Order Code RL32527
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Emergency Communications:
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and
All-Hazard Warnings
Updated October 3, 2005
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Emergency Communications:
The Emergency Alert System (EAS)
and All-Hazard Warnings
Summary
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is one of several federally managed
warning systems. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) jointly
administers EAS with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in
cooperation with the National Weather Service (NWS), an organization within the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The NOAA/NWS
weather radio system has been upgraded to an all-hazard warning capability. Ways
to improve the NOAA network and the broader-based EAS are underway or are being
tested. Much has been accomplished in recent years but the current hodgepodge of
warning and alert systems is inadequate for fully alerting the public about terrorist
attacks or natural disasters, or for providing information on how to respond. As was
demonstrated on September 11, 2001, after the southeast Asian tsunami on December
26, 2004, and again when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, the ability to
communicate after a disaster also has a critical role in saving lives.
EAS is built on a structure conceived in the 1950’s when over-the-air
broadcasting was the best-available technology for widely disseminating emergency
alerts. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) has
addressed the possibility of using advanced telecommunications and Internet
technologies for emergency notification by requiring two projects for completion in
2005. Bills introduced in the 109th Congress that would improve emergency alert
systems, domestically and internationally, include S. 50 (Senator Inouye) and H.R.
396 (Representative Menendez). These bills were prompted by the tsunami disaster
but include measures that also apply to the need for a better all-hazard warning
system in the United States. Others — such as S. 34 (Senator Lieberman); S. 361
(Senator Snowe); S. 452 (Senator Corzine); H.R. 499 (Representative Shays); H.R.
882 (Representative Boehlert);H.R. 890 (Representative Pallone); H.R. 1584
(Representative Weldon); and H.R. 1674 (Representative Boehlert) — are concerned
with tsunami detection and the initial stages of notification. A bill dealing more
broadly with the development of emergency alert networks and post-disaster
communications has been introduced by Senator Jim DeMint (S. 1753).
This report summarizes the technology and administration of EAS and the
NOAA/NWS all-hazard network, and some of the key proposals for change. It will
be updated.

---

Contents
EAS Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Broadcaster Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
EAS Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
NOAA Weather Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
All-Hazard Warning Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Call Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Technology Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Proposals and Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Recent Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Emergency Alerts and the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Improving Emergency Alert Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Tsunami Warnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Planning for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Federal Emergency Warning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
National Warning System (NAWAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Federal Emergency Management System (FEMIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Advanced Weather Information Processing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Emergency Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN) . . . . 16
NOAA Weather Wire Service (NWWS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Federal Emergency Warning Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

Emergency Communications:
The Emergency Alert System (EAS)
and All-Hazard Warnings
The two mainstays of the U.S. capacity to issue warnings are the Emergency
Alert System (EAS), which relies primarily on broadcasting media, and the NOAA
Weather Radio All-Hazards Network. The National Weather Service (NWS) of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)1 sends alerts through
NOAA Weather Radio (NWR), now expanded to include warnings for all hazards.
Several initiatives are underway within the federal government to improve, expand,
and integrate existing warning systems. The most important of these — in terms of
using, testing and developing leading-edge technology — is the Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), a public-private partnership in which the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a leadership role. Many communities,
meanwhile, are installing local alert systems that send voice, text messages, and e-
mail. Amber Alert2 systems exist in most states to aid primarily in the recovery of
abducted children.3 Amber Alerts are currently supported by a number of different
technologies, including a quasi-national network based on the Internet. Amber Alert
messages also can be sent through the Emergency Alert System and the NOAA
Weather Radio All-Hazards Network. Many agree that the long-term goal for
emergency alerts is to converge federal warning systems into an integrated network
that can interface with localized warning systems and also call centers, such as those
used for 911 and 211 calls.4
The 9/11 Commission Report discusses the effectiveness of emergency alerts at
the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, with a focus on communications
1 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an agency of the
Department of Commerce.
2 Named after Amber Hagerman, kidnaped and murdered in 1996; also referred to as the
AMBER Plan, for America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. Websites with
a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n c l u d e [ h t t p : / / w w w . a m b e r a l e r t n o w . o r g ] ,
[http://www.amberalert911.org] and the site of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children [http://www.ncmec.org]. All sites visited August 8, 2005.
3 See CRS Report RS21453, Amber Alert Program Technology, by Linda K. Moore. The
program and policy issues are discussed in CRS Report RL31655, Missing and Exploited
Children: Overview and Policy Concerns, by Edith Cooper.
4 911 calls go to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). 211 calls typically go to
municipal call centers. The role of call centers in providing warnings and information in
emergencies is discussed in CRS Report RL32939, An Emergency Communications Safety
Net: Integrating 911 and Other Services.

---

CRS-2
systems.5 Recent, major studies of warning systems have concluded that the United
States needs a more robust emergency alert system. Recommendations for
improvement include using all available means of communication, providing a
standardized alert protocol, and developing infrastructure for notification to
geographically-specific locations and virtual communities.6 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. Before its towers collapsed, the World Trade Center might have
benefitted if virtual community or geo-targeted alert technology had been in place
and activated.
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.
Congress has placed responsibility for civil defense measures that include the
present-day EAS with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA)7 now part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has been designated by FEMA to manage
broadcaster involvement in EAS. The FCC currently provides technical standards
and support for EAS, rules for its operation, and enforcement within the broadcasting
and cable industries. 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. 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. In
comments filed with the FCC, DHS has proposed that FEMA and DHS “should be
the primary point of contact” and act as the “Executive Agent” in managing alerts
5 Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Official Government Edition, 2004 pp. 286-287; 295; 306.
6 These recommendations, and others, were affirmed at a Senate Hearing,”All-Hazards Alert
Systems,” Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Disaster
Prevention and Prediction, July 27, 2005.
7 P.L. 103-337, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Title XXXIV -
Civil Defense, Sec. 603 (42 U.S.C. § 5196), amending the Federal Civil Defense Act of
1950 (64 Stat 1245).

---

CRS-3
and warning information. The FCC would continue its regulatory role for
broadcasting and wireless communications.8
Umbrella organizations that participate in EAS planning and administration
include the Media Security and Reliability Council (an FCC Advisory Committee),
the Primary Entry Point9 Advisory Committee, and associations such as the National
Association of Broadcasters and state broadcasting associations. States and localities
organize Emergency Communications Committees whose members often include
representatives from broadcasting companies or local TV and radio stations. 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 programming.
Broadcaster Participation. The participation of broadcast and cable
stations in state and local emergency announcements is voluntary. 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.10 Historically, the level of cooperation from the
broadcasting industry has been 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
8 Letter dated November 5, 2004 from Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency
Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security, FCC, EB Docket 04-296.
9 The Primary Entry Point (PEP) system consists of a nationwide network of broadcast
stations connected with government activation points through designated National Primary
Stations.
10 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 Record 1786.

---

CRS-4
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. 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, for example,
also would require broadcasters to upgrade existing equipment.
NOAA Weather Radio
Digitized signal technology for EAS is the same as that used for the NOAA
Weather Radio (NWR). Widely recognized as the backbone of public warning
systems, NWR broadcasts National Weather Service forecasts and all-hazard
warnings for natural and man-made events. 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 improved, and
continues to upgrade, its technology to support an all-hazard warning system. It 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. The eventual inclusion of warnings and alerts from the Department of
Homeland Security will bolster these efforts.
All-Hazard Warning Technology
Given the advanced state of other communications technologies, especially the
Internet and wireless devices, the reliance on delivering EAS warnings by radio and
television broadcasting seems out-of-date. Some states and communities are
pioneering alert systems that utilize other infrastructures. In particular, many
communities participate in programs with e-mail or Internet alerts and some issue
mass alerts by telephone. Among the best developed of these warning programs are
those used for Amber Alerts, providing noteworthy examples of public-private
partnerships. Recently, for example, more than15 states reportedly have launched or

---

CRS-5
are preparing to launch Internet technology customized for Amber Alerts. It is hoped
by its developers that this system might become the backbone for an expanded all-
hazards warning system that would extend the reach of emergency alerts to all types
of communications media.11
Call Centers. Some of the technological solutions for disseminating alerts and
providing information rely on call centers, including 911 emergency call centers (also
referred to as Public Safety Answering Points, or PSAPs). The 9/11 Commission
Report12 describes the often inadequate response of 911 call centers serving New
York City.13 The report’s analysis of the 911 response recommends: “In planning for
future disasters, it is important to integrate those taking 911 calls into the emergency
response team and to involve them in providing up-to-date information and
assistance to the public.”14 Such a solution would require a common infrastructure
that would support a number of communications and warning needs. Many
recommendations have encouraged the development of greater end-to-end
connectivity among all types of emergency services.
Department of Homeland Security. In June 2004, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department of Homeland
Security’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate signed an
agreement that allows DHS to send critical all-hazards alerts and warnings, including
those related to terrorism, directly through the NOAA Weather Radio All-Hazards
Network. Under the agreement, DHS will develop warning and alert messages that
will be sent to NWR for broadcast to radios and other communications devices
equipped with SAME technology.15
DHS is in the process of exploring ways to develop a comprehensive digital
emergency alert system.16 A pilot to test the implementation of digital technologies
and networks is ongoing in the National Capital Region and is being expanded to
11 “Signing of 9/11 Bill to Bring the Emergency Warning System into the Digital Age;
NASCIO will lead in developing a National All Alert System.” National Association of
Chief Information Officers Press Release, January 5, 2005 available at
[http://www.nascio.org/pressReleases/050104.cfm]. Viewed August 8, 2005.
12 Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Official Government Edition, 2004 (referred to as 9/11 Commission Report).
13 9/11 Commission Report pp. 286-287, 295, and 306.
14 Ibid., p. 318.
15 Department of Homeland Security, Press Room, “Homeland Security Leverages NOAA
All-Hazards Network for Alerts and Warnings,” June 17, 2004, at [http://www.dhs.gov/
dhspublic/display?content=3724]. Viewed August 8, 2005.
16 Testimony of Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency
Preparedness and Response, “Federal Emergency Management Agency,” House of
Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
March 9, 2005 and Testimony of Reynold N. Hoover, Director, Office of National Security
Coordination, FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, “All-Hazards Alert Systems,”
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Disaster
Prevention and Prediction, July 27, 2005.

---

CRS-6
other locations. The extended pilot is part of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System (IPAWS). It is a joint effort of FEMA, the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection directorate at DHS, and the Association of Public Television
Stations (APTS). It is testing digital media — including digital TV — to send
emergency alert data over telephone, cable, wireless devices, broadcast media and
other networks. If successful, the program will provide the base for a national federal
public safety alert and warning system using digital technology.17 The first phase of
the program successfully tested the use of common standards for message formats
and interfaces, Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).18
Another joint program under the IPAWS umbrella is a pilot with NOAA to test
a geo-targeted alert system using “reverse 911.” Reverse 911 is a term sometime
used to describe any calling system that places calls generated by a public safety call
center to a specific audience.
A program component of IPAWS is to improve the robustness of the
communications network to Primary Entry Point (PEP) radio stations by switching
from dial-up to satellite distribution. The number of PEP broadcast stations is to be
expanded to provide satellite communications capability to every state and territory.
These steps are meant to assure the survivability of radio broadcast communications
in the event of a catastrophic incident.19
Other Technology Initiatives. Among other methods being tested to
expand broadcast capabilities for emergency alerts are equipping cell phones with
NOAA Weather Radio receivers20 and developing datacasting for digital
broadcasting. Datacasting is a one-way broadcast transmission using Internet
Protocols.21 The broadcasts can carry voice and data, including videos, graphics, and
text messages. In the D.C.-area Digital Alert Emergency System pilot mentioned
above, datacasting is being broadcast to digital televisions and antennae linked to
computer networks or directly to computers and laptops. Some advanced wireless
phones and other portable devices can receive digital TV broadcasts, as is being
demonstrated in several pilots. Satellite radio could also become part of the new era
of digital signal alert systems. XM Satellite Radio will broadcast emergency alerts
to the D.C. region through a link with the alert system of Arlington County,
Virginia.22 The Arlington Alert network is operated by Roam Secure, Inc, a
company that provides text message alert systems to corporations and some
17 Testimony of John M. Lawson, President and CEO, Association of Public Television
Stations, “ Senate Hearing, July 27, 2005.
18 Information on CAP at [http://www.incident.com/cookbook/index.php/CAP_Fact_Sheet].
Viewed August 11, 2005.
19 Testimony of Reynold N. Hoover, Director, Office of National Security Coordination,
FEMA, Department of Homeland Security, Senate Hearing, July 27, 2005.
20 Testimony of Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Assistant Vice President, Homeland Security
& Regulatory Policy, CTIA-The Wireless Association, Senate Hearing, July 27, 2005.
21 Testimony of John M. Lawson, Senate Hearing, July 27, 2005.
22 “Arlington and XM Satellite Radio Partner for Emergency Alert Broadcasts,” Government
Technology, August 3, 2005.

---

CRS-7
governments, including Arlington and Fairfax Counties in Virginia and the District
of Columbia. XM Satellite Radio is also a participant in the IPAWS Digital
Emergency Alert System pilot.
Proposals and Progress
Advocates of all-hazard warning systems are seeking interoperability among
warning systems, standardized terminology, and operating procedures in order to
provide emergency alerts and information that reach the right people, in a timely
manner, in a way that is meaningful and understood by all. 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.23 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.24
Among its recommendations were: 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 funding25 to
convene meetings and prepare comments regarding the Homeland Security Advisory
System (HSAS). Workshop findings were later expanded into recommendations
in “A National Strategy for Integrated Public Warning Policy and Capability.” The
purpose of the document was to “develop a national vision and goals” for improving
all-hazard warning systems at the federal, state and local levels. PPW suggested that
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) take the lead in developing a national
public warning capability. The PPW 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 that would be “backward compatible”
with EAS (including Amber Alert codes) and National Weather Service technologies.
23 National Partnership for Reinventing Government, “Saving Lives with an All-Hazard
Warning Network,” 1999, at [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/all-haz/all-haz1.htm]. Viewed
August 8, 2005.
24 National Science and Technology Council, Working Group on Natural Disaster
Information Systems, Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, “Effective Disaster
Warnings,” November 2000 [http://www.sdr.gov/NDIS_rev_Oct27.pdf]. Viewed August
24, 2005.
25 Funding came from FEMA, the National Science Foundation, the National Weather
Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and private sources.

---

CRS-8
In June 2004, PPW published an overview of emergency alert and warning systems.26
It subsequently scaled back its activities for lack of funding.27 The FCC, however,
acting on recommendations from PPW and the Media Security and Reliability
Council, has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning EAS, seeking
comment on how EAS can be improved.28 The department of Homeland Security is
advancing in the testing and probable nationwide deployment of a multi-media alert
and warning system using digital technology as part of its Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System (IPAWS) program, discussed above.
Recent Legislation
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) has
requirements for a study about the use of telecommunications networks as part of an
all-hazards warning system. The study is to be led by the Secretary of Homeland
Security, in consultation with other Federal agencies, as appropriate, and participants
in the telecommunications industry. Its goals are to consider the practicality of
establishing a telecommunications-based warning system that would also provide
information to individuals on safety measures that might be taken in response to the
warning. The legislative proposal specifies that technologies to consider would be
“telephone, wireless communications, and other existing communications networks
. . .”.29 The act also requires a pilot study using technology now being used for an
Amber Alert network, to improve public warning systems regarding threats to
homeland security. This is to be conducted by the Secretary of Homeland Security
in consultation with the Attorney General, other federal agencies, the National
Association of State Chief Information Officers, and other stakeholders in public
safety systems.30 According to testimony, FEMA is seeking to finalize an agreement
with NASCIO to incorporate an Amber Alert web portal pilot into other, broader-
based pilots. These pilots are being coordinated through FEMA’s Office of National
Security Coordination as part of the IPAWS program.31
26 PPW, “Protecting America’s Communities: An Introduction to Public Alert and Warning,”
June 2004.
27 Memorandum to PPW Members, June 30, 2004.
28 FCC, News, August 4, 2004, “Commission Seeks Comment on Rule Changes for the
Emergency Alert System,” Headlines at [http://www.fcc.gov]. Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, EB Docket No. 04-296, available at the FCC website E-Filing/EDOCS link.
Comments can be found by going to the E-Filing/ECFS. In ECFS, click “Search for Filed
Comments,” insert “04-296” in the box marked “Proceeding,” and then search the file.
29 Study Regarding Nationwide Emergency Notification System, Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act, Title VII, Sec. 7403.
30 Pilot Study to Move Warning Systems Into the Modern Digital Age, Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act, Title VII, Sec. 7404.
31 Testimony of Reynold N. Hoover, Director, Office of National Security Coordination,
FEMA, Department of Homeland Security for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science
and Transportation, Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction,”All-Hazards Alert
Systems,” July 27, 2005.

---

CRS-9
Emergency Alerts and the 109th Congress
There are at least three parts to a warning system: 1) detection of a problem and
the communication of the danger to a warning system; 2) dissemination of the
warning through communications networks; and 3) information about actions to take
in response to the warning or in the aftermath of disaster. In a natural disaster where
there is good predictive capability, such as a hurricane, emergency alerts work fairly
well. In a man-made disaster, such as a terrorist attack or a chemical spill, the current
warning systems in the United States are vulnerable to failure. Too often, the warning
is not communicated to any alert system. Communications with people most in need
of information and assistance after a disaster is constrained by inadequate systems
and often complicated by damage to communications infrastructure. Due to
insufficient planning and preparation, there is often confusion about responsibility,
priorities, and needed actions. Some observers have noted that the most effective
emergency alerts would be able to empower the “first” first responders, those on the
site of the disaster when it occurs. Many have emphasized the need for better
oversight and planning for an all-hazard warning system. Experts in public safety and
communications have observed that it is both possible and desirable to coordinate
the development of information networking technology for various types of
emergency responses, maximizing the reach of any warning or alert.
Improving Emergency Alert Systems. A bill, S. 1753, introduced by
Senators Jim DeMint and Ben Nelson was developed at the request of Senator Ted
Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, to provide support for agency efforts such as those described in this
report. The WARN Act (Warnings, Alerts, and Response Network Act) would
authorize at least $250 million to improve alert systems through a new office.32
Some provisions of the bill would change the existing lines of authority in the
planning and administration of emergency alerts. Today, responsibility for the
Emergency Alert System is shared between FEMA, the lead authority, and the FCC,
responsible for regulating emergency alert compliance among broadcasters and others
under its jurisdiction. The current role of the FCC is confirmed in the proposed
legislation.33 The main responsibility for developing and administering a nationwide
alert system would be placed with a National Program Office established within
NOAA.34 The bill would also establish a Working Group on the National Alert
System. The chief purpose of the group — to be comprised of representatives from
federal, state and local agencies, emergency services, and industry — would be to
develop a plan for a national system, with technical and other guidelines.35 The
director of the National Program Office would form the Working Group and act as
32 S. 1753, Sec. 9.
33 S. 1753, Sec. 7 (f).
34 S. 1753, Sec. 3.
35 S. 1753, Sec. 4.

---

CRS-10
its chair.36 Other responsibilities of the Director include implementing the Working
Groups recommendations, setting up and conducting a program of research and
development37 and managing the credentialing of public officials who would be
authorized to initiate alerts.38 This step would federalize the procedures for
designating those public officials that would be authorized to request an emergency
alert. The National Program Office would process requests for credentialing at the
federal, state, and local level.39 The office would also be required to monitor activity
to assure that warnings were sent only by appropriately authorized agents.40 These
agents would be required to undergo periodic training in programs established by the
office.41 Overall, the office would be required for establishing a system that took
advantage of all available technologies in providing access points to issue warnings
and methods of sending and receiving alerts and information. The bill would require
mobile service operators to either provide emergency alert messages or specifically
opt out of providing such a service.
Other measures proposed in the bill include extending the authority to require
emergency alerts to state governors and the Secretary of Homeland Security, as well
as the President.42 Currently, only the President of the United States, or his designate,
has the power to require an emergency alert, a power that has never been used. The
emergency alert system of notification, as noted in the body of this report, is
voluntary. The bill also would set up a grant program to provide alert systems in
remote communities that are “effectively unserved” by broadcast and wireless
technology.43
Tsunami Warnings. The horrific devastation across the Indian Ocean from
the tsunami of December 26, 2004 raised the level of awareness to the need for better
systems for detection and warning, as well as the associated steps for preparedness
and response. The Administration has announced plans to expand the U.S. tsunami
detection and warning capabilities as a contribution of the Global Earth Observation
System of Systems, or GEOSS — the international effort to develop a
comprehensive, sustained and integrated Earth observation system. The plan commits
a total of $37.5 million over the next two years.44 Congressional bills that have
measures to improve all-hazard warning systems in the United States include S. 50
(Senator Inouye) and H.R. 396 (Representative Menendez). These two bills provide
36 S. 1753, Sec. 4 (a).
37 S. 1753, Sec. 3 (d).
38 S. 1753, Sec. 7.
39 S. 1753, Sec. 7 (a).
40 S. 1753, Sec. 7(a) (3).
41 S. 1753, Sec. 7(a) (4).
42 S. 1753, Sec. 2 (f).
43 S. 1753, Sec. 5.
44 Plans for An Improved Tsunami Detection and Warning Systems, Fact Sheet,
[http://www.ostp.gov/html/TsunamiFactSheet.pdf], located on NOAA’s Tsunami Page at
[http://www.tsunami.noaa.gov/]. Both sites viewed August 8, 2005.

---

CRS-11
different perspectives on emergency alert planning, activation and response but they
both recognize the need for aggressively advancing the development and deployment
of warning systems. S. 34 (Senator Lieberman) would strengthen tsunami detection
and warning systems worldwide but focuses on detection and communications
among authorities and does not include provisions specifically for improving
emergency alerts to the general populace.
S. 50. The Tsunami Preparedness Act (Senator Inouye) builds on the
Administration’s plan for an improved tsunami monitoring system. Additionally, the
bill would improve federal coordination and would establish a task force of
representatives of federal agencies, coastal states and territories.45 The bill directs the
Administrator of NOAA to maximize the effectiveness of detection and warning
systems for U.S. coastal communities and to take actions to assist other countries in
achieving similar goals. The main purposes of the bill are46
! Improve tsunami detection, forecast, warnings, notification,
preparedness, and mitigation.
! Extend coverage of existing Pacific Tsunami Warning System to
include other vulnerable areas such as the Caribbean, Atlantic Coast
and the Gulf of Mexico.
! Increase efforts to improve forecasting, preparedness, mitigation,
response and recovery, including education and outreach.
! Provide technical and other assistance to international efforts.
! Improve federal, state, and international coordination for tsunami
and other coastal hazard warnings and preparedness.
System components covered in the bill include a number of provisions for
detection and information sharing and require a communications infrastructure to
alert communities vulnerable to the occurrence of a tsunami.47 Program components
include outreach, education, preparedness and risk management.48 The bill
authorizes a tsunami research program that includes communications technology.49
The NOAA Administrator, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Communications and Information50 and the Federal Communications
Commission, is to investigate the potential for improved communications systems
for hazard warning networks.51 Technologies mentioned include telephones, cell
phones and other wireless devices, satellite communications, the Internet, automated
alerts on television and radio, and technologies that might be suitable for reaching
remote areas at a low cost. Provisions for assistance on a global level include
45 From Remarks by Senator Ted Stevens on the introduction of S. 50, Congressional
Record for January 24, 2005, published January 25, 2005.
46 S. 50, Sec. 2. (b).
47 S. 50, Sec. 3 (b) (3) (F).
48 S. 50, Sec 4 (c).
49 S. 50, Sec. 5.
50 Administrator of National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
51 S. 50, Sec. 5 (b).

---

CRS-12
technical assistance to international organizations in developing a global tsunami
warning system. Also, the NOAA Administrator is to give priority in assisting
vulnerable areas with needs such as planning, obtaining detection and reporting
equipment, and establishing communications and warning units.52 To achieve the
various goals set forth in the bill, the Tsunami Preparedness Act authorizes $35
million annually beginning with FY2006, through 2012.53
H.R. 396. The Early Warning and Rapid Notification Act (Representative
Menendez) provides for the establishment of U.S. programs lead primarily by the
Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID),54 to give technological and financial support to foreign countries for the
development of all-hazard warning systems, and to strengthen existing lines of
communication for the dissemination of information on disasters.55 The bill centers
on early warning systems, the work of organizations such as the International Early
Warning Program,56and the contributions of USAID to international detection and
warning programs. The Secretary of State is to lead a study that would evaluate the
effectiveness of existing communications links and ways to improve them.57 The bill
provides for assistance, through the Department of State and USAID, for
international programs that enhance effective public warning systems.58 The bill
would also expand the scope of American research on public warning systems by
providing for sharing results, where appropriate, with the international community.59
Specifically, it would broaden the scope of the Study Regarding Nationwide
Emergency Notification System and the Pilot Study to Move Warning Systems Into
the Modern Digital Age — required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act — to include a component for evaluating the applicability of various
alert technologies to other countries.60 The Secretary of State, cooperating with the
Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Communications Commission and
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information
(Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration), among others, is to lead these research activities.61 Other
responsibilities involve the study of evolving technologies that could be used in
52 S. 50, Sec. 7.
53 S. 50, Sec. 8.
54 USAID is an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy
guidance from the Secretary of State. It provides economic and humanitarian assistance in
over 100 countries [http://www.usaid.gov/].
55 H.R. 396, Sec. 3.
56 The International Early Warning Program, which has been planned for two years, is to be
created by the United Nations to increase international cooperation in the development of
warning systems and related programs.
57 H.R. 396, Sec. 5 (a).
58 H.R. 396, Sec. 6 (a).
59 H.R. 396, Sec. 6 (b) (1).
60 H.R. 396, Sec. 6 (b) (2).
61 H.R. 396, Sec. 6 (b).

---

CRS-13
providing all-hazard warnings in the United States and abroad.62 The named agencies
are also to study the role of satellites, wireless technology and radio frequency
assignments in providing emergency alerts, working with the World Radio
Conference63 and other international forums.64 Authorizations for appropriations to
cover the programs would be $10 million for each fiscal year from 2006 though
2010.
Tsunami Detection. The Global Tsunami Detection and Warning System
Act (S. 34, Senator Lieberman) deals almost exclusively with provisions for
improving detection of tsunamis and the earthquakes that generate them. Programs
that would include identifying deficiencies in existing systems worldwide, increasing
the number of sensors for detecting tsunamis, and improving predictive capabilities
and communications infrastructure would be the responsibility of the Secretary of
Commerce, working with the Secretaries of State and of the Interior, where
appropriate.65 The bill provides the sense of Congress that the President of the
United States should convene an international conference on global tsunami detection
and warning.66 The Secretary of State, working with the Secretary of Commerce, is
to prepare and implement a strategy that would provide for a global network for
detection and warning for tsunamis.67 This strategy is to include a “warning
communications system involving telephone, Internet, radio, fax, and other
appropriate means to convey warnings as rapidly as possible to all potentially
affected nations.”68 Authorizations provide for $30 million for FY2005 and $7.5
million for each FY2006 through 2014.69
Other Bills. A bill comparable to S. 34 has been submitted in the House (H.R.
499, Representative Shays). Other bills include S. 361 (Senator Snowe); S. 452
(Senator Corzine); H.R. 882 (Representative Boehlert);H.R. 890 (Representative
Pallone); H.R. 1584 (Representative Weldon); and H.R. 1674 (Representative
Boehlert) — are concerned with tsunami detection and the initial stages of
notification.
Planning for the Future. Shortcomings of public safety warning systems
in the United States include
62 H.R. 396, Sec. 6 (b) (3). Specific technologies mentioned are “broadcast media, wireline
and wireless telephones, other wireless devices, instant messaging via computer , and
electronic bulletin boards.”
63 The World Radio Conference is the forum for the negotiation of international agreements
that coordinate and enable global telecommunications. It is held under the aegis of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the United Nations.
64 H.R. 396, Sec. 6 (b) (4).
65 S. 34, Sec. 2 (a).
66 S. 34, Sec. 3 (a).
67 S. 34, Sec. 4 (a).
68 S. 34, Sec. 4 (a) (7).
69 S. 34, Sec. 5.

---

CRS-14
! Limited distribution channels (e.g., EAS uses broadcast and cable,
NWR is closely linked to radio).
! Limited interoperability among separately administered networks
(e.g., EAS messages provide some commonality but there is no
coordination for activating all networks with the same alert).
! Insufficient clarity regarding the responsibility for transmitting
alerts.
! 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, and 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.
! Insufficient attention to the deployment of new technologies and the
encouragement of public-private partnerships.
The reports to Congress from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the FCC
process of rule-making for EAS will provide additional information for Congress
about warning systems and may lead to additional legislative activity.
Other Federal Emergency Warning Systems70
Federal agencies administer numerous emergency notification systems. Briefly
noted below are other warning systems that are used to warn the public and
authorities.71
National Warning System (NAWAS). In 1957, the National Warning
System (NAWAS) was established.72 NAWAS, still in use as an operational warning
system, is a dedicated telephone network that FEMA administers and uses to
coordinate with national, regional, state, and local emergency management officials.73
Today the system connects over 22,000 national, regional, state and local emergency
70 This section prepared by Shawn Reese, Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division.
71 The systems are described in detail in Effective Disaster Warnings, Report by the
Working Group on Natural Disaster Information Systems, Subcommittee on Natural
Disaster Reduction, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment
and Natural Resources, November 2002 [http://www.fema.gov/pdf/rrr/ndis_rev_oct27.pdf].
Viewed August 8, 2005.
72 Harry B. Yoshpe, Our Missing Shield: The U.S. Civil Defense Program in Historical
Perspective (Washington: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981), p. 537.
73 Effective Disaster Warnings, p. 52.

---

CRS-15
management offices. NAWAS disseminates emergency information and
instructions.74
Federal Emergency Management System (FEMIS).75FEMIS is an
independent network of different communication devices that operate over various
media (microwave, fiber optics, and wireline). The U.S. Army installs and operates
the system and notifies state and local emergency management officials in the
vicinity of chemical and biological weapon stockpiles designated for destruction of
accidental, terrorist, or criminal release of the chemical and biological weapon
stockpiles. The system provides digital image files of the contaminated geographical
area.76
Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS). HSAS, the system most
recently established in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
provides a color coded terrorist attack warning system to federal, state, and local
authorities, as well as the public. At this date, Office of Homeland Security (OHS)
manages HSAS, with guidance from the U.S. Attorney General. Daily advisories are
posted on the Internet, and the Attorney General notifies the federal, state and local
authorities of any change to the advisory color code. Public warnings, resulting in
a change to the color code, are issued through statements made by the OHS through
the media.77
Advanced Weather Information Processing System.78 AWIPS is a
telephone network administered by the Weather Forecast Office (WFO), which is
part of NWS. This network is a dial-up telecommunications link, also accessible by
an Intranet server, that provides for two-way exchange of severe weather information
between the weather tracking and news industry and NWS.79 This system is used
primarily by the NWS to inform the weather tracking and news industry of severe
weather, which is then reported to the public through the news media.80
74 Federation of American Scientists [http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/nawas.htm].
Viewed August 8, 2005.
75 Federal Emergency Management System [http://www.pnl.gov/femis]. Viewed August 8,
2005.
76 National Science and Technology Council, Effective Disaster Warnings, p. 51.
77 “Homeland Security Advisory System,” Department of Homeland Security Press Room
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0046.xml]. Viewed
August 8, 2005.
78 Field Systems Operation Center [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ops2/]. Viewed August 8,
2005.
79 National Science and Technology Council, Effective Disaster Warnings, p. 33.
80 Tim Putprush, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mt. Weather Emergency
Operations Center, telephone conversation with Shawn Reese, December 16, 2002.

---

CRS-16
Emergency Managers Weather Information Network (EMWIN).81
EMWIN is a satellite communications network operated by NWS. EMWIN
broadcasts severe weather information to a commercially marketed1610mHz radio
that provides weather warnings to the public and emergency management officials.82
NOAA Weather Wire Service (NWWS)83. NWWS is operated by NWS and
transmits severe weather information to mass news disseminators and emergency
management officials. The severe weather information is transmitted by weather
satellites and then broadcasted to the public via NWR or EAS.84
The systems briefly described in Table 1, below, are intended to warn the public,
federal officials, state and local authorities, or the weather tracking and news
industry, of imminent danger to public health and safety.85
81 EMWIN Implementation Report, Computer Sciences Corporation, September 28, 2001
[http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/emwin/Report.htm]. Viewed August 8, 2005.
82 National Science and Technology Council, Effective Disaster Warnings, p. 50.
83 NOAA Weather Wire Service [http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwws].Viewed August 8, 2005.
84 National Science and Technology Council, Effective Disaster Warnings, p. 32.
85 Tim Putprush, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

---

CRS-17
Table 1. Federal Emergency Warning Systems
Primary
Warning
Required receiving
Type of threat
administering
Warning recipients
Information issued
system
equipment
agency
AWIPSa
Severe weather
NWS
Weather tracking and news
Satellite weather imagery
Satellite antenna
industry
receiver
EASb
Any emergency
Operated by FCC,
Public, news media
Voice message detailing
AM or FM radio,
administered by
information and instructions
television, or NWR
FEMA
EMWINc
Severe weather
NWS
Emergency managers, public
Digital message detailing
1610mHz radio
severe weather
receiver
FEMISd
Chemical and biological
U.S. Army
State and local emergency
Digital image files of
Dedicated computer
weapons designated for
managers
contaminated geographic area
network
destruction contamination
HSASe
Terrorist attack
DHS
Public, media, and federal,
Color code characterizing
Internet, news media
state and local authorities
terrorist attack risk and
needed protective measures
NAWASf
Any emergency
FEMA
National, regional, state and
Voice message detailing
Dedicated telephone
local emergency managers
information and instructions
network
NWRg
Severe weather or any
NWS
Public, emergency managers
Voice warnings, watches,
NOAA weather radio
emergency broadcast by
forecasts, and advisories
EAS
NWWSh
Severe weather
NWS
Media, emergency managers
Digital images of severe
Satellite antenna
weather
receiver
Source: National Science and Technology Council, Effective Disaster Warnings, and Department of Homeland Security

---

CRS-18
a. Advanced Weather Information Processing System
e. Homeland Security Advisory System
b. Emergency Alert System
f. National Warning System
c. Emergency Managers Weather Information Network
g. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Weather Radio
d. Federal Emergency Managers Information System
h. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Weather Wire Service

---