone, including the vast majority of local Amateur Radio licensees, they responded in large, and sufficient, numbers. They are deserving of a great deal of 

credit for their performance in the face of tremendous personal loss and sacrifice. 

ARRL worked with partners such as U.S. Army Military Affiliate Radio Service 

members, the National Hurricane Center, and the Salvation Army Team Emergency 

Radio Network (SATERN) so the broader Amateur Radio response was coordinated 

and made effective use of each group’s strengths and assets. 

There were several lessons learned from this extensive test of Amateur Radio’s 

emergency capabilities. Throughout Puerto Rico, normal communications were disrupted, isolating communities and hampering emergency response. Amateur Radio 

operators extensively utilized conventional, analog VHF systems and HF radio email systems to successfully pass lifesaving messages between government and nongovernment entities. Through our volunteers deployed from the mainland to Puerto 

Rico and the resident ARRL Puerto Rico Section, radio Amateurs effectively integrated into the FEMA Joint Field Office (JFO) in ESF–2 (Communications). This 

allowed for an effective flow of information between Amateur Radio volunteers 

throughout the island and Federal responders responsible for communications restoration. The Department of Homeland Security SHARES program also played a 

key role in providing Amateur Radio support to JFO ESF–2 when the volunteers 

there were at the end of their tour. Finally, radio Amateurs provided support to 

military responders when clear channel HF communications were needed for military missions. Among other things, Amateur Radio operators provided HF communications for the military when helicopters were out of line-of-sight range and needed to communicate with base stations obscured by the extremely mountainous terrain in Puerto Rico. 

Effective Outdoor Antennas are Critical to the Amateur Radio Response in 

Disasters 

The expertise radio amateurs have with HF communications is tremendously valuable when frequency selection, interference and propagation hinder response and 

where, as in Hurricane Maria, there is a large volume of message traffic between 

the U.S. Mainland and geographically separated Caribbean islands. In this case perhaps the most urgent lesson learned is that the value of an active and engaged 

group of local Amateur Radio operators with pre-existing effective outdoor antennas 

cannot be overstated. Local radio amateurs understand their communities, the 

threats faced, and the response culture better than do volunteers from the outside. 

The ‘‘Force of 50’’ would not have been successful but for the exceptional spirit of 

volunteerism by Puerto Rico radio Amateurs and their relatively unfettered ability 

to erect effective outdoor antennas, and the fact that those local Amateur stations 

were in place and ready to provide communications long before the 2017 hurricane 

season. It was local radio Amateurs, using stations at their residences and portable 

stations who initiated restorative communications operations before the Force of 50 

arrived, and they continued those efforts many weeks after the Hurricane. 

Amateur Radio operators need very little from the Federal Government. We do 

what we do because we love the medium and we are public spirited volunteers who 

derive personal satisfaction from using our avocation for the benefit of people in 

need of help. We do, however, have a very urgent need that will cost no one anything, nor create any controversy whatsoever. The Amateur Service, in order to ensure the continuation of emergency communications readiness, absolutely requires 

some relief from the ubiquitous presence of, and the exponential increase in unreasonable and unnecessary private land use regulations in the United States that, essentially universally preclude the ability of licensed radio amateurs to erect and 

maintain any effective outdoor antenna at all. This is without any doubt the largest 

threat to the Amateur Radio community’s ability to respond to disasters, severe 

weather, and other threats to lives and property in the United States. 

Perhaps the most important element of the ability of local radio Amateurs 

throughout Puerto Rico to be immediately ready to provide the restorative communications that they did provide very effectively is that they had the ability, long before the Hurricane arrived, to install and maintain effective outdoor antennas for 

the HF and VHF and UHF bands at their residences. There is not yet in Puerto 

Rico the prevalence of preclusive private land use regulations that now exists in the 

rest of the United States, but the situation is dire in most other suburban, urban 

and exurban areas. It is important in analyzing this issue to view the Amateur 

Service as a decentralized network of individual stations working together in emergency situations and in preparing for the same. The essentially uniform distribution 

of Amateur Radio stations in residential areas makes those individual stations very 

important in a given weather disaster in the area where those stations are located 

when commercial communications systems are disabled or overloaded, or in other 

22 

areas for purposes of relay of message traffic. Amateur stations are often called on 

to report severe weather, and the geographic distribution of stations in residential 

areas is critical for this function as well. Furthermore, while modern Amateur stations are portable, and transportable to remote disaster locations, it is critical to 

have stations located at one’s residence in order to regularly participate in disaster 

preparedness training exercises and drills. It is impossible to prepare adequately for 

the use of Amateur Radio communications in emergencies when the ability to selftrain and self-educate by means of an effective, reliable Amateur Radio station at 

one’s residence is precluded by the inability to install a functional outdoor antenna. 

Private Land Use Regulations Increasingly Preclude Amateur Radio 

Disaster Response 

There is no substitute for the ready availability of a residential Amateur Radio 

station in daily operation from a licensee’s residence. The licensee cannot be expected to have the ability to communicate into or from a disaster site unless he or 

she has a station with an effective outdoor antenna capable of operation on multiple 

frequency bands at once, which is ready to be pressed into service from the licensee’s residence at a moment’s notice. The major value of Amateur Radio emergency 

communications is during the first hours, days or weeks of a disaster when commercial and public safety communications facilities are not functional or are overloaded. 

Stations must be ready to operate when needed and emergency communications are 

most often conducted from a licensee’s residence. For some disabled persons, home 

stations represent their only opportunity to participate in emergency communications. Private land use regulations which exclude Amateur Radio stations from entire communities preclude emergency communications readiness. 

According to the Community Associations Institute, 90 percent of new housing 

starts in the United States are subject to private land use regulations. This is because, now, essentially all lenders for land developers in the United States require, 

as a condition for funding a new housing development, all require a declaration of 

covenants be filed with the subdivision plat. Given the prevalence and increasing 

numbers of private land use regulated communities in the United States, residential 

Amateur Radio antennas cannot be installed or maintained in most of them. An 

Amateur Radio licensee who must live in a deed restricted community currently will 

almost inevitably be subject to either (1) a complete prohibition of his or her Amateur Radio operation, or (2) the unlimited jurisdiction of a community association 

or architectural control committee or board which makes decisions concerning Amateur Radio antennas without any standards or limits whatsoever. Those private land 

use regulations (or the application of them) which prohibit outdoor Amateur Radio 

antennas or transmissions, and thus preclude Amateur Radio entirely; those which 

fail to permit the installation of effective outdoor Amateur Radio antennas; and 

those which do not constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the 

(aesthetic) goals of a homeowner’s association are unreasonable and unnecessary. 

The Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2017 

There is now pending before this Committee the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 

2017. The House version of this Bill, H.R. 555 passed the House unanimously in 

January of 2017. An identical predecessor House Bill, H.R. 1301 passed the House 

unanimously in the 114th Congress. The current Senate Bill, S. 1534 was introduced in July of 2017 by Senators Wicker and Blumenthal. This is a balanced, completely bipartisan bill that would fully protect both the entitlement of Amateur 

Radio volunteers to be able to utilize their FCC-issued licenses to provide emergency, disaster relief and public service communications, while at the same time 

protecting the aesthetic concerns and the jurisdiction of homeowners’ associations. 

The Bill is unopposed: it has the support—in writing—of both ARRL and the Community Associations Institute (CAI) which is the only national association of homeowners’ associations. ARRL and CAI, at the urging of members of this Committee, 

cooperatively and carefully negotiated the precise, current language of the Bill, and 

both organizations have stated their support for the present version. 

The Bill calls on the Commission to enact rules that prohibit the application to 

Amateur Radio stations of deed restrictions which preclude Amateur Radio communications. Also prohibited are those deed restrictions which do not permit an Amateur Radio operator living in a deed-restricted community to install and maintain 

an effective outdoor antenna on property under the exclusive use or control of the 

licensee; and those restrictions which do not impose the minimum practicable restriction on Amateur communications to accomplish the lawful purposes of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) seeking to enforce the restriction. Amateurs who wish to 

install an antenna in a deed restricted community may be required to notify and 

obtain prior approval of the HOA. HOAs can preclude Amateur antennas in common 

23 

areas (i.e., property not under the exclusive use of the licensee). HOAs can enact 

reasonable written rules governing height, location, size and aesthetic impact of, 

and installation requirements for, outdoor antennas and support structures for amateur communications but the effective outdoor antenna requirement is paramount. 

We are in desperate need of this legislation, and without it, the volunteer emergency communications services provided by Amateur Radio will be precluded. We 

urge the Committee in the strongest terms to please approve and send this legislation forward without delay. 

ARRL is grateful for the opportunity to submit this testimony and to make our 

concerns known to the Committee. We look forward to the opportunity to bring to 

your attention the good work of a large number of volunteers who look forward to 

every chance to serve their country whenever and wherever they are needed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lisenco. 

Mr. Matheny. 

STATEMENT OF SAM MATHENY, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY 

OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS 

Mr. MATHENY. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Members Nelson and Schatz, and members of the Committee. My name 

is Sam Matheny, and I am the Chief Technology Officer at the National Association of Broadcasters. 

On behalf of the thousands of free local television and radio 

broadcasters in your hometowns, thank you for inviting me to testify on the Emergency Alert System and how broadcasters fulfill 

their roles as first informers and how innovation will allow broadcasters to do even more to keep viewers and listeners safe during 

emergencies. 

Broadcasters take seriously their role as the most trusted source 

of news and emergency updates. Whether it’s preparing listeners 

and viewers for the coming storm, directing them to needed supplies and shelter during the disaster, or helping rebuild in the 

aftermath, local stations are part of the communities they serve, 

and broadcasting is sometimes the only available communications 

medium in an emergency when wireless networks fail. Morning 

Consult recently found that the American people turn to broadcasters in times of emergency by a factor of more than three to one. 

Broadcasting is unique for the following reasons. First, broadcasting covers virtually everyone. Broadcast signals reach more of 

the U.S. population than any other communications medium. 

Broadcasting is localized. Local broadcast stations can deliver market-specific information as well as national alerts. Broadcasting has 

no bottlenecks. An emergency alert can reach millions of people simultaneously without concern over network congestion. 

Broadcasting is redundant. There are numerous independently 

operated stations in each market that deliver alerts. Broadcasting 

is resilient. Stations often operate with backup equipment, generators, and fuel supplies to keep stations on the air. 

Broadcaster information is actionable. Radio and television can 

provide enough information to enable people to understand what is 

happening and what steps they should take. And, finally, broadcasters are trusted. They are members of the local community and 

speak not just as an authority, but as a neighbor. 

But broadcasters do more than just deliver messages to the public. Broadcasters are also the backbone of the Emergency Alert System. Working with the government since the 1950s, broadcasters 

have operated and evolved a nationwide wireless network to deliver 

24 

emergency alerts. This daisy chain of broadcast stations ensures 

that emergency alerts can be delivered independent of internet 

connectivity and even when power outages disrupt other forms of 

communication. In fact, broadcasters serve as primary entry points 

for emergency communications to the public and are thus part of 

the solution from beginning to end. 

Because broadcasting plays such an important role in this critical 

communications infrastructure, it is vital that the government support and foster broadcasting. I’d like to briefly outline three key 

areas for your consideration. 

First, the Next Generation Television Standard, ATSC 3.0, which 

was recently approved by the FCC, has many features that will improve emergency alerting, including the ability to wake up sleeping 

devices, more precise geo-targeted alerts, and sending rich multimedia files such as weather radar images, evaluation maps, and 

even video files with detailed explanations about the emergency 

and what to do. New regulatory hurdles should not be placed in our 

way as we deploy Next Gen TV. 

Second, broadcasters are in the final and most complicated phase 

of the incentive auction, the repack phase. Nearly 1,000 television 

stations will be moving to new channel assignments, and this will 

also impact over 700 FM radio stations on co-located towers. Broadcasters need the time and money required to make these moves 

successfully and without impairing the public’s ability to access 

emergency alerts. I ask for your support of the Viewer and Listener 

Protection Act, sponsored by Senators Moran, Schatz, and eight of 

their colleagues, and urge its passage, as no station should be 

forced off the air due to a lack of funds or unreasonable time constraints. 

And, third, broadcasters have been working with the wireless 

phone manufacturers and service providers on market-based solutions to activate FM chips in smartphones. Our market efforts have 

been successful with one very notable exception—Apple. We believe 

Apple should be encouraged to activate FM, the FM tuner, in future models of their iPhone as it will improve people’s access to 

vital information in times of disaster. 

In conclusion, in emergencies large and small, our nation and 

your hometowns benefit from a strong and vibrant broadcast industry. FEMA calls broadcasting a redundant, resilient, and necessary 

alerting pathway. I agree. 

Thank you for having me here today. I look forward to answering 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheny follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAM MATHENY, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS

Introduction 

Good morning, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the 

Committee. My name is Sam Matheny and I am the chief technology officer at the 

National Association of Broadcasters (NAB). On behalf of the thousands of free, 

local television and radio broadcasters in your hometowns, thank you for inviting 

me to testify on the Emergency Alert System (EAS), how broadcasters fulfill their 

role as first informers and how innovation will allow broadcasters to do even more 

to keep viewers and listeners safe during emergencies. In addition to my role at 

NAB, I bring another perspective to these issues having spent nearly 20 years with 

Capitol Broadcasting Company, parent to WRAL–TV in Raleigh, North Carolina. 

25 

There I worked directly with state emergency officials to help develop demonstrations of mobile alerts and warnings. Additionally, I have experience serving on committees that advise the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on a wide variety of network security, reliability and public safety issues, and specifically on how to improve our Nation’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). 

Broadcasters’ Unique Role and Experience in Emergency Alerting 

As the most trusted source of news and emergency updates, Americans’ first 

choice is to turn to local television and radio stations to get the information they 

need to keep safe during emergencies. Local stations are part of the communities 

they serve, and broadcasters do not hesitate to put themselves in harm’s way to 

bring critical information to their neighbors. Whether it is preparing listeners and 

viewers for the coming storm, helping them access needed supplies and shelter during the disaster or helping towns and cities rebuild in the aftermath, local broadcasters take seriously their commitment to protect the public. 

Recent fires and mudslides on the West Coast and hurricanes in Texas, Florida 

and Puerto Rico have once again shined a bright light on our Nation’s emergency 

preparedness and response abilities. While this is obviously true for first responders 

and all levels of government, it is also true for broadcasters. FCC Chairman Ajit 

Pai reminded us just last week that in times of crisis first responders and first informers work hand in hand, noting that ‘‘[b]roadcasting and public safety have been 

lifelong companions.’’ While this sort of cooperation received national attention during the recent hurricanes and wildfires, it was just as true two years ago when over 

60 tornados ravaged parts of 11 states across the southeast and just a few months 

later when quick and devastating floods overtook large parts of West Virginia and 

Virginia in what the National Weather Service (NWS) referred to as a One Thousand Year Event. In each of these cases and in countless others, broadcasters were 

there, serving their listeners, viewers and communities. 

Broadcasters invest heavily to ensure they remain on the air in times of disaster. 

Facilities often have redundant power sources, automatic fail-over processes, auxiliary transmission systems, generator back-up and substantial fuel reserves. Because 

of the strength of the broadcast infrastructure and the power of the airwaves, local 

radio and TV stations are often the only available communications medium during 

disasters, even when cell phone and wireless networks can be unreliable. FEMA officials have noted that in times of emergency there is no more reliable source of information than local broadcasters. To give just one example, last year after Hurricane 

Maria moved through Puerto Rico and left much of the island without power and 

access to even basic information, not only were local television and radio stations 

continuing to provide lifesaving alerts and information all throughout the ordeal, 

but afterward NAB partnered with numerous state broadcaster associations, FEMA 

and local officials in Puerto Rico to deliver 10,000 battery-powered radios to island 

residents who had no other lifeline. 

This unique combination of trust and reliability is why, in addition to our ongoing, 

comprehensive news coverage of emergencies, broadcasters form the backbone of the 

Emergency Alert System. We have all seen or heard the familiar announcement 

‘‘The following is a test of the Emergency Alert System. This is only a test.’’ EAS 

connects over-the-air broadcast radio, television and cable systems, and is used during sudden, unpredictable or unforeseen events. EAS participation is technically voluntary, yet virtually all radio and television stations participate, and do so proudly, 

even purchasing EAS equipment at their own expense. Today, the EAS, along with 

Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEAs) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather Radio, is part of the IPAWS umbrella, enabling state and 

local emergency managers to integrate with the national alert and warning infrastructure. 

Lessons Learned from Nationwide EAS Test and Recent Events 

In September 2017, FEMA, in coordination with the FCC and the NWS, conducted a nationwide test of the reliability and effectiveness of the EAS. Generally, 

the results of the test were positive, as a majority of EAS participants received and 

retransmitted the message, and participation improved compared to a previous test 

in 2016. 

However, as the residents of and visitors to Hawaii know all too well after this 

month’s false alert of a nuclear attack, our Nation’s public alert and warning system 

and the emergency managers that originate messages are not always perfect. In an 

instant, one emergency manager’s accidental mouse click triggered a local and national panic, compounded by a lack of information and delay in disseminating corVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
26 

rect information via official channels. Several items arising out of this unfortunate 

incident are worth discussing. 

First, the most important takeaway is that the EAS system worked; radio and television broadcasters were on the case. The mistaken EAS alert was immediately relayed by broadcasters, who verified the source of the message but must rely on 

emergency managers for validation of the emergency. Broadcasters also stood by to 

disseminate the All Clear message. Unfortunately, it took emergency managers 38 

minutes to issue the needed follow-up EAS message. In the meantime, broadcasters 

used other means to confirm and report that it was a false alarm as soon as possible. The EAS system is a critical part of the trust that people place in broadcasters 

during an emergency, but human error in the issuance of EAS alerts can impair 

that trust. Going forward, NAB hopes to work with all the relevant stakeholders to 

minimize, if not eliminate, any vulnerabilities in the EAS process that may hinder 

broadcasters from carrying out their duty as first informers. 

Second, broadcasters support the continued implementation by FEMA of the 

IPAWS Modernization Act, legislation authored by Senators Ron Johnson (WI) and 

Claire McCaskill (MO) and passed by Congress in 2016. This legislation recognized 

that the continued success of EAS will depend on the expertise and ability of local 

authorities to fully and effectively deploy it. Broadcasters applaud FEMA’s ongoing 

efforts to train state and local authorities on the proper use of the system, and support this legislative effort to incentivize state and local officials to participate in 

training. Especially after Hawaii, it is more important than ever that local emergency managers know exactly how and when to trigger an EAS alert. 

Third, this Committee and the FCC should consider whether current WEAs provided by the wireless industry are sufficient to adequately alert and warn recipients 

in times of emergency. Twenty years after the pager was supplanted by the brick 

phone, then the flip phone and now the smartphone, a WEA delivers text only emergency information to recipients, often with fewer characters than a tweet. Often, 

these alerts simply direct recipients to ‘‘check local media.’’ A multi-stakeholder FCC 

advisory committee that I served on recommended that WEA be improved by increasing the number of characters from 90 to 360 so the alerts would be more informative and useful. Further, this committee also recommended that WEA include 

embedded links and phone numbers so recipients could quickly gain access to additional information. These suggested enhancements were opposed by the wireless industry before the FCC, but were ultimately authorized in September of 2016 and 

are awaiting implementation. In contrast, I will detail below several ways in which 

radio and television broadcasters are innovating to better inform their communities 

when it matters most. 

Policy Choices Critical to Broadcasters’ Current and Future Capabilities 

It is important that Congress be mindful of several policy choices that will enable 

broadcasters to continue and improve upon this important emergency role. 

A. Next Generation TV 

Broadcasters are pleased that the FCC recently approved a joint petition of the 

NAB, Consumer Technology Association, America’s Public Television Stations and 

the Advanced Warning and Response Network Alliance, requesting permission for 

stations and television receiver manufacturers to voluntarily adopt the world’s first 

Internet Protocol (IP)-based terrestrial television transmission standard, ATSC 3.0, 

also known as Next Gen TV. Not only will Next Gen TV allow broadcasters to deliver sharp ultra HD images, multichannel immersive sound, interactive features 

and customizable content, but more importantly it will enable an even more effective distribution of information to the public during disasters and in times of crisis. 

With the advanced alerting capabilities of Next Gen TV, a television broadcaster 

will be able to simultaneously deliver geo-targeted, rich media alerts to an unlimited 

number of enabled fixed, mobile and handheld devices across their entire coverage 

area. For example, and at the consumer’s discretion, rather than simply running an 

EAS alert or crawl over regularly scheduled broadcast programming for an entire 

market’s viewing audience (and then only reaching those who are watching), a Next 

Gen TV signal could wake up enabled devices and reach the entire universe of devices within its television signal contour. Using the rich-media capabilities of Next 

Gen TV, broadcasters can provide targeted neighborhood-specific alerts that include 

text, graphics (such as Doppler radar animations or an evacuation route), pictures 

and even detailed video-on-demand descriptions. The public will have access to all 

of this actionable, life-saving information even if the power goes out or cellular wireless networks fail. 

As broadcasters, we are simply planning to use our spectrum licenses more efficiently and to better serve our viewers. We are not asking for any additional specVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
27 

trum, government funds or mandates. Unlike other communications providers, 

broadcasters are the only licensees that must ask the FCC for permission to innovate with regard to our transmission standard. However, by adopting Next Gen TV, 

broadcasters will have much greater flexibility to innovate going forward. As long 

as new regulatory hurdles are not placed in our way, more and more viewers across 

the country will benefit from these innovations and the advanced emergency alerting systems that Next Gen TV will enable. 

B. Spectrum Incentive Auction Repack 

While broadcasters are innovating for the future, there are also near-term obstacles that without action could prevent emergency alerts from reaching local broadcast viewers and listeners. I’m referring to relocating—or repacking—nearly 1,000 

broadcast television stations in the final and most complicated phase of the broadcast spectrum incentive auction. Additionally, in the process of full-power television 

stations moving frequencies, this will also negatively impact more than seven hundred FM radio stations and countless low-power television and translator stations 

that are critical to bringing service to rural America. Quite simply, if a television 

or radio station is forced off the air for any period of time due to circumstances outside of their control, it will diminish the ability of the public to receive critical EAS 

information. 

FCC Chairman Pai testified before this Committee in July that the funds Congress set aside to reimburse broadcasters for relocating are woefully inadequate. Not 

only does this funding shortfall violate Congress’ promise to hold broadcasters 

harmless but, in some cases, the shortfall is actually preventing stations from making the advanced purchases required to complete their moves in a timely fashion. 

In fact, according to the most recent quarterly status reports filed with the FCC, 

11 percent of stations changing channels are already behind, despite their best efforts to complete their moves. Accordingly, NAB salutes Senators Jerry Moran (KS) 

and Brian Schatz (HI) for their bipartisan legislation, the Viewer and Listener Protection Act (S. 1632), and urge its passage to ensure that your constituents do not 

lose access to local television and radio stations during these mandated frequency 

moves due to a lack of funds or unreasonable time constraints. 

C. FM Chip Activation 

The radio broadcast industry has continued to take a leading role in ensuring that 

a life-saving technology is available to millions of Americans through their 

smartphones. Over the past several years, broadcasters developed marketplace partnerships with wireless phone manufacturers and providers to turn on—or at least 

not deactivate—FM receivers that are already installed in devices. This endeavor 

has grown exponentially over the past few years and, with one notable exception— 

Apple’s iPhone, many Americans are able to access FM radio through their 

smartphones during times of emergency, even when the cellular network may be 

down due to congestion or physical damage. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for having me here today to speak 

about the critical role that broadcasters play in the Emergency Alert System and 

ensuring the public’s safety. This is a mission our industry takes very seriously and 

we have a track record of fulfilling. We look forward to working with Congress, state 

and local governments and other industry partners to strengthen the entire system 

going forward. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Matheny. 

I appreciate all of you talking about the important roles that 

each of the organizations you’re here on behalf of play in this overall process. 

I’d like to start with Ms. Fowlkes and ask you if you could describe or explain to us the role the FCC plays in the Emergency 

Alert System and how that interacts with the larger—what they 

refer to as the IPAWS Communication System. How does the 

FCC—that’s sort of where this committee’s jurisdiction and interest 

is. How do they relate in this whole sequence of events? 

Ms. FOWLKES. The FCC is responsible for the distribution part 

of the EAS and WEA. In other words, we adopt and administer 

rules that apply to the communication service providers that parVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
28 

ticipate in those two systems. For example, with respect to WEA, 

we have rules that would apply to the participating wireless carriers in terms of how their infrastructure is to react when it receives the alert, and, certainly, issues like geo-targeting are the 

types of things that we would govern. With respect to the EAS, 

how their—what capabilities their EAS equipment must have in 

order to receive and transmit an EAS alert. 

We do not have authority over the alert origination piece, which 

is the part of the system where government agencies decide whether to issue an alert, what the alert is going to—what information 

the alert is going to include, the target area. That’s not within our 

purview. FEMA oversees the Integrated Public Alert and Warning 

System. So, basically, you can kind of think of it as three pieces, 

the alert origination piece; the IPAWS piece, which is FEMA; the 

distribution by the communication service provider—they are participating under rules that are adopted and administered by the 

FCC. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you see any need to change the rules based 

on this incident? 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s something that I really can’t answer. The 

FCC doesn’t have a position on that. I think in terms of that, it 

wouldn’t be so much changing a rule. It would be something that 

would have to change in terms of our authority. Certainly, if Congress decided it wanted to make changes, we would stand ready to 

provide technical assistance with any draft legislation, and, obviously, if Congress enacted some legislation, we’d obviously implement it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, has the FCC, to that point, ever exerted jurisdiction over alerting authorities to require that there are best 

practices used and to make sure that there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent false alerts? 

Ms. FOWLKES. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe the Commission has the authority 

or tools that it needs to ensure that an incident like the one that 

happened in Hawaii never happens again, currently? 

Ms. FOWLKES. Given the fact that the problem was on the alert 

origination piece, the FCC does not have authority in that area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. OK. So just to ask, I guess, the obvious 

question, at least the one intuitively that I thought of when I heard 

about all this, and that is after you describe this as a three-part 

process, and the FCC is on the distribution part of it, the origination alert, and then the FEMA clearinghouse function. It seems to 

me—why, then, did—this is a ballistic missile threat. I mean, this 

is a DoD—this is like a nuclear war type thing. Why was a state 

agency involved in that alert? 

I understand—you know, we have a lot of experience in my part 

of the country with weather. The National Weather Service works 

closely with FEMA, and all those alerts go out if there’s a potential 

tornado threat. But it seems to me, at least in this case—I’m still 

at a loss as to how—origination of the alert, and then sort of a 

clearinghouse—how that got so messed up. Does anybody want to 

take a stab at that? 

Ms. FOWLKES. Well, from the FCC’s perspective, we really can’t 

give an opinion on that. We are not involved in any way in deciding 

29 

who issues what alert. That is a decision that’s purely on the alert 

origination side. In terms of this specific incident, I would have to 

refer you to FEMA and DHS. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bergmann, could you just briefly talk about 

the wireless industry’s role in that Emergency Alert System? I 

know you talked about it generally in terms of the role that you 

all play but, particularly, in light of this recent discussion and 

whether it has been a success, in your view? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Chairman Thune. I think time and 

again we’ve seen over the last 5 years that Wireless Emergency 

Alerts are a lifesaver. They’ve helped return kids who have been 

abducted, they’ve helped folks avoid tornados that are rolling 

through their town, and now we’re starting to see them used for 

Blue Alerts to help identify and locate suspects, and there are a 

couple of key reasons why. 

Geo-targeting—Wireless Emergency Alerts are the only tool in 

our toolbox right now that helps find you where you are and get 

that message to you right then. Now, as we continue to improve 

Wireless Emergency Alerts, we’ve given the ability to access URLs 

and embedded links and content so that you can get that information and act on it, and that’s a powerful combination. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. 

Senator Schatz. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Fowlkes, thank you for everything that you and the FCC 

have been doing. I have a number of questions. I’m going to give 

them to you all at once, and you can either take them for the 

record, to the extent that you’re still undergoing the investigation 

in Hawaii, but whatever you can answer would be great. 

The first question is, you know, who gets an alert and who 

doesn’t? And in that category, you have the people who turn off the 

push notifications. So my first question—and, again, I’m going to 

try to run through them in the interest of time—is if on television, 

a broadcast TV or cable TV watcher doesn’t have the opportunity 

in settings to turn off those alerts, we presume that everyone must 

know over the airwaves. Why do we allow people to turn off alerts 

of that magnitude? Maybe a Blue Alert or an Amber Alert is another matter. But in terms of a missile—an incoming ballistic missile—it seems to me that we should have a system that doesn’t give 

anybody discretion about whether or not they get told that an alert 

is coming. That’s number one. 

Number two is that my understanding is that although this is a 

voluntary system with the providers, the push alerts, that is, we 

still have about 99 percent coverage. I just want to confirm that’s 

true. 

And, then, number three is we now have a bunch of people who 

are watching TV in different ways, and we still depend heavily, as 

we should, on our broadcast partners in TV, and let’s not forget the 

importance of radio, especially in rural America. But we also have 

cord cutters who are on YouTube or Hulu or whatever it may be 

on their iPad, and no alert comes over that system. So I’m wondering whether the FCC has done any thinking about how to make 

sure that people who are watching television in a nontraditional 

way get those alerts? 

30 

Ms. FOWLKES. On the first question, I believe you’re referring to 

the opt-out option. Under the WARN Act, people can opt out of all 

but an alert that is issued by the President. So the ability to—and 

I should point out with WEA, unlike some other types of subscription-based alerting system, it’s an opt-out function versus an optin. But with the exception of anything that’s coming from the 

President, the statute allows wireless carriers to offer the option to 

opt out. 

Senator SCHATZ. Right. And one of the questions we have into 

the National Security Council is why is this not—just very clearly, 

either by executive order or executive memorandum or by practice, 

why is an incoming missile not absolutely the kind of thing that 

would be—that would ride on that President alert? Because although in the drafting of the WARN Act, I’m not sure that that, 

specifically, was contemplated. This seems to me to be the highest 

priority alert and, therefore, perfect for a Presidential alert. 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s a question that the FCC, again, would not 

be able to answer. 

Senator SCHATZ. Sure. Not your lane. I got it. 

Ms. FOWLKES. In terms of—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Carriers. 

Ms. FOWLKES.—the second question, which I believe was about 

whether it’s voluntary—— 

Senator SCHATZ. No. The second question was carriers, and I believe we have about 99 percent coverage, even though it’s a voluntary program. Then the last question is how do we reach cord 

cutters? How do we reach people who are watching TV in nontraditional ways, not cable, not broadcast? 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s a very good question, and that’s something 

that the FCC, you know, can—that’s something that we can certainly look at within our authority. 

Senator SCHATZ. That’s what I was going to ask. Could you get 

back to us about whether you need additional authorities to try to 

move that along, or whether you have existing—and if you do have 

existing authority, I’d like to know what you’re going to do to kind 

of solve that problem? And if you don’t, then I think that it’s incumbent on the Commerce Committee and the Congress to try to 

fix that. 

And then just a quick clarification—did the Hawaii Emergency 

Management Agency need FEMA to sign off on a correction to the 

first push notification? 

Ms. FOWLKES. No. 

Senator SCHATZ. There were some—— 

Ms. FOWLKES. They did not need permission from either FEMA 

or the FCC. 

Senator SCHATZ. OK. And then my final question for Ms. 

Fowlkes is, you know, one of the challenges with our broadcast 

partners—KSSK is the radio station that is responsible for getting 

out emergency information. They couldn’t get on the phone with 

the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. They couldn’t get on 

the phone with PACOM. The Governor was having difficulty getting through to DoD. I was having difficulty getting through to the 

Governor. 

31 

What do we do about the phone line problem when everybody is 

panicking and trying to communicate with each other—text messages, you know, spotty—and we need to have phone conversations? It seems to me that the FCC, at least in their investigatory 

process, has to assess the extent to which we had problems, not 

just in terms of the systems for communicating with each other, in 

terms of who calls whom, but also that, literally, people who really 

needed some sort of red phone to be able to talk to each other were 

not in a position to do so at the technical level. 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s something that we can take back and look 

at as part of the investigation. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Schatz. 

Next up is Senator Klobuchar. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Senator Schatz for his leadership. I can’t imagine what that must have been like in your state. Of course, many 

Minnesotans like to go to Hawaii—I wonder why—and I had—my 

State Director was actually there when this happened and told the 

story of how he was in a hotel condo with no basement and didn’t 

know what to do. They’re taking things, like anything they can 

find, for an emergency packet. And when you think about that 

story repeated for families with kids and how scared they were, 

clearly, changes have to be made. 

So I wanted to focus on the legislation that we’ve been working 

on with Senator Nelson, and I think it’s very important that we upgrade—and I’m Co-Chair of the Next Gen 911 Caucus. First of all, 

I introduced last Congress with Senator Fischer—and this is more 

on the rural focus—the Rural Spectrum Accessibility Act, and it 

was included in the MOBILE NOW Act that passed the Senate. 

Mr. Bergmann, how can spectrum disaggregation and other incentives be used to increase wireless coverage in rural areas? 

Mr. BERGMANN. So thank you, Senator Klobuchar. We really 

commend you and appreciate your work on that Rural Spectrum 

Accessibility Act. As anyone from rural America knows, there are 

real challenges in making sure that we have service out there in 

the hardest to serve areas. Geography is challenging. Topography 

is challenging. Sparse populations make it difficult. 

So we need to do things to make it easier to serve out there, and 

by creating incentives to put spectrum to use in rural areas, we can 

give providers greater incentive and lower the barriers to building 

out networks. That’s a perfect tie-in to our focus here today, making sure, you know, as you talked about, that we have the most recent 911 services, that we have Wireless Emergency Alerts. All of 

that is dependent on making sure that we can build out to those 

rural areas, and we believe that legislation will help advance that 

goal. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Ms. Fowlkes, ensuring that the right people receive an emergency alert, as Senator Schatz has pointed out—the FCC will be 

voting soon on an order that would require wireless providers to 

32 

target alerts within one-tenth of a mile. How will the FCC verify 

that the wireless alerts being sent out satisfy these new requirements? 

Ms. FOWLKES. At this point, because the proposal hasn’t been 

voted on by the Commission, I can’t get into more details about 

what the order may or may not say. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you talk about—as Senator Nelson 

and I worked to pass this bill—how would interoperability between 

systems increase effectiveness in advanced alert systems? 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s an issue I will have to take back. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. The order that the FCC will soon consider will allow local public safety officials to better target emergency alerts. The FCC order will require participating providers to 

shift from a network-based approach to one that also uses the location capabilities within cell phones to target messages. Once operational, this will minimize the likelihood that someone outside of 

a disaster area receives an unnecessary alert. 

Mr. Bergmann, how will wireless providers work with device 

manufacturers to ensure this new functionality? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thank you, Senator. I really looked hard at 

the—of the FCC’s order that will be considered next week and 

something that public safety is identified as the single most important improvement in Wireless Emergency Alerts that we can have. 

If you sort of turn back the clock when Wireless Emergency Alerts 

were first launched, you could target to the county level. Today, 

now, we’ve improved that. You can target down to the cell sector, 

to the individual cell tower, and what this capability will let us do 

is not only use that targeting of the network, but also to use intelligence in the device, to try to figure out whether the device is 

within that target area that’s identified by the alert authorities. 

So we think this is going to be a really significant improvement, 

that it will help address that over-alerting and benefit public safety 

and consumers. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Very good. 

Mr. Matheny, one last question here. Alerts over traditional 

broadcast networks have long been a reliable way, and, certainly, 

these broadcast all the time in Minnesota for floods. When we have 

floods, daily reports get out there for people. Broadcasters are often 

able to continue operating during and after severe weather, which 

we often have in the Midwest. 

With new technology, broadcasters may soon be able to deliver 

additional information to viewers on fixed mobile and handheld devices. What level of targeting will this new capability provide, and 

what additional alerting measures can broadcasters make available? 

Mr. MATHENY. So I believe—thank you, first of all. I believe 

you’re speaking of the Next Gen TV Standard, ATSC 3.0, and the 

advanced alerting capabilities that are therein. First of all—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That’s a nice way of describing what I said 

in words. Thank you. Yes, that’s exactly what I was talking about. 

Mr. MATHENY. The Next Gen TV Standard, first of all, allows for 

waking up devices. So if a device is asleep, it can be woken up. 

That is a distinct feature that was designed in. Once the device is 

woken up, you have the ability to do targeting. The standard has 

33 

just been completed, and the actual implementation of that is still 

being developed. But it will be similar to the—what Mr. Bergmann 

just described, in using the location of the device to determine if 

it’s in the affected area. We are still talking about a one-way broadcast delivery of the alert. 

Additionally, the Next Gen Standard allows for sending multimedia content. So you could think of an evacuation map. You could 

think of—if it’s a tornado, a tornado track map. You could think 

of an evacuation—like I said, an evacuation, or even a video file 

that would come down and tell you explicitly what is happening, 

and that would be a video on demand file. This would be in addition to the normal coverage that our stations provide. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. And Senator 

Klobuchar is looking for the Vikings 3.0, too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Really, did you—I mean, this has nothing to do with the Vikings. This is like about Hawaii that doesn’t 

have an NFL team, I’d like to point out. 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Or South Dakota, for that matter. But then 

you decide you can take pot shots at my team, but let us not forget 

that catch. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. We’ve got to go back to the good stuff. 

Senator Udall is next, but Senator Sullivan has to preside on the 

floor. Could he ask his questions next? Would that be OK? 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Senator Udall. And I’ll just come 

clean. We don’t have an NFL team, either. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SULLIVAN. And thank you, Senator Capito. 

I just have a couple of questions, but I’m just going to ask them 

at the same time for Ms. Fowlkes. It relates to—in a very kind of— 

a big event that occurred in Alaska just on Tuesday morning. Very 

early in the morning, a 7.9 magnitude earthquake hit in the Gulf 

of Alaska. As a result of this earthquake, many of my constituents 

in coastal communities were alerted to the threat of a tsunami and 

told to relocate inland. Many did. It was pretty much in the middle 

of the night. 

However, some of our carriers were not able to send the notification because of the lengthy and complicated process required by the 

FCC to set up emergency alerts on their systems. This is particularly the case with regard to some of our—many of the carriers in 

Alaska are small companies, so going through the lengthy process—complicated process that the FCC—puts a big burden on 

them. Are there things that you are looking at with regard to 

streamlining the process to take into account some of the smaller 

companies that can participate? 

Also related, there have been reports that several coastal Alaska 

radio stations did not get their EAS signal after the earthquake at 

34 

all or got it 30 minutes after the wireless alerts went out on cell 

phones. Can you speak to that and what you’re trying to do on 

those issues? 

And I know I’ve asked a couple of questions. I thank my colleagues again for indulging me here. It’s an important issue for my 

state and others. 

Ms. FOWLKES. I’m not sure what they mean by a long process of 

the FCC. Under the FCC’s rules, if a wireless carrier wants to participate in WEA, they send us a notification saying that they’re 

electing to participate in part, which may mean some of their geographic service areas but not others, or in part could also mean 

they’re not offering WEA on all of their cell phones. Or they can 

elect to participate in full, which basically means they’re participating across all their devices and all their geographic areas. 

Once they’ve done that, the only thing for them to do is what 

other carriers would be required to do, which is to have the WEA— 

to be able to offer the WEA capable phones and to be able to make 

sure that their network is set up to receive WEA alerts. But other 

than the election itself, there isn’t some drawn out process with the 

FCC that they would have to go through. 

Senator SULLIVAN. OK. Well, maybe what we can do is work with 

you and some of our smaller carriers who have had concerns. And 

then on the question of the radio stations? 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s something we actually are looking into. The 

tsunami alert that occurred up in Alaska—that’s something that 

we can certainly look into and include in our investigation. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Good, because if we can learn from this—I 

mean, fortunately, there was no tsunami, but it was very scary for 

hundreds if not thousands of my constituents. It would be good to 

be able to learn from this so we can be ready next time. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Thune, and thanks to you 

and Senator Schatz for focusing on these very important questions. 

My understanding—some of your questions probably could have 

been answered by FEMA, and FEMA is not at this hearing. I know 

that you requested them. But it seems to me we should try to get 

some answers some way. I’m happy to participate in a letter or 

however you want to do that. But I think we need the answers to 

your questions. 

Based on the answers we’ve received from this panel—which 

they don’t seem to have the information, especially Ms. Fowlkes— 

it’s FEMA we should be directing things to, don’t you think, on 

some of those questions you were unable to answer? You said you 

didn’t have authority? 

Ms. FOWLKES. To the extent that you’re asking about anything 

other than our authority or our regulation of the communication 

service providers’ participation, I would agree. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Ms. Fowlkes, it’s my understanding that the 

states are required to file Emergency Alert System plans with the 

FCC? 

35 

Ms. FOWLKES. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. There are a few tribal nations whose reservations cross at least one state line. In the case of New Mexico, we 

have the Navajo nation, which is in three different states. Are tribal nations under that same requirement of filing? 

Ms. FOWLKES. No. The tribal nations do not have to file separate 

EAS plans. What typically happens is to the extent that there are 

parts of tribal nations in states, those states take into account the 

need of those tribal nations. That’s certainly how the New Mexico 

state EAS plan is set up. 

Senator UDALL. Good, good. Thank you. 

It’s important to every bureau of the FCC to engage directly with 

tribal nations. Have you had the opportunity to work with tribal 

nations on their unique public safety needs? 

Ms. FOWLKES. Certainly. For example, the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau oversees an advisory committee, the 

Communications Security, Reliability, and Operability Council. We 

have had representatives of tribal nations serving on that committee, in addition to which we had a separate committee of 911 

Centers focused on Next Generation 911. We had representatives 

of tribal nations on that committee as well. 

Senator UDALL. And as all of you probably know, it’s very important to get these alerts out if you have wireless coverage. But many 

of these tribal nations don’t have it at all, and so you’re dealing 

with an additional huge hurdle in terms of getting emergency 

alerts and those kinds of things into tribal nations territory. 

Mr. Matheny, I appreciate the work that our local broadcasters 

do every day, but particularly in times of threats to public safety, 

such as during wildfire season, which we have in the Southwest 

and we’ve seen at various places around the country. As you’re 

aware, broadcasters in New Mexico rely heavily on translators to 

serve rural communities, and I’m concerned that the ongoing spectrum repack process could leave these rural consumers behind. It’s my understanding that the current allocation of $1.75 billion 

is inadequate to meet the needs of the broadcasters relocating. Is 

there a better estimate of the amount of money that’s needed, including the funds needed to ensure that translators do not go offline in rural areas? 

Mr. MATHENY. Thank you, Senator Udall. So you are certainly correct that $1.75 billion was allocated—— 

Senator UDALL. And that’s the number that I believe Chairman 

Pai testified to. 

Mr. MATHENY. Yes, and so Chairman Pai has testified that there 

is not enough money. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. MATHENY. So he is on the record with that as well, and we 

certainly don’t believe there’s enough money, either. Based on the 

initial results of the cost estimates submitted by TV stations, the 

real number is going to end up being around $3 billion. So there’s 

a substantial disconnect in the funds available and what’s really 

going to be needed. 

So we are certainly keen to see the Viewer and Listener Protection Act that Senators Moran and Schatz have sponsored to take 

hold and get approved, because we think it’s going to be necessary 

36 

to make sure that stations stay on the air and are able to continue 

to operate, including translators. And in the context of this hearing, that certainly means that emergency alerts are still going to 

be available to those populations. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, and I’m also an original co-sponsor of that 

bill. I think we have to make this investment. I don’t think there’s 

any doubt about it. I’ve got a couple of additional questions, but I’ll 

submit them for the record. Thank you to the panel very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Udall, and your point is a 

good one. We did attempt to get FEMA here. They need more lead 

time, evidently, to prepare for this. Maybe in light of what happened, they need it. I do think that there are questions that—obviously, FCC is this committee’s jurisdiction, and FEMA is DHS—but 

that only they and others can answer, and I’m hoping that we’ll be 

able by the time the field hearing in Hawaii occurs to get the other 

parties to this discussion involved and engaged and, hopefully, able 

to answer some of those questions. I mean, there are still, to me, 

unanswered questions. I know there are attempts already, legislatively, to cure some of the problems that we had this time around. 

Senator Capito. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the 

Ranking Member. 

I know it has been a difficult several days and weeks since this 

occurred, and I’m kind of going to go on the FEMA thing. I just 

want to get this question on the record, Ms. Fowlkes. I’m pretty 

sure you don’t know the answer to this question or you don’t have 

it. 

But I think it’s the one question that many people, when they 

read the story, at least at a cursory level, sort of wondered, and 

that is: How is it that a single government employee could trigger 

an alert without any kind of meaningful mechanism to sort of override or—you know, do you want to delete, do you want to delete? 

Was there any? And do you have any light to shed on that basic 

question? 

Ms. FOWLKES. That’s actually one of the issues that we’re exploring as part of our investigation, what Hawaii’s process—what happens and what Hawaii’s process was. 

Senator CAPITO. I think we’ll all be interested in hearing that. 

Mr. Matheny, were the warnings broadcast over TV? 

Mr. MATHENY. Yes, they were. 

Senator CAPITO. In a scrawl kind of thing? Or how was that presented to the viewers? 

Mr. MATHENY. Yes, they were. There were scrawls on TV, and 

then it was an audio played on radio. 

Senator CAPITO. OK, because I actually was talking with somebody yesterday who was there in a hotel room, and they must have 

missed the first scrawl on the TV, but they did get the warning 

system through their phone, both of them. They were visitors. 

But I wanted to tell Senator Schatz that the hotel they were 

staying in was right on top of it. They were—a warning system to 

the entire hotel with directions as to what they should do, encourVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
37 

aging everybody to come in and go—I mean, I’m sure it was frantic—but to go to the basement. So I would say since you have so 

many tourists and so many people staying in hotels, that’s good to 

know that you’re tourism industry is reacting quickly to something 

like this. That’s one of the best practices that came through. 

I also want to thank Mr. Matheny, too, for the broadcasters when 

we had our thousand year flood in June 2 years ago. I am convinced we would have lost more lives than we did had we not had 

the rapid response, both through the radio and certainly social 

media, but also through our broadcasters. So thank you for that 

and also thank you for—the broadcasters for staying on the story. 

It wasn’t a one-day story for us, and it wasn’t treated as such by 

the broadcasters. 

Mr. MATHENY. Sure, and thank you for recognizing that. I think 

that is one of the key elements of broadcasters, is that they are 

local and part of the community and committed to helping prepare 

for weather and recover. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Mr. Bergmann, let me ask you a real simple question here. If 

you’re in a no-service area on your phone, do you get these alerts? 

Mr. BERGMANN. You need to be within the coverage area in order 

to receive a wireless emergency alert, which really does put a premium on the conversation we were having earlier about making 

sure that we’re doing everything we can to make coverage available 

in rural areas. 

Senator CAPITO. This is a major issue for us, not just on the 

wireless side but, obviously, on the broadband side, and we have, 

in our state, particular challenges because of the rural nature, but 

also the geographic nature of the state of West Virginia makes it 

difficult. But when I can drive eight miles outside of my capital city 

and lose coverage, there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done. 

I know you know this. I just wanted to reemphasize that. 

Last, I’ll just tell a little story. On December 7, 1941, my uncle 

was stationed at the Schofield Barracks in Hawaii when Pearl Harbor was attacked, and my mother was 15 at the time. One story 

that she told us that was kind of interesting, especially in this day 

and time when you’re talking about instantaneous messages and 

instantaneous retraction of messages within 40 minutes, which 

sounds like a lifetime—but she told me that if it weren’t for the 

ham radio operators, her parents would have never known that 

their son was okay. 

It took days for it to come across the country, and I’m sure some 

of those messages were not quite as positive as the ones my grandparents and my mother received that day. So, Mr. Lisenco, your organization’s long history is well appreciated. 

Mr. LISENCO. Thank you very much, Senator. And, if I may, amateur radio was also involved in the effort to achieve normalcy in 

Hawaii after the false alarm. As a matter of fact, Hawaii—the 

Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service in Hawaii activated a 

UHF and VHF repeater system, and they monitored the alerts and 

the cancellations. Ironically, 20 hours earlier, they had drilled with 

the Hawaii State Emergency Management this kind of scenario, 

and so 20 hours later, there it was right in our face. 

38 

We had operators present at the Emergency Operations Center 

and at the state warning point for Hawaii Emergency Management. The false alarm was on various information mechanisms 

within 13 minutes, and amateur radio operators started to pass 

that message along, whereas the full false alarm notice came 38 

minutes from the initial alarm. 

Amateur radio operators were trained in Hawaii to listen to specific types of siren wailings, and each one would determine what 

kind of emergency there was. There was no siren, and so that led 

to a tremendous amount of confusion. They also received reports 

from a Coast Guard vessel relaying the cancellation notice before 

the official cancellation notice came out. So amateur radio operators knew pretty much earlier than anybody else as to what was 

going on and did start sending that message along. 

Senator CAPITO. The other issue, I’ll just say briefly—if I could 

take just a few more seconds—that I think is real in relaying the 

stories of the folks that were in Hawaii visiting was their skepticism over this is a test and this is real, even though it was explained that it was real. I do think if we perfect a system, we won’t 

have this testing fatigue, you know, where you’re getting tested 

and you know nothing’s really happening. I think that’s our immediate response sometimes. 

I think the better the system gets and more reliable, the less frequently it needs to be tested, or you can test it in different places 

and don’t have to test it always at the same site—will really go to 

this sort of mentality of, ‘‘Well, this is a false alarm. It’s not really 

happening. I’m going to wait it out and wait and see what happens.’’ So I encourage all your efforts in that. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Markey. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I’m just 

referring back to an earlier conversation on the Committee. I just 

want everyone to know that there is actually a professional football 

team from Massachusetts, and it will be playing in about 10 days 

in a game out in Minnesota. So I just wanted everyone to be on 

notice to be looking for that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Bergmann, you said that the rule will be 

implemented in 2019 to increase the character count for mobile 

emergency alerts from 90 to 360. Can we get it done more quickly 

than 2019? How can we telescope the timeframe to get this done? 

It’s obviously a big problem. 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thanks, Senator, and, certainly, we do think 

that additional capability, having those additional characters, will 

be helpful and will let us pass on more information to consumers, 

let public safety explain situations better to consumers. We are certainly an industry about over-delivering, so we’ve hit every deadline so far in terms of WARN Act implementation. We certainly 

want to try to do that again here as well. 

39 

Senator MARKEY. So you could set a goal of completing it in 

2018? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Well, you know, I wouldn’t want to get ahead of 

the FCC’s current deadline, which is May 2019, but I can tell you 

that we’ll be doing everything that we can to hit that deadline and, 

if we can, beat it. 

Senator MARKEY. I think we already saw that deadline as a little 

bit too far out. We definitely need, obviously, to deal with the problem. So let’s just talk, for example, about what could happen at a 

meltdown at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Massachusetts, 

which is at the bottom of the list of best managed nuclear power 

plants in the United States, and, of course, people on Cape Cod 

would have to actually ride past the plant to evacuate, so it gets 

a little bit more complicated. 

So I guess my question to you would be when this event just occurred in Hawaii, the message was ‘‘Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill.’’ So 

what would be the message that went off the emergency—what 

would be the information that was communicated to people if there 

was a nuclear power plant meltdown, and where would they be told 

to go? Would they be told to shelter in place, or would they be told 

to evacuate? Here, there was no additional information. Where do 

you go? What do you do? People are just wandering crazily around 

town. 

So if there is a nuclear meltdown—and we still have 100 plants 

in America, and it’s clear that an accident can happen. Fukushima 

was the most recent. But it is possible. Should there be more information, Ms. Fowlkes, that is part of the message which is sent out, 

so it not only warns people but gives them kind of a little bit of 

guidance as well with more than 90—perhaps with as many as 360 

characters so that there’s guidance that families receive? 

Ms. FOWLKES. The main reason why the Commission expanded 

the character limit of the WEA alerts from 90 to 360 was because 

of the need to provide more information, in addition to which the 

Commission also adopted rules that would allow for the WEA 

alerts to include embedded references. Originally, the rules did not 

allow telephone numbers or a URL link into the WEA alert. The 

Commission has now, given the advancement in technology, decided to allow those to be included. There are certainly other issues 

that are before the Commission that we are considering in terms 

of other types of information or additional information that can be 

provided. 

Senator MARKEY. I think that’s very important, and I think it 

has to be tailored, because people would want to know, ‘‘Do I shelter in place, or do I just run crazily out into the street and head 

toward what could be the problem?’’ And I think that’s really one 

of the big issues that has been identified, and we’re going to have 

to clarify that. 

Just going back to the Hawaii incident, I don’t know how much 

thought has been put into this question of State control versus Federal control, because, obviously, the North Koreans could also make 

a miscalculation if they think that we are preparing for nuclear 

war, if they think that the United States might have a hair trigger 

response capacity, you know, that is going to be triggered by this 

40 

emergency evacuation plan that has been triggered. So has anyone 

thought through that reality, that the North Koreans could completely misinterpret what is going on and actually move them closer to their own hair trigger just to prepare because the United 

States might be actually on the verge of attacking? Has anyone 

thought through that issue as well? 

Ms. FOWLKES. From the FCC’s standpoint, as you know, we’re focused on the communication distribution side. That’s another issue 

where I would have to refer you to FEMA and DHS for decisions. 

Senator MARKEY. And I think decisions like that should be made 

by the President and by the Pentagon and not by State officials. 

I think it’s absolutely imperative that it be put in that larger context of understanding how the North Koreans might be responding, 

because it’s already too close. They have trigger—between our two 

countries. Too many threats have already been issued. So a 

misreading of that by the North Koreans could have actually resulted in a much more catastrophic situation. So thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Cantwell is next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. Thank you for holding this hearing. 

When it comes to the Pacific Northwest, I guarantee you, with 

tsunamis and earthquakes and volcanoes, flooding, worrying about 

lahars, you name it, we pay a lot of attention to disaster issues. 

I’m reminded, having been on the Committee for some time, that 

our former colleagues, Senators Stevens and Inouye, spent a lot of 

time on the development of what is the Buoy System, which is our 

earliest detection on the waves so that we can have this information, and now NOAA is working very diligently on interpretation 

of that activity so that we can get the information to handheld devices. So it is—I think we need to be thankful that we’ve made the 

investment in technology. 

I think the question becomes who in the Federal Government 

owns the protocols for making sure that the coordination happens 

at the state and local level. If so many of the partners in the development of that communication or the communication itself, for example, the Weather Service, who I know isn’t with us this morning—how do we make sure that that information is there? 

So, for us, out on the Long Beach peninsula, this issue is a very 

big issue. We have established warning sirens and warning information, and I think the scientists at NOAA would tell us this is 

what we should be developing. But now we have a very rural, isolated community trying to figure out how to deal with a tsunami. 

Many people may remember the story that the New Yorker wrote 

a few years back, The Big One. I never heard from so many of my 

friends around the United States when that article appeared, because they all woke up and said, ‘‘This is really what’s going to 

happen?’’ 

So we train constantly, constantly, on this as a coordinated effort 

between Homeland Security, our National Guard, our local reVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
41 

sponders. But who owns at the Federal level thinking through 

what this communication protocol should actually look like and 

how we establish safeguards within the protocol so that these kinds 

of mistakes or information gaps are avoided in the future? Because 

we want to continue with the information. That’s for sure. So does 

anybody have a thought on that? 

Ms. Fowlkes. 

Ms. FOWLKES. In terms of the communication service provider 

side, certainly, the FCC works with the service providers. We have 

rules that apply in terms of how they’re supposed to react, in terms 

of receiving and transmitting the alerts. On the alert origination 

side, on the FEMA side, I’d have to refer more to them. I will say 

that just in terms of general coordination, the FCC has at times— 

well, not just at times, but regularly coordinates with FEMA in 

terms of things such as testing or dealing with some of the issues 

that go to our rulemakings. 

To give you an example, with respect to the EAS, there are a lot 

of states, particularly on the western side of the country, who do 

tsunami and earthquake tests, and they want to use the live code 

EAS, which, under our rules, you can’t use unless it’s an actual 

emergency. We have, working with broadcasters and other EAS 

participants, waived our rules to allow the broadcasters, the cable 

operators, to transmit that live code test as part of the broader tsunami exercise that FEMA may be doing with the state or local government. 

Senator CANTWELL. This isn’t—you know, I’m not trying to 

stump the panel. It’s more that I think we have a gap here, and 

I know in our state, because the National Guard and the tech sector are so strong, they’ve established what they call ‘‘hygiene 

issues’’ for cybersecurity—here are the 10 things that you should 

follow for good cybersecurity hygiene. 

Somewhere, it seems to me, we need this protocol list of here’s 

what emergency response should look like, and here are the safeguards that should be in place, whether you’re talking about a 

county or a state or the Federal system, because we’re going to 

keep marching ahead. We need the information. We desperately 

want this kind of—when it’s an earthquake, you only have—you 

might only have minutes to respond and because, as I said, this article about ‘‘The Big One’’ in the Northwest—we want to see this 

data and information. But we also want to make sure that, like the 

things that happened in Hawaii, we also have new safeguards for 

false alarms. 

I remember Senator Inouye talking about a previous moment in 

Hawaii’s history prior to all this technology where they had—I 

think it went on for hours, he said. They thought a tsunami wave 

was going to hit, and so this went on for hours and hours, and 

that’s why we developed the Buoy System. So the Buoy System did 

work the other night in Kodiak, and it gave people—even though 

it went off, it gave people time to then understand from the science 

level that the wave was not going to be that great. 

So we want the technology, but we need some protocols as to how 

it’s used and how to make sure that there are some safeguards 

there for the public. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

42 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Thank you for being here today, and I do wish that FEMA had 

been here. I think they would have been an integral part of this 

discussion. I echo a lot of the concerns from my colleagues that I’ve 

heard today and appreciate your candid comments as well about 

the challenges we still have moving forward, but the good things 

that are happening with the alerts. 

One of the things I do have concerns about sometimes, particularly in the state of Nevada where we have a very diverse and 

growing population, are language barriers. I know, Ms. Fowlkes 

and Mr. Bergmann, you talked a little bit about this and the actions that were taken in 2016 to enable Spanish language alerts. 

Can you talk a little bit more about that and describe how that 

works to ensure understandable alerts are sent to everyone and not 

just Spanish language alone? In Nevada, particularly in southern 

Nevada, we have a large Filipino population, and Tagalog is an important language, obviously, and that’s a barrier for those who do 

not speak Spanish. So can you talk a little bit about language barriers and how you address those and where the gaps are and what 

we should be doing to also keep that in mind when we’re talking 

about reaching out to everyone in our communities when there is 

a crisis or a concern of a natural disaster? 

Ms. FOWLKES. As you noted, the Commission back in 2016 adopted rules to facilitate Spanish language WEA alerts. We do currently have the broader issue that is pending before us that we’re 

still considering regarding other languages and to what extent we 

should be looking at WEA alerts in other types of languages. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Not there yet, though. 

Ms. FOWLKES. Not there. It’s pending. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. And, then, Mr. Bergmann, if you don’t 

mind talking a little bit about how you—particularly with Spanish, 

how you overcome that barrier with the technology? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Sure, Senator. I think we certainly agree with 

you and think that’s an important improvement. It’s one that we’re 

working diligently to implement. And then I would just flag again 

the addition of URLs plays an important role, too, because we 

think often of WEA as a bell ringer. The idea is that you’re letting 

folks know there’s an issue and then giving them the opportunity 

to go and get additional information. So, together, those two tools, 

we think, will be very valuable for consumers, particularly for 

those who speak languages other than English as well. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. And besides language barriers—and I echo my colleagues again—there are geographic barriers, rural communities, particularly, in Nevada and across the 

country that are still struggling to have broadband access and access to be able to use some of the technology that’s out there that’s 

providing this information. I know this is an area where we’ve 

talked and will continue to support to bring resources and funding 

to our rural communities to connect them. But, to me, this is just 

43 

a crisis as well, that they are not connected right now, and it’s a 

focus for many of us. 

Let me ask you this. Cybersecurity—is there any concern about 

hackers hacking into an alert system in any manner whatsoever? 

Have we seen any of that, or is there something that you’re thinking about or making sure you’re addressing in the infrastructure? 

Ms. FOWLKES. The FCC has addressed the issue of cybersecurity, 

particularly with respect to the EAS, through its advisory committee. You may or may not recall that back in 2013, a hacker 

gained access to EAS equipment at various broadcast stations 

across the country. We conducted an investigation, and we asked 

our advisory committee to come up with best practices that EAS 

participants could use to make their equipment more secure, in addition to which the FCC, through its advisory committee, has developed best practices for really all the communication sectors to 

address security risk management, specifically, how to implement 

the NIST framework. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. The best practices are there, but there’s 

no guarantee that they’re going to be adopted. 

Ms. FOWLKES. We have taken steps to strongly encourage communication service providers to implement those best practices. We 

also work with industry organizations, and many of the industry 

organizations, for example, NAB, has done a lot to encourage its 

members to implement those best practices. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Right, but we’re still at the stage of encouragement and not necessarily mandated that the use is being 

implemented. 

Ms. FOWLKES. Yes. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator Duckworth. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. I want to thank the Chair and 

the Ranking Member for today’s hearing. I also want to thank our 

witnesses for participating in this very important discussion. 

As a proud graduate of the University of Hawaii at Manoa—go 

Rainbows—no one else? No one else in the room. There’s never 

anybody from my—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Not even me. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Not even you. Not even you. What does 

that say? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DUCKWORTH. But Hawaii’s recent false alarm is a fascinating test case, I think, for Federal and state and local policymakers. On the one hand, it worked exactly the way it was supposed to. It was a false alarm, but the execution of the alarm actually worked as it was designed. A message was sent by an alerting 

authority and effectively disseminated to the targeted population. 

On the other hand, it was sent in error, terrifying the entire 

state for nearly an hour. I actually landed in South Korea on my 

way to the DMZ when it popped up on my phone saying that this 

44 

had happened. So the situation really exposed some gaps in the 

training processes and ergonomics of the software of the alerting 

authority. 

Mr. Bergmann and Mr. Matheny, it seems to me that the questions raised and the gaps identified in the Hawaii case focus more 

on alerting authorities and FEMA jurisdiction than the FCC and 

the alerting disseminators. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. MATHENY. Yes, I would. I agree with the way you outlined 

it, which is that the broadcast infrastructure worked. The transmission worked. The message did get out. Unfortunately, in this 

case, it was a mistaken message. So I think that, as we’ve been discussing today, it requires us all, in particular on the FEMA side, 

to revisit who can generate an alert and how that alert is generated. But as it relates to the dissemination and the transmission, 

I think, as you’ve stated, that piece of the process worked as designed. 

Mr. BERGMANN. Senator Duckworth, I would agree as well, too. 

On the wireless side, the alert was delivered exactly as intended, 

and I think one of the key focuses of this hearing is making sure 

that we have public trust and confidence in the system, and I think 

we can certainly say we have that on the delivery side. I understand the Committee’s appropriate focus on making sure that that 

trust extends across the entire system. But the system performed 

well on the wireless side. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. So I want to sort of contrast 

that with something that my colleague, Senator Sullivan, talked 

about, the recent tsunami warning in Alaska. I think that’s more 

of an appropriate test case where an emergency alert was sent to 

a wide swath of residents, many who were in the danger zone, but 

then a lot of folks who were outside of the danger zone and probably did not need to be alerted. The Alaska example exposes a potential gap in the Wireless Emergency Alert system’s effectiveness 

in large rural environments. I have this situation in Illinois where 

I have Chicago—we have a couple of major metropolitan areas, but 

then large rural communities. 

So my understanding is that in Anchorage, residents received an 

alert at 12:36 a.m., even though they were not in the danger zone, 

geographically, and I can appreciate alerting authorities’ interest in 

erring on the side of caution. But it seems more likely that forecast 

boundaries and census boundaries, combined with technology limitations, also played a role in those folks in Anchorage receiving the 

alert. 

Ms. Fowlkes, Senator Sullivan touched on this. But has FCC 

done any after-action analysis of Alaska’s recent tsunami warning 

to determine the WEA’s effectiveness in this instance? 

Ms. FOWLKES. We are in the process of looking into it, yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. You are. Do you have any idea how long 

that review might take, or if we’ll be able to see the results? 

Ms. FOWLKES. At this point, I can’t give a specific timeline. But, 

as always, my team moves very carefully and very expeditiously. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Wonderful. 

Mr. Bergmann, what can you tell us about the effectiveness of 

geo-targeting technology, and where are the gaps? Which emergency situation is WEA least suited, and where should industry, 

45 

the FCC, and Congress focus our attention? And is there an issue 

with somebody who may have their GPS locator turned off on their 

phones? 

Mr. BERGMANN. Thanks, Senator. I think you’ve put your finger 

on one of the most important improvements that we’re poised to 

make, which is improving the geo-targeting of Wireless Emergency 

Alerts, and the example that you talked about—this is exactly why 

we think about alerts as trying to target it to the folks who are actually in danger and not over-alerting. 

So there are two components to that. One we’ve implemented 

now, which is taking advantage of greater capabilities within the 

network to go below the county level so that alert originators can 

draw the polygon, the geographic area that they want to reach, and 

so they can do that today. The next step in that will be taking advantage not just of the network, but also of the capabilities in the 

device. So their turning on features like location is, obviously, critically important to that. You want to make sure that you can take 

advantage of that location information in order to appropriately 

geo-target it. 

Now, I think a comforting piece of information there is if the geotargeting is turned off, they’ll still receive the message. So it’s not 

as if the consumer would not receive the message in that circumstance. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you, and I’m out of time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. 

Senator Wicker. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Lisenco, thank you for being here and 

thank you for your written testimony. On page nine of your written 

testimony, you talk about the Hawaii amateur radio operators during the recent false alarm. How were these operators able to disseminate a cancellation notice about Hawaii’s ballistic missile false 

alarm before others were able to do so? Can you explain how amateur radios were able to provide that notice before others? 

Mr. LISENCO. Senator Wicker, first, let me start by thanking you 

for your continuing support of amateur radio and your bill, S. 1534. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, and I might point out that Senator 

Blumenthal is a co-sponsor of that, and I appreciate his bipartisan 

support for this. 

Mr. LISENCO. Thank you. As I had mentioned earlier, ironically, 

amateur radio members in Hawaii had just been drilling 20 hours 

before the actual false alarm, so everything was fresh on their 

minds. Now, because they are able to work outside of the local infrastructure and they were not participants within the actual initial notification, they got word out through various VHF and UHF 

repeaters about the false alarm within 13 minutes after the initial 

alarm. 

They were picking up information from various sources, including a Coast Guard vessel that was just outside of the area. And as 

a result, because they were able to disseminate that information 

freely within the 13 minutes, they were able to get that word out 

46 

right away. Whereas there was a lot of confusion in the area to 

them as well, because they were taught to listen for a certain type 

of siren warning that never came, so they were dependent upon information that they were gleaning from within the community 

itself. 

Senator WICKER. Well, let me then switch to Katrina. Why, in 

situations like Hurricane Katrina, are the amateur radios so much 

more resilient and able to be there as a backup to the more well 

known forms? 

Mr. LISENCO. Well, for a number of reasons. First of all, we’re 

not dependent upon the infrastructure to operate. If the power goes 

down, we’re able to use generators, solar power panels, batteries, 

what have you, and because we understand how radio works, we’re 

able to adapt very quickly to any situation, whereas most first responders are using technology that they really can’t adapt to a 

given situation because they don’t have a basic understanding. 

We’re able to walk into a situation, take notice of the surroundings, what kind of operation would be effective at that point, 

and then move along those lines very quickly. The big thing is that 

when all else fails, we really are able to provide emergency communications as required. 

Senator WICKER. So things are OK. But why is the new legislation so important? What would it give us that we don’t have? 

Mr. LISENCO. Well, you have to remember that amateur radio is 

unique in that we are disseminated geographically throughout the 

entire country. So, very often, what will happen is we’ll have amateur radio operators both within and outside of a disaster area. 

That gives us a unique ability to disseminate information from 

within a disaster zone that others don’t have. The fact that we’re 

not dependent upon the infrastructure then gives us the ability to 

work outside of it. 

So, for instance, during Sandy—I’m from—if you can’t tell from 

my accent, I’m from Brooklyn. We had devastation throughout the 

coast of both New Jersey and New York going out to Long Island. 

The flooding was so severe that we had people who were stuck in 

their homes, obviously, waiting for help. We had amateur radio operators who were inside of the flood zone and were able to send 

messages to first responders outside of the flood zone as to where 

people needed help, and very often in an emergency of that nature, 

it’s as important to know where you need help and where you don’t 

need help so you don’t waste the resources that you have, which 

are limited during a disaster. So you don’t want to send a first responder to the wrong address when there’s nobody there to save. 

We learned that it’s that dissemination of resources that is a strong 

point for us. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Schatz, anything else? 

[Nonverbal response.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we’ve pretty well covered the subject today with the folks that are here, and, as I mentioned earlier, 

there are some folks who are not here who I think could shed considerable light on some of the other aspects of the way this process 

works. But it’s clear to me, at least, and I think most of the memVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
47 

bers of this committee, that we need to make some changes, at 

least with respect to the kind of alert that was issued in Hawaii. 

When it’s a nuclear attack, I think the chain in that alert system 

needs to be modified to reflect the seriousness of the threat, not 

that any of them aren’t serious, but, obviously, this is a very different sort of threat. 

Thank you so much for the work that your various organizations 

do in alerting the public, and I encourage you to continue to work 

to develop and refine those processes and technologies so that we 

can become even better and, hopefully, more efficient in seeing that 

people have the notifications they need in the face of various disasters that come our way. So thank you. 

We will keep the record open for members on the Committee who 

would like to submit questions for the record for a couple of weeks 

and would ask the witnesses, as soon as they can, to get those responses in, preferably in a couple of weeks’ time so we can close 

out the record of the hearing. We, again, appreciate all of you being 

here today. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

BIG CITY EMERGENCY MANAGERS

NATIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EMERGENCY MANAGERS

January 23, 2018 

Chairman AJIT PAI, Commissioner MIGNON CLYBURN, Commissioner MICHAEL O’RIELLY, Commissioner BRENDAN CARR, Commissioner JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, Washington, DC. 

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, 

First, we wish to share our appreciation and thanks to Chairman Pai, Commission staff, and public safety stakeholders for their efforts to date, and thank you to 

Commissioners Clyburn, O’Rielly, Carr, Rosenworcel and your staff for your consideration of this item. We believe that the proposed changes to the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) service will save lives. With respect, we have included several 

changes to the proposed rules for your consideration. 

As APCO stated in its January 12th ex parte to the Commission, ‘‘in addition to 

expressing support for requiring geo-targeting enhancements by 2019, we recommend the incorporation of rule language to add clarity to the obligations of participating WEA service providers. For example, the language of Final Rule Section 

10.450 could specify that, ‘‘No later than November 30, 2019,’’ participating CMS 

providers must match the target area. Section 10.450 could also reflect the language 

of the draft Order specifying that this deadline is to apply to ‘‘new mobile devices 

offered for sale after the rule’s effective date and to existing devices capable of being 

upgraded.’’ 

APCO also stated, and we agree, that ‘‘[t]he rules could also clarify the narrow 

intent of what it means to be technically incapable of matching the specified target 

area.’’ Based on the record, it is technically feasible to achieve the geo-targeting goal 

by November 30, 2019, through software upgrades to many existing devices and 

with the introduction of new devices. Thus, the rules should be clear that ‘‘technically incapable’’ should not apply where providers have failed to develop standards, implement network and device changes, or pursue other technological solutions. After November 2019, CMS providers may only fall back to the ‘‘best approximates’’ standard in a narrow set of circumstances. While we expect participating 

CMS providers to continue serving as good partners in this trusted and official public safety alerting system, the FCC’s rules should minimize the potential for any 

confusion with respect to the carriers’ obligations to achieve geo-targeting improvements. 

Accordingly, we respectfully request the following changes to the proposed rules: 

(a) [REVISED SECTION 10.450 (a)] This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A Participating CMS 

Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations 

will be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS 

Provider must deliver any Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, 

or polygon to an area that matches the specified geocode, circle, or polygon. 

A Participating CMS Provider is considered to have matched the target area 

when they deliver an Alert Message to 100 percent of the target area with no 

more than 0.1 of a mile overshoot. If some or all of a Participating CMS Provider’s network infrastructure is technically incapable of matching the specified target area, then that Participating CMS Provider must deliver the Alert 

Message to an area that best approximates the specified target area on and 

only on those aspects of its network infrastructure that are incapable of 

matching the target area. [NEW LANGUAGE FOLLOWS] [A CMS Provider’s 

50 

ability to claim that its network infrastructure is technically incapable of 

matching the specified target area is limited to instances described in the 

Order, including when the target area is outside of the Participating CMS 

Provider’s network coverage area, when mobile devices have location services 

disabled, and when legacy networks cannot be updated to support this 

functionality. In all other instances, the CMS Provider must deliver an Alert 

Message to 100 percent of the target area with no more than 0.1 of a mile 

overshoot.] 

(b) Leave as existing in Section 10.450 (b) 

(c) [NEW SECTION 10.450 (c)] Participating CMS Providers are required to 

transmit Alert Message polygon coordinates to mobile devices without affecting the 360 character allotment for displayable Alert Message text. 

(d) [NEW SECTION 10.450 (d) Participating CMS Providers shall comply with 

these Geo-targeting rules no later than November 30, 2019. These rules shall 

apply to new mobile devices offered for sale after the rule’s effective date and 

to existing devices capable of being upgraded. 

In response to the proposed rule changes, CTIA submitted an Ex-Parte on 1/17/ 

18 discussing several of the same concerns around the definitions related to the new 

rules. While CTIA suggests that the Commission simplify the definition of ‘‘WEAcapable’’ devices to any mobile wireless device that can receive a WEA message and 

noted that the Commission could suggest that CMS providers and equipment vendors disclose that a device may not support all WEA features. This simplification 

is misleading to consumers and will allow providers and device manufacturers a 

loophole to not provide the much needed WEA enhancements to some wireless 

users. While we hope that our industry partners will continue to work with us on 

providing all of the life-saving WEA enhancements, we find CTIA’s proposed definition for WEA-capable devices to be too simplified. We respectfully request that the 

Commission clearly define WEA-capable devices as those that are fully capable of 

receiving all WEA messages and associated content. 

In summary, we believe the existing proposed Order with these changes to the 

Rules will result in a significantly improved Wireless Emergency Alert system. 

Thank you again for your consideration of these changes. 

Sincerely, 

BARB GRAFF, 

Chair, 

Big City Emergency Managers, 

Director, 

City of Seattle Office of Emergency Management. 

RON PRATER, 

Executive Director, 

Big City Emergency Managers. 

https://www.bigcityem.org 

MIKE SPRAYBERRY, 

National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), 

President and Director, 

North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. 

https://www.nemaweb.org/ 

NICK CROSSLEY, 

President, 

U.S. Council of the International 

Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). 

https://www.iaem.com/ 

51 

1 CCA is the Nation’s leading association for competitive wireless providers and stakeholders 

across the United States. CCA’s membership includes nearly 100 competitive wireless providers 

ranging from small, rural carriers serving fewer than 5,000 customers to regional and national 

providers serving millions of customers. CCA also represents associate members including vendors and suppliers that provide products and services throughout the mobile communications 

supply chain. 

COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION

Washington, DC, January 25, 2018 

Hon. JOHN THUNE, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. BILL NELSON, 

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson: 

Competitive Carriers Association (‘‘CCA’’) 1 commends the Committee for its timely oversight of emergency alerting with today’s hearing on ‘‘This is Not a Drill: An 

Examination of Emergency Alert Systems.’’ Recent events and natural disasters 

have brought public focus on emergency alerting, and the Federal Communications 

Commission (‘‘FCC’’) will vote on an item updating the Wireless Emergency Alert 

(‘‘WEA’’) system next week. As policymakers and industry leaders continue to work 

to make alerts more effective and accurate, CCA appreciates the recognition of 

unique challenges facing competitive carriers and providers serving rural communities. Updates to the WEA system should promote the most effective and efficient 

means for providing WEA messages in consideration of technology that is both capable of executing the requirements and available to all providers and consumers. 

CCA carrier members’ ongoing goal is to provide their customers with the latest 

information, especially during disasters and emergencies. Competitive carriers take 

their obligations to provide these services seriously, particularly as many competitive carriers connect the communities where they live. Proposed WEA updates, including refining the delivery location, will improve the quality of information that 

consumers receive, limit network impacts, and reduce the potential for over-alerting. 

CCA’s members continue to work to implement enhanced WEA standards. While industry’s work continues, however, Congress can take steps to ensure alerts are 

available to all consumers, especially in rural America, with a focus on ubiquitous 

availability of devices and deployment of the latest mobile networks that power 

them. 

Alerts Depend on Consumer Devices 

While underlying network technology and services are critical to providing emergency alerts, consumers ultimately rely on their devices to provide refined geo-targeted location and to receive the alert itself. As the FCC adopts new regulatory requirements, device manufacturers will need sufficient time to analyze changes and 

incorporate new standards into devices, especially when embedding new technology 

for next generation devices. Further, as wireless industry groups and Apple have 

publicly recognized, some devices will not be able to meet new requirements via a 

software upgrade and some legacy devices do not support geo-targeting for WEA 

messages. As Congress and the FCC consider new WEA requirements, they must 

also consider carriers’ access to the latest devices and the requisite technology upgrades necessary to incorporate enhanced alerting standards. 

What’s more, smaller rural and regional carriers do not have access to the latest 

devices on the same timeline as the largest carriers, if at all. This not only diminishes competition in the wireless industry, it also may delay availability of the latest 

WEA technology, including device-based geo-location capabilities. CCA members are 

committed to providing consumers with the most accurate and up-to-date information in times of emergency, and will continue to upgrade their networks to handle 

the enhanced requirements; however, they often are hamstrung from doing so if the 

latest device or network technology is unavailable. Regulatory updates to the WEA 

system and timelines for implementation must reflect this reality. 

We commend the FCC for its continued work to ensure that WEA messages will 

be delivered using ‘‘best approximates’’ location in circumstances where the target 

area is outside a carrier’s network coverage area, when location services are disabled on a device, or when legacy networks or devices cannot be updated to support 

the functionality. Continued oversight is necessary to ensure that carriers serving 

rural America are not forced to seek waivers of overly ambitious rules, or worse, 

opt-out of the voluntary WEA program. 

52 

Enhanced Alerting Requires Ubiquitous Mobile Broadband Coverage 

Emergencies and disasters occur irrespective of geography, in both densely populated urban centers and the remote wilderness. Timely WEA messages can save 

lives in all of these areas, but only where consumers have a sufficient mobile 

broadband connection to deliver the alert. Without robust, seamless mobile coverage, citizens must rely on traditional and potentially less-effective methods of 

communication from public safety officials during a crisis. This Committee is all too 

familiar with the persistent digital divide that plagues rural America, and CCA supports continued work to close the gap and connect all Americans with robust mobile 

broadband service. 

With continued leadership from this Committee, CCA is optimistic that Congress 

is moving towards implementing policies that support mobile broadband deployment 

and ubiquitous connectivity. For example, S. 19, the ‘‘Making Opportunities for 

Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless 

Act’’ or the ‘‘MOBILE NOW Act’’ proposes steps to support deployment, especially 

in rural America. CCA supports this bill, and encourages the House of Representatives to send MOBILE NOW to the President’s desk for enactment. Additional bipartisan legislative proposals, including S. 1988, the ‘‘Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure Act’’ or the ‘‘SPEED Act’’ and 

S. 1363, the ‘‘Rural Broadband Deployment Streamlining Act,’’ will promote mobile 

broadband deployment and support advanced services. Congress should continue to 

champion these and other anticipated bills to reduce barriers to deployment and increase investment certainty. 

Additionally, CCA appreciates the Committee’s work to ensure that Universal 

Service Fund programs, including Mobility Fund Phase II, provide support based on 

reliable data and deliver on Congress’s mandate to provide reasonably comparable 

services in urban and rural areas. Emergency alerts are yet another example of why 

this program is so important for connecting our Nation. 

CCA thanks the Committee for continued oversight of these critical issues and for 

holding this important hearing. Please do not hesitate to contact CCA with any 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

STEVEN K. BERRY, 

President and CEO, 

Competitive Carriers Association. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN THUNE TO

LISA M. FOWLKES

Question. What actions can the FCC take to work with other agencies like FEMA 

to create best practices for Emergency Alert Systems? 

Answer. Upon the completion of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau’s investigation into the false alert incident in Hawaii on January 13th, the Bureau will issue a final report on its findings. The final report will include recommended measures to safeguard against false alerts and to mitigate their harmful 

effects if they do occur. Once these recommended measures are developed, the Bureau will partner with FEMA to engage in stakeholder outreach and encourage implementation of these measures. Among other avenues, the FCC is considering convening a roundtable with stakeholders in the emergency alerting ecosystem to discuss the lessons that should be learned from this incident as well as developing a 

joint webinar with FEMA to further educate stakeholders. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

LISA M. FOWLKES

Question 1. On January 30, 2018, a few days after you appeared before this Committee, the FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau provided a preliminary report on its investigation at the FCC’s Open Meeting. In order to ensure the 

most up to date record of the FCC’s findings is reflected in the hearing record, 

please provide a detailed summary of the FCC’s preliminary report including additional information the FCC discovered after the hearing. In addition, provide the expected date of completion of the FCC’s investigation and when it expects to complete 

the final report. 

Answer. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau’s investigation is ongoing, but I am pleased to provide you with the attached report, presented at the January 30, 2018, FCC Open Meeting, which summarizes our preliminary findings. 

53 

The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau is continuing the investigation 

and will issue a final report upon the completion of the investigation. The final report, which we expect to release later this spring, will also include recommended 

measures to safeguard against false alerts and to mitigate their harmful effects if 

they do occur. 

Question 2. Please confirm that the FCC will, as part of its investigation, examine 

whether HI–EMA’s or other officials’ phone lines became congested and, if so, 

whether phone line congestion hindered the ability of government officials to communicate during the incident. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question 3. As part of the investigation, will the FCC examine whether and the 

extent to which officials engaged the Telecommunications Priority Service, Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, or Wireless Priority Service to communicate during the incident and, if used, whether the systems operated as expected? 

Answer. Yes. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

LISA M. FOWLKES

Question 1. As your testimony indicates, the Commission places the highest priority on ensuring that emergency management authorities and first responders have 

up-to-date tools available to respond to disasters. What coordination structures are 

in place to adjudicate any challenges or work through issues that cross jurisdiction 

between your agency and FEMA and how often are you meeting or speaking with 

FEMA officials? 

Answer. FEMA, the FCC, and the National Weather Service work together to 

maintain the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts. 

The FCC’s role includes establishing technical and operational standards for EAS 

Participants (radio and television broadcasters, cable systems, satellite radio and 

television providers, wireline video providers), and for those wireless providers that 

elect to participate in the Wireless Emergency Alert system. For example, the Commission has worked closely with FEMA to conduct nationwide tests of the Emergency Alert System to assess its reliability and effectiveness, with the most recent 

test occurring in September 2017. Additionally, Commission staff regularly interact 

and coordinate with partners at FEMA and are participating members of the congressionally mandated IPAWS Subcommittee to the FEMA National Advisory Committee. 

Question 2. How are you at the FCC working with FEMA to communicate with 

one voice and purpose to the varied stakeholders you need to engage—from state 

and local emergency managers and public safety officials in towns across the country all the way up to large broadcasting or wireless companies? 

Answer. After the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau releases its final 

report on the January 13 false alert, which will contain recommended best practices 

to safeguard against false alerts and mitigate the effects of false alerts if they do 

occur, we plan to partner with FEMA to engage in stakeholder outreach and encourage implementation of these best practices. Among other avenues, we are considering convening a roundtable with stakeholders in the emergency alerting ecosystem 

to discuss the lessons that should be learned from the false missile alert incident 

as well as developing a joint webinar with FEMA to further educate stakeholders. 

We also have worked closely with FEMA on a range of public events, such as Presidential and state event preparations, nationwide EAS tests, and disaster relief efforts. 

Question 3. As I understand from reading the timeline of the Hawaii incident and 

follow up conversations, had Hawaii EMA not called for FEMA for advice, FEMA, 

absent news reports, would not have immediately been notified of the incident. Does 

the FCC have a monitoring capability or central alert repository that receives alerts 

in real time from around the country? What I’m getting at, and what we have asked 

FEMA as well, is whether the FCC has awareness of critical alerts as they are sent 

or whether you rely on external updates for situational awareness? 

Answer. The Federal Communications Commission does not monitor the origination of emergency alerts. The origination and transmission of emergency alerts, either via broadcast emergency alerts (EAS) or wireless emergency alerts (WEA) is 

outside the purview of the FCC. As such, the FCC only has notification of an alert 

being sent through public reporting methods. 

54 

1Wireless Emergency Alerts, Order on Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 9621, 9625, n.28 (2017); 

see also, FCC, Master WEA Carrier Registry File, https://www.fcc.gov/general/commercial-mobile-telephone-alerts-cmas (last visited Feb. 18, 2018). 2See, e.g., IDC Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker (1Q 2013–3Q 2016), www.idc.com 

(last viewed Feb. 20, 2018); Counterpoint, Apple Sells a Record 22 Million iPhones in USA During 4Q17 (rel. Jan. 31, 2018), (https://www.counterpointresearch.com/apple-sells-record-22-million-iphones-usa-4q17/); Statista, Number of smartphones sold to end users worldwide from 

2007 to 2016 (in million units), https://www.statista.com/statistics/263437/global-smartphonesales-to-end-users-since-2007/) (last viewed Feb. 20, 2018). 3 AT&T, Wireless Emergency Alerts, https://www.att.com/esupport/article.html#!/wireless/ 

KM1009041) (last viewed Feb. 21, 2018). 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

SCOTT BERGMANN

Question. Please provide relevant wireless industry data collected by CTIA or 

available to CTIA from other sources to describe Wireless Emergency Alert system 

availability and coverage including, for example, by geographic region (e.g., state, 

MSA, rural vs. urban areas, etc.), percentage of devices in use by customers, and 

number of carriers offering vs. not offering WEA. 

Answer. CTIA and its member companies are proud of the wireless industry’s role 

in the Wireless Emergency Alerts system. 

• All four national wireless providers and dozens of regional providers, serving 

more than 99 percent of all U.S. subscribers, are voluntarily participating in the 

Wireless Emergency Alert system, transmitting thousands of alerts each year 

and helping our public safety professionals save lives.1

• CTIA estimates that more than 500 million wireless handsets that can receive 

WEA messages were sold in the U.S. since 2013.2 As AT&T has noted, ‘‘most 

smartphones and features phone released in the last few years are WEA-capable.’’ 3

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

SCOTT BERGMANN

Question 1. The Wireless Alert system is effective and important, but I remain 

concerned about the lack of infrastructure in rural and tribal areas, and the inability of these areas to receive wireless alerts in emergencies. I understand that cellular companies use geo-targeting for the Wireless Alert System. But I also understand that, in areas with a ‘‘low tower density,’’ companies may have to over-warn 

the communities—that is, they will have to send the notice out to a broader area— 

and this could lead to confusion. Can you address how geo-targeting works in areas 

with low tower density? 

Answer. Wireless Emergency Alerts play a unique role in our national emergency 

alert system that enables authorized federal, state, and local authorities (‘‘alert 

originators’’) to distribute emergency information directly to consumers’ wireless devices. In accordance with FCC rules, participating wireless providers support the 

ability of alert originators to determine the content and target area of WEA messages. 

Today, participating wireless providers support alert originators’ ability to target 

messages down to the cell-sector level. However, cell-site density is a key factor in 

the granularity of these WEA geo-targeting capabilities. To further enhance the geotargeting capabilities of Wireless Emergency Alerts, the FCC recently adopted new 

rules that will utilize location capabilities in mobile devices to allow more precise 

targeting of alerts, even in areas with low tower density. In addition, CTIA welcomes efforts by Congress, the FCC, and other relevant federal, state, and local 

agencies to modernize the processes for deploying wireless infrastructure, particularly in rural and tribal areas. 

Question 2. In your testimony, you state that under the FCC’s proposed enhanced 

geo-targeting plan, providers will rely on the technology in mobile devices. But 

many people disable this technology. Can you speak to how the alerts would work 

if the technology is disabled? 

Answer. The geo-targeting capabilities of the Wireless Emergency Alerts system 

play a vital role in disseminating emergency messages directly to consumers affected by an emergency. Generally, even when the enhanced WEA geo-targeting capabilities the FCC recently adopted become available next year, consumers who 

have disabled location services on their mobile device will still receive a WEA message so long as the device is within the cell-broadcast area determined by alert 

originators. 

55 

4See, 47 C.F.R. 10.450; Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15–91, 15–94, Report and 

Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 11112 (2016) (WEA R&O and 

WEA FNPRM). 5Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 

Emergency Alert System, Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, FCC 

18–4, PS Docket Nos. 15–91, 15–94 (rel. Jan. 31, 2018) (Second WEA R&O), available at 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-improves-wireless-emergency-alerts-0. 6 Id. at ¶ 9. 7 Id. at ¶ 10. 8See FCC Seeks Nominations for Tribal Government Representatives to Serve on Renewed FCC 

Native Nations Communications Task Force, Public Notice, DA 18–127 (rel. Feb. 8, 2018), 

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0208/DA-18-127A1.pdf. 

Specifically, participating wireless providers are currently required by the FCC to 

deliver WEA messages to an alert area specified by an alert originator subject to 

where mobile wireless coverage is available.4 These existing geo-targeting capabilities enable alert originators to target WEA down to the cell-sector level. 

While the ability to geo-target Wireless Emergency Alerts down to the cell-sector 

level will remain a constant feature of the system, we share the expressed goal of 

public safety leaders to harness innovative location technologies to further improve 

the targeting of alerts. To achieve this goal, the FCC recently adopted an Order to 

enhance the geo-targeting capabilities of WEA through device-based technologies 

that harness the location capabilities of a mobile device.5 The FCC’s recent Order 

requires participating wireless providers to minimize the extent to which a WEA 

alert is presented to consumers outside of the alert area to no more than 0.10 mile 

for devices with such capability. 

It is commonly understood that a device’s location determination ability is subject 

to a number of factors, including whether the device’s location capabilities are enabled by the consumer. For this reason, the FCC acknowledged that the enhanced 

WEA geo-targeting capabilities may be infeasible in certain circumstances, including 

when a consumer has chosen to disable location services on their mobile device.6

In circumstances where enhanced WEA geo-targeting capabilities are infeasible, 

the FCC requires participating wireless providers to utilize the existing WEA geotargeting capabilities to best approximate the alert originators’ target area, which 

enables alert originators to target down the cell-sector level. Further, when consumers have chosen to disable location services, the FCC requires that mobile devices display the WEA message by default to ensure consumers who have disabled 

location services on their devices can still act on important WEA messages.7

Question 3. Have any of your members engaged with tribal nations to work on 

ways to help deploy wireless service or help build capacity on their lands? 

Answer. CTIA’s members have worked diligently over the last ten years to deploy 

4G LTE to more than 99 percent of people living across the country, but they recognize that the work is not done to reach all communities, including those living on 

Tribal lands. Indeed, many CTIA members offer service on Tribal lands and recognize that many Tribal lands face unique and challenging obstacles. Like all consumers, people living on Tribal lands would greatly benefit from wireless broadband 

connectivity, not only to have access to a means of communicating with friends and 

family, but for critical public safety services and access to business and employment 

opportunities. 

For that reason, we were encouraged by the FCC’s recent renewal of the Native 

Nations Communications Task Force, which will explore the unique needs of consumers living on Tribal lands and the best means of ensuring they have access to 

broadband capabilities.8 While wireless providers have strong incentives to expand 

their networks to make these services available to consumers, it is important to recognize that the most remote and sparsely populated areas remain a challenge for 

buildout. CTIA supports the FCC’s efforts to coordinate with Tribal leaders and develop ways to reduce barriers to deployment on Tribal lands. 

In order to reach the remaining unserved areas, including Tribal lands, stable 

funding initiatives are critical. The Universal Service Fund and Rural Utilities Service programs in particular are critical for Tribal deployments. In 2011, the FCC also 

proposed a specific Tribal component to Mobility Fund Phase II. CTIA supports a 

permanent and robust Mobility Fund and urges Congress to encourage the FCC to 

move forward with Mobility Fund Phase II implementation so that the benefits of 

wireless connectivity can be attained by consumers across the country. These incentives are the most appropriate approach in order to incentivize buildout in rural and 

hard to serve areas, including Tribal lands. 

Question 4. According to your membership list on the website www.ctia.org, Apple, 

Nokia, and Samsung are all current members of CTIA. I have heard from small carVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
56 

9Second WEA R&O ¶¶ 12–14. 10WEA R&O and WEA FNPRM ¶ 67. 11 Remarks of FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel at Eye of the Storm: Broadcasters’ Role 

in Emergencies, Jan. 18, 2018 available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/commr-rosenworcelremarks-broadcasters-role-emergencies-event. 

riers that they are concerned that their customers will not have access to the devices with the latest technology to enable wireless alerts. Have you worked with any 

mobile device manufacturers to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their carrier, 

will have access to devices with the most up-to-date software and hardware? 

Answer. The FCC’s recent enhanced WEA geo-targeting Order adopted an aggressive implementation timeline that will present a challenge for all participating wireless providers and device manufacturers. As the Order notes, significant standards, 

deployment and testing work remains to support the enhanced WEA geo-targeting 

capability throughout the chain of the alert—from alert originators to FEMA’s gateway to wireless networks to mobile devices.9 However, the wireless industry—including participating national and regional wireless providers and device manufacturers—will work intently, as it always has, in an effort to meet the FCC’s aggressive deadline. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

SCOTT BERGMANN

Question 1. Your testimonies both highlighted the fact that the Hawaii incident, 

while unfortunate, illustrated a fairly flawless execution of the backend alerting protocol supported by the wireless and broadcasting community. How, if at all, do the 

decisions made by states and localities when it comes to software or hardware impact the operations of the wireless and broadcasting communities? 

Answer. WEA is part of our Nation’s emergency alert system managed by FEMA 

through IPAWS. As part of this system, WEA messages and associated information, 

including the geographic target area, are received from alert originators through 

FEMA in a common format using a secure process. By centralizing and standardizing the delivery of WEA messages to participating wireless providers through 

FEMA’s IPAWS, individual alert originator software or hardware has minimal impact on the delivery of Wireless Emergency Alerts over wireless networks. However, 

CTIA agrees with Congressional and Federal leaders who have highlighted the importance of alert originator training and proficiency, including appropriate software 

and hardware capabilities, which are essential to maintaining public confidence in 

WEA messages. 

Notably, Congress recognized the need to train and equip alert originators on 

ways to more effectively use our Nation’s emergency alert system when the IPAWS 

Modernization Act became law in 2015. And in 2016, the FCC encouraged emergency management agencies to engage in proficiency training exercises that could 

help minimize system failures and ensure that any failures are corrected during a 

period when no real emergency exists.10 Further, FCC Commissioner Jessica 

Rosenworcel recently called for new best practices around the training and use of 

our Nation’s emergency alert system.11 CTIA strongly supports all of these efforts 

and encourages FEMA and other public safety leaders to offer training opportunities 

for alert originators that promise to bolster WEA’s utility and credibility going forward. 

Question 2. Have your members developed relationships with State and local 

emergency management/EAS operators and shared challenges or opportunities to 

work together in pursuit of your common goals? 

Answer. At the Federal level, the WARN Act bi-furcated oversight and administration of the Wireless Emergency Alert system between the FCC and FEMA. This 

approach reflects the different roles and entities that make up our national emergency alert system. The FCC oversees and requires participating providers to support capabilities that ensure a nationally consistent WEA experience. While FEMA 

oversees and manages the relationships with authorized state and local alert originators, CTIA and our member companies participate in various Federal efforts to 

collaborate with state and local alert originators. 

For example, CTIA and our member companies have participated in the FCC’s 

Communications, Security, Interoperability and Reliability Council, which has evaluated various enhancements to WEA in collaboration with state and local alert 

originators. CTIA also participates in FEMA’s National Advisory Committee, which 

Congress tasked in 2015 with developing best practices to ensure the continued effectiveness of IPAWS, including WEA. Through these efforts, stakeholders can exVerDate Nov 24 2008 07:00 Aug 12, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\37299.TXT JACKIE
57 

12See generally CTIA, Hurricane Harvey: Resiliency & Relief, https://www.ctia.org/hurricaneharvey/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2018); Aaron C. Davis & Sandhya Somashekhar, The only California county that sent a warning to residents’ cellphones has no reported fatalities, Wash. Post, 

Oct. 13 2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-only-california-county-thatsent-a-warning-to-residents-cellphones-has-no-reported-fatalities/2017/10/13/b28b5af4-b01f-11e 

7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.cd24bb9ecf9chttps://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-only-california-county-that-sent-a-warning-to-residents-cellphones-has-no-report 

ed-fatalities-/2017/10/13/b28b5af4-b01f-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.cd24b 

b9ecf9c; Richard Perez-Pena, Fire Alert Sent to Millions of Cellphones Was California’s Largest 

Warning Yet, N.Y. Times (Dec. 7, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/us/cellphonealerts-california-fires.html. 13 Rick Wimberly, Powerful Wireless Emergency Alerts Success Stories at Congressional Hearing, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (Oct. 24, 2013), http://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/ 

alerts/Powerful-Wireless-Emergency-Alerts-Success-Stories-at-Congressional-Hearing.html; see 

also, David Owens & Chloe Miller, National Weather Service Confirms Two Tornadoes Monday, 

HARTFORD COURANT (July 2, 2013), http://articles.courant.com/2013–07–02/news/hc-tornadowarning-0702–20130701_1_windsor-locks-dome-national-weather-service-confirms 14 Id. 

change ideas and seek consensus on steps that can be taken to enhance the utility 

of and maintain public confidence in WEA. 

Question 3. What are some of the avenues or coordination structures your organizations participate in with FEMA? Do you have insight into working groups or advisory councils that help facilitate conversations around best practices, challenges, 

etc.? 

Answer. While FEMA oversees and manages the relationships with authorized 

state and local alert originators, CTIA and our member companies participate in 

various Federal efforts to collaborate with state and local alert originators. For example, CTIA and our member companies have participated in the FCC’s Communications, Security, Interoperability and Reliability Council, which has evaluated 

various enhancements to WEA in collaboration with state and local alert originators. CTIA also participates in FEMA’s National Advisory Committee, which Congress tasked in 2015 with developing best practices to ensure the continued effectiveness of IPAWS, including WEA. Through these efforts, stakeholders can exchange ideas and seek consensus on steps that can be taken to enhance the utility 

of and maintain public confidence in WEA. 

Question 4. As we know from recent events, the resilience of our institutions, and 

particularly those that provide critical services, is essential for the swift response 

and recovery from natural and man-made disasters. Obviously as we talk about infrastructure and resilience in the face of changing threats, understanding best practices and investments industries are currently making is important. Are you required to meet specific resilience or redundancy standards to ensure you can continue to serve your critical role in the alert and warning cycle if disaster strikes? 

Answer. Wireless network resiliency is one of CTIA and our member companies’ 

highest priorities because wireless supports critical emergency services during disasters, including WEA and 9–1–1. As noted in my testimony, WEAs have been used 

extensively to warn the public of severe weather emergencies. This past fall, more 

than 300 Wireless Emergency Alerts warned people around Houston, Texas about 

Hurricane Harvey and its rising floodwaters, more than 200 Wireless Emergency 

Alerts warned Floridians about the strong winds of Hurricane Irma, and Wireless 

Emergency Alerts played a critical role in warning many Californians about the devastating wildfires.12 In 2013, 29 children were saved from a tornado ripping through 

a soccer building in Windsor, Connecticut when the camp manager received a Wireless Emergency Alert seconds before the tornado touched down.13 Even as the system was only months old in 2012, public safety officials were using Wireless Emergency Alerts to warn the people in the path of Superstorm Sandy.14

The availability of WEA during emergencies and disasters is due to the resilience 

of wireless networks. In addition to individual network resiliency practices of our 

member companies, CTIA’s voluntary Wireless Network Resiliency Cooperative 

Framework and associated best practices are helping to make wireless networks 

more resilient to a variety of threats. Notably, 95 percent of wireless cell sites were 

operational throughout Hurricane Harvey in 2017. CTIA’s member companies will 

continue working hard to maintain wireless networks to support WEA and other 

emergency communications during disaster situations. 

58 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. GARY PETERS TO

SAM MATHENY

Question 1. Your testimonies both highlighted the fact that the Hawaii incident, 

while unfortunate, illustrated a fairly flawless execution of the backend alerting protocol supported by the wireless and broadcasting community. How, if at all, do the 

decisions made by states and localities when it comes to software or hardware impact the operations of the wireless and broadcasting communities? 

Answer. As a general matter, the decisions made by states and localities with regard to software and hardware have little impact on the operations of the broadcasting community. Broadcasters are generally made aware of EAS alerts via one 

of two systems: The Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) system, which is an international standard employed by the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System 

(IPAWS), and the Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) protocol, which is the 

legacy notification system originally developed by NOAA, later adopted by the FCC, 

and which is still used in many areas. Regardless of how the message is sent to 

broadcasters, it will be transmitted to viewers and listeners so long as it is authenticated. Alternatively, in some states, EAS communications are administered by a 

third party distributor contracted by the state or locality. In these cases, it is possible that broadcasters may have to deploy an additional system or piece of equipment to receive and relay EAS messages. 

Question 2. Have your members developed relationships with State and local 

emergency management/EAS operators and shared challenges or opportunities to 

work together in pursuit of your common goals? 

Answer. Yes, broadcasters have developed close relationships with local emergency managers to ensure reliable communications during emergencies. As a practical matter, the emergency managers are ‘‘news sources,’’ and broadcasters, in turn, 

take this information and disseminate it during emergencies. Regarding EAS specifically, broadcasters are closely involved in State Emergency Coordinating Committees (SECCs), which are the state organizations that construct the state EAS 

plans. Broadcasters are often the lead members on the SECCs, and work closely 

with emergency managers on drafting the plans. 

Question 3. What are some of the avenues or coordination structures your organizations participate in with FEMA? Do you have insight into working groups or advisory councils that help facilitate conversations around best practices, challenges, 

etc.? 

Answer. I am a member of FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System 

(IPAWS) Advisory Committee, which evaluates current emergency notification protocols, standards, and procedures, and ultimately develops recommendations for an 

improved EAS system. In addition, the National Association of State Broadcast Associations (NASBA) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) coordinate 

with FEMA, both formally and informally, during an annual EAS summit, which 

takes place every February in Washington, DC. NAB staff also work with FEMA 

staff on FCC advisory councils, including the Communications Security, Reliability, 

and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). For example, I personally participated in both 

CSRIC IV and V, and Kelly Williams, a senior director in the technology department at NAB, is currently participating in CSRIC VI. The CSRIC has created best 

practices and guidelines for disaster preparation and recovery, and considered ways 

to improve the EAS during multiple iterations of the CSRIC. FEMA also makes several presentations each year at the NAB Show, the broadcast industry’s largest annual conference, which will be taking place again in April of this year. Finally, NAB 

coordinates directly with FEMA on an ad hoc basis when disasters arise, such as 

the recent hurricane in Puerto Rico. This public-private partnership can help to bolster the disaster response of both FEMA and local broadcasters. 

Question 4. As we know from recent events, the resilience of our institutions, and 

particularly those that provide critical services, is essential for the swift response 

and recovery from natural and man-made disasters. Obviously as we talk about infrastructure and resilience in the face of changing threats, understanding best practices and investments industries are currently making is important. Are you required to meet specific resilience or redundancy standards to ensure you can continue to serve your critical role in the alert and warning cycle if disaster strikes? 

Answer. As I noted in my testimony, resiliency and redundancy are essential considerations for any broadcaster and uniquely position us as first informers during 

times of crisis when other communications infrastructure fails. Broadcasters invest 

heavily to ensure they remain on the air in times of disaster, and broadcast facilities 

often have redundant power sources, automatic fail-over processes, auxiliary transmission systems, generator back-up, and substantial fuel reserves. FEMA officials 

59 

have noted that in times of emergency there is no more reliable source of information than local broadcasters. Stations can be fined by the FCC if their EAS equipment is not functional, but unlike with telephone services, there are no outage reports required for broadcasters if they are forced off the air. In addition, some 

broadcasters voluntarily participate in a cooperative program with FEMA to serve 

as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations, and act as the source of messages initiated 

by the Presidential Emergency Alert System. Stations that participate in the PEP 

program have their own set of resiliency requirements as set forth by FEMA. Due 

to intense competition in the industry, however, broadcasters have incredibly strong 

incentives to remain on the air, regardless of any specific external requirements. 

Put simply, if a broadcaster goes off the air, listeners and viewers will just change 

the channel. 

Æ