Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency Alert System Has	 
Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated System Will Be  
Challenging (30-MAR-07, GAO-07-411).				 
                                                                 
During emergencies, the public needs accurate and timely	 
information. Through the Emergency Alert System (EAS), the media 
play a pivotal role, assisting emergency management personnel in 
communicating to the public. GAO reviewed (1) the media's ability
to meet federal requirements for participating in EAS, (2)	 
stakeholder views on the challenges facing EAS and potential	 
changes to it, and (3) the progress made toward developing an	 
integrated alert system. GAO reviewed the Federal Communications 
Commission's (FCC) proposed rulemaking on EAS and interviewed	 
media outlets, state emergency management officials, and federal 
agencies responsible for EAS, including FCC and the Federal	 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within the Department of	 
Homeland Security (DHS).					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-411 					        
    ACCNO:   A67573						        
  TITLE:     Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency Alert System   
Has Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated System Will 
Be Challenging							 
     DATE:   03/30/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Cable television					 
	     Emergency preparedness				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Mass media 					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Radio						 
	     Satellite television				 
	     Standards						 
	     Systems integration				 
	     Television 					 
	     Warning systems					 
	     Pilot programs					 
	     Stakeholder consultations				 
	     Emergency Alert System				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-411

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]Media Appear Generally Prepared for Required Participation i

          * [4]Media Outlets Appear Generally Able to Meet Federal EAS Requ
          * [5]Media Outlets Broadcast State and Local Alerts Voluntarily
          * [6]The Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations

     * [7]Stakeholders Have Identified Various Challenges Facing the C
     * [8]Several Projects Are Underway to Develop an Integrated Publi

          * [9]FEMA Pilot Projects and Other Initiatives Aim to Integrate t
          * [10]Stakeholders Cited Challenges to the Implementation of an In

     * [11]Conclusions
     * [12]Recommendations for Executive Action
     * [13]Agency Comments
     * [14]GAO's Mission
     * [15]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [16]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [17]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [18]Congressional Relations
     * [19]Public Affairs

Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

March 2007

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations, and Development of a New
Integrated System Will Be Challenging

GAO-07-411

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 5
Media Appear Generally Prepared for Required Participation in Emergency
Communications, but the Current National Alert System Has Limitations 9
Stakeholders Have Identified Various Challenges Facing the Current
Emergency Alert System and Hold Differing Views on the Proposed Changes to
the System 17
Several Projects Are Underway to Develop an Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, but Challenges to Its Implementation Remain 24
Conclusions 30
Recommendations for Executive Action 31
Agency Comments 31
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35
Appendix II Public-Private Partnerships Involved in Emergency
Communications 37
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 40

Table

Table 1: Case Study States and Entities We Contacted 36

Figures

Figure 1: Flowchart of National-level EAS 7
Figure 2: FEMA's Vision of an Integrated Alert and Warning System 26

Abbreviations

ABIP Alternative Broadcast Inspection Program
AMBER America's Missing Broadcast Emergency Response
CAP Common Alerting Protocols
DBS Direct Broadcast Satellite
DEAS Digital Emergency Alert System
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EAS Emergency Alert System
FCC Federal Communications Commission
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
MSRC Media Security and Reliability Council
NAB National Association of Broadcasters
NCAM National Center for Accessible Media
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPR National Public Radio
NWS National Weather Service
PEP Primary Entry Point
PPW Partnership for Public Warning
SMS Short Message Service
WARN Act Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 30, 2007 March 30, 2007

Congressional Committees

Effective emergency warnings via various telecommunications modes allow
people to take actions that save lives, reduce damage, and reduce human
suffering. Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, highlighted the need for timely, accurate emergency information and
underscored the vulnerability of America's emergency response
infrastructure. Hurricane Katrina, in particular, severely tested the
reliability and resiliency of the communications infrastructure in the
Gulf Coast region. For example, according to an independent panel
reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina, in the aftermath of the storm,
approximately 100 broadcast stations were unable to transmit, hundreds of
thousands of cable customers lost service, millions of customers'
telephone lines were knocked out of service, and even the generally
resilient public safety networks experienced massive outages. The
Emergency Alert System (EAS), which relies primarily on broadcast media,
is one of the mainstays of the United States' capacity to issue warnings.
The nation's first alert system was begun in the 1950s as part of
America's response to the threat of a nuclear attack, and today EAS
remains a tool for the President to issue messages preempting all other
broadcast programming. Concern has arisen that the current alert system is
inadequate for effectively warning the public about natural disasters or
terrorist attacks, as well as for providing information on how to respond
to a disaster or attack. The current system was not designed to alert the
public on devices other than radios or televisions. The federal
government, recognizing some of the shortfalls of the current system, has
initiatives underway to improve its reliability, expand it to include new
technologies, and integrate the new technologies into the existing alert
system. Effective emergency warnings via various telecommunications modes
allow people to take actions that save lives, reduce damage, and reduce
human suffering. Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, highlighted the need for timely, accurate emergency information
and underscored the vulnerability of America's emergency response
infrastructure. Hurricane Katrina, in particular, severely tested the
reliability and resiliency of the communications infrastructure in the
Gulf Coast region. For example, according to an independent panel
reviewing the impact of Hurricane Katrina, in the aftermath of the storm,
approximately 100 broadcast stations were unable to transmit, hundreds of
thousands of cable customers lost service, millions of customers'
telephone lines were knocked out of service, and even the generally
resilient public safety networks experienced massive outages. The
Emergency Alert System (EAS), which relies primarily on broadcast media,
is one of the mainstays of the United States' capacity to issue warnings.
The nation's first alert system was begun in the 1950s as part of
America's response to the threat of a nuclear attack, and today EAS
remains a tool for the President to issue messages preempting all other
broadcast programming. Concern has arisen that the current alert system is
inadequate for effectively warning the public about natural disasters or
terrorist attacks, as well as for providing information on how to respond
to a disaster or attack. The current system was not designed to alert the
public on devices other than radios or televisions. The federal
government, recognizing some of the shortfalls of the current system, has
initiatives underway to improve its reliability, expand it to include new
technologies, and integrate the new technologies into the existing alert
system.

This report, initiated under GAO's general authority to examine government
operations, provides information on issues surrounding emergency
communications. In particular, we reviewed (1) the media's ability to meet
federal requirements for participating in the Emergency Alert System, (2)
stakeholder views on the challenges facing the Emergency Alert System and
potential changes to it, and (3) the progress made toward developing an
integrated public alert and warning system. This report, initiated under
GAO's general authority to examine government operations, provides
information on issues surrounding emergency communications. In particular,
we reviewed (1) the media's ability to meet federal requirements for
participating in the Emergency Alert System, (2) stakeholder views on the
challenges facing the Emergency Alert System and potential changes to it,
and (3) the progress made toward developing an integrated public alert and
warning system.

To meet these objectives, we interviewed over 40 representatives of media
providers, including radio and television broadcasters, cable companies,
To meet these objectives, we interviewed over 40 representatives of media
providers, including radio and television broadcasters, cable companies,
and satellite operators, as well as state EAS contacts, state and local
emergency management officials, state broadcasting associations, and local
cable associations. For the state and local contacts, we conducted
interviews in seven selected states, California, Florida, Kansas,
Mississippi, New York, Texas, and Virginia. We selected geographically
diverse states that had recently experienced major natural disasters or
man-made emergencies. We met with officials of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
Department of Commerce's National Weather Service, and the National
Academy of Engineering, a division of the National Academy of Sciences. We
reviewed FCC's proposed rulemaking related to EAS and the comments FCC
received on the rulemaking. We also spoke with industry trade groups
representing broadcast television and radio stations, cable operators,
wireless service providers, public television, and the disabled community.
A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology appears in
appendix I. We performed our review from April 2006 through January 2007
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief

According to stakeholders, the media are generally prepared to participate
in EAS as required, but EAS has limitations that could adversely affect
its performance. FCC requires broadcast radio and television stations,
cable operators, and satellite radio operators to participate in
national-level EAS alerts. Direct broadcast satellite television operators
will become subject to the requirements in May 2007. To ensure that the
media can participate in EAS, FCC has requirements for equipment and
testing that are a condition of licensing, but it does not require
broadcasters to certify their compliance, and inspects, on average, about
2 percent of licensed broadcasters and cable operators per year. While
stakeholders told us, and we found during our visits, that media outlets
generally appear equipped to issue an EAS alert as required, FEMA
officials also told us, and we found, that individual outlets vary in
their preparedness to participate in emergency communications. For
example, one broadcaster said it conducts training drills and has a
disaster plan that includes backup power generators and fuel to sustain
operations for 2 to 3 days, while another broadcaster told us it does not
have a disaster plan or a backup generator. In addition, stakeholders,
including FEMA representatives, told us EAS has limitations that could
constrain operations during an emergency. In particular, stakeholders
expressed concern about the reliability of the relay system that would be
used to disseminate national EAS messages to the public, saying it lacks
redundancy and is vulnerable to power outages. Testing of the relay system
is not required. As a result, FEMA and FCC might not be able to assure
Congress and the public that the EAS relay system would work in the event
of a national-level emergency. Furthermore, in a partial test of the
national system, conducted in January 2007, 3 of the 33 available primary
relay stations failed to effectively relay the test message.^1 According
to a state emergency communications committee, in a state test, the
message was not received beyond an area roughly 50 to 70 miles from the
state capital. Other limitations of EAS, stakeholders said, were
inadequate training of EAS personnel and a lack of coordination among
state and local stakeholders. To ensure that EAS is capable of operating
as intended, we are recommending that FEMA and FCC develop and implement a
plan to verify (1) the dependability and effectiveness of the relay system
that would be used to disseminate national EAS alerts, and (2) EAS
participants have the training and technical skills to issue effective EAS
alerts.

FEMA officials and other stakeholders told us the current EAS faces
technical, cultural, and other challenges, some of which may be addressed
through proposed changes to the system. EAS provides messages over two
media (television and radio), but does not transmit messages via other
communications devices that Americans routinely use, such as cell phones,
personal digital assistants, and computers. In addition, the current EAS
does not facilitate the automatic issuing of alerts in languages other
than English, and its alerts are not accessible to some members of the
disabled community. According to some stakeholders, another challenge is
that while most emergencies originate at the state and local levels, the
broadcast of state and local EAS alerts is voluntary. Recognizing that an
accurate, wide-reaching public alert and warning system is critical to
public safety, FCC proposed changes to EAS in November 2005 to address
some of the challenges facing the current system.^2 Stakeholders we
contacted expressed varying views on the proposed changes. For example,
most favored expanding EAS alerts to other media, such as landline
telephone and wireless service providers. However, stakeholders differed
over whether broadcasts of state and local EAS alerts should be
mandatory--the emergency managers generally favored this idea, but the
broadcasters expressed concern that it could result in overalerting, which
could lead the public to ignore EAS messages. Stakeholders also expressed
a range of views on whether alerts should be issued in languages other
than English and on how alerts could be made more accessible for the
disabled.

^1 One primary relay station was moving and was not available for the
test.

^2The potential changes contemplate (1) requiring the mandatory broadcast
of state and local EAS alerts; (2) expanding EAS alerts to other media;
(3) issuing multilingual EAS alerts; (4) making EAS alerts more accessible
to persons with disabilities; (5) distributing alerts to media directly,
rather than using the hierarchical relay system; (6) establishing
performance standards to ensure EAS alerts are accurate and timely; and
(7) adopting common alerting protocols for EAS alerts. According the FCC,
the Commission circulated a Second Report and Order in the EAS rulemaking
proceeding that addresses various issues raised in the November 2005
further notice of proposed rulemaking including (1)extension of EAS to
other media, (2) transmission of EAS alerts issued by governors, and (3)
issues related to the development of a next-generation EAS.

Several federal efforts to develop an integrated public alert and warning
system--one that, ideally, would provide effective warnings at all times,
in all places, under all conditions, and over all broadcast media devices
available to the public--are underway, yet challenges remain. FEMA is
conducting pilot projects under a public-private partnership called the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. One such project, the Digital
Emergency Alert System (DEAS), is testing how the digital capabilities of
the nation's public radio and television stations and other
networks--combined with the voluntary participation of cell phone service
providers, public and commercial radio and television broadcasters,
satellite radio, cable and Internet providers, and equipment
manufacturers--can be used to provide alert and warning information to the
public and to disaster support personnel. Other FEMA projects are designed
to upgrade and expand the relay distribution system, provide more
geographically targeted alerting capabilities, and develop an
Internet-based alerting protocol for federal, state, and local officials
to send and receive alerts using Web technologies. FEMA has also developed
an implementation plan that outlines the agency's vision for an integrated
alert system, and legislation has been enacted that enables the
participation of wireless service providers in EAS. Despite this progress,
challenges remain, including reaching agreement on a standardized
technology for disseminating alerts, gaining collaboration among EAS
stakeholders to ensure that all elements of the system can work together,
providing adequate training for EAS participants, and obtaining adequate
funding. Because of the technological complexities involved in developing
an integrated alert system, and the need for such a wide range of
stakeholders to participate in its development, we are recommending the
establishment of a forum to bring all interested parties together for a
comprehensive, strategic review of the system's implementation.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and FCC for their review and comment. In response, DHS agreed with
the intent of our recommendations and provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate. See appendix III for written comments from
DHS. FCC provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

Background

EAS provides capacity for the United States to issue alerts and warnings
to the public in response to emergencies.^3 Broadcast radio and television
stations, cable television systems, and satellite radio operators are
currently required to participate in national-level (or presidential) EAS
alerts, while participation in state and local EAS alerts is voluntary. To
date, EAS has never been used to transmit a national-level alert. The
first national warning system was created in 1951 to allow the President
to communicate with the nation as part of America's response to the threat
of a nuclear attack. The Emergency Broadcast System replaced this system
in 1963, and state and local participation was allowed in 1976. In 1997,
EAS replaced the Emergency Broadcast System.

For presidential, or national-level, EAS alerts, a hierarchical
distribution system would be used to relay the message. Currently, 34
stations have been designated National Primary stations, often referred to
as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations.^4 As the entry point for national
level EAS messages, FEMA directly distributes presidential EAS alerts to
the PEP stations. Broadcasts of these national-level alerts are relayed by
the PEP stations across the country to radio and television stations that
rebroadcast the message to other broadcast stations and cable systems
until all EAS participants have been alerted.^5 The retransmission of
alerts from EAS participant to EAS participant is commonly referred to as
a "daisy chain" distribution system. FCC requires EAS participants to
install FCC-certified EAS equipment as a condition of licensing. Radio and
television broadcast stations, cable companies, wireless cable companies,
and satellite radio must participate in alerts initiated by the President.
By contrast, their participation in state and local alerts is voluntary.
Under FCC rules, EAS participants have the authority to determine whether
to transmit nonfederal emergency messages.

^3EAS is not part of, or associated with, the Department of Homeland
Security's color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System, which advises
public safety officials and the public at-large through a threat-based,
color-coded system so that protective measures can be implemented to
reduce the likelihood or impact of an attack.

^4FEMA is planning to designate additional PEP stations so that every
state and territory is covered by a resilient PEP radio station. FEMA
plans to expand the number of PEP stations from 34 to 63; 3 PEP stations
will be added in 2007.

^5FEMA has added a direct national-level EAS connection between FEMA and
the public radio satellite and terrestrial backbone so that the
national-level EAS messages are sent directly to about 860 public radio
stations across the country.

FCC promulgated new rules to include digital media carriage of
national-level EAS messages. In an FCC report and order released November
10, 2005, EAS requirements were expanded to include digital communications
over digital television and radio, digital cable, and satellite television
and radio. Companies using these media will be required to install EAS
equipment to handle digital formats.^6 In a further notice of proposed
rulemaking, FCC sought comment on what actions it should take to help
expedite the development of a more comprehensive EAS. We discuss the
proposed changes and stakeholder views on the changes in greater detail
later in this report.

EAS technology uses encoders and decoders (commonly referred to as
"ENDECs") to send data signals recognized as emergency messages. An EAS
alert is originated by an alerting official and sent to a broadcaster
through an FCC-approved ENDEC. 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 EAS messages can use live or
prerecorded audio, including computer-generated text-to-speech audio in
some jurisdictions. All EAS messages carry a unique code that can be
matched to codes embedded in transmitting equipment; this code
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 retransmittal
process at broadcast stations. Figure 1 shows how national-level EAS
alerts are initiated and broadcast.

^6Satellite radio operators were required to participate in national-level
EAS alerts by December 2006, satellite television operators by May 2007.

Figure 1: Flowchart of National-level EAS

EAS is part of an overall public alert and warning system under the
jurisdiction of FEMA, one of the component agencies of DHS. In June 2006,
the President issued an executive order detailing the responsibilities of
the Secretary of Homeland Security as they relate to an integrated and
comprehensive alert and warning system. These responsibilities include
administering EAS as a critical component of the public alert and warning
system. FCC manages EAS participation. FCC currently provides technical
standards and support for EAS, rules for its operation, and enforcement
within the over-the-air broadcast, cable, and satellite broadcast
industries. FEMA works with the emergency response officials, who
typically initiate an EAS message for a state or local emergency.

Several organizations work on issues related to EAS. An FCC federal
advisory committee, called the Media Security and Reliability Council, has
created model disaster recovery plans specific to each media
industry--including broadcast radio and television, cable systems, and
satellite radio and television. Furthermore, in January 2006, FCC
established an independent panel to review the impact of Hurricane Katrina
on communications networks. In a report issued in June 2006, the panel
made several recommendations to FCC related to EAS.^7 Other organizations
that participate in EAS planning and administration include the Primary
Entry Point Administrative Council,^8 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
television and radio stations. These committees agree on the chain of
command and other procedures for activating EAS alerts. See appendix II
for additional information on some of the public-private partnerships
involved in emergency communications.

^7Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks, Report and Recommendations to the Federal
Communications Commission, (Washington D.C.: June 12, 2006).

^8The Primary Entry Point Administrative Council assists DHS and FCC on
matters related to the PEP portion of EAS. The council is also responsible
for managing the installation and maintenance of program-related equipment
at the PEP radio stations.

Media Appear Generally Prepared for Required Participation in Emergency
Communications, but the Current National Alert System Has Limitations

Broadcast radio and television stations, cable operators, and satellite
radio operators are required to participate in national-level EAS alerts,
and satellite television will become subject to the requirements in May of
2007. These media outlets appear generally prepared to meet these
requirements. However, FCC has limited measures in place to ensure
compliance with EAS requirements. The participation of media outlets in
state and local alerts via EAS, such as weather warnings or other
emergency communications issued by state or local entities, is voluntary.
While media outlets are using EAS to broadcast emergency information, FEMA
officials and other EAS participants that we contacted told us the current
system has limitations. Most notably, we heard that the relay system, or
daisy chain, around which EAS is designed to disseminate presidential
alerts requires additional augmentation to improve its reliability.

Media Outlets Appear Generally Able to Meet Federal EAS Requirements, although
FCC Has Limited Measures to Ensure Compliance

FCC requires television, radio, cable,^9 and satellite radio broadcasters
to participate in national-level EAS alerts. As discussed later in more
detail, the television, radio, and cable operators we spoke with said they
were generally prepared to meet the federal requirements. However,
according to FEMA, individual media outlets vary in their technical
preparedness to mitigate against damage from a disaster so they can
continue reporting and providing critical information. A FEMA official
further told us that, in terms of preparedness, broadcasters should
develop plans for continuity of operations during emergencies. For
example, during Hurricane Katrina the U.S. Coast Guard used the services
of a private ship-to-shore communications company because almost all other
sources of communications were inoperable.

Broadcast television and radio: Stakeholders such as the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) stated that broadcasters are the most
reliable and robust media outlets for delivering emergency information to
the public. According to data from FCC, less than 1 percent of radio and
television stations have sought and received waivers from EAS
requirements. The broadcasters (both radio and television) that we visited
told us they had installed the equipment necessary to issue EAS alerts and
indicated that they were prepared to participate in emergency
communications. A state broadcasting association that we contacted
believes the broadcasters in that state are prepared to participate in
emergency communications. Moreover, another state broadcasting association
told us its members are well prepared today to issue EAS alerts in large
part because of the statewide implementation of the America's Missing
Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) Alert system. In particular, the
association said that the statewide implementation and testing of the
AMBER Alert system exposed deficiencies with stations' preparedness to
participate in EAS alerts, such as inadequate training in the use of EAS
equipment and incorrect coding of the ENDEC. The state association said it
addressed these issues by conducting EAS seminars across the state.

^9According to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, some
cable television systems are required by states and localities to
participate in local emergency communications through provisions in local
cable franchise agreements.

Additionally, according to an NAB survey published in 2006, the number of
television and radio stations with written disaster recovery plans has
increased since 2003. Of those stations responding to NAB's survey, the
portion with written disaster recovery plans had increased from 47 percent
to 71 percent for television stations and from 15 percent to 49 percent
for radio stations from 2003 to 2006. However, it was not clear, from our
discussions with broadcasters, how extensively these plans have been
implemented and tested. For example, one broadcaster we contacted told us
it does not have a disaster recovery plan or a backup power generator at
the station. As a result, in the event of a power grid failure, the
station could lose the ability to broadcast. However, another broadcaster
told us its station had a disaster recovery plan that included a number of
safeguards designed to ensure the broadcaster could stay on the air during
emergencies. For example, the broadcaster said the plan includes having
backup equipment or redundancy mechanisms for all essential equipment,
including the EAS receiver, backup generators, and fuel for 2 to 3 days in
addition to three separate power feeds connecting the station to the power
grid. The broadcaster said it has conducted training drills simulating
emergency situations and is continually working to improve emergency
preparedness.

Cable: Representatives of the cable industry, as well as officials from
cable systems that we contacted, told us cable systems are generally
prepared to participate in national EAS alerts as required.
Representatives of the cable television industry, as well as various cable
systems officials, said cable systems are passive participants in EAS,
meaning the cable systems typically retransmit EAS alerts
automatically.^10 A cable industry representative told us some smaller
cable systems have sought and received waivers from the federal EAS
requirements. According to FCC, waivers of EAS requirements are currently
in effect for 242 cable systems nationwide. These 242 cable systems are
very small, each with fewer than 100 subscribers, and represent
approximately 8,600 subscribers in total. FCC indicated it grants waivers
because compliance with EAS requirements could represent a significant
financial hardship for very small cable systems.

One issue that might hinder cable companies' participation in emergency
communications is their inability to quickly gain access to their
transmission lines for repairs in the aftermath of an emergency.
Representatives from a cable system told us local officials often deny
cable systems immediate access to repair their transmission lines, which
are located with electrical power lines on utility poles, during or after
emergencies like severe storms. They said cable companies are unable to
repair their lines until power companies have completed any repairs and
yielded access to the utility poles. Representatives from another cable
system told us that law enforcement officials do not consider cable to be
a critical service, a fact that impedes their ability to gain access to
their lines and restore cable service after a disaster. They said cable
should be considered a critical service, given the increasing role of
cable companies in telecommunications and broadband communications and,
hence, as conduits in emergency alerts.

Satellite television: FCC does not require satellite television operators
to comply with EAS requirements until May 31, 2007.^11 However, according
to FEMA, the satellite television operators have been working with FEMA to
ensure they will be able to disseminate EAS alerts. Additionally,
satellite television operators carrying local television stations are
currently passing through EAS messages aired on local television stations.
According to one satellite television operator, the new federal
requirements pose technical challenges, and to comply with the
requirements, the operator would need to develop a system capable of
broadcasting alerts on its channels. According to the operator, it is
working with FCC engineers to set processes and guidelines to implement
EAS, but is still in the early stages of this process.

^10A television broadcaster told us that EAS alerts transmitted by cable
systems could override the broadcasters' local coverage of emergency
events, blocking important late-breaking information with a generic EAS
alert. FCC has declined to adopt rules to prevent cable systems from
overriding broadcast programming when transmitting state or local EAS
alerts. However, it allows cable operators and broadcasters to enter into
agreements in which the parties can agree that cable operators will not
override broadcast programming when transmitting state or local EAS
alerts.

^11The satellite television operators, which are also called Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, include DIRECTV and EchoStar.

Satellite radio: Satellite radio operators were required to participate in
EAS by December 31, 2006.^12 According to one satellite radio operator, an
advantage of using satellite technology is that the transmission of
satellite radio is unaffected by disasters on the ground because the
satellites transmitting programming are located thousands of miles above
the earth. Not only is its infrastructure unaffected by earthbound
disruptions, this satellite radio operator indicated it is also able to
broadcast from a backup operations center.

While media outlets appeared generally prepared to issue EAS messages, we
found FCC has limited measures in place to ensure the media's compliance
with EAS requirements, such as those for installing the proper EAS
equipment and performing the required system tests. Compliance with FCC
regulations and requirements is a condition of receiving a broadcasting
license. However, FCC does not have a specific EAS certification as part
of the licensing process. Furthermore, FCC does not have a comprehensive
program to ensure every licensee complies with EAS requirements. Rather,
FCC inspects a limited number of licensees to ensure compliance with
federal regulations, including EAS requirements. FCC told us it had
conducted approximately 1,800 EAS-specific inspections over the last 3
years--enough to inspect about 2 percent of the licensees subject to EAS
requirements each year.^13 In addition to these inspections, FCC relies on
the private sector to conduct inspections through its Alternative
Broadcast Inspection Program (ABIP). Under this program, which is
administered in conjunction with state broadcast associations, third
parties hired by the broadcast associations conduct inspections of
broadcasters that mirror FCC's inspections. Broadcasters found to be in
compliance receive a certification ensuring that FCC will not inspect the
station for 3 years under normal circumstances. FCC said it can inspect
such a station if, for example, it received a complaint. According to FCC,
all states in the nation participate in ABIP agreements. Besides requiring
licensees to have the proper equipment, FCC requires them to test their
ability to send and receive EAS alerts. Although this equipment testing is
mandatory, FCC does not receive confirmation that the tests were conducted
properly. However, EAS participants are required to maintain logs of their
EAS tests that are subject to FCC inspection and enforcement action in
cases of noncompliance.

^12At the time or our review, the satellite radio industry consisted of
two companies, XM Satellite Radio and SIRIUS.

^13FCC reported that, as of September 14, 2006, there were 18,749
broadcast stations and 7,183 cable systems subject to EAS requirements. On
the basis of the number of inspections reported by FCC over the last 3
years, on average FCC has inspected approximately 2 percent of the
licensees subject to EAS requirements per year.

Media Outlets Broadcast State and Local Alerts Voluntarily

As noted, there has been no national-level EAS alert to date. EAS
participants voluntarily broadcast state and local alerts, such as weather
warnings or other emergency communications. Some television stations we
visited told us they voluntarily issue state and local alerts for business
reasons and to serve the public interest. In particular, we heard from two
television broadcasters that the local broadcast environment is highly
competitive and viewers want emergency information. Consequently, these
television stations provide coverage and analysis of emergencies for an
extended period without interruptions or commercial breaks. Additionally,
in response to Hurricane Katrina, a state broadcast association in the
Gulf Coast region told us broadcasters conveyed continuous information
about shelters, food, how to locate missing friends and relatives, and
where to access assistance.

Satellite television operators, while not yet required to participate in
EAS, told us they participate in emergency communications by voluntarily
providing services to their subscribers. For example, two satellite
television operators told us that when the terrorist attacks of September
11 destroyed the World Trade Center, knocking out broadcasting and cable
services in parts of the New York City area and disrupting the
transmission of information on the disaster, satellite television
operators entered into agreements with broadcasters and cable operators to
provide a local broadcast signal, allowing news stations to provide
service to their customers during the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
Satellite television operators provided this service voluntarily and free
of charge. More recently, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a
satellite television operator said it dedicated a channel full-time to
disseminating emergency-related information. This channel voluntarily
carried messages from FEMA and the American Red Cross, as well as live
press conferences from government and public safety officials.
Additionally, this channel carried local messages on shelters,
transportation, and safety.

Satellite radio operators told us that they carry special emergency
channels and other channels that provide critical information in the event
of regional or national disasters. For example, one satellite radio
operator said it monitors national news organizations, FEMA, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and transmits emergency
information on its dedicated emergency alert channel during a regional or
national disaster. In recent years, for example, this emergency channel
has covered Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes in Florida, a chlorine gas leak
in Atlanta, and flooding in New England. This operator told us the
emergency channel is provided free of charge and can be heard on all the
operator's radios, regardless of subscription. Another satellite radio
operator told us it offers its subscribers channels that broadcast news,
weather, and official emergency information during severe and
life-threatening weather events for selected metropolitan areas. This same
operator has indicated that it is working to create a text override, which
would be displayed on all receivers, directing listeners to turn to the
emergency channel.

The Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations

Although media outlets are using EAS to deliver emergency information,
FEMA officials and other EAS participants told us it has limitations. In
particular, FEMA officials expressed concern about the reliability of the
relay system, or daisy chain, used to disseminate national-level EAS
messages. In addition, they expressed significant concern about the
reliability of electrical power for broadcast stations during disasters,
noting that without electrical power (or fuel for backup generators), a
broadcaster cannot issue emergency alerts.^14 Other stakeholders we
contacted characterized the relay system as antiquated and also identified
potential problems with it. We heard that a lack of redundancy among key
broadcasters makes the current daisy chain system prone to failure. For
example, the chair of a state emergency communications committee told us
redundancy is lacking among the PEP stations, and therefore, if a PEP
station were disabled during a disaster in a major metropolitan area, an
EAS alert would likely fail to reach a sizable portion of the population.
A stakeholder also expressed concern that gaps in radio coverage could
hinder the successful dissemination of EAS alerts. In particular, a
representative of a state broadcast association we contacted indicated
that some radio stations have difficulty in monitoring their PEP because
the PEP is located far away in a neighboring state. Stakeholders also said
the relay system was too slow to transmit EAS alerts to the public in a
timely manner. For example, a technical consultant to a state broadcast
association estimated that it would take an hour to disseminate an EAS
alert throughout the state. Finally, according to the Media Security and
Reliability Council, many states believe the relay system is unreliable
and do not believe an alert would reach the entire state in a real
emergency.

^14Concern over electrical power is one of the chief reasons FEMA works
with the Primary Entry Point Administrative Council to ensure that some
key stations have the fuel and generators necessary to help ensure
continuous operations following a disaster.

To improve the reliability of the relay system, FEMA has added satellite
uplink connectivity to about 860 public radio stations that can receive
national-level alerts from FEMA and provisioned PEP stations in
hurricane-affected regions with satellite terminals. In addition, FEMA
told us it is planning further efforts in 2007 to improve the reliability
of the national-level EAS. These efforts include introducing the Digital
EAS program across the county;^15 adding three new PEP sites in
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida; and providing direct FEMA connectivity
to key radio and television stations through new communications paths
provided by XM Radio and public television.

Despite these efforts to improve the relay system, we found a lack of
ongoing testing to ensure that the system would work as intended during a
national-level alert. FCC requires individual stations to test their EAS
equipment, and FEMA tests the 34 PEP stations, but there is no requirement
for a national-level test of the relay system. On January 8, 2007, FEMA
conducted an over-the-air national-level EAS test. This test, which FEMA
said was the culmination of several years of effort, demonstrated that the
connectivity to the public radio satellite uplink worked effectively.
However, 3 PEP stations failed to receive and effectively rebroadcast the
national-level test message. FEMA attributed these failures to problems
with software (2 stations) and hardware (1 station). According to FEMA,
these problems have been resolved, but questions remain about the
reliability of the relay system, since the test was not designed to reach
the nonpublic radio stations that, together with the public radio
stations, would be responsible for relaying a national-level alert.
Therefore, FEMA and FCC might not be able to assure Congress and the
public that the relay system would work during a national-level emergency.
Indeed, according to a state emergency communications committee, in a
statewide testing of EAS, the relay system did not work as intended and
the message was not received beyond an area roughly 50 to 70 miles from
the state capital. The emergency communications committee indicated that
the stations' encoders were set incorrectly to receive the emergency alert
and control rooms at some of the radio stations were unmanned, so no one
was available to manually retransmit the alerts.

^15For additional information on the Digital EAS program, see the last
section of this report.

Another limitation of the current alerting system, stakeholders said, is
inadequate training for EAS participants, both in the use of EAS equipment
and in the drafting of EAS messages. During the mid-1990s, FEMA provided
training for emergency management personnel through EAS workshops, but it
now offers training only for those emergency managers who are
participating in pilot projects related to the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System.^16 According to the Partnership for Public Warning, EAS
participants require extensive training to properly set up EAS equipment.
The Partnership for Public Warning further reported that personnel using
EAS equipment often lack proper training and that inadequate training is a
main factor preventing the nation from having a unified warning system. It
subsequently recommended training for all EAS stakeholders to ensure that
they are trained and qualified to perform their roles in the use of the
system. Similarly, a presidential advisory group identified that training
of industry personnel to use equipment properly is a problem of EAS. State
and local officials also identified inadequate training as a limitation of
the current EAS. For example, the director of a state emergency
communications committee described the lack of EAS training for emergency
personnel who craft the messages as the primary challenge facing his
state's EAS. The director further noted that turnover among these
emergency personnel is frequent and creates a constant need for EAS
training. In addition, a state EAS chair described inadequate training of
personnel in crafting EAS alerts as a significant limitation. A county
emergency manager elaborated, developing a hypothetical example of a
poorly crafted EAS message that could unnecessarily panic the public. He
said an EAS alert warning of flooding in "West Texas" could be interpreted
as referring to a city called West, Texas, or to the entire western
portion of the state. If the city alone was affected, but the western
portion of the state was understood, the alert could be broadcast far
beyond the affected areas, causing unnecessary panic. However, he said, a
situation like this could likely be avoided by providing additional
instruction for emergency personnel on how to create effective EAS
messages. Additionally, a local emergency communications committee
chairman added that local government officials and emergency responders
are generally unaware of the capabilities of EAS and underutilize the
system. He told us additional training could help address this situation.

^16For information on these pilot projects, see the last section of this
report.

A final limitation of EAS that we heard about was a lack of coordination
among EAS stakeholders at the state and local levels. A member of a state
emergency communications committee said that, historically, there has been
little coordination between the media and the state emergency management
office and that the broadcast industry had little involvement in his
state's initial EAS plan. A participant from the Media Security and
Reliability Council noted that coordination among broadcast media and
other local stakeholders during emergencies is a major issue that has yet
to be addressed. Such coordination could be achieved through the
development of detailed regional and local emergency response plans, which
would coordinate the actions of local officials and broadcasters in
response to emergencies. He said to date, such plans have largely not been
developed. In one case, we heard of a lack of coordination among
stakeholders on the use of EAS. In particular, a local radio broadcaster,
which also serves as a PEP for a major metropolitan area, told us it no
longer automatically relays EAS alerts issued by the National Weather
Service (NWS). He said broadcasters are displeased with the increase in
programming interruptions resulting from NWS's increase in EAS
activations.

Stakeholders Have Identified Various Challenges Facing the Current Emergency
Alert System and Hold Differing Views on the Proposed Changes to the System

We heard from various stakeholders that the current EAS faces many
challenges, making it not fully conducive to the technical capabilities or
the cultural needs of the nation's increasingly mobile, disparate, and
diverse population. For example, the current system provides alerts via
television and radio only and does not issue alerts in multiple languages.
In addition, EAS has limited geo-targeted ability--that is, it cannot
target alert messages to a specific geographic location, and as discussed
earlier, it uses an antiquated relay system that some stakeholders believe
is unreliable for disseminating national-level alerts. Even though
millions of Americans have hearing loss or vision trouble,^17 FEMA and
others have said that EAS has poor alerting capabilities for the disabled
community. Furthermore, while we heard that most emergencies originate at
the state and local levels, the broadcast of state and local EAS alerts is
not federally mandated. Ideally, FEMA said the system should be able to
provide federal, state, and local emergency management officials with
multiple means (voice, data, and video using radios, televisions, cell
phones, e-mail, computer devices, pagers, sirens, loudspeakers, and other
technologies) to inform the broadest possible public with coordinated
alerts. Recognizing that an accurate, wide-reaching public alert and
warning system is critical to public safety, in November 2005, FCC
proposed changes to EAS to address some of these challenges. The potential
changes include (1) requiring the mandatory broadcast of state and local
EAS alerts, (2) expanding EAS alerts to other media, (3) issuing
multilingual EAS alerts, (4) making EAS alerts more accessible to persons
with disabilities, (5) distributing alerts to media directly rather than
using the hierarchical relay system, (6) establishing performance
standards to ensure accurate and timely EAS alerts, and (7) adopting
common alerting protocols for EAS alerts. As discussed in the remainder of
this section of the report, we found stakeholders' views on the impact of
the potential changes varied.

^17According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the
United States, there are 35.1 million adults with hearing trouble and 19.1
million with vision trouble.

Mandatory broadcast of state and local EAS alerts: As stated previously,
the broadcast of state and local EAS alerts is voluntary, and FCC sought
comment on whether it should require EAS participants to broadcast state
and local alerts. The stakeholders we contacted held divergent views on
this proposed change. Supporters of expanding EAS requirements to cover
local alerts generally included state and local emergency managers but
also broadcast media and cable representatives, who told us they believe
the requirement will result in a more effective system. For example, one
emergency manager said that all emergencies start locally and EAS needs to
consider the needs of state and local entities in order to be effective. A
media operator told us it supports this proposed requirement because an
effective EAS requires more than the voluntary participation of the media
outlets. However, this operator also supports constraints on these
requirements to prevent overalerting--that is, issuing so many alerts that
the public ignores them. Other supporters suggested conditions for new
requirements such as obtaining the support of all stakeholders and leaving
the implementation of the requirement to each state.

Media providers and media advocacy groups that opposed the expansion of
EAS requirements to cover state and local alerts cited various reasons,
including concerns about decreasing the amount of information communicated
during an emergency, difficulties filtering large numbers of messages, and
business concerns. According to one media operator, mandating state and
local EAS alerts could limit the amount of information provided to viewers
if an alert providing general or outdated information preempted an alert
providing detailed, current information. The operator also said that it
could support the requirement if it specified a time frame for the alert
to air, so as to not interrupt coverage. Other opponents of expansion told
us that voluntarily issuing state and local alerts allows them to filter
out poorly drafted or irrelevant messages. For example, one broadcasters
association said that requiring EAS participants to issue state and local
alerts would give media operators no flexibility in dealing with badly
written messages. This association thinks that if a requirement exists,
the originators of EAS messages will have no reason to make certain the
messages are clearly worded and their audio quality is high. A media
provider also expressed concern about overalerting the public and said the
broadcasters need to be able to filter out irrelevant information.
According to this provider, voluntary alerts create a balance of power
that allows media providers to issue alerts only when they are
appropriate, thereby preventing the system from being abused or overused.
Other stakeholders maintained that requiring state and local alerts would
be an ineffective means of alerting the public because the alerts lack
geographic specificity. According to these stakeholders, greater use of
widespread alerts by media providers would increase spillover
effects--that is, inattention to alerts resulting from the receipt of too
many inapplicable warnings. Satellite radio operators also expressed
concern about overalerting. Moreover, they told us the national footprint
of satellite programming makes issuing state and local EAS alerts
problematic, since a local alert would be issued nationwide and all
subscribers would receive all alerts. Finally, stakeholders cited business
concerns as reasons for opposing this proposal. One media operator said
mandatory alerts interfere with business because each hour of programming
has a limited number of minutes allotted to sell commercials, and each EAS
alert results in lost revenue for the operator.

Expanding EAS alerts to other media: EAS's current reliance on
broadcasters, cable systems, and satellite radio providers to transmit
emergency messages renders other important communications devices, such as
cell phones, personal digital assistants, and computers--devices that many
Americans use repeatedly in their daily lives--immaterial for emergency
communications. FCC sought comment on including additional media in EAS,
such as landline telephone providers and wireless service providers.
According to a representative of the commercial mobile (wireless)
industry, wireless providers did not favor a mandate requiring their
participation in EAS. However, the representative said that major
commercial mobile service providers recognize the value of emergency
alerts, particularly because of their participation in the Wireless AMBER
Alert system, and would be willing to participate in a national emergency
alert system that reflects the recommendations of the advisory panel
established by the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act (WARN Act) to
examine this issue.^18

Most other stakeholders favored expanding EAS to other forms of media,
saying doing so would ensure that EAS alerts reach a wider audience.
Stakeholders believed using multiple forms of media would broaden the
reach of an EAS alert, given the trend toward an increasingly splintered
media audience and increasing diversity in modern communications.
Stakeholders believed an ideal warning system should reach the public
through a variety of media forms. Other stakeholders said the expansion of
EAS to other media would be fair, given the current EAS requirements for
traditional broadcasters.

Stakeholders who did not favor expanding EAS requirements to other media
expressed several concerns, suggesting that policymakers should first
address the shortcomings of the current EAS before expanding it to other
media. A radio broadcaster said any expansion of EAS to other media should
not result in additional requirements for broadcasters. Rather, the
broadcaster said, the burden of accommodating other forms of media should
be the responsibility of EAS alert originators. Another stakeholder
questioned the efficacy of expanding EAS to commercial mobile service
devices (i.e., cell phones), claiming such networks are likely to become
overloaded and fail in an emergency.

Multilingual EAS messages: EAS alerts provided only in English might not
be understood by non-English speakers living in the United States. Until
FCC and the media address this issue, FCC proposed that multilingual
emergency information be provided in areas where a significant proportion
of the population is primarily fluent in a language other than English.
FCC asked for comment on other proposals about how best to alert
non-English speakers. The stakeholders we contacted had divergent views in
terms of requiring multilingual alerts. The majority of broadcasters we
spoke with were not in favor of mandating multilingual alerts, preferring
compliance to be voluntary. They cited numerous challenges associated with
requiring multilingual alerts, including potential technical difficulties
to issue alerts in more than one language at a time. In particular, we
heard it is difficult to transmit clearly worded and recoded messages on
time for multilingual alerts, and that if two separate messages were
issued (one in English and one in another language), the equipment might
construe the first message as an error and delete it. Any message delays
could have negative consequences for the public. Broadcasters and others
expressed a fundamental concern about choosing how other languages would
be chosen to issue the alerts. Some broadcasters serving major
metropolitan areas told us many languages are spoken in their communities,
so it would be problematic to choose just one non-English language for the
EAS alerts. One broadcaster told us his radio station does not have the
staff to translate EAS alerts into other languages, but if the station
received the multilingual alerts, it would try to pass them along.

^18The Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act was enacted on October 13,
2006, as title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act,
Pub. L. 109-347. Additional information on the act can be found in the
last section of this report.

One emergency manager we contacted voiced support for multilingual alerts
and believed that requiring them is long overdue, especially in
communities that are becoming increasingly diverse and economically
disadvantaged. Furthermore, one broadcasters association mentioned that
during Hurricane Katrina and its immediate aftermath, as many as 300,000
people were without emergency information because they did not speak
English fluently and emergency information was unavailable in any language
other than English. Another emergency manager told us that some rural
counties in his state have large migrant worker populations that do not
speak English; however, there are no emergency communications targeted to
non-English speakers in those areas.

Accessibility to persons with disabilities: According to the National
Center for Health Statistics, there are approximately 54 million adults in
the United States with some level of hearing or vision trouble. FEMA and
others have said EAS has poor alerting capabilities for the disabled
community. FCC said that it is committed to ensuring that persons with
disabilities have equal access to public warnings and are considered in
emergency preparedness planning. FCC sought comment on making EAS alerts
more accessible to people with disabilities. While stakeholders were not
opposed to making alerts more accessible, many believed accessibility
could be addressed at the individual level. For example, eight
stakeholders we interviewed said that improving access to EAS alerts for
the disabled could be done at the individual level. According to these
stakeholders, access can be improved through multiple sensory alerting
devices, such as bed shakers, vibrating pagers, and flashing lights, as
well as by subscription to additional alert systems, which deliver
important emergency alerts, notifications, and updates during major
crises. One stakeholder we interviewed told us about a system that sends
emergency information to registered devices such as e-mail accounts, cell
phones, text pagers, satellite phones, and wireless personal digital
assistants.

Organizations representing the disabled have said that individuals with
hearing and vision disabilities are subject to inconsistent aural and
visual information in EAS alerts. They also told us that because of
inadequate captioning during breaking news events and the lack of an audio
description of crawling text alerts, those with hearing and vision
disabilities can miss vital information during emergencies. One
organization said that disabled individuals currently have less access to
EAS messages than they did in the past, because video alert messages
include only truncated versions of audio alert messages, make increased
use of crawling text and on-screen graphics with no related audio
information, and do not comply with related captioning mandates.

The National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM), a research and
development facility dedicated to media and information technology issues
for people with disabilities, compiled a working draft of information
requirements intended to improve access to emergency alerts. According to
NCAM's information model, a warning message should be compatible with
various transmission systems and provide warning message details in text,
audio, multiple languages, and images or other visual forms. Additionally,
NCAM's information model recommends the use of multiple presentation forms
appropriate to the needs of individual recipients; the appropriate use of
font size, foreground/background color, and other visual attributes in
image and text presentations; and the use of appropriate language for
comprehension by the at-risk audience.

Point-to-multipoint distribution of EAS alerts: The current EAS uses a
relay system to distribute national-level emergency alerts, which--as
mentioned previously--some EAS participants view as unreliable. FEMA has
added satellite uplink connectivity to approximately 860 public radio
stations so that they can receive national-level alerts directly. FCC
sought comment on whether EAS alerts should be distributed directly to
media outlets in a point-to-multipoint distribution system, rather than
through the relay system. The stakeholders we contacted who offered
opinions on this issue overwhelmingly favored the point-to-multipoint
distribution, but some expressed concerns about the technical difficulties
associated with its implementation. For example, a representative from a
PEP station expressed concern that implementing a point-to-multipoint
system would be challenging given the increasing prevalence of automated
stations in the commercial radio industry. The representative also
expressed concern that stations located in downtown areas might not be
able to receive alerts in a satellite-based system because buildings often
block the sight lines that are required to receive such satellite signals.
According to a state broadcast association representative and a broadcast
engineer, a point-to-multipoint system would require more levels of
redundancy than EAS currently has. The engineer further told us that
attempts to develop a satellite-based point-to-multipoint alert
distribution system in his state had been unsuccessful despite significant
investments of time and funds.

Performance standards: Currently no performance standards exist to ensure
that the American public receives accurate, timely alerts and warnings.
FCC sought comment on whether performance standards are necessary. Most of
our interviewees agreed that developing performance standards would help
to ensure accurate, timely alerts. According to one emergency manager,
developing performance standards is very important because everyone learns
from mistakes, so the system would continue to improve and the public
would be more likely to receive accurate and timely alerts. A broadcast
association representative told us that FCC should have a role in
determining performance standards for EAS alerts to ensure high-quality
messages and proper standards for operating EAS equipment.

Common alerting protocols: Endorsed by many entities responsible for
alerts, Common Alerting Protocols (CAP) might offer the most practical
means of quickly creating an effective interface between the emergency
manager and multiple emergency alert systems to improve national alert and
warning capability. FCC sought comment on whether common protocols are
necessary for the rapid flow of emergency alerts to the public. The
majority of stakeholders we contacted who were knowledgeable about CAP
supported its adoption. According to Society of Broadcast Engineers
comments filed with FCC, CAP will provide a universal language that can be
understood by the growing array of digital communication devices. The
comments indicated that CAP has the potential to become the language
translator not only for incoming and outgoing warnings but also for
non-EAS alerts and advisories. For example, CAP's capabilities can be used
to trigger sirens, which would benefit those with visual impairments.
According to a chief information officer of one state, adopting CAP is the
key to success for any public warning system. However, the system should
be open--that is, nonproprietary. He further said that CAP should evolve
through an inclusive process that takes into account the opinions and
needs of all stakeholders, including television, radio, microwave, and
satellite services providers, among others.

Several Projects Are Underway to Develop an Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System, but Challenges to Its Implementation Remain

According to FCC, several federal initiatives are underway to improve,
expand, and integrate existing warning systems. For example, FEMA is
conducting various pilot projects under a public-private partnership
called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System and has also
developed an implementation plan that outlines its vision for an
integrated alert system. Legislation has also been enacted that enables
the participation of wireless service providers in EAS. Despite this
progress, FEMA officials and other stakeholders said challenges to the
implementation of an integrated system remain, including issues associated
with coordination, training, and funding.

FEMA Pilot Projects and Other Initiatives Aim to Integrate the Emergency Alert
System

FEMA officials told us they are trying to develop a technologically
enhanced alert and warning system that provides effective warnings at all
times, in all places, under all conditions, and over all broadcast media
devices available to the public. According to FEMA, the new integrated
system will build on the current EAS and leverage advanced communications
technologies to provide additional methods of originating and
disseminating EAS messages. The agency has established various pilot
projects related to the development of an integrated public alert and
warning system. One such pilot, called the Digital Emergency Alert System,
is testing how the digital capabilities of our nation's public radio and
television stations and other networks--combined with the voluntary
participation of cell phone service providers; public and commercial radio
and television broadcasters; satellite radio, cable, and Internet
providers; and equipment manufacturers--can be used to provide alert and
warning information to the public and to disaster support personnel. As
stated by FEMA, a goal of the pilot is to expand the system so that
everyone, regardless of location or time of day, will receive emergency
information. The national DEAS pilot will run for 1 year beginning in
January 2007, with all public broadcasting stations (over 300 nationwide)
to be DEAS-enabled by December 2007. In conjunction with DEAS, FEMA plans
to upgrade the existing EAS network. To provide a resilient PEP radio
station for every state and territory, FEMA plans to eventually expand the
number of PEP stations from 34 to 63, and will add 3 PEP stations in 2007.
FEMA has also recently provided satellite connectivity to 15 existing PEP
radio stations in hurricane-affected states and territories (12 states and
2 territories). Furthermore, FEMA is working with the Primary Entry Point
Administrative Council to provide equipment and technical support to five
radio stations in the Gulf Coast states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama, and Florida) to help ensure they are prepared for the 2007
hurricane season and other future storms or disasters.

Other FEMA initiatives include the (1) development of the Geo-Targeted
Alerting System, (2) piloting of the DHS Web Alert and Relay Network, and
(3) provisioning of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
all-hazards radios for public schools. The Geo-Targeted Alerting System is
a pilot program to integrate near-real-time weather and hazard predictions
and provide geo-targeted alerting to homes, buildings, and neighborhoods
via cell phones, landline phones, pagers, desktop computers, sirens, and
other geo-aware devices. This pilot is planned to conclude in 2007 with
the development of a national Geo-Targeted Alerting System deployment
plan. The Web Alert and Relay Network is a pilot program to enable
federal, state, and local officials to send and receive alerts using Web
technologies, and to provide links to state and local alert and warning
Web pages. This relay network pilot started in 2005 and is expected to
extend to all states and territories by 2011. Last, DHS has provided
all-hazards NOAA weather radios to 16,000 public schools and plans to
ensure that all remaining public schools in the United States have the
radios by 2011.

FEMA has also developed an implementation plan outlining its vision for an
integrated alert system, which FEMA summarizes as "one message over more
channels to more people at all times and places." The plan outlines
various tasks related to executing the integrated alert and warning system
that are designed to ensure, among other things, that the President can
alert and warn the American people under all conditions. One key task is
for FEMA to consult, coordinate, and cooperate with private and public
sector entities, including communications media organizations and federal,
state, territorial, tribal, and local governmental authorities, including
emergency response providers, as appropriate. As shown in figure 2, with
an integrated alerting system, FEMA envisions coordinated messages
traveling over more channels to reach the public through multiple media
devices, including cell phones, pagers, road signs, and the Internet, as
well as the existing EAS technologies.

Figure 2: FEMA's Vision of an Integrated Alert and Warning System

Also related to the development of an integrated alert system is the
enactment of the WARN Act.^19 The act requires FCC to complete a
rulemaking proceeding to adopt relevant technical standards, protocols,
procedures, and other technical requirements necessary to enable
commercial mobile service providers (wireless providers) to issue
emergency alerts. The act provides for the appointment of an advisory
panel, called the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee,^20
to recommend the technical specifications and protocols that will govern
wireless providers that choose to participate in emergency alerting. The
advisory panel is to submit its recommendations to FCC within 1 year of
October 13, 2006, the date of the act's passage. Subsequently, the act
requires FCC to complete rulemaking proceedings to adopt relevant
technical standards and to allow wireless providers to transmit emergency
alerts. Thereafter, wireless providers will have 30 days to elect to
participate in emergency alerts. Wireless providers must either choose to
participate in emergency alerting or inform both their new and existing
customers that they do not provide this service. Thus, if the act's
deadlines are met, wireless providers will be able to elect to participate
in emergency alerts starting not later than September 2008. The committee
is chaired by the FCC Chairman and includes 42 other members representing
stakeholders in government (at the federal, state, local, and tribal
levels), the wireless communications industry, broadcasters, the disabled
community, and other subject area experts.

Stakeholders Cited Challenges to the Implementation of an Integrated Alert
System

FEMA officials believe an integrated alert system will have advantages
over the current system but told us challenges to its implementation
remain. A key challenge, FEMA said, is gaining the cooperation of federal,
state, and local emergency management organizations on the use of a
standardized technology for disseminating alerts. Many believe a
standardized technology, or common messaging protocol, is necessary to
distribute simultaneous messages over multiple platforms. Additionally, we
believe the implementation of an integrated alert system will require
collaboration among a variety of stakeholders to ensure that all elements
of the system can work together and can convey accurate, timely emergency
alerts to all Americans. According to FEMA's implementation plan,
consulting, coordinating, and cooperating with diverse stakeholders are
cornerstones in the effective execution of the public alert and warning
system. Furthermore, the plan says all of the FEMA pilot projects require
regular interaction with private sector and media organizations. However,
there does not appear to be a collaborative, consensus-based forum for all
interested stakeholders--public and private--to work together to develop
processes, standards, systems, and strategies related to implementing an
integrated system. The Partnership for Public Warning previously existed
as such a forum, and its objectives included fostering communication,
cooperation, and consensus among key stakeholders; promoting and
conducting research and studies on alert and warning issues; assisting and
advising government officials on the development, implementation, and
operation of public warning systems, technologies, policies, and
procedures; and supporting the timely generation of standards,
specifications, and protocols. In the absence of such a forum,
coordination might continue on an ad hoc, rather than a strategic, basis.
According to one stakeholder, federal efforts to develop an integrated
system have focused thus far on the ability of EAS to deliver a national
alert, to the exclusion of state and local needs. In particular, a state
emergency manager told us his organization, which has developed an
advanced alert system, had not been contacted by FEMA regarding its
experience in the system's design or implementation.

^19P.L. 109-347, title VI.

^20The Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee was not
established as a federal advisory committee. The committee held its first
meeting on December 12, 2006.

Extending alerts to wireless providers is another challenge to the
implementation of an integrated alert system that stakeholders identified.
In general, commercial mobile services networks are designed for
point-to-point communications, whereas EAS today relies on broadcasters
for point-to-multipoint communications. Commercial mobile services (i.e.,
wireless) networks are not currently designed to broadcast messages on a
point-to-multipoint basis like television and radio networks. Instead,
wireless networks currently send messages by a point-to-point design in
which network traffic is routed to and from individual recipients using
database and switching technology. Given their point-to-point design,
these networks generally only have the capacity to serve a certain
percentage of subscribers at any one time. Because wireless networks are
designed for point-to-point communications and do not have the capacity to
serve all subscribers simultaneously, a representative of the industry
told us wireless providers would be unable to deliver a national-level EAS
alert on a timely basis. FEMA told us it plans to use CAP to accommodate
cell broadcast, SMS,^21 and other various transmission standards so that
one-way alerting messages can be distributed through wireless networks. As
required by the WARN Act, the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory
Committee is addressing the technical issues currently affecting the
participation of wireless providers in emergency communications.

^21SMS is the Short Message Service format, a standard for delivery of
text messages that is currently available to a majority of wireless
subscribers.

In addition to these technical challenges, stakeholders have noted that
other challenges currently facing EAS will also face an integrated system,
including the challenges associated with accessibility, training, and
funding. FEMA, for example, has said that the difficulties involved in
making EAS alerts accessible to non-English speakers and to the disabled
will likewise be barriers to the development of an integrated alert and
warning system. Similarly, the Congressional Research Service has observed
that incorporating technologies that expand the reach of EAS for people
with special needs, such as those with disabilities, the elderly, and
those who do not understand English, at a reasonable cost, is one of the
challenges of delivering an effective warning system that is truly
nationwide. Advocates for the disabled have expressed particular concern
about the costs of purchasing the additional equipment that the disabled
may need to receive emergency information through individualized means.
According to these advocates, the cost of such equipment generally falls
on the disabled consumers, who, the advocates told us, are more likely to
have limited financial resources than other consumers. As a step toward
addressing the accessibility challenge, FEMA said it is planning to
conduct pilot projects during the 2007 hurricane season to show how the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System will provide more effective
alerts for disabled communities in the future.

Providing adequate training in the proper use of emergency alert equipment
and in the drafting of effective alert messages will remain a challenge in
developing an integrated system. As noted, the Partnership for Public
Warning identified inadequate training as a main factor preventing the
nation from having a unified warning system and recommended training for
all EAS stakeholders. A state emergency manager also told us that training
of all stakeholders is vital to a comprehensive alert and warning system,
and a state broadcasters association representative said training is the
only way to address the possibility of human failure, which he described
as the key challenge in developing an integrated system. Stakeholders
further emphasized the importance of training emergency personnel to
develop well-crafted alert messages that the public will be able to
understand and act on appropriately. To address the training challenge,
FEMA is developing a Web site that will provide general EAS and other
public alert and warning training for emergency managers. FEMA expects
this Web portal to have full operational capability in 2008. However,
strategies to convey training information, coordination with a variety of
government and other stakeholders who can facilitate an EAS training
environment, and measures to ascertain the program's effectiveness have
not been completed and tested.

Finally, FEMA cited a lack of funding as a challenge to the implementation
of the integrated system. According to FEMA, it is currently funded to
provide enhanced public alert and warning capabilities primarily in three
states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama), and significant additional
funding is required to field integrated public alert and warning system
improvements across the rest of the United States.

Conclusions

The ability to communicate reliable emergency information to the public is
critical during disasters, and effective emergency warnings allow people
to take actions that could save lives and property. While EAS is one of
the mainstays of the nation's capacity to issue such warnings, its
reliability is uncertain. With no requirements to test the relay system
for disseminating national alerts and with no nationwide test
results--apart from the partial test conducted in January 2007, in which
three primary relay stations failed to transmit or receive the emergency
message--the public lacks assurance that the system would work in a
national emergency. Although several federal initiatives are underway to
integrate existing warning systems and FEMA is planning to nearly double
the number of primary relay stations in order to increase the system's
redundancy, these initiatives have just begun to receive funding and are
likely to take years to implement. In the meantime, questions remain about
the reliability of EAS's relay system.

Adequate training for all EAS participants is critical to ensure that they
are qualified to use the equipment and to draft effective emergency
messages that the public will be able to understand and act on
appropriately. Despite the federal government's efforts to integrate and
improve EAS, the system will be ineffective if the public ignores alerts
or does not take appropriate action based on the information provided.

Effectively implementing an integrated alert system will require
collaboration among a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including those at
the federal, state, and local levels; private industry; and the affected
consumer community. FEMA believes that the effective execution of the
public alert and warning system requires consulting, coordinating, and
cooperating with diverse stakeholders. However, a regular forum for public
and private stakeholders to discuss emerging issues related to the
implementation of the integrated alert system does not exist. Without such
a forum, coordination among the diverse stakeholders could occur on an ad
hoc basis, but there would be no systematic means of bringing all
interested public and private stakeholders together for a comprehensive,
strategic review of the processes, standards, systems, and strategies
related to the implementation of the integrated public alert and warning
system.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To ensure that the Emergency Alert System is capable of operating as
intended and that coordination with a variety of stakeholders on the
implementation of the integrated public alert and warning system exists,
we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director,
FEMA, to work in conjunction with the Chairman, FCC, to take the following
actions:

           o Develop and implement a plan to verify (1) the dependability and
           effectiveness of the relay distribution system, which is used to
           disseminate national-level EAS alerts, and (2) that EAS
           participants have the training and technical skills to issue
           effective EAS alerts.
           o Establish a forum for the diverse stakeholders involved with
           emergency communications to discuss emerging and other issues
           related to the implementation of an integrated public alert and
           warning system. Representation on the forum should include
           relevant federal agencies, state and local governments, private
           industry, and the affected consumer community.
			  
			  Agency Comments

           We provided a draft of this report to DHS and FCC. In its
           response, DHS agreed with the intent of our recommendations and
           noted that FEMA will continue to conduct regular tests of the
           system in coordination with FCC to include the new quarterly
           "over-the-air" tests of the national-level relay. DHS also
           provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report
           as appropriate. Written comments from DHS are provided in appendix
           III. FCC provided comments via e-mail and noted that its staff
           circulated a Second Report and Order addressing various issues
           raised in the November 2005 further notice of proposed rulemaking
           including (1) extension of EAS to other media, (2) transmission of
           EAS alerts issued by governors, and (3) issues related to the
           development of a next-generation EAS. Further, FCC provided
           technical comments that we incorporated into the report as
           appropriate.

           We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
           committees; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Chairman of
           FCC; and the Director of FEMA. We will make copies available to
           others upon request. The report is available at no charge on GAO's
           Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of
           Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the
           last page of this report.

           If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
           please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or [email protected]. Key
           contributors to this report were Sally Moino, Assistant Director;
           Hamid Ali; Aaron Kaminsky; Bert Japikse; Mick Ray; Jennie
           Sparandara; and Deborah Winters.

           Mark L. Goldstein
			  Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

           List of Congressional Committees

           The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman
			  Chairman
			  The Honorable Susan M. Collins
			  Ranking Member
			  Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
			  United States Senate

           The Honorable Ted Stevens
			  Vice-Chairman
			  Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
			  United States Senate

           The Honorable Henry Waxman
			  Chairman
			  The Honorable Tom Davis
           Ranking Member
			  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
			  House of Representatives

           The Honorable John D. Dingell
			  Chairman
			  The Honorable Joe Barton
           Ranking Member
			  Committee on Energy and Commerce
			  House of Representatives

           The Honorable Edward J. Markey
			  Chairman
			  The Honorable Fred Upton
           Ranking Member
			  Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
           Committee on Energy and Commerce
			  House of Representatives

           The Honorable Jose Seranno
			  Chairman
			  The Honorable Ralph Regula
           Ranking Member
			  Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government
			  Committee on Appropriations
			  House of Representatives

           The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich
			  Chairman
			  Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
			  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
			  House of Representatives
			  
			  Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

           This report, initiated under GAO's general authority to examine
           government operations, provides information on (1) the media's
           ability to meet federal requirements for participating in the
           Emergency Alert System, (2) stakeholder views on the challenges
           facing the Emergency Alert System and potential changes to it, and
           (3) the progress made toward developing an integrated public alert
           and warning system.

           To meet these objectives, we collected information from various
           stakeholders on the Emergency Alert System (EAS), challenges
           facing EAS and proposed changes to it, and efforts to develop an
           integrated system. In particular, we interviewed representatives
           of media providers, including radio and television broadcasters,
           cable companies, satellite television and satellite radio
           operators, state and local emergency management officials, and
           state broadcasting associations. We also interviewed officials
           with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal
           Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Weather Service
           (NWS), and the National Academy of Engineering. In addition, we
           met with industry trade associations, including the National
           Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable &
           Telecommunications Association, the Wireless Association (commonly
           referred to as CTIA), and the Association of Public Television
           Stations, and with two organizations representing the
           disabled--the National Council on Disability and the National
           Center for Accessible Media. We analyzed data on the number of
           waivers to EAS requirements that FCC granted to media providers.
           Additionally, we reviewed FCC's proposed rulemaking related to EAS
           and the comments FCC received on the rulemaking.

           To obtain information from the state and local levels, we employed
           a case study approach. The case studies consisted of interviews
           with state and local officials and representatives in seven
           states: California, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Texas,
           and Virginia. We selected these states because of their recent
           experience with natural disasters or man-made emergencies and
           their geographic diversity. We interviewed state and local
           emergency management officials, state broadcasting association
           directors or officers, and representatives of other media
           organizations involved in emergency communications, including
           local broadcast radio, television, cable systems, and National
           Weather Service Forecast Offices. Table 1 provides more detailed
           information on the states and localities we selected and the
           entities we interviewed.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table 1: Case Study States and Entities We Contacted

                              State                                           
               Emergency      association of                National Weather  
State       management     broadcasters    Media         Service           
Kansas         o State        o Kansas        o                            
                  emergency      Association     Broadcast                    
                  management     of              radio                        
                  o Kansas       Broadcasters    o                            
                  City                           Broadcast                    
                                                 television                   
Virginia       o State        o Virginia      o             o Washington,  
                  emergency      Association     Broadcast     D.C./Baltimore 
                  management     of              radio         Forecast       
                  o Fairfax      Broadcasters    o             Office         
                  County                         Broadcast                    
                                                 television                   
                                                 o Cable                      
                                                 system                       
Mississippi    o State        o               o             o Jackson      
                  emergency      Mississippi     Broadcast     Forecast       
                  management     Association     radio         Office         
                  o City of      of              o                            
                  Jackson        Broadcasters    Broadcast                    
                                                 television                   
Florida        o State        o Florida       o             o Tallahassee  
                  emergency      Association     Broadcast     Forecast       
                  management     of              radio         Office         
                  o City of      Broadcasters    o                            
                  Tallahassee                    Broadcast                    
                                                 television                   
New York       o State        o New York      o                            
                  emergency      State           Broadcast                    
                  management     Broadcasters    radio                        
                                 Association     o                            
                                                 Broadcast                    
                                                 television                   
                                                 o Cable                      
                                                 system                       
Texas          o State        o Texas         o             o Fort         
                  emergency      Association     Broadcast     Worth/Dallas   
                  management     of              radio         Forecast       
                  o City of      Broadcasters    o             Office         
                  Fort Worth                     Broadcast                    
                                                 television                   
                                                 o Cable                      
                                                 system                       
California     o State        o California    o             o Los          
                  emergency      Broadcasters    Broadcast     Angeles/Oxnard 
                  management     Association     radio         Forecast       
                  o Contra                                     Station        
                  Costa                                                       
                  County                                                      

Source: GAO.

Our analysis identified issues at the state and local level that would not
be apparent in nationwide discussions or analysis. However, because we
used a case study method, our results are not generalizable to all states
and localities. We performed our work from April 2006 through January 2007
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships Involved in Emergency
Communications 

Various public-private partnerships work on issues related to EAS,
including the Media Security and Reliability Council, the independent
panel established to review the impact of Hurricane Katrina on
communications networks, and the Partnership for Public Warning.
Information on these entities follows.

Media Security and Reliability Council: The Media Security and Reliability
Council (MSRC) is a federal advisory committee established by FCC to
study, develop, and report on communications and coordination designed to
ensure the optimal reliability, robustness, and security of the broadcast
and multichannel video programming distribution industries in emergency
situations.

MSRC's mission was to prepare a comprehensive national strategy for
securing and sustaining broadcast and multichannel video facilities
throughout the United States during terrorist attacks, natural disasters,
and all other threats or attacks nationwide. Additionally, MSRC was to
develop and provide recommendations to FCC and the media industry on
detecting, preparing for, preventing, protecting against, responding to,
and recovering from terrorist threats, natural disasters, or other attacks
on America's infrastructure and people. Members of MSRC, including senior
representatives of mass media companies, cable television and satellite
service providers, trade associations, public safety representatives,
manufacturers, and other related entities, developed, among other things,
best practice recommendations, model documents, and other resources. For
example, the council developed best practice recommendations for media
companies aimed at helping to (1) ensure the security and sustainability
of broadcast and multichannel video facilities throughout the United
States; (2) ensure the availability of adequate transmission capability
during events or periods of exceptional stress due to natural disasters,
man-made attacks, or similar occurrences; and (3) facilitate the rapid
restoration of broadcast and multichannel video programming distributor
services in the event of disruptions.

In addition, MSRC developed model vulnerability checklists and disaster
recovery plans for local radio and television stations, cable systems, and
satellite operators. In particular, MSRC's best practices recommended that
each national media facility have a vulnerability assessment and a
disaster recovery plan that is periodically reviewed, updated, and
practiced. A disaster recovery plan enables the media provider to assess
the vulnerability of and impact on critical systems and to recover
operations and essential services in the event of a natural or man-made
disaster or other emergency. Topics covered in the disaster recovery plan
include vulnerability assessment and prevention, plan distribution and
maintenance, staff roles and responsibilities, essential equipment and
materials, internal and external communications, emergency procedures,
recovery and restoration procedures, and periodic plan testing. Documents
and additional information on MSRC can be found on its Web site,
http://www.mediasecurity.org/.

Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks: FCC established the panel to (1) study the impact
of Hurricane Katrina on the telecommunications and media infrastructure,
including public safety communications; (2) review the sufficiency of the
recovery efforts with respect to infrastructure; and (3) make
recommendations for improving disaster preparedness, network reliability,
and communication among first responders in the future. In June 2006, the
panel issued a report summarizing its findings.^1 According to the report,
Hurricane Katrina had a devastating impact on the communications networks
in the Gulf Coast region because of flooding, lack of power and fuel, and
the failure of redundant pathways for communications traffic. The panel
reported that state and local officials did not use EAS to provide
localized emergency evacuation and other important information. According
to the panel, because EAS was not activated, inconsistent or erroneous
information was sometimes provided within the affected area. The panel
also reported that a major challenge was ensuring that emergency
communications reach Americans who have hearing or vision disabilities or
do not speak English. The panel made several recommendations to FCC
related to EAS. For example, the panel recommended that FCC take action to
revitalize EAS by (1) educating state and local officials, as well as the
public, about EAS; (2) completing its proceeding to explore the viability
of expanding EAS to other technologies; and (3) exploring the viability of
establishing a comprehensive national warning system that complements
existing systems. The panel made other recommendations aimed at making
alerts more accessible for persons with disabilities and non-English
speakers.

Partnership for Public Warning: The Partnership for Public Warning (PPW)
was a public/private not-for-profit institute that worked to promote and
enhance efficient, effective, and integrated dissemination of public
warnings and related information so as to save lives, reduce disaster
losses, and speed recovery. PPW was created as a nonprofit consortium for
the government, private industry, and the public to work together to
identify the major challenges to improving the nation's public warning
capability and reach consensus on effective solutions and strategies.
Participants included state and local emergency managers, private sector
industry executives, nonprofit organizations, representatives of academia
and of special needs constituencies such as the deaf and hard of hearing,
members of the public, and federal agencies.

^1Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks, Report and Recommendations to the Federal
Communications Commission, (Washington D.C.: June 12, 2006).

Given that EAS serves as the United States' primary national warning
system, PPW conducted an assessment of the system to provide a definitive
description and evaluation of it. This assessment was used as a basis for
recommending ways to make immediate improvements to EAS in areas where PPW
identified significant policy, management, and operational challenges.
According to PPW, this assessment was a major factor behind FCC's notice
of proposed rulemaking in 2005, which sought comment on actions needed to
expedite development of a more comprehensive system.

In addition to its work helping support of EAS, PPW said that it was
responsible for developing and promoting the first common alerting
protocol, focusing national attention on the need to improve public
warning capabilities by educating senior government executives and the
public, and producing a consensus-based national strategy and
implementation plan for creating a more effective national capability to
warn and inform citizens during times of emergency. While PPW is no longer
active, additional information can be found at http://www.ppw.us/ppw/
.

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
(543161)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-411 .

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [28]GAO-07-411 , a report to congressional committees

March 2007

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations, and Development of a New
Integrated System Will Be Challenging

During emergencies, the public needs accurate and timely information.
Through the Emergency Alert System (EAS), the media play a pivotal role,
assisting emergency management personnel in communicating to the public.
GAO reviewed (1) the media's ability to meet federal requirements for
participating in EAS, (2) stakeholder views on the challenges facing EAS
and potential changes to it, and (3) the progress made toward developing
an integrated alert system. GAO reviewed the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) proposed rulemaking on EAS and interviewed media
outlets, state emergency management officials, and federal agencies
responsible for EAS, including FCC and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

[29]What GAO Recommends

To improve the media's ability to issue emergency alerts, GAO recommends
that DHS and FCC develop a plan to verify (1) the dependability and
effectiveness of the EAS relay system, and (2) that EAS participants have
the training to issue effective EAS alerts. Also, DHS and FCC should
establish a forum for stakeholders to address the challenges of
implementing an integrated alert system. In response, DHS agreed with the
intent of our recommendations. FCC provided technical comments.

According to stakeholders, the media are generally prepared to participate
in EAS as required, but EAS has limitations that could affect its
performance. Broadcast radio and television, cable operators, and
satellite radio operators are required to participate in national EAS
alerts, and satellite television will be required to participate in May
2007. Participation in state and local alerts is voluntary. While these
media outlets appear generally prepared to participate, FCC has limited
measures for ensuring compliance. In addition, stakeholders cited
limitations, including an unreliable method for relaying national EAS
messages to the public. GAO found a lack of ongoing testing of this relay
method. In a national test, three primary relay stations failed, and in
one state test, a state representative reported that the message was not
received beyond an area roughly 50 to 70 miles from the state capital.
Problems with equipment and software caused these failures, which, in a
real emergency, could have prevented the public from receiving critical
information. Another cited limitation was inadequate training of EAS
personnel.

FEMA officials and other stakeholders told GAO that the current EAS faces
a range of technical, cultural, and other challenges, such as interfacing
with newer communications technologies and issuing alerts in multiple
languages. FEMA said the alerting system should provide various means to
reach the greatest number of people, and FCC reported that a wide-reaching
public alert system is critical to the public safety. In November 2005,
FCC proposed changes to improve EAS and address some of the challenges
facing it. Stakeholders GAO contacted anticipated positive results from
some of the potential changes, such as expanding EAS alerts to additional
media, but expressed mixed views on other potential changes. For example,
the emergency managers GAO contacted generally favored making the
transmission of state and local alerts mandatory, whereas the broadcasters
GAO interviewed expressed concern about over alerting, which they said
could lead the public to ignore EAS messages.

Several efforts to develop an integrated alert system--one that would
provide effective warnings over all broadcast media devices available to
the public--are underway. FEMA is conducting various pilots under a
public-private partnership called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System. One such pilot, the Digital Emergency Alert System, uses the
digital capabilities of the nation's public television stations to provide
public alerts. Another effort, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network
Act, is aimed at integrating emergency alerts and enables the
participation of wireless providers in EAS. However, FEMA officials and
others identified challenges to the implementation of an integrated
system, including achieving cooperation among federal, state, and local
emergency management organizations on the use of a standardized technology
for disseminating alerts. Coordination and collaboration among a variety
of stakeholders will be critical to ensure that all elements of the system
can work together and produce accurate, timely alerts for all Americans.

References

Visible links
  28. file:///home/webmaster/infomgt/d07411.htm#http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-411
*** End of document. ***