Order Code RS21440
Updated February 12, 2004
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Emergency Communications: The Emergency
Alert System (EAS) and All- Hazard Warnings
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is one of several federally managed warning
systems. Intended as a broadcast medium for the President to reach the American
people in time of crisis, the system has never been activated on a national basis. It has
been used to alert citizens to local emergencies, such as hazardous chemical spills or
forest fires, and is widely used for weather alerts. Legislation (S. 118, Senator Edwards)
has been proposed to develop a single all-hazard warning system. This could replace
many federally-managed programs that alert or notify citizens in times of emergency.
EAS was not activated at either the national or local level on September 11, 2001.
This episode has brought the usefulness of the alert system into question. Furthermore,
recent, major studies of warning systems have concluded that the United States needs
a more robust emergency alert system. Among the weaknesses noted in the current
systems are: insufficient coordination, dependence on a limited set of technologies,
weak or diffused administration, and insufficient attention to human factors.
Recommendations for improvement include providing a standardized alert protocol and
developing infrastructure for notification to virtual communities. A virtual community
in the context of emergency communications refers to the technical ability to give
immediate, simultaneous alerts to the appropriate community of responders and affected
residents. This community varies with each type of emergency.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) jointly administers EAS
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in cooperation with the National
Weather Service. The transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security raises
the possibility that EAS could be merged with other DHS functions.
This report summarizes the technology and administration of EAS and some
current proposals for an all-hazard network. It will be updated.
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) — perhaps the most visible of America’s
warning systems — is deemed by many to be technologically limited in its ability to warn
citizens in times of crisis. There are numerous federal warning systems that focus on
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
separate, functionally-defined emergencies, such as nuclear power plant malfunctions,1
providing duplication of effort but not useful systemwide redundancy. There is an
increasing willingness within the federal government to develop an all-hazard warning
system that would be both broader in reach and scope and more flexible in uses of
available technology than EAS. EAS was not used for emergency communications after
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001; many believe it could have been useful — at
a minimum — in directing people to emergency centers and announcing evacuations.
Recently, EAS technology has been put to use in the Amber Alert programs
administered in some states and communities to aid primarily in the recovery of abducted
children. Amber Alert can be a targeted alert and provides an example of how technology
can be used to reach a virtual community within a short time. On April 30, 2003, the
president signed into law the PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-021), formally establishing the
federal government’s role in supporting the Amber Alert system, including potentially
providing financial assistance through grants programs.
EAS Administration
EAS currently sends emergency messages with the cooperation of broadcast radio and
television and most cable television stations. It was created as CONELRAD (Control of
Electromagnetic Radiation) in 1951, as part of America’s response to the threat of nuclear
attack. In 1963, the system was opened to state and local participation. Through most of
its existence, the alert system was known as the Emergency Broadcast System. The name
was changed in the 1990's when the technology was upgraded and automated.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) provides technical standards and
support for EAS, rules for its operation, and enforcement within the broadcasting and
cable industries. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) works with the
emergency response officials who, typically, initiate an EAS message for a state or local
emergency. Non-federal EAS operational plans are developed primarily at the state and
local level, often with the participation of FEMA and other federal agencies. The FCC
provides rules and guidelines for state EAS plans and many, but not all, states have filed
FCC-compliant EAS plans.2 FEMA advisors often help to integrate EAS usage into
emergency alert plans. The decentralized process contributes to uneven planning; for
example, procedures for initiating a message and activating EAS differ from state to state.
Umbrella organizations that participate in EAS planning and administration include
the EAS National Advisory Committee at the FCC, the Primary Entry Point3 Advisory
Committee, and associations such as the National Association of Broadcasters, state
broadcasting associations, and the Media Security and Reliability Council. States and
localities organize Emergency Communications Committees whose members often
include representatives from broadcasting companies or local TV and radio stations.
1 Some of these are discussed in CRS Report RS21377, Federal Emergency Warning Systems:
An Overview.
2 Links to some state and local plans are at [http://www.fcc.gov/eb/eas/plans.html].
3 The Primary Entry Point (PEP) system consists of a nationwide network of broadcast stations
connected with government activation points through designated National Primary Stations.

---

CRS-3
These committees agree on the chain-of-command and other procedures for activating an
emergency message through radio and television. The constraints of the EAS technology,
as specified by the FCC, limit an EAS message to no more than two minutes. Emergency
alert agreements with broadcasters, therefore, usually provide for both EAS warning
messages and follow-up broadcast programs that give more information.
Broadcaster Participation. The participation of broadcast and cable stations in
state and local emergency announcements is voluntary. National alerts must be broadcast.
The FCC has designated over 30 radio stations as National Primary Stations that are
required to transmit Presidentially-initiated alerts and messages. Their broadcasts are
relayed by Primary Entry Point stations to radio and television stations that rebroadcast the
message to other broadcast and cable stations until all stations have been alerted.
The FCC requires broadcast and cable stations to install FCC-certified EAS
equipment as a condition of licensing. Radio and television broadcast stations, cable
companies and wireless cable companies must participate. Cable companies serving
communities of less than 5,000 may be partially exempted from EAS requirements. Direct
broadcast satellite companies are among those communications services not required to
participate. For the broadcast of non-federal emergency messages, the FCC has ruled that
the broadcasters, not a state or local authority, have the final authority to transmit a
message.4 The level of cooperation from the broadcasting industry is high. For example,
because state and local governments are not required to upgrade to EAS-compatible
equipment — and therefore may lack direct access to the technology — broadcasters often
volunteer to manage the task of EAS message initiation.
EAS Technology
EAS technology uses coders and decoders to send data signals recognized as
emergency messages. Almost any communications device can be programmed to receive
and decode an EAS messages. In manual mode, an EAS alert is sent to a broadcaster,
either over an EAS encoder- decoder or by other means, such as a telephone call. Where
agreements have been put in place with broadcasters, EAS messages can be created and
activated by state or local officials and transmitted automatically to the public without the
intervention of broadcasting staff. These messages use computer-generated voices. All
EAS messages carry a unique code which can be matched to codes embedded in
transmitting equipment; this authenticates the sender of the EAS message. To facilitate
the transmittal of emergency messages, messages are classified by types of events, which
also are coded. These event codes speed the recognition and re-transmittal process at
broadcast stations. For example, a tornado warning is TOR, evacuation immediate is EVI,
a civil emergency message is CEM. When a message is received at the broadcast station,
it can be relayed to the public either as a program interruption or, for television, as a
“crawl” at the bottom of the TV screen. The installed technology limits messages to two
minutes; emergency managers and station operators have pre-scripted message templates
that have been timed to fit this constraint; specific information is added to the text at the
time of the emergency.
4 FCC, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Released December 9,
1994, FO Docket Nos. 91-301 and 91-171, 10 FCC Rcd 1786.

---

CRS-4
When new event codes are added, broadcasters must upgrade their equipment to
recognize the codes. To use EAS in a more flexible manner, with messages longer than
two minutes, also would require broadcasters to upgrade existing equipment. To ensure
message compatibility in an upgraded system, all digital equipment in an operational area
should be retrofitted in a coordinated manner. In some cases, this could mean replacing
existing equipment used by state and local authorities as well as by broadcasters.
NOAA Weather Radio. Digitized signal technology for EAS is the same as that
used for the NOAA Weather Radio (NWR). Widely recognized as the most utilized of
public warning systems, NWR broadcasts National Weather Service forecasts and
warnings.5 The compatibility of the signals makes it possible for EAS equipment used
by the media to receive and decode NWR messages automatically. Special weather radios
are tuned directly to NWR channels. Many can be programmed to receive only specific
types of messages — for example, civil emergency — and for specific locations, using
Special Area Message Encoding (SAME). Weather radios can sound an alarm or set off
a flashing light. Similar technology is available to provide NWR messages by satellite TV
and over the Internet as messages or as e-mail. Technically, the special weather radios
available to the public to receive NWR alerts can also receive any EAS message. In
reality, broadcast and cable stations rarely program their EAS technology to transmit
voluntary state or local messages over the NWR channels. NOAA has, and is improving,
technology to make it an all-hazard warning system and is encouraging public safety
officials to notify them as well as their EAS broadcast contacts regarding non-weather-
related emergencies so that they may be rebroadcast on NWR.
All-Hazard Warnings
Those calling for an all-hazard warning system are seeking standardized terminology
and operating procedures to provide emergency alerts that reach the right people, in a
timely manner, in a way that is meaningful and understood by all. Although additional
work needs to be done to standardize system technology and interfaces, the challenges in
creating an all-hazard system, in real-time, that can reach impacted communities appear
to be primarily organizational and administrative.
In 1999, FEMA and the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture took the lead in
a multi-agency working group to explore ways to create an all-hazard warning network.6
Their recommendations included using NWR as the backbone for a national all-hazard
warning system and the establishment of a permanent group to promote improvements in
warning systems. The following year, the National Science and Technology Council at
the White House sponsored a report that explored the types of technologies and systems
that are used or could be used for emergency alerts.7 Among its recommendations were:
5 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an agency of the
Department of Commerce; the National Weather Service is a NOAA organization.
6 Working Group, National Partnership for Reinventing Government, “Saving Lives with an All-
Hazard Warning Network,” 1999 [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/all-haz/all-haz1.htm].
7 National Science and Technology Council, Working Group on Natural Disaster Information
Systems, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, “Effective Disaster Warnings,”
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
the creation of a public-private partnership that would bring all stakeholders together; one
or more working groups to address issues such as terminology, technology, location-
specific identifiers and cost-effective warning systems; system standardization; and
increasing the number of communications channels for warnings. The report concluded
that substantial improvements in early warning systems could be achieved through
coordination and better use of existing technologies.
Also in 2000, a public-private, multi-disciplinary group was organized as the
Partnership for Public Warning (PPW). In 2002, the group received funding8 to convene
meetings and prepare comments regarding the Homeland Security Advisory System
(HSAS). In the process of the PPW review, a working group consensus was reached
regarding the need for an “all-hazard standard terminology and protocol.” Workshop
findings were published in a report.9 Subsequently, PPW expanded on the report’s
recommendations in “A National Strategy for Integrated Public Warning Policy and
Capability,” released for public comment in February 2003. The purpose of the document
is to “develop a national vision and goals” for improving all-hazard warning systems at
the federal, state and local levels. In February 2004, PPW sent an assessment of EAS to
Thomas Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security, and to other government officials, with
recommendations for steps to improve EAS. The PPW suggests that DHS take the lead
in developing a national public warning capability. Steps DHS might take include:
providing more oversight on key issues such as new technologies, state plans, standards,
training and public education; upgrading the Primary Entry Point system; updating EAS
management; and providing funding and other resources to operate the EAS system.10

The PPW reports discussed the role of an alert system in public safety and homeland
security and concluded that current procedures are “ineffective.” PPW’s recommendations
centered on developing multiple, redundant systems using various technologies with
common standards, such as the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).11 Standard protocols
would include message wording and formation and would be “backward compatible” with
EAS (including Amber Alert codes) and National Weather Service technologies.
Proposed Legislation. At the beginning of the 108th Congress, Senator John
Edwards introduced the “Emergency Warning Act of 2003" (S. 118) to “develop and
coordinate a national emergency warning system.” The bill includes many of the
recommendations of the PPW reports, focusing on organizational changes needed within
the federal government in order to create an all-hazard warning system. The bill would
require the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security to “establish comprehensive
7 (...continued)
November 2000 [http://www.fema.gov/nwz00/effectivedoc.shtm].
8 Funding came from FEMA, the National Science Foundation, the National Weather Service,
the U.S. Geological Survey, and private sources
9 Partnership for Public Warning,”Developing a Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System,”
PPW Report 2002-02, November 25, 2002. [http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org].
10 Letter dated February 9, 2004, available at PPW web site, see above.
11 Developed by the Common Alerting Protocol Working Group to provide standards-based data
formats for a common method of “automatic, multi-channel dissemination of alerts.”
[http://www.incident.com/cap/index.html].

---

CRS-6
national standards and systems for providing effective public warnings.” Among the
specific requirements of the bill is the development of specifications for a “national
backbone” system, modeled on NOAA Weather Radio.
Conclusion
Among the strengths of the current EAS are its comprehensive coding system, shared
with NWR, and the ubiquity of EAS alert technology in local broadcast and cable stations
across the country. Among its shortcomings are the rigidity of its technology (two-minute
time constraint, manual system upgrades); the voluntary, almost ad hoc, nature of its
administration at the state and local level; human fallibility in initiating messages; and the
lack of an interactive interface with NWR and other communications technologies such
as e-mail and pagers. Furthermore, EAS shares common shortcomings with other public
safety warning systems in the United States, such as:
! limited distribution channels (e.g., EAS uses broadcast and cable, NWR
is closely linked to radio).
! limited flexibility in responding to new types of emergencies.
! limited ability to identify levels of danger and provide direction for
actions to be taken by the general public; there are shortcomings both in
the capacity of technology to relay detailed messages and in planning for
consistency and coherence.
! limited reach in distance, in time, in culturally-aware communications.
! insufficient solutions to reach the handicapped or impaired.
! inadequate back-up and redundancy.
! lack of contingency planning.
! insufficient ability to define, recognize and contact virtual communities.
Among the responses proposed by a number of sources are: more comprehensive
systems that take full advantage of all communications technologies; increased investment
in technology and training at the community level; a more flexible system; back-up
redundancy; standardization; coordination, nationwide, at all levels; and clear chain-of-
command authority for initiating and dispensing messages. Repeatedly, reports, such as
those cited above and other commentaries, have emphasized the need for better oversight
and planning for an all-hazard warning system, with more attention to human factors and
“what-if” scenarios.
Additionally, developments in knowledge-based technologies are perfecting ways
to create emergency response networks to reach virtual communities. In the case of EAS,
the virtual communities would be at-risk segments of the population. Virtual community
technologies are also being applied to identify and contact emergency response personnel
with specific capabilities (for example, to bring the right resources quickly to a disaster
site), and to prioritize messages to emergency personnel (first responders, managers and
others) based on the nature of the emergency. It would appear that there is an opportunity
for DHS to coordinate the development of information networking technology for various
types of emergency responses. Such coordination would benefit research and development
efforts but could also identify network resources and technologies available for shared
deployment by various types of alert systems.

---