Working Group #9 Common Alerting Protocol for Emergency Alert System Final Report

1. Working Group #9Common Alerting Protocol for Emergency Alert SystemFinal Report March 6, 2013 Co-Chair Chris Homer Co-Chair Ed Czarnecki

2. Working Group #9 CAP Implementation • Description: The overall goal for CSRIC Working Group 9 is provide recommendations and best practices to the Federal Communications Comission (FCC) on Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) implementation for the Emergency Alert System (EAS). • Duration:  • First Report March 2012 • Second Report June 2012 • Third Report September 2012 • Final Report March 2013

3. CSRIC Working Group Structure

4. Working Group 9 – 28 Members • Gary Timm, Wisconsin SECC • Harold Price, Sage • Herbert White, NWS • Jared Maynard, ComLabs • Jeb Benedict, CenturyLink • Jeff Staigh, Univision • Jim Gorman Gorman-Redlich • Kelly Williams, (NAB) • Larry Estlack, Michigan Association of Broadcasters • Matt Straeb, GSS • Michael Hooker, T-Mobile • Mike Nawrocki, Verizon • Ron Boyer, Boyer Broadband • Tim Dunn, T-Mobile • Alfred Kenyon FEMA • Andy Scott, National Cable Television Association (NCTA) • Art Leisey, Consultant • Bill Robertson, DAS • Bill Schully, DIRECTV • Bob Sherry, Intrado • Chris Homer, DirecTV (Chair) • Clay Freinwald, Washington SECC • Daryl Parker, TFT • Donald Walker, GRM • Doug Semon, TWC • Edward Czarnecki, Monroe (Chair) • Ethan Lucarelli, Wiley Rein LLP • Eric Ehrenreich, FCC 

5. Working Group 9 - Executive Summary • The Working Group established there is a need for common deployment plans and best practices to help assist with the transition of CAP-EAS. • The Working Group researched a number of issue areas and formulated several recommendations to CSRIC for EAS participants intended to facilitate CAP migration. • The working group has a general consensus that the government should undertake testing and if necessary further development of a CAP EAN streaming audio message capability. • The working group recommends that the FCC coordinate with the IPAWS program to ensure that proper Conformity Assessment support is provided, in the event that a manufacturer requires a test or re-test of a product. • The working group recommends that compliance with both a future streaming requirement, as well as the current IPAWS atom interface should be required for all CAP EAS devices. • The WG strongly advises that the existing EAS audio (radio) relay based on the Primary Entry Point (PEP) system should remain in place as a required parallel system, and continue to operate in order to provide a reliable, redundant pathway for Federal-level emergency messaging through broadcast media, in the event of a national emergency.

6. Working Group # 9 – Chronology

7. Working Group # 9 – Findings

8. Working Group # 9 – Findings • The FCC and many EAS participants expected the new CAP-based capability to support EAN messaging. • The IPAWS architectural design supporting a CAP-based EAN alert streamed audio message has yet to be tested. • Informal conversations with IPAWS staff have indicated that a CAP EAN streamed audio message capability is supported. • As CAP requirements evolve in the future, and as CAP EAS equipment manufacturers offer improvements and enhancements to their products, the working group discussed the potential for such a change to impact the FCC certification requirements surrounding such equipment, as well as the potential need for re-testing under related programs, such as the IPAWS Conformity Assessment Program. • Efforts must be undertaken to effectively synchronize the messaging between the radio-based PEP and IP-based CAP dissemination systems, including facilitating detection of message duplication.

9. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • The WG has a general consensus that the government should undertake development of a CAP EAN capability. • There needs to be published and identifiable requirements and timeline for implementing a CAP EAN. • All stakeholders should be included (including government, EAS Participants, EAS manufacturers) • The WG observed that there would likely be a need for related standards/profiles to be updated (i.e. the ECIG Implementation Guide and potentially the IPAWS Profile) • The WG strongly advises that the existing EAS audio (radio) relay based on the Primary Entry Point (PEP) system should remain in place as a required parallel system, and continue to operate in order to provide a reliable, redundant pathway for Federal-level emergency messaging through broadcast media, in the event of a national emergency.

10. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • The working group recommends that the FCC provide additional clarification and guidance for the manufacturing community as to what product (and specifically software) modifications may require a permissive change filing, conformity retest, recertification, or no action required on the part of the manufacturer. • The working group recommends that the FCC coordinate with IPAWS to ensure that the P-TAC Center continue providing CAP 1.2 USA IPAWS Profile 1.0 message conformance testing with no-cost to the test or creating the report until the technology is mature or another suitable testing unit is available. • The working group recommends that a check for conformance to the IPAWS-OPEN transport interface (currently Atom) be added to the P-TAC test, and that a check for conformance to the EAN streaming format be added once it is defined by FEMA.

11. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • The working group identified a need for best practices to guide both emergency managers and the systems development community in the process of CAP EAS message origination. • The WG further identified a need for identified common criteria for network and data security for CAP message origination, particularly where multimedia resources would be offered on third-party servers/systems. • The WG identified a need for Alert Disseminators (EAS Participants) to undertake internal or external security measures (firewall, etc.) in order to achieve overall network security. The working group overall recommends a “defense in depth” approach. • The WG noted that the lack of specific guidance or recommendations on security from government and alert dissemination sources to have been a significant area of oversight. WG feels it is critical that additional best practices and guidance be furnished to EAS Participants, from the FCC (or other agency), as well as from industry sources.

12. Working Group # 9 – Recommendations • WG recommends a method for originators to tag EAS messages with additional data to allow newer or upgradable equipment a means to uniquely identify the source message and provide better duplicate message handling while simultaneously not creating problems for existing equipment is recommended. • WG recommends that the NWS publish guidance that can be used for text to speech, to the extent that they do not (substantially) conflict with existing standards and practices already adopted within TTS engines. • WG recommends that a set of acceptance criteria be developed, with the input of the broadcast/cable community, and that these criteria be met before NWS messages are made available on the production IPAWS OPEN system.

13. Project Timeline FCC CAP Deadline 6/30/2012 2012 2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr Nov Dec Jan May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Feb Mar CSRIC Meeting Weds, 9/12/2012 CSRIC Meeting Thurs 3/22/2012 CSRIC Meeting Weds, 6/6/2012 WG9 Final Report: 3/6/13 Final CSRIC Meeting Wednesday, March 6, 2013