U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–738 PDF 2012

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NATION’S 

PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEM 

(112–67) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 13, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BOB FILNER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Damon Penn, Assistant Administrator, National Continuity Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................ 3 

James Arden Barnett, Jr., Rear Admiral (Ret.), Chief, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission ............... 3 

Suzanne D. Goucher, President and CEO, Maine Association of Broadcasters . 3 

Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA— 

The Wireless Association ..................................................................................... 3 

William Check, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Science and Technology, National Cable and Telecommunications Association ........................................... 3 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Damon Penn ............................................................................................................. 26 

James Arden Barnett, Jr. ....................................................................................... 32 

Suzanne D. Goucher ................................................................................................ 38 

Christopher Guttman-McCabe ................................................................................ 51 

William Check, Ph.D. .............................................................................................. 56 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

John I. Taylor, Vice President, Government Relations and Communications, 

LG Electronics USA, Inc., letter and attachment to Hon. Jeff Denham, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of California, December 13, 

2011 ....................................................................................................................... 64 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 71738.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 71738.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 71738.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 71738.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 71738.005
(1) 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR NATION’S 

PUBLIC ALERT SYSTEM 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. Today’s hearing is on the effectiveness of our Nation’s public alert system. Many 

of us recall the old Emergency Broadcast System and periodic 

interruption of our TV viewing with an audio announcement and 

very distinctive annoying tones. 

Today we have the Emergency Alert System and EAS. However, 

the backbone of that system is still largely based on 1960s technology. Last month FEMA conducted the first-ever nationwide test 

of the EAS. To be clear, after almost 50 years, we just recently conducted the first nationwide test. 

In 2009 GAO raised this as a serious issue: How can we count 

on a national alerting system that has never been fully tested? And 

the test revealed several shortcomings. Some stations failed to rebroadcast; music of Lady Gaga seized some airwaves; and apparent 

feedback affected the transmission of the message to some locations. 

With that said, I am sure FEMA expected some problems, and 

thankfully we finally did a nationwide test so the problems could 

be identified and corrected. 

While a nationwide test is significant, the test only included EAS 

and the components of the legacy system consisting of TV and 

radio. Today it seems we are constantly bombarded by information 

through not only broadcast TV and radio, but also satellite TV and 

radio cable, cell phones, social networking, and the Internet. It 

would seem that today if the public needed to be alerted quickly 

to an impending disaster it would be fairly easy to get the word 

out. 

We saw just last week how important an effective alert system 

is to saving lives. At Virginia Tech, the University’s Emergency 

Alert System kept students in place and out of harm’s way in the 

moments following the tragic shooting. And as demonstrated this 

year with devastating tornados, hurricanes, and floods around our 

2 

Nation, improving alerting capability will help save even more 

lives. 

In 2006 former President George Bush signed an executive order 

to direct our Nation’s alert system was brought into the 21st century. There is no reason with modern technology for the public not 

to expect that in a serious emergency, alert would be sent through 

many communication mediums as possible, not just TV and radio, 

but all communication devices. And modern technology opens up 

capabilities that in the past were not possible: transmitting information that can help facilitate the alerting of those with disabilities and people with limited English proficiency. 

So the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System was envisioned to be a system of systems, to use as many methods of communication as possible, to reach as many people as possible. Unfortunately, since IPAWS was conceived, there have been many setbacks and lack of strategic direction. These concerns raise serious 

doubts about whether we could properly warn the public of a disaster. 

Earlier this year, Ranking Member Norton and I introduced the 

Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act. 

This legislation is modeled after the WARN Act that effectively 

provided a framework led by the FCC for the development of the 

Commercial Mobile Telephone Alerts, or CMAS, the wireless components of IPAWS. CMAS, when fully deployed as part of IPAWS, 

will transmit text alerts to wireless devices. While adding wireless 

devices is a first good step, great first step, ultimately sending 

more than simple text is what is envisioned with IPAWS. 

I hope today we can hear from FEMA and the FCC and some of 

the key industries involved in the development of IPAWS to help 

our subcommittee assess the work being done. At the end of the 

day we all share a mutual goal: the safety of the public. That is 

why Ranking Member Norton and I recently requested GAO review 

the current status of the development of IPAWS. We must ensure 

we have a reliable systems that will send a warning out to as many 

people as possible. With modern technology there is no reason we 

can’t achieve that goal. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today to address many important issues. And I will allow Ranking Member Norton her 5 

minutes as soon as she arrives. 

Our first panel this morning: Mr. Damon Penn, assistant administrator, national continuity programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Mr. James Arden Barnett, Jr., chief public safety and 

homeland security bureau of the FCC; Ms. Suzanne Goucher, president and CEO of Maine Association of Broadcasters; Mr. Chris 

Guttman-McCabe, vice president, regulatory affairs for The Wireless Association; and Dr. William Check, senior vice president of 

science and technology, for the National Cable and Telecommunications Agency. I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full 

statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

3 

TESTIMONY OF DAMON PENN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

NATIONAL CONTINUITY PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY; JAMES ARDEN BARNETT, JR., REAR 

ADMIRAL (RET.), CHIEF, PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND 

SECURITY BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; SUZANNE D. GOUCHER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MAINE 

ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS; CHRISTOPHER 

GUTTMAN-MCCABE, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AFFAIRS, CTIA—THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; AND WILLIAM 

CHECK, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DENHAM. Since your written testimony has been made part 

of the record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your 

oral testimony to 5 minutes. Mr. Penn, you may proceed. 

Mr. PENN. Good morning, Chairman, Ranking Member Norton 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure 

and an honor for me to appear before you on behalf of FEMA to 

discuss the progress we have made in the Integrated Public Alert 

and Warning System. 

FEMA serves as the Nation’s focal point for Government continuity planning, guidance, and operational support. We are also 

responsible for ensuring the President is able to address the Nation 

under the most extreme circumstances, and IPAWS is the capability we use to accomplish this task. Our vision for IPAWS has not 

changed. We are tasked to provide timely and accurate alerts and 

warnings to the American people in the preservation of life and 

property. We do this by relaying a single message over multiple 

dissemination platforms to ensure redundant pathways to alert the 

public by multiple means. IPAWS is an integrated capability, accessible to all levels of public safety officials. 

We have made significant progress since I last testified before 

the subcommittee 2 years ago. We have adopted and accepted the 

common alert protocol to ensure all alerts and warnings equipment 

is compatible. We have extended the primary entry-point program 

from 36 stations to 63 stations, and we will increase that number 

to 77 by the end of next year. 

We have established, tested, and fielded the IPAWS aggregator, 

and that is the device that takes a single message and distributes 

it to the different alert disseminators. And we have developed and 

fielded a training program to help message-originating authorities 

produce valuable alerts and warnings and meet the standard criteria of urgency, certainty, and severity. 

Our two latest achievements are the fielding of the Commercial 

Mobile Alert System, CMAS/PLAN, and the conduct of the first nationwide Emergency Alert System’s testing. 

And I would like to take a moment to expand on both of these 

projects. Adding to the CMAS/PLAN capability allows trained and 

authorized emergency management officials to pass a text message 

alert directly through IPAWS to participating wireless carriers, to 

any CMAS-capable cell phone or handheld device located in the 

geo-targeted area. CMAS/PLAN technology is immune to wireless 

call congestion so cell phones can receive emergency alerts even if 

wireless towers in the location are overwhelmed and can no longer 

4 

support cellular phone calls or subscriber-to-subscriber text messaging. 

Additionally, by using IPAWS-compatible software, State, local, 

territorial, and tribal officials can, at no cost, use CMAS/PLAN to 

alert and warn individuals in particular areas about imminent 

threat events as well as AMBER emergencies. 

This is not emerging technology, but a capability that is currently being fielded. Thanks to overwhelming support by the wireless industry, the first capability of the system has been fielded in 

New York City and in the Washington, DC, area. Final testing will 

be conducted in DC later this month and final testing in New York 

City will take place on Thursday of this week. The initial capability 

will be available 4 months ahead of the originally mandated schedule. Nationwide, the deployment will continue over the next 2 

years. 

Thanks to our partnership and support from the FCC, NOAA, 

radio and television providers, the cable industry and the satellite 

industry, emergency managers across the Nation, we conducted the 

first-ever nationwide test of EAS. The test was a success and an 

essential step in moving forward to improving the EAS system. Although data from the field will not be available until the end of the 

month, we have already begun work to solve some technical issues 

discovered during the test. We learned that parts of the system 

worked as envisioned or better. But more importantly, we learned 

what didn’t work. 

For example, message propagation through the PEP stations was 

better than anticipated, but we also discovered that we have work 

to do to improve audio transmission quality and to improve the accessibility of the text to serve the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. And we have already done some work to begin addressing 

those issues. I can further explain during questions and answers 

if you would like. 

From here we will analyze results, determine root causes, develop and implement corrective actions, and retest as necessary to 

ensure we have a system that serves our whole community of 

Americans. 

Developing strategy for success in the future requires a shift in 

our basic approach. IPAWS moved from a requirements-based single technology network approach to an application-based open platform approach. This ensures that IPAWS can easily integrate with 

a broad range of information processing technologies, networks, 

and equipment from existing private sector communication systems. 

To support people with access and functional needs, FEMA remains engaged with agencies, organizations, and conferences and 

private industry to promote the IPAWS capability and integrate 

alerts and warning technology into their communities. We have 

also partnered with private and public organizations to demonstrate products and incorporate CAP-enabled technologies to 

alert persons with access and functional needs. 

In conclusion, the IPAWS vision of providing timely alert and 

warning information to the American people and the preservation 

of life and property remains clear and consistent. And, FEMA is 

5 

fully committed to IPAWS and recognizes the importance of the 

whole community of American public. 

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to appear and testify before 

the committee, and I will be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Barnett. 

Mr. BARNETT. Chairman Denham, members of the subcommittee, 

thanks for the opportunity to come and talk to you today about the 

FCC’s recent work in alerts and warning the public. 

One of the FCC’s primary statutory obligations is to promote the 

safety of life and property through the use of wire radio communications. The FCC has a singular commitment to protection of the 

public through constantly evolving alert and warning systems. We 

recognize that this should be a team effort. 

I am very pleased to be here with my friend and colleague, 

Damon Penn, of FEMA. The FCC works closely with FEMA, with 

our other Federal partners, the National Weather Service, with 

telecommunications industry, to bring the future of alert and warning systems to consumers now. 

So pursuant to the WARN Act, the FCC in 2008 adopted rules 

for what we call the Personal Localized Alerting Network or PLAN, 

also as Chairman Denham mentioned CMAS, an emerging alerting 

system that wireless carriers sign up for voluntarily which will 

transmit emergency text-like alerts to subscribers’ cell phones. 

Under the FCC’s rules the carriers, the participating carriers, must 

begin to plan deployment by April 7th of 2012. But in May of this 

year Chairman Genachowski, FEMA Administrator Fugate, New 

York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and top executives from four 

of the major nationwide wireless carriers. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, 

and Verizon Wireless announced that PLAN would be available in 

New York City by the end of the year, months ahead of schedule. 

PLAN will serve as an important complement to the other alert 

and warning systems, like the Emergency Alert System, EAS. The 

alerts will be geographically targeted, ensuring that they will reach 

the right people, at the right time, with the right messages, and 

this will ensure that alerts reach only those people who actually 

are in danger. It creates a fast lane for emergency alerts so that 

vital information is guaranteed to get through, even if there is congestion in the network. Moreover, PLAN has the additional feature 

of neither the alert originator nor anyone administering the system 

will know who receives the alert. PLAN cannot be used to monitor 

wireless devices or a consumer’s location. Pursuant to the WARN 

Act, subscribers may opt out of receiving all but the national emergency alerts. 

The FCC has also taken action to enhance the EAS system. Last 

month the FCC, with FEMA, did in fact, as Damon mentioned, conduct the first-ever nationwide top-to-bottom test of the EAS. The 

purpose of the test was diagnostic, to allow the FCC and FEMA to 

determine how well the system would work if activated during an 

actual national emergency. Prior to the test, the FCC and FEMA, 

along with EAS participants, State and local governments, and 

other stakeholders took significant steps to educate the particiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:57 May 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\2011\12-13-~1\71738.TXT JEAN
6 

pants, public safety and other State, tribal, local governments, and 

consumers about the test. 

For example, the FCC released a step-by-step guide for EAS participants to use during the test. Some materials were briefed over 

40 organizations representing State, tribal, and local governments 

about the test, and over 100 community and consumer organizations, including those who represent the deaf and hard of hearing, 

and people who do not speak English as their primary language. 

Under the FCC rules, EAS participants have until December 

27th, 2011, to submit test result data to the FCC. Once we receive 

this data, in conjunction with FEMA, we will analyze it to determine what worked and what didn’t, and make recommendations for 

improvements as necessary. 

Some improvements actually are already scheduled. The first 

step to modernize the EAS will take place next year—or has taken 

until next year with introduction of work transmissions using common alerting protocol, or CAP. Once implemented, CAP-based 

alerting will enable the migration of the current EAS to a next-generation learning system to provide a host of features not possible 

under the current technology. 

The FCC will continue to explore whether other communication 

technologies can provide ways for Americans to receive alerts and 

warnings about imminent threats to safety of life. As recommended 

by the national broadband plan, the FCC will examine the role of 

broadband technologies, social networks, and other Internet-based 

tools and how they can play in emergency alerting. We will continue to work closely with FEMA and the National Weather Service, industry, and State and local governments to ensure that the 

public has access to emergency alerts, warnings and information 

over multiple communication technologies. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and I 

look forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Goucher, you may proceed. 

Ms. GOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the committee. My name is Suzanne Goucher. I thank 

you very much for your interest in improving emergency communications to the public. I am honored to be here with you to share 

the valuable, often life-saving public service that full power local 

radio and television stations provide during times of crisis. 

When disaster strikes, Americans know they can turn to their 

local broadcasters for news and information. When the power goes 

out, when phone service and the Internet go down, broadcasters 

move heaven and earth to stay on the air, delivering vital information to their audiences. Through wildfires, floods, tornados, hurricanes, everywhere across our Nation, local communities depend on 

their broadcasters to keep them informed before, during, and after 

disaster strikes. 

Broadcasters are also proud of our keystone role in the Emergency Alert System. For 60 years, from the CONELRAD days of 

the Cold War, through the Emergency Broadcast System, to EAS, 

and now on to the next generation of alerting, broadcasters stand 

ready to be America’s first informers. We consider the delivery of 

timely alerts and warnings to be the highest and best use of our 

spectrum, our facilities, and our resources. 

7 

For example, after the abduction and murder of Amber 

Hagerman in 1996, Dallas area broadcasters initiated the creation 

of the first AMBER Alert program. The Oklahoma Association of 

Broadcasters subsequently developed the first statewide AMBER 

plan which became the model for similar programs across the Nation. To date, AMBER Alerts have aided in the successful recovery 

of 542 abducted children across the U.S. 

The hot new buzz in the alerting community is social networking, 

and broadcasters are also leveraging their news dissemination capabilities across these pathways. When you receive an email, a text 

alert, or a Facebook message from your local radio or TV station, 

you know you are getting reliable information from an authoritative source. 

The nationwide EAS was tested for the first time last month, and 

in my view the test was a success. It was the first time an official 

national alert message was purposely deployed end to end throughout the system. There were technical problems with the origination 

of the message, and there were also a few scattered problems with 

reception of the test message through the primary entry-point network. This is precisely why systems should be tested on an ongoing 

basis. 

We fully support the plan by FEMA and the FCC to test the nationwide EAS on a regular basis going forward. EAS is tested 

weekly by each radio and TV station, and monthly within each 

State. Such tests allow message disseminators to confirm that their 

equipment is working properly or to diagnose and fix any problems. 

It only makes sense that we should also be regularly testing the 

ability of the Federal Government to send an alert message 

throughout the Nation. 

The ongoing effectiveness of EAS depends on a few important 

factors. 

First, a training program for State and local public safety officials on how to use EAS is desperately needed. The knowledge and 

expertise of some local authorities as to how and when to deploy 

EAS is currently at what we consider an unacceptable level. We 

stand ready to deliver the message, but first we need someone to 

deliver it to us. We applaud our friends at FEMA for undertaking 

the development of a training program which will certify State and 

local officials to send alerts through the Federal IPAWS gateway. 

While this is a good first step, it does not address those State 

and local officials who don’t have the fundamental understanding 

of or willingness to use EAS in the first place. Some sort of incentive for them to take this training, such as incorporating it into the 

National Incident Management System, would encourage a greater 

understanding of the beneficial uses of the system. 

Secondly, we thank the committee for considering H.R. 2904, 

which would direct the creation of a national advisory committee 

on emergency alerting, and we respectfully urge that this committee be made permanent. Governance authority for our national 

warning system is divided among several Federal agencies, while 

the primary use of the system is at the State and local level. At 

present there is no mechanism to bring all of the message originators and the message deliverers together, except on an ad hoc 

8 

basis. As a result, the system not being used as effectively as it as 

could be. 

Creation of a permanent advisory committee would help to ensure that problems get addressed and ideas for continual improvement of the system are brought to the fore. 

The overarching significance of H.R. 2904 is that it also authorizes the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System in law. This 

demonstrates your recognition of the vital importance of this system. It a crucial step forward in ensuring that all parts of the system—broadcast alerts, cell phone text messages, and other communications pathways—will be developed as a unified whole that becomes greater than the sum of its parts. 

I am grateful for this opportunity to share my views on emergency communications to the public and the indispensable role of 

broadcasters. And I look forward to working with you toward our 

shared goal of keeping the American people safe through timely 

alerts and warnings. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman 

Denham and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for affording CTIA the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. 

My name is Christopher Guttman-McCabe, and I serve as the 

Association’s vice president for regulatory affairs. In that capacity 

I have been involved in the wireless industry’s efforts to implement 

the commercial mobile alert service called for by the WARN Act. 

And I am pleased to have the chance to share with you today that 

the wireless industry is doing what is necessary to deliver a stateof-the-art alerting system by early 2012. 

The approach taken in the WARN Act was consistent with and 

built upon previous public-private partnerships that led to the successful creation of both wireless priority service and the AMBER 

Alert program. 

In the WARN Act Congress secured the participation of interested nongovernmental parties in the development and deployment 

of what has been envisioned as a 90 character, geo-targeted, succinct alerting capability that would let consumers carrying a wireless device know that there is an imminent threat to health or safety. 

From CTIA’s perspective it appears that Congress’ vision is 

working as designed. In the first year after the WARN Act became 

law, the FCC established the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee, comprised of more than 40 individuals representing tribal, local, State and Federal Government agencies, 

communications providers, vendors, broadcasters, consumer groups, 

and other technical experts. 

I served on the advisory committee on behalf of CTIA. Over 11 

months the committee generated more than 600 documents, held 

hundreds of meetings, and spent thousands of man-hours to develop a thorough, workable, commercial mobile alerts systems plan. 

Following delivery of the advisory committee’s recommendations, 

the FCC has issued orders initiating the process. 

Among other things, the FCC’s orders set forth the alerting service architecture proposed by the advisory committee, and concluded 

9 

that a Federal entity should aggregate, authenticate, and transmit 

alerts to the participating wireless providers. FEMA has agreed to 

play this role. 

The FCC has also required that participating providers must 

transmit three classes of alerts—Presidential, imminent threat, 

and AMBER Alerts—and consumers be permitted to opt out of the 

latter two, but not the first. 

Following issuance of the FCC’s order, wireless carriers had to 

elect whether they would participate in the delivery of wireless 

emergency alerts well in advance of finalizing the technical specifications for implementing those alerts. I am pleased to report that 

approximately 100 mobile providers, representing 97 percent of 

wireless subscribers, have elected to provide emergency alerts, 

demonstrating the success of this public-private partnership. Moreover, this figure is likely to increase as additional carriers elect to 

offer the alert to their customers once the system is rolled out. 

Since providers made their initial elections in September 2008, 

the wireless industry has been working in close consultation with 

both FEMA and the FCC to make the investments and modifications necessary to enable the wireless Emergency Alert System to 

be operational by April 2012. And I am pleased to report that providers have deployed and tested the elements of the wireless Emergency Alert System within their control, and currently have the capability to deliver wireless emergency alerts to New York City by 

the end of this year. 

While we believe the wireless industry is hitting all the marks 

necessary to deliver on the promise of the WARN Act, there are 

two key areas beyond wireless carriers’ control that must be addressed if a seamless national deployment is to occur and be operational next year. 

First, FEMA must continue its hard work to stand up its wireless emergency alerts gateway and be capable of receiving and distributing alerts to all participating wireless carriers. The wireless 

industry has worked closely with FEMA and the FCC for well over 

a year to move this deployment forward, and we commend both 

agencies for their efforts to date. 

Second, substantial and ongoing care must be taken to ensure 

that potential alert at the State, county, and local levels are properly trained about when and how alerts should be originated. This 

is crucial because it is these alert originators who are responsible 

for disseminating critical information to the public in a timely 

manner. If consumers receive confusing, irrelevant, or overly frequent alerts, then even the best alerting system ultimately will 

fail. 

We urge you to exercise your oversight authority to ensure that 

these objectives are achieved. The wireless industry is committed 

to delivering wireless emergency alert capability next year and to 

working with FEMA and the FCC to ensure that subsequent generations of the system support additional functionality and granularity. With this in mind, we do not believe the wireless carriers 

that participate in the Emergency Alerting System should be subject to new requirements that emanate from the implementation of 

IPAWS. 

10 

While IPAWS may help to modernize the distribution of alerts on 

other communications platforms, CMAS is the proper path to deliver and modernize emergency alerts provided over wireless networks. We hope you will keep this in mind as you consider legislative efforts like H.R. 2904. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear on today’s panel. I look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Dr. Check. 

Mr. CHECK. Good morning, Chairman Denham and members of 

the subcommittee. My name is Bill Check. I am the senior vice 

president of science and technology, and the chief technology officer 

at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, NCTA, 

the principal trade association representing cable operators and 

programming networks. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. 

Cable operators have been active participants in providing emergency alerts to their customers since the 1960s, and we recognize 

our role in ensuring that the public receives timely information 

during crises situations. 

By way of background, cable operators don’t originate or alter 

emergency messages. FEMA transmits a message to a primary 

entry-point broadcast station, called a PEP, and then those stations 

transmit that message to local primary stations. Cable operators 

receive the message from these local primary stations and transmit 

it to their subscribers using automated equipment in the cable 

headend. 

Cable operators were among the participants in the recent November 9th first-ever nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System. Prior to the test, cable operators undertook significant outreach efforts to ensure that consumers were aware of the test. 

These efforts included running public service announcements, notices in customer bills, and the use of social media outlets. Our programming network members aired additional public service information about the test as well. 

We are still in the process of gathering and analyzing the test 

results from our member companies, and they expect to provide a 

full report to the FCC by December 27th. But preliminary analysis 

shows that most cable operators were successfully able to receive 

the transmitted Emergency Action Notification signal, known as an 

EAN, and to disseminate the EAN message to their customers. 

Some operators did experience various issues within their service 

areas, although most of the major problems originated upstream 

from cable systems. For instance, some cable providers didn’t receive the emergency message from broadcast stations that they are 

required to monitor. And sometimes when cable systems did receive the emergency message, the message audio was muffled or 

distorted. 

Our companies also encountered some other technical issues that 

can be remedied. Cable operators look forward to continuing to 

work with the FCC, with FEMA, and others in an effort to resolve 

these issues. 

NCTA also appreciates efforts to further modernize our Nation’s 

Emergency Alert Systems. And we support the goals of H.R. 2904. 

We support the initiation of a training program, the creation of an 

11 

advisory committee, and that cable would be represented on this 

committee. 

We respectfully suggest, however, that legislation should take 

into consideration the work that has already been done in this 

area. The cable industry has devoted significant resources towards 

complying with the upcoming June 30th FCC deadline that requires systems to be able to receive emergency messages in what 

is known as the Common Alerting Protocol, or CAP. Any new 

standards, technology, and operating procedures should recognize 

and incorporate the work that has already been done and be consistent with existing regulatory directives. 

Finally, cable companies currently transmit the information as 

they receive it. While cable operators would, of course, pass 

through any alerts for non-English speakers and the hearing impaired, legislation should make clear that the obligation to make 

messages accessible should rest with the message originator. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today 

on this important issue. We stand ready to work with the subcommittee, Congress, FEMA, and the FCC to meet our responsibilities. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you have, 

thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. And thank you for your testimony. 

We now turn to Members for opening statements. The chair now 

recognizes Ranking Member Norton for a 5-minute opening. 

Ms. NORTON. I am simply going to ask, since I apologize that I 

could not be here at the opening of this hearing, a very important 

hearing, I am going to ask that my opening statement be included 

in the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would 

like to thank all the witnesses for being here. I particularly would 

like to recognize Suzanne Goucher who is the president and CEO 

of Maine Association of Broadcasters. Suzanne has been part of of 

the Maine Association of Broadcasters since 1994. She has also 

served as cochair of the Maine Business Association Roundtable, 

and is former president of the Alliance of State Broadcasters Association. I have had numerous opportunities to work with Suzanne 

on a range of issues, and I have always found her to be a dedicated 

and thoughtful advocate. It has been an honor to work with Suzanne in the past, and have no doubt that the Maine broadcasters 

greatly appreciate her as their representative. I want to thank you 

for being here today, Suzanne, as well as the rest of the witnesses. 

I yield back. Do you want to do questions now? 

Mr. DENHAM. We will start with opening questions. The first 

question I have, I have a number of different questions on the nationwide test that we did. But it has come to my attention that yesterday there was an unannounced test in New Jersey. The text 

messages warning came out with a civil emergency and a call to 

action to take shelter. Was that a FEMA emergency? 

Mr. PENN. Mr. Chair, no, that was a provider doing some testing 

for our release of CMAS later this week and the test in New York 

City. One of the providers had a technological glitch where they 

12 

connected the testing platform to the production platform and 

broadcast the message. 

Mr. DENHAM. So that was something that was coordinated with 

FEMA? 

Mr. PENN. No, sir, it was not. It was not part of their—the message origination did occur from us in the testing environment. The 

problem occurred when the carrier crossed the testing environment 

with the production and output, and that is what caused the message to be released. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the message was never supposed to be released? 

Mr. PENN. That is correct. The message was only working in a 

closed environment when we were doing final testing for Thursday’s test. And, when they crossed it with their normal broadcast, 

that is when the message got released. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Guttman-McCabe. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is 

correct. One of our carriers was in the process of the runup to the 

full test in New York City on Thursday. And as part of that they 

were testing their end, and a FEMA-originated message was unfortunately—found its way to the test gateway of one of the carriers. 

And as a result, it went out to several customers—to customers in 

several counties in New Jersey. And this I think was the result of 

both FEMA and the carriers working tirelessly to get ready 4 

months in advance to deliver the service to New York. Hopefully, 

as soon as this Thursday, have it up and operational. 

Mr. DENHAM. When there is such a test, whether it is internal 

or external, are the local law enforcement agencies normally notified? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yes. I will defer to Mr. Penn, but usually 

they are. In fact, they will be notified in advance of Thursday’s 

test. This was FEMA-designed, sent a message, and they thought 

it was only within their system; unfortunately, Verizon was testing 

their system at the same time and had the gateway inadvertently 

opened. And so this wasn’t designed to be an actual test of the system by either party. It was an unfortunate event that happened, 

sort of in the leadup to Thursday. 

So it wasn’t designed as a test. In a standard test authorities 

would be alerted and people would be made aware. We have something set up already for Thursday to alert authorities to let consumers know what is happening. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Penn, as a followup. Even in an internal test 

we would still notify local law enforcement, would we not? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir. But again, this was really a test designed to 

be directly between FEMA and the carrier and never to be rebroadcast. So, during the test that we are having on Thursday, the New 

York City Office of Emergency Management has put together a 

very comprehensive notification plan, to the effect that areas within the city and to the public, and have what I think is more than 

adequate preparation of the public to receive the message. But the 

one yesterday was an anomaly and was never intended to be broadcast at all. It was intended to stay within the testing environment, 

as Mr. Guttman-McCabe mentioned. 

Mr. DENHAM. Anything we learned from it? 

13 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir, we did. And that is just the technical aspects 

of keeping the production environment and the testing environment separated. I don’t want to go into a lot of technical mumbo 

jumbo about exactly how it worked, but, yes, there is something to 

be learned from it, and I think we have taken those lessons. And, 

not just the one carrier affected, but the other three carriers have 

that message loud and clear as well, and understand what happened and how to prevent it from happening in the future. 

Mr. DENHAM. How about the community, the citizens in New 

Jersey that inadvertently received the message from a FEMA 

standpoint? Anything we learned from the action of taking shelter 

and working with local law enforcement as that message went out? 

Mr. PENN. I think most citizens did the correct thing, and they 

immediately went to their 911 or to their local emergency managers and asked a question about what to do and how to react, and 

I think the city and the providers concerned took appropriate actions and immediately released some press information. And I 

think they got the whole message quelled fairly quickly. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for this 

hearing. This has been a subject of considerable interest to this 

committee for some years. 

Now, this was, of course, the first test ever done. But you can’t 

know if there are problems if you don’t do a test. So we weren’t 

looking for a perfect test. We were looking to find out what the 

problems were, so we could figure them out before the next thing 

was not a test but the real deal. 

Do you expect to do another test in the near future? 

Mr. PENN. Madam Ranking Member, if I could, I will answer 

that. Yes, we do. When exactly, I am not sure. A lot will depend 

on the information that we get on the 27th of December that we 

share with—that we will work with the FCC on to determine what 

the problems were and how to address them. It may be a call to 

do some localized testing, maybe a call to do a national test again. 

But we really won’t know the timing of that until we get the full 

information assembled and analyzed and make sure that we solve 

the correct problem, that we don’t solve the wrong problem. But we 

do look forward to regular testing in the future and think that it 

is a vital part of the Emergency Alert System. 

Ms. NORTON. I was interested that this test lasted only for 30 

seconds and wondered what you would learn from a 30-second test, 

since FEMA itself believed that a 3-minute test was necessary. 

First, explain why you decided to go with a 30-second test. I 

would like to know whether a 30-second test gave you any data 

that would be considered reliable upon which to draw conclusions; 

for that matter, if any of the rest of the panel considers that the 

30-second test feedback is information we should rely on. 

Mr. PENN. Ma’am, if I could, I will start. The decision was made 

to reduce the test from 3 minutes to 30 seconds because there was 

quite a bit of concern that the public would not get the message 

that it was a test and would overreact, thinking that it was an actual emergency. So the decision was made at FEMA and DHS to 

reduce the amount of time for the test. 

14 

Two things that we wanted to test that we were not able to test 

by reducing the duration. The first is that the Emergency Alert 

System is normally limited to 2 minutes to broadcast a local alert. 

That is not supposed to be the limitation for Presidential alert. The 

Presidential message is supposed to continue until it is terminated. 

So one of the reasons that we wanted to have the test for 3 minutes 

was to test to see if that automatic turn-off happened at 2 minutes, 

or whether the message continued. So we were obviously not able 

to do that. 

The other part that we wanted to test with a longer duration was 

the stability of the system, and that once we brought it up and that 

once the rebroadcasting happened, that the system would stay up 

and stable for an extended period. We were not able to test that 

either. But those are certainly two objectives for future tests. 

Mr. BARNETT. Ranking Member Norton, the major thing that the 

FCC really wanted to get out of the test and that we set up for 

with our rules for the EAS participants to report back to us, had 

to do with the connectivity. As Ms. Goucher mentioned, there are 

weekly and monthly tests, there are all sorts of tests like this, but 

the thing that has never been tested before in that 50 years is that 

connectivity from FEMA down to the primary entry-point stations, 

and then cascading down through all the EAS participants until 

you get full coverage. That is what we were able to get with a 30- 

second test. And we are going have to wait until December 27th 

to get really full data to report to you on exactly what we can learn 

in the steps going forward. 

We do know that the test was received and retransmitted to a 

large majority of the Nation. But there were, as we anticipated— 

and we anticipated because we had two prior tests that FEMA conducted in Alaska, so we knew that there might be some glitches. 

That is exactly what we wanted to concentrate on. 

Ms. NORTON. But my question for both of you is, particularly 

given your answer about 3 minutes being necessary, I am struck 

by, other than the connectivity of the system, whether you could 

have learned anything from a 3-minute—a 30-second test. And I 

am concerned that there be a test, a realtime test of 3 minutes, and 

what do you think it would take to alert the public so we can get 

a real test. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. As Mr. Barnett mentioned, the ability to 

make the basic connection was our primary reason for the test, and 

30 seconds was long enough to make the basic connection and for 

the PEP stations to receive the message rebroadcast to the broadcast stations, and broadcast stations then to send that down to the 

other stations that they connect with. So the duration was 30 seconds for the message, but the actual propagation of the message 

lasted longer as it worked its way down through the chain. So if 

I sent the message to Mr. Barnett, the message went for 30 seconds. If he sent it to Ms. Goucher, that was another 30 seconds. 

So that part was in fact a 30-second duration, but the time that 

it took to propagate the message down lasted longer than 30 seconds. But that did answer our first question, and we will find out 

the full results at the end of the month; and that is, how many people were able to receive a message and interrupt their broadcast 

and rebroadcast the message? 

15 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Crawford. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could say, I think this is important to do, to see if the system is connected at all. This is not a 

test. This is not a test in the sense that we meant when we said 

the system should be tested. I understand why it is done this way, 

but I think we have to look forward to a test of the system, a 3- 

minute test. Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Crawford. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask Mr. 

Barnett about digital capabilities. IPAWS envisions more than just 

text and audio being transmitted. Additional data such as video or 

other visual aids may be transmitted in the future. What is FCC 

doing to ensure upgraded equipment is capable of transmitting and 

receiving more than text and audio? 

Mr. BARNETT. Yes, sir. So you are talking about the total system, 

IPAWS. And the FCC is very much into the next generation technologies on this user broadband. That is why we have been working closely with FEMA on calling and alerting protocol. This was 

starting our rules back in—all the way back in 2007. Those rules 

indicated that EAS participants would have to have CAP ability to 

receive CAP alert messages. One hundred eighty days after FEMA 

adopted the technical standards that occurred in September 2010, 

within a couple months we actually issued another order, because 

we actually realized it was going to take a while for the manufacturers to actually be able to create the equipment or EAS participants to be able to incorporate that equipment. So in essence we 

waived it until the fall of 2011. 

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in essence to shift 

over to the CAP system. It was an absolutely necessary precursor 

to IPAWS to be able to use that type of technology. And so we have 

an open rulemaking on that right now. 

I think the rules, also have also extended the deadline for EAS 

participants to do that until June 30, 2012, because we also realize 

there are other things that are involved. We want to deal with the 

question of certification—whether these things need to be certified—training. But I think you will see the rules come out very 

soon, within a matter of weeks. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Goucher, thank you for being here. I am a former broadcaster myself in my previous life, so thank you for being here. 

You mentioned States are developing their own systems such as 

the one in your home State that you talked about. How would you 

envision the State system is working with IPAWS? 

Ms. GOUCHER. Seamlessly. I would hope that would be seamless. 

It is my understanding that IPAWS will be an Internet-based system. We do think that Internet connectivity may pose some problems in some areas where, for example, a broadcaster may have 

their EAS equipment at their transmitter location. As a former 

broadcaster, you have been out to the transmitter site. You know 

that they can be remote. So we are looking at ways around that 

issue. 

We are hoping that some redundancies will be built into the system, particularly for Presidential alerts, such as possible satellite 

16 

delivery, so that, you know, we ensure we have multiple redundant 

pathways to get the message through. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Penn, I want to talk about Internet and social media and 

some of the things that you are doing to integrate there. What we 

haven’t spoken a lot about is using the Internet and social media 

to alert the public. Talk about how the Internet and social media 

will be incorporatedin the development of IPAWS in the future. 

Mr. PENN. Thank you, sir. We have done quite a bit of work already with the Internet providers and the ability for them to receive and rebroadcast the message. The technical part of that is actually not exceptionally difficult. The integration with them we 

think will be smooth and seamless. 

They also have a much greater capability to geo-target than we 

originally thought when we started dealing with them; that they do 

have the capability to target smaller areas and not just send a nationwide message. So that part has been very positive as well. 

We have just started our work with social media. Several of the 

major social media networks have come on board. One has even 

created some software that will help us integrate into them, but I 

think that is really the next big step for the program where we 

need to go from here and how we use those. 

In some recent trade shows, too, it became apparent that we not 

only have the general public with the State and local alert officials 

needing to be involved, but we have a separate niche involved 

when we talk about security for campuses throughout the country. 

And there are several products that we are testing to integrate in 

our system now to focus on the ability of that community on the 

campus to be able to alert itself. So maybe a Wi-Fi connection, 

where the campus can use social media and their own internal 

alerting, that would only go to the campus and not necessarily affect the surrounding county and the surrounding neighborhood. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Guttman-McCabe, real quick. Is there an app for that? 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Yeah, there is. And we saw it to some 

extent in the recent shootings in West Virginia. I think what we 

will see is a continuing evolution and almost a layered type of service, whether it is broadcast radio, cable, wireless, or social media. 

And I think that is exactly how this service should evolve. We 

should see that layer, because you are not always in front of a 

radio or a television or Internet connection, or don’t always have 

a wireless device in front of you. And so what we are seeing is, as 

a runup to the launch of the wireless service, we are seeing some 

creative people putting together services that will work in the interim. We hope they continue to act as a complement to a wireless 

service, to a fully deployed IPAWS service. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Excellent. Thank you, sir. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Goucher, what factors set apart States where the national 

tests were—and States where they have experienced obstacles? 

Ms. GOUCHER. Thank you, Congressman. There were some technical issues with the national test, as Administrator Penn and Admiral Barnett have noted. There were some connectivity issues. A 

17 

couple of primary entry-point stations didn’t receive the message or 

failed to relay it. I think I would like to drill deeper down in that 

question, though, and give you an answer about why EAS works 

very well in some places and not in others on a State and local 

basis, which of course is the primary use of the system. 

We have a very good system in Maine. Our officials there have 

been very cooperative in setting up the system and testing it rigorously. We have a very easy one-hop system that relays the message 

throughout the State from end to end. It should be noted, as well 

you know, that it is a farther distance from Kittery to Fort Kent 

than it is from Kittery to Philadelphia. We have a lot of territory 

to cover, and we set up a very simple, elegant system to be able 

to do that. 

Buy-in in other States in terms of EAS is spotty, which is why 

we are so emphasizing the creation and deployment of the training 

program. Because as of right now, until this training program rolls 

out from FEMA, the only training that public officials receive on 

how properly to use the EAS is the operator’s manual that comes 

with their EAS box, which only tells them how to plug it in and 

turn it on. We need rigorous training for these folks on how to use 

the system, when to use the system, how to properly craft an alert 

message. I think that is going to go a long, long way toward improving the overall use of the system. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

Mr. Penn, can you give us an example of the time that the Emergency Alert System wasn’t activated in an emergency? 

Mr. PENN. Sorry, sir, I am not sure I understand your question. 

Did you mean the results of the test or when the system has been 

used before? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Well, no. In an emergency, has there been a time 

that the system has not worked? 

Mr. PENN. From a nationwide level, sir, prior to the test last 

month, the system had never been tested across the Nation. There 

are some States that use part and portions of the Emergency Alert 

System to do local and State message but no national message. 

And, I do not know of any specific cases where anyone at the State 

and local level has tried to use equipment and it hasn’t functioned. 

But I am sure there are some instances where it did at least not 

fully function. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Ms. Goucher, in your former position and what 

you know, can you give us an example of a time that the Emergency Alert System wasn’t activated in an emergency, either in 

Maine or in other States? 

Ms. GOUCHER. Not in Maine, no, I am happy to say. There have 

been situations in other States, however, when the system could 

have been used and it wasn’t. My counterpart in Texas tells a very 

sad story about two women who burned to death in wildfires because they lived half a mile down a dirt road, and the local officials 

needed to warn people that the fires were heading their way, and 

the only thing they could think of to do was to drive up and down 

the road with a bull horn saying, evacuate, evacuate. These women 

were soap opera fans and they were probably watching TV at the 

time, and an EAS message would have reached them and told them 

to evacuate. 

18 

Now, the times when we see that the system is not used when 

it should be, or not used properly, is generally as a result of a lack 

of training, buy-in, knowledge on the part of the issuing authorities. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

Mr. Barnett, do you know of any example, other than what Ms. 

Goucher had mentioned? 

Mr. BARNETT. No, sir, I don’t. Training is something we are obviously concerned about, particularly if we move into the CMAS/ 

PLAN area, because that is another tool for local and State officials 

to be able to use. But I would direct it back to Mr. Penn with regard to that training program that FEMA has developed. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Mr. Hultgren. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. GuttmanMcCabe, you highlighted so far that 97 percent of wireless customer base is represented by companies that have agreed to participate in CMAS. I wondered what your thought is, first of all, 

how difficult that was to get to that 97 percent, and if you see it 

growing, higher, hopefully to 100 percent. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. It was 

sort of a leap of faith to get to 97 percent because the way the statute was organized, carriers had to make a decision to participate 

before they knew what they were participating in and before the 

technical elements or characteristics of the service were actually 

defined. 

And so I was, as someone who participated and testified numerous times on behalf of support of the WARN Act, I was ecstatic 

when we saw the number get up to 97 percent. I do believe it will 

get up higher than that, and hopefully 100 percent, as sort of the 

costs and the benefits of scale from some of our larger carriers flow 

down, so equipment and certainty and understanding get to our 

smaller carriers. 

But right now the upside and why we think it is so beneficial to 

add wireless as an element to alerting is it does, as I said earlier, 

it adds a layer. And getting 97 percent of consumers access to this 

is a tremendous, really, benefit to the alerting capabilities. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. McCabe, geo-targeting. You mentioned that 

briefly. I know that is an important element of alerting. How will 

CMAS allow for targeting alerts and tell me a little bit more how 

you see that playing out and why that is so important. 

Mr. GUTTMAN-MCCABE. Certainly. Right now, the way that the 

advisory committee established the recommendations, it was based 

on a county level. We believe the technology ultimately will allow 

to have even more targeted alerts, although I think as part of the 

group that was sort of investigating this, we realized that more 

often than not you probably don’t want to alert something smaller 

than a county when you are talking about mobile consumers. If you 

take Virginia Tech’s example, you don’t want to just alert the campus. You want to be able to alert outside the campus so no additional people come into areas of danger. 

And so that is why we initially chose counties. And the reality 

is, I think we envision that alert originators will over-alert because 

of the mobile nature of our customers. And so from our perspective, 

19 

we believe the granularity will improve over time as part of the 

evolution of the service, and yet it is quite possible that it is never 

a—you know, a more granular, more targeted message is potentially never used because of the mobility of the consumer base. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. 

Mr. Penn, I wondered, GAO issued a report on IPAWS back in 

2009. At that time, GAO criticized the lack of strategic planning 

and direction. I wondered if you can talk about how that has been 

addressed and where you feel like we are at as far as some of the 

strategic planning and direction goes. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir. Thank you. I took over shortly after that report was released. My vision and focus has not changed. And we 

have assembled a great team together. Some of the accomplishments that I listed in my opening statement show how dedicated 

that team is and where we are headed. 

So the strategic focus is there. That is on delivering alerts and 

warnings. And the people that you see at the table and the organizations that they represent are fully in step with us on moving forward with the system. We have actually exceeded our expectations 

in many different areas. 

As an example, we were at a trade show recently, and a gentleman from National Public Radio service came forward. We did 

a demonstration with creating a message and disseminating it 

through our test booth. He had a piece of equipment that he took 

and plugged into an old weather radio. We initiated a regular alert. 

That piece of equipment he had took the audio message, turned it 

into text, and turned the text into Braille. That is the kind of technology that we have embraced. That is what the common alert protocol gives us, is the compatibility of existing equipment and the 

ability to use it. 

Our change from trying to build a single piece of equipment to 

solve a single problem, moving from that to an applications-based 

approach where we have a platform that people can bring technology into and plug into, I think has been the difference in our 

program. So now we can welcome a gentleman like the one from 

National Public Radio. We have done some work with some geo-targeting and plume modeling to develop alerting. And the list goes 

on and on. So I think that basic change is what makes a difference 

for us. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. 

Again, thank you all for your work. This is very important, obviously. We all hope we don’t have to use this much, but it is so important to have it there and it really does, I think, bring that confidence of some of the steps that are moving forward. So thanks for 

the work and I look forward to working with you as we move forward on this. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Holmes Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only one further 

question. 

I was interested, Mr. Penn, in the notion that you indicated in 

your testimony about educating the public that the test was coming 

and the overreaction that you were trying to guard against. I am 

not certain I, as a member of the public, received that education. 

20 

So I would like some more detail about how you educated the public that a test was in the offing and when it would be occurring. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. Really, we had an actual campaign for releasing information and a lot of the work was actually done on a 

voluntary basis by the broadcasters, satellite providers, and the 

cable providers. They provided public service alerts to their individual communities as well as broadcasting alerts that we did from 

FEMA and that Mr. Barnett did from the FCC. 

Also, the news and media outlets were all involved. They had 

quite a campaign as well for publishing it in local newspapers and 

other media outlets. As well, the administrator of FEMA went on 

the air with the major morning news programs and broadcast not 

really a public service announcement, but had interviews and 

warned people of the impending test and what it was going to 

amount to and what they could expect to see. 

If you would like, I can submit to you the entire package and the 

entire campaign and show you what other steps we took in some 

detail. 

Ms. NORTON. I think that would be useful, Mr. Penn. 

We note that with the early results that are in, you saw some 

gaps or lapses in audio. That would be concerning because of the 

effect on particularly vulnerable populations like the elderly and 

the disabled. How will you ensure in the short term that you are 

able to reach such vulnerable populations? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. We think we have corrected the major 

problem that we had with the audio quality, and that was a feedback loop that occurred when one of the encoder/decoders at the 

primary entry-point station rebroadcast a message backup stream 

into the message flow. So even though they got a very clear message, towards the end of the message started hearing in the background the repeat of the message. That is an easy fix. All we have 

to do there is mute the return phone lines so nobody can broadcast 

the message back in to us—something we never thought would 

happen, something that we didn’t prepare for, but a lesson learned 

that is an easy fix. 

We have also already had a Webinar with the industry and discussed some other technical issues about the audio. And we think 

we have actually moved forward on that as well. So if we had to 

initiate it again right now, I think the audio would be much better. 

I can’t give you a real feel for how much ‘‘much better’’ is, but by 

solving the first major problem we think that that took care of the 

biggest part of the problem that we had. 

The other issue, as you go further down line andrebroadcast the 

message, you lose some of the message quality anyway. So if you 

start with a bad message, the message quality continues to get 

worse. So by correcting it at the source, we think that is going to 

solve most of the problem. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Fleischmann. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question 

is for Ms. Goucher. 

Ms. Goucher, as you know, FEMA is in the process of increasing 

the number of PEP stations. These are stations which are hardVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:57 May 07, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\2011\12-13-~1\71738.TXT JEAN
21 

ened to operate during disasters. However, in places that are down 

the daisy chain of transmissions, there are risks that they won’t receive a broadcast. Once all the anticipated PEP stations are complete, how much of the country would receive a broadcast directly 

from a PEP station? 

Ms. GOUCHER. It is my understanding that FEMA’s goal is to be 

able to reach 90 percent of the population. Not 90 percent of the 

land mass of the United States, but 90 percent of the population. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Would any other witnesses like to confirm 

that? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir, that is correct. We started with 36 stations. 

We have increased to 63. Our final plan is to go to 77 stations by 

the end of next year. We think that will give us 90 percent. 

If I could say as well, part of what we learned during the test 

was that the homework prior to the test is as important as the test 

is. And a lot of the work that Ms. Goucher mentioned earlier by 

the broadcasters, cable industry, and providers getting ready, I 

think set the tone for us to be able to have a much better message 

propagation capability than we had before the test. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you, Mr. Penn. 

My next question is for Dr. Check. As you have pointed out, the 

message is sent from FEMA to the PEP stations and then rebroadcast to other stations. Where does cable fall in this distribution 

chain? And as a followup, do cable operators receive broadcasts directly from FEMA or from the PEP stations, sir? 

Mr. CHECK. Cable operators’ receivers are at the end of the 

chain. This may be, for example, the Mid-Atlantic area, just to give 

you an example here. So FEMA would send a message out to the 

PEP stations. In the Mid-Atlantic area, that station is WBAL in 

Baltimore. That resends the message out then to local area stations 

in the Washington, DC, area. That would be WTOP, the news station, and WMAL, an AM radio station. Then cable operators here 

in the Washington, DC, area listen to those two local Washington 

stations to receive the signal. 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Penn and Mr. Barnett, recently the Corporation for Public Broadcasting entered into apublic-private partnership to begin a pilot program to test out a mobile emergency alert 

system which would use the existing mobile digital TV, the DTV 

systems, for alerts. That system would be able to send not only text 

and audio but also maps, videos, and photos. Are you aware of this 

pilot, and do you believe this could be incorporated into the IPAWS 

system? 

Mr. PENN. Sir, I am not personally aware of exactly the program 

that you are talking about. But there is, as I mentioned before, a 

lot of parallel development that is going on in the private industry 

for different products. We have a test lab that is set up through 

Science and Technology at DHS, where we can take technologies 

like that and ensure that they are compatible with the Common 

Alert Protocol and then label them as such so that the emergency 

managers in the field will know that they have a product that is 

22 

capable of interfacing with IPAWS. That particular product, I am 

not aware of. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Barnett. 

Mr. BARNETT. Yes, sir, I am aware of the tests that have been 

going on. Nevada is one of the places I know where they have done 

some testing with that concept of being able to get maps and things 

out to first responders and those types of things. I don’t know that 

they are having discussions about how that would work in the 

IPAWS, or if it would. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Goucher, you briefly talked about theDTV in 

your opening statement. Can you expand on that a little bit? 

Ms. GOUCHER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, spoke about? 

Mr. DENHAM. Mobile DTV. 

Ms. GOUCHER. Mobile DTV and how that fits in. Absolutely. 

Broadcasters are rolling out mobile digital television capabilities 

throughout the country. It is available right now in Washington, 

DC. It is coming to more and more markets every day. And what 

this does is give just one more enormous capability of being able 

to stand on a street corner with a mobile device and watch a 

streaming TV signal with news and information and emergency 

alerts. 

During the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan, people 

were standing on the street in Tokyo watching this unfold live. It 

is an enormous capability and broadcasters are just extremely 

pleased to be able to deliver that capability to the American people, 

because we think it is just one more important pathway and an important enhancement to our ability to inform people in times of 

emergency. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

And Dr. Check, you mentioned in your testimony limited ability 

of cable operators to alter the message received. For example, if a 

language translation is needed, IPAWS envisions data being transmitted that may contain information that includes translations, 

video, or other forms of information. Do you believe the upgraded 

equipment will allow cable operators to receive more than just 

short text or audio? 

Mr. CHECK. Well, for multilingual messages, we will certainly be 

happy to pass that information through, and certainly with the 

IPAWS CAP system there is the ability for enhanced text messages. We believe, though, that formultilingual, the responsibility 

ought to be with FEMA or the message originator, either at the national or State level, to provide those different messages. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Penn. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir, I agree. That is a challenge that we are working now, is how to integrate languages other than English into the 

system. A large part of the solution is going to be local, though, because local communities have different requirements and different 

languages that they need to speak. So our initial vision is that 

there will be the broadcasting of some standard message in different languages that tell people that there is an emergency and 

that they need to consult their local emergency service providers. 

We haven’t broken the code and we haven’t gotten to the point now 

23 

where we feel comfortable being able to give a multilingual message across the Nation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would like to thank each of you for 

your testimony today. Your comments have been very insightful in 

helping today’s discussion. 

If there are no further questions, I would ask for unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time 

as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may 

be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and 

information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in 

the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for the testimony 

today. And if no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

24 


Insert offset folio 6 here 71738.006
25 


Insert offset folio 7 here 71738.007
26 


Insert offset folio 8 here 71738.008
27 


Insert offset folio 9 here 71738.009
28 


Insert offset folio 10 here 71738.010
29 


Insert offset folio 11 here 71738.011
30 


Insert offset folio 12 here 71738.012
31 


Insert offset folio 13 here 71738.013
32 


Insert offset folio 14 here 71738.014
33 


Insert offset folio 15 here 71738.015
34 


Insert offset folio 16 here 71738.016
35 


Insert offset folio 17 here 71738.017
36 


Insert offset folio 18 here 71738.018
37 


Insert offset folio 19 here 71738.019
38 


Insert offset folio 20 here 71738.020
39 


Insert offset folio 21 here 71738.021
40 


Insert offset folio 22 here 71738.022
41 


Insert offset folio 23 here 71738.023
42 


Insert offset folio 24 here 71738.024
43 


Insert offset folio 25 here 71738.025
44 


Insert offset folio 26 here 71738.026
45 


Insert offset folio 27 here 71738.027
46 


Insert offset folio 28 here 71738.028
47 


Insert offset folio 29 here 71738.029
48 


Insert offset folio 30 here 71738.030
49 


Insert offset folio 31 here 71738.031
50 


Insert offset folio 32 here 71738.032
51 


Insert offset folio 33 here 71738.033
52 


Insert offset folio 34 here 71738.034
53 


Insert offset folio 35 here 71738.035
54 


Insert offset folio 36 here 71738.036
55 


Insert offset folio 37 here 71738.037
56 


Insert offset folio 38 here 71738.038
57 


Insert offset folio 39 here 71738.039
58 


Insert offset folio 40 here 71738.040
59 


Insert offset folio 41 here 71738.041
60 


Insert offset folio 42 here 71738.042
61 


Insert offset folio 43 here 71738.043
62 


Insert offset folio 44 here 71738.044
63 


Insert offset folio 45 here 71738.045
64 


Insert offset folio 46 here 71738.046
65 


Insert offset folio 47 here 71738.047
66 


Insert offset folio 48 here 71738.048
67 


Insert offset folio 49 here 71738.049
68 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 50 here 71738.050