The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and
All-Hazard Warnings
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
January 21, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32527
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
Summary
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is built on a structure conceived in the 1950s when over-the-
air broadcasting was the best-available technology for widely disseminating emergency alerts.
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 include an all-hazard warning
capability. Measures to improve the NOAA network and a new Digital Emergency Alert System
(DEAS) are ongoing. DEAS benefits from the additional capacity that digital technology provides
for message transmission. In addition, FEMA is developing the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System (IPAWS) to meet requirements for an alert system as specified by an Executive
Order issued by President George W. Bush. When completed, IPAWS should be able to accept
any legitimate alert or action announcement, verify it, and relay it to wide variety of
communications devices.
Legislation was passed at the end of the 109th Congress (Warning, Alert, and Response Network
Act, or WARN Act, as signed into law as Title VI of P.L. 109-347) to assure funding to public
television stations to install digital equipment to handle alerts. The law also required the
establishment of a committee to provide the FCC with recommendations regarding the transmittal
of emergency alerts by commercial mobile service providers to their subscribers. Committee
recommendations provided the structure for a Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS),
regulated by the FCC. Under the timetable agreed to by the FCC and FEMA, CMAS will become
operational by April 7, 2012.
The federal agency responsible for completing critical work on CMAS, DEAS, and IPAWS is
FEMA’s National Continuity Program Directorate. IPAWS began as a federal program that would
be available for state and local alerts. Its mission was then redefined to apply only for federal
messages, placing the program at odds with the broader goals of DEAS and the broadcasters that
transmit alerts. According to testimony in September 2009 before the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management, IPAWS will once more be developed as a comprehensive system to
support the broader goal of combining federal participation with state, local, and tribal emergency
management practices. Indecision and shifting goals in the past have, however, contributed to a
lack of progress and significant delays in implementing IPAWS and related programs.
Bills have been introduced that address the delays by compelling FEMA to fulfill its
commitments (H.R. 2591, Representative Diaz-Balart, and H.R. 3377, Representative Oberstar).
The WMD Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009 (S. 1649, Senator Lieberman) includes
requirements for emergency alerts. The Amateur Radio Emergency Communications
Enhancement Act of 2009 (S. 1755, Senator Lieberman) would require a study of the role of
amateur radio in disseminating emergency alerts and information.
Congressional Research Service
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
Contents
Overview of the Federal Role...................................................................................................... 1
National Continuity Programs ............................................................................................... 2
Commercial Mobile Alerts .................................................................................................... 2
National Response Framework.............................................................................................. 2
EAS Administration .................................................................................................................... 3
Broadcaster Participation ......................................................................................................4
Primary Entry Points ............................................................................................................. 5
Digital Emergency Alert System ........................................................................................... 5
EAS Technology ................................................................................................................... 5
NOAA Weather Radio........................................................................................................... 6
All-Hazard Warning Technology ........................................................................................... 6
Common Alerting Protocol.................................................................................................... 6
Alerting Individuals with Disabilities and Others with Special Needs .................................... 6
Proposals and New Programs ...................................................................................................... 7
Executive Order: Public Alert and Warning System ............................................................... 8
The WARN Act ..................................................................................................................... 8
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee .................................................. 9
Commercial Mobile Alert System ................................................................................... 9
The Future of IPAWS .......................................................................................................... 10
Emergency Alerts and Congressional Initiatives ........................................................................ 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
Overview of the Federal Role
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 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. When completed, IPAWS will be able to receive and verify alerts, then route
them for transmission over almost any digital media to designated locations. Many communities,
meanwhile, are installing local alert systems that send voice, text messages, and e-mail. 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.2 As will be discussed in this report, the Emergency Alert System
relies on many partners. The role of the federal government has been to lead by reason of its
prime responsibility to assure presidential alerts for national disasters.
The division of responsibility for alerts has in many cases led to problems with coordination—
and uneven effectiveness—of EAS utilization from state to state. There have been expectations
among state emergency managers, state broadcaster associations, and others who participate in
EAS program planning that the implementation of IPAWS would provide the backbone for a
robust emergency alert capability at all levels. The IPAWS program, however, has fallen behind
schedule. What appears to be an administrative retrenchment led to a near-exclusive focus on
presidential alerts, while programs at the state and local level—and to assist individuals with
disabilities—languished.3 In a report on IPAWS submitted to Congress on September 30, 2009,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) attributed the lack of progress mainly to “shifting
program goals, lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly organized program
information from which to make management decisions.”4 DHS agreed with the
recommendations made by GAO in this report; however, recommendations from a 2007 GAO
report5 were agreed to but not met.
1 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an agency of the Department of Commerce.
2 911 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 RL34755, Emergency
Communications: The Future of 911, by Linda K. Moore.
3 Comments by, among others, Ann Arnold (Chair, Texas SECC and Executive Director, Texas Association of
Broadcasters), Suzanne D. Goucher ( Chair, Maine SECC and President, Maine Association of Broadcasters), Art
Botterell (Manager, Community Warning System, Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, CA) and Clay Freinwald
(Chair, Society of Broadcast Engineers’ EAS Committee, Chair Washington SECC, and Radio Frequency Systems
Engineer, Entercom) at “Promoting an Effective Emergency Alert System on the Road to a Next Generation EAS,”
FCC EAS Summit, May 19, 2008, Washington, DC.
4 GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Improved Planning and Coordination Necessary foe Development of Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System, GAO09-834, September 30, 2009, Highlights.
5 Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated
System Will Be Challenging, GAO-07-411, March 2007.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
National Continuity Programs
The National Continuity Programs (NCP) Directorate, within the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA), has responsibility for IPAWS. In testimony before
Congress,6 Damon C. Penn, Assistant Administrator of the NCP testified regarding his intentions
to re-energize the department’s efforts for IPAWS and other infrastructure and planning
initiatives.7 Mr. Penn assumed these responsibilities in August 2009. He described FEMA as “on
schedule to achieve our IPAWS vision by 2012.” Four specific goals were cited.
• Interoperable standards and interfaces.
• Redundancy in the dissemination network.
• Integrated message distribution along multiple paths.
• Additional PEP stations for direct EAS coverage.
In addition, NCP is developing a strategic plan for IPAWS that will align federal goals with the
needs of state, local, tribal, and territorial officials.
Commercial Mobile Alerts
In response to a requirement in the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, or WARN Act, as
signed into law (Title VI of P.L. 109-347), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
worked with commercial mobile service providers to create a Commercial Mobile Alert System
(CMAS) that would be able to relay alerts through cell phones. In addition to presidential alerts,
which clearly are a federal responsibility, the service would transmit emergency alerts generated
by state, local, and other non-federal authorities. The gateway for CMAS is being developed as
part of IPAWS. FEMA and the FCC have committed to a timetable for development of IPAWS
and CMAS that is intended to deliver mobile alert messages to consumers by April 7, 2012.8
National Response Framework
Policies and programs to improve post-disaster information appear to show the same symptoms
of poor planning and coordination that have delayed the implementation of IPAWS and related
alert programs. Coordination of federal, state, tribal, and local responsibilities for providing
emergency information is addressed in the National Response Framework (NRF).9 Not all of the
resources needed to provide alerts and information before, during, and after an emergency are
recognized in the NRF and it appears that little has been done to link these resources into an
6 Hearing, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, “This is NOT a Test: Will the Nation’s Emergency Alert
System Deliver the President’s Message to the Public?” September 30, 2009.
7 IPAWS projects are described at http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws/.
8 FCC News, “FEMA and the FCC Announce Adoption of Standards for Wireless Carriers to Receive and Deliver
Emergency Alerts Via Mobile Devices,” December 7, 2009 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-
295038A1.pdf.
9 “Federal planning for external affairs functions recognizes State, tribal, and local responsibilities for providing
information to their citizens.” National Response Framework, National Response Plan, Emergency Support Function
#15 - External Affairs Annex at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-esf-15.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
effective communications plan. The GAO, for example, has reported on the limitations in disaster
planning to assure communications for first responders.10 Even less attention has been given to
getting vital information from the top level of emergency managers and first responders to
disaster victims. For example, while the United States continues to invest in improved systems for
monitoring earthquake activity,11 there appears to be no consistent planning for how this
information could be used to save lives of earthquake victims. Forecasts about the probable
location and intensity of aftershocks could guide evacuations to comparatively safe areas of
refuge: information that could be shared in real-time not only with first responders but also with
the evacuees—if alert technologies were linked to seismic information networks.12 Similarly,
although plans are widely in place to provide life-saving resources such as shelter, food and
water, and medical care and health services, the communications plans that would direct disaster
victims to these resources appear to be primarily local. Many plans rely on informing first
responders or the National Guard, not the affected community.
EAS Administration
EAS currently sends emergency messages with the cooperation of broadcast radio and television
and most cable television stations. It originated 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 when the technology
was upgraded and automated during the 1990s. The current Emergency Alert System is required
only to transmit federal warnings although neither it nor its predecessors has been used for this
purpose. The value to the American people of EAS has been provided largely by the voluntary
transmission of local warnings.
Congress has placed responsibility for civil defense measures, which include operation of the
present-day EAS at the national level, with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)13 now part of DHS. The FCC has been designated by FEMA to manage
broadcaster involvement in EAS; it currently provides technical standards and support for EAS,
rules for its operation, and enforcement within the broadcasting and cable industries. Non-federal
EAS operational plans are developed primarily at the state and local level. The emergency
10 In Emergency Communications: Vulnerabilities Remain and Limited Collaboration and Monitoring Hamper Federal
Efforts, (GAO-09-604, June 2009), the GAO uses “Case Study Disaster Scenarios” to evaluate communications
capacity, continuity, and interoperability. The scenarios are: Sacramento Flooding, Miami Hurricane, Honolulu/Hilo
Tsunami, Boston Terrorist Attack, Memphis Earthquake, and Mount Rainier Volcanic Mudflow.
11 An overview of policies and programs is provided in CRS Report RL33861, Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning,
and Research, by Peter Folger.
12 The feasibility of sending out shaking forecasts through an early warning network was discussed in a congressional
hearing on January 20, 2010. The warnings would be sent, for example, to railroads and power plants that might be shut
down automatically if heavy shaking was forecast in their area. House of Representatives, Committee on Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, “Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3820, January 20, 2010.
See also written testimony of Dr. David Applegate, Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geologic Hazards,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior: “In the minutes after an earthquake strikes ... knowing where
shaking was most intense can save lives by providing emergency responders with the situational awareness they need
to concentrate their efforts where they matter most.”
13 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). Provisions are now embodied in the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S C. 5121 and seq.).
Congressional Research Service
3
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
response officials who, typically, initiate an EAS message for a state or local emergency also
work with FEMA. The FCC requires states that have developed an EAS plan to file the plans with
the FCC. Not all states have FCC-compliant EAS plans that have been approved and reviewed by
the FCC. The decentralized process of EAS coordination and implementation 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 Media
Security and Reliability Council (an FCC Advisory Committee), the Primary Entry Point (PEP)
Administrative Committee,14 and associations such as the National Association of Broadcasters,
the National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations, and individual state broadcasting
associations. States organize Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs) whose members
often include representatives from broadcasting companies or local TV and radio stations as well
as public safety officials. Typically the SECCs operate in collaboration with—or under the
supervision of—the state office responsible for emergency planning. These committees agree on
the chain-of-command and other procedures for activating an emergency message through radio
and television. The constraints of current EAS technology, as specified by the FCC, limit a state
or local 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. Over 30 radio stations have been designated as National Primary Stations that are
required to transmit Presidentially initiated alerts and messages. The National Primary Stations
form the backbone of the federal-level Emergency Alert System, and are directly under the
governance of FEMA. In times of a national emergency, their broadcasts would be relayed by
PEP stations to radio and television stations that rebroadcast the message to other broadcast and
cable stations until all stations have been alerted. This system of relaying EAS messages is
generally referred to as the “daisy chain.” State and local emergency alerts enter the daisy chain
through the PEPs, which can include the national primary stations (also referred to as Presidential
PEPs). The FCC requires the states to initiate weekly or monthly tests, it does not require testing
at the national level. There are therefore several levels of governance, each of which uses
different combinations of radio broadcast stations to initiate and transmit messages. There is a
federal level, for national alerts, administered by FEMA, using radio broadcast stations with
equipment that conforms to FCC requirements, there are state plans, as described above, and
there can be local plans. States, in particular, will use combinations of radio stations with different
broadcast transmission coverage to match the configuration of their geographical areas. One
constant is that the FCC sets the requirements for equipment for all stations.
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. For the broadcast of non-federal emergency
messages, the FCC has ruled that the broadcasters, not a state or local authority, have the final
14 The Primary Entry Point (PEP) system consists of a nationwide network of stations connected with government
activation points through designated National Primary Stations (LP1s). See also http://pepac.org/.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
authority to transmit a message.15 Historically, the level of cooperation from the broadcasting
industry has been high.
Primary Entry Points
A program component of IPAWS is to improve the robustness of the communications network to
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. The public radio satellite system is already equipped to
send DEAS messages to about 860 public radio stations across the country. FEMA plans to assess
the number of PEP stations needed to maximize the reach of EAS alerts.16 It is working with the
Primary Entry Point Administrative Committee and the U.S. Army Corps on Engineers to
strengthen the alert network.
Digital Emergency Alert System
The FCC has promulgated new rules to include digital media carriage of EAS messages, the
Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS). In a Report and Order released November 10, 2005,17
EAS requirements were expanded to include digital communications over direct-broadcast
television and radio, digital cable, and direct-to-home satellite television and radio. Companies
using these media are required to install EAS equipment to handle digital formats.
EAS Technology
EAS technology uses coders and decoders to send data signals recognized as emergency
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
automated messages are broadcast to the public using 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.
15 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.
16 Testimony of Damon C. Penn, Hearing, House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, “This is NOT a Test: Will
the Nation’s Emergency Alert System Deliver the President’s Message to the Public?” September 30, 2009.
17 FCC, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. 04-296, relaesed November
10, 2005 at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-191A1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
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. Weather radios can be 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 Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME).
Standardized SAME codes can be used in almost any device with a radio receiver. These 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. Therefore, although EAS
and NWR are broadcast technologies set up to operate on a one-to-many basis, these broadcasts
can be screened and decoded to provide customized alerts.
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 that use e-mail, wireless
text messages or the Internet for alerts; some issue mass alerts to telephones, using auto-phone
dialing technologies, or to wireless devices using cell broadcasting technology.18
Common Alerting Protocol
A standardized format known as Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)19 has been developed for use
in all types of alert messages. CAP has received widespread support from the public safety
community and has been accepted as a standard by the international Organization for the
Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS). One of its key benefits is that it can
be used as a single input to activate multiple warning systems. It is being used as a standard for
new, digitized alert networks using multiple technologies. In a digital environment, CAP is
intended to replace SAME codes currently used in EAS. Federal agencies that support CAP
include DHS, the Department of Justice, the National Weather Service, and the U.S. Geological
Survey.20
Alerting Individuals with Disabilities and Others with Special
Needs
The FCC requires that EAS messages be delivered in both audio and visual (captions, message
boards, other) formats. Regular broadcasts about emergencies, however, do not have to comply
18 Cell broadcasting uses wireless networks to send alerts to wireless devices in designated areas; the device must
include Cell Broadcast Service software.
19 CAP information at http://www.incident.com/cookbook/index.php/CAP_Fact_Sheet.
20 List at http://www.incident.com/cookbook/index.php/Who_Is_Using_CAP%3F.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
with this requirement. The community of disabled individuals, therefore, is often under-served
when emergency information is disseminated outside the EAS network. Although a number of
technologies exist to provide accessible formats for people with special needs—such as those
with disabilities, the elderly, and those who do not understand English—many of these solutions
are not supported by the current EAS system or are so expensive as to be inaccessible to most.
FCC rules for the new CMAS for wireless devices require that the devices must include an audio
attention signal and vibration cadence, to meet the needs of subscribers with disabilities.
Incorporating technologies that expand the reach of EAS to all segments of the population, at a
reasonable cost, is one of the challenges of delivering an effective warning system that is truly
nationwide.21
Proposals and New Programs
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.22
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.23 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 funding24 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 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,
21 For a discussion of the issue in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act, see CRS Report RS22254, The
Americans with Disabilities Act and Emergency Preparedness and Response, by Nancy Lee Jones.
22 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.
23 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.
24 Funding came from FEMA, the National Science Foundation, the National Weather Service, the U.S. Geological
Survey, and private sources.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
redundant systems using various technologies with common standards that would be “backward
compatible” with EAS (including Amber Alert codes) and National Weather Service
technologies.25 It subsequently scaled back its activities for lack of funding.26
Executive Order: Public Alert and Warning System
On June 26, 2006, President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating that U.S. policy is
“to have an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn
the American people.... ” To achieve this policy, the President set out a list of functional
requirements for the Secretary of Homeland Security to meet that respond to the
recommendations of experts in this field. In summary, these requirements cover
• evaluating existing resources;
• adopting common protocols, standards and other procedures to enable
interoperability;
• delivering alerts on criteria such as location or risk;
• accommodating disabilities and language needs;
• supporting necessary communications facilities;
• conducting training, testing, and exercises;
• ensuring public education about emergency warnings;
• coordinating and cooperating with the private sector and government at all levels;
• administering the existing Emergency Alert System as a component of the
broader system;
• ensuring that the President can alert and warn the American people.
The order also specified the level of support expected from other departments and agencies in
meeting the requirements for a better warning system. The Secretary of Homeland Security was
ordered to “ensure an orderly and effective transition” from current capabilities to the system
described by executive order.27 The development and implementation of IPAWS is part of the
response to the order.
The WARN Act
The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act (WARN Act) as signed into law as Title VI of
P.L. 109-347, required the establishment of a Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory
Committee by the FCC.28 Following the signing of the act into law, the FCC assembled the
committee, as required, with members from state, local and tribal governments, from industry and
25 Documents at http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org/ppw/natlstratsumm.html.
26 Memorandum to PPW Members, June 30, 2004. The PPW website is maintained by MITRE Corporation.
27 “Executive Order: Public Alert and Warning System,” released June 26, 2006, available at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060626.html. Executive Order 13407.
28 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (a).
Congressional Research Service
8
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
associations, and representatives of persons with special needs.29 This committee, within a year of
formation, was charged with providing the FCC with recommendations on technical
requirements, standards, regulation and other matters needed to support the transmittal of
emergency alerts by commercial mobile service providers to their subscribers.30 The FCC, alone
or in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of the
Department of Commerce, was given the responsibility of adopting proceedings to be used in the
promulgation and enforcement of rules reflecting the conclusions of the committee.31 The digital
broadcasting capacity of public television stations is to be used to “enable the distribution of
geographically targeted alerts by commercial mobile service providers,” based on
recommendations from the committee.32 The WARN Act also included provisions for commercial
wireless service providers to opt in or out of the emergency alert service, with requirements for
informing consumers.33
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee
The committee submitted recommendations on using commercial cell phone technology for
emergency alerts within the time frame required by Congress (i.e., by October 12, 2007). In
accordance with provisions in the WARN Act, the FCC completed a proceeding reviewing the
recommendations made by the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee
(CMSAAC) within 180 days of receiving the recommendations.34
Commercial Mobile Alert System
The proposal to develop a Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) and other recommendations
made by the CMSAAC were opened to public comment by the FCC on December 14, 2007.35 In
the subsequent rule-making,36 the FCC adopted most of the recommendations made by the
CMSAAC. In addition to message formats and other standards, some of the key rules cover
• Type of alerts. Three alert categories, as defined in the Report and Order, are
required to be carried by participating carriers: presidential, imminent threat, and
AMBER alerts.
• Coverage of alerts. The standard for location coverage is to be county-wide.
• Management of alerts. The CMSAAC recommended that a federal agency act as
an aggregator in accepting, verifying, and routing messages.
29 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (b). Information about committee activities and membership is at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/
advisory/cmsaac/.
30 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 603 (c).
31 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (a).
32 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (c).
33 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (b).
34 P.L. 109-347, Sec. 602 (a).
35 FCC, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, December 14, 2007, PS Docket No. 07-287.
36 FCC, First Report and Order, April 9, 2008, PS Docket No. 07-287 (FCC 08-99).
Congressional Research Service
9
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
The FCC continues to refine the rules for providing CMAS. The most recent set of requirements
is contained in the Third Report and Order, released August 7, 2008 (Docket No. 07-287). The
WARN Act did not provide a mandatory deadline for the implementation of CMAS.
The NCP Directorate will take on the responsibility of acting as a gateway and aggregator of
alerts for dissemination through CMAS.37 On December 7, 2009, FEMA and the FCC jointly
announced that FEMA had adopted the CMAS Government Interface Design specifications. This
triggered requirements in the Third Report and Order for wireless carriers that have agreed to
participate in the CMAS program to begin development and testing. The deadlines established by
the FCC give these carriers until April 7, 2012, to provide CMAS alerts sent through the IPAWS
gateway.38 According to press reports, the major wireless carriers have indicated that they will
participate in the program.39
The Future of IPAWS
In the long term, IPAWS should be able to accept any legitimate alert or action announcement,
verify it, and relay it to a wide variety of devices. Information about natural or manmade hazards
would go to broadcast media, to marine and weather radios, over the Internet, to cell phones and
other wireless devices, to electronic signs, and any other device programmed to accept alert
signals. Messages could be to specific geographic areas (geo-location). Information would be
available in multiple languages and formats accessible to those with special needs. The
technology to achieve this would reside in servers that would act as information gateways. The
keystone of this information network would be the IPAWS server, or servers, that manages the
alert or other information.
Emergency Alerts and Congressional Initiatives
The 111th Congress is considering new measures to improve the nation’s capability to provide
alerts and information before, during, and after an emergency. Two bills would write requirements
for IPAWS into law, by amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act. These are H.R. 2591 (Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization
Act of 2009, Representative Diaz-Balart), and H.R. 3377 (Disaster Response, Recovery, and
Mitigation Enhancement Act of 2009, Representative Oberstar. The bills echo elements from
three bills introduced in the 110th Congress: the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
Modernization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6038, Graves), the Alerting Lives Through Effective and
Reliable Technological Systems (ALERTS) Act (H.R. 6392, Cuellar)and the Disaster Response,
Recovery, and Mitigation Enhancement Act of 2008 (H.R. 6658, Oberstar). As in these previous
bills, these similar bills seek to improve the performance of the public alert and warning system
by laying out criteria for performance and implementation.40 The criteria provided in the bills
37 “Nationwide Emergency Mobile Telephone Alert System Soon to Be Realized,” Press Release, U.S. House of
Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, May 30, 2008.
38 FCC Public Notice, “FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Sets Timetable in Motion for Commercial
Mobile Alert Service Providers to Develop a System that Will Deliver Alerts to Mobile Devices,” December 7, 2009 at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2556A1.pdf.
39 Daily Report for Executives, “FCC, FEMA Initiate Testing Phase of Wireless Emergency Alert System,” by Alexel
Alexis, December 8, 2009.
40 H.R. 2591, Sec. 2, (a).
Congressional Research Service
10
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazard Warnings
embody many best practices advocated by the emergency planning and response community and
many of these practices have been tested or implemented, albeit not on a nationwide basis.
Both bills would authorize $37 million for FY2010 and such sums as are necessary for
subsequent years to conduct pilot programs to demonstrate the feasibility of system requirements.
They would give the responsibility for the design of a public alert and warning system to a
committee, the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Advisory Committee. This
committee’s membership would include federal, state, and local government representatives and
representatives from many sectors of the communications industry, among others. Within a year
of enactment, the committee would be required to submit its recommendations for a public alert
and warning system.
In the Senate, Senators Lieberman and Collins have introduced two bills that touch on the
emergency alert system and its planning. The WMD Prevention and Preparedness Act of 2009 (S.
1649) is intended “to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to prepare for
attacks using weapons of mass destruction, and for other purposes.” Title II, Subtitle C of the bill
addresses the need for communications planning and lays out a number of requirements. The bill
specifically would set planning requirements for the National Response Framework. It also lays
out a number of requirements for the formatting and sending of alert messages, but without
reference to EAS or IPAWS. The bill also would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to
expedite the development and distribution of models that would track and predict the direction of
toxic plumes and would disseminate the information for use in emergency response. The
Common Alerting Protocol that is being implemented in IPAWS has this capability. Also
introduced is the Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Enhancement Act of 2009 (S.
1755); among its provisions, it would require that DHS prepare a study on the uses and
capabilities of Amateur Radio operations in emergencies and disaster relief.
Author Contact Information
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
lmoore@crs.loc.gov, 7-5853
Congressional Research Service
11