United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

EMERGENCY 

PREPAREDNESS 

Current Emergency 

Alert System Has 

Limitations, and 

Development of a New 

Integrated System Will 

Be Challenging 

March 2007 

 

GAO-07-411 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 2007

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Current Emergency Alert System Has 

Limitations, and Development of a New 

Integrated System Will Be Challenging 

Highlights of GAO-07-411, a report to 

congressional committees 

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).

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 publicprivate 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.

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 goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
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 

Page i GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

Page ii GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

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, 

Page 1 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 

Results in Brief 

Page 2 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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 

 1

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

2

The 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. 

Page 3 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 

Page 4 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
comments from DHS. FCC provided technical comments that we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

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. 

Background 

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 

 3

EAS 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 atlarge through a threat-based, color-coded system so that protective measures can be

implemented to reduce the likelihood or impact of an attack.

4

FEMA 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. 

5

FEMA 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. 

Page 5 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
FCC rules, EAS participants have the authority to determine whether to 

transmit nonfederal emergency messages. 

FCC promulgated new rules to include digital media carriage of nationallevel 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. 

 6

Satellite radio operators were required to participate in national-level EAS alerts by 

December 2006, satellite television operators by May 2007. 

Page 6 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Figure 1: Flowchart of National-level EAS 

Radio stations

Radios Radio stations

Radios

TV stations/cable TV

operators

Television

sets

Cable TV

boxes

EAS phone

lines

EAS phone lines

(with limited satellite)

FEMA operation centers:

Use national-level EAS encoders to seize 

commercial radio/TV paths for President in real time

Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations

President/

senior officials

State and local

officials/

National Weather

Service

NPR stations

Radios

National Public Radio

(NPR) satellite net

Communication via telephone

Radio broadcast

Television broadcast

Sources: FEMA and GAO.

Issues emergency alert

Satellite

radios

Satellite TV and radio

operators

Satellite

TVs

TV stations/cable TV

operators

Television

sets

Cable TV

boxes

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 

Page 7 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

 7

Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications

Networks, Report and Recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission, 

(Washington D.C.: June 12, 2006). 

8

The 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. 

Page 8 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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. 

Media Appear 

Generally Prepared 

for Required 

Participation in 

Emergency 

Communications, but 

the Current National 

Alert System Has 

Limitations 

Media Outlets Appear 

Generally Able to Meet 

Federal EAS 

Requirements, although 

FCC Has Limited Measures 

to Ensure Compliance 

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

 9

According 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. 

Page 9 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 

Page 10 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
AMBER Alert System

The AMBER Alert system was developed to help 

find abducted children. It began in 1996 after the 

abduction and killing of Amber Hagerman, an 

Arlington, Texas, girl. AMBER Alerts are issued by 

law enforcement authorities, who, after they 

determine a case meets certain criteria, notify 

broadcasters, who broadcast information about the 

victim and the abduction. State transportation 

officials are also notified. Besides through 

broadcast media, AMBER Alerts can be publicized 

over the Internet, on highway electronic billboards, 

on lottery tickets, and to wireless devices such as

mobile phones. Currently all 50 US states have 

statewide AMBER Alert plans, and the Department 

of Justice is working to create a seamless national 

network. 

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 

 10A television broadcaster told us that EAS alerts transmitted by cable systems could 

override the broadcasters’ local coverage of emergency events, blocking important latebreaking 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. 

Page 11 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 

 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. 

Page 12 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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.

Page 13 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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 

 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. 

Page 14 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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.

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

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

Page 15 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 

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

Page 16 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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.

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 

Stakeholders Have 

Identified Various 

Challenges Facing the 

Current Emergency 

Alert System and Hold 

Differing Views on the 

Proposed Changes to 

the System 

 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. 

Page 17 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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. 

Page 18 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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

Page 19 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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 

 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. 

Page 20 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 

Page 21 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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 

Page 22 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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-tomultipoint 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. 

Page 23 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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, 

Page 24 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

Page 25 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Figure 2: FEMA’s Vision of an Integrated Alert and Warning System 

State agencies Territories and

tribal governments

Private sector

Cell

phones Radio Pager PDA Computer Road signs NOAAweather radios Internet TV Landlinephones

Home Car Work Vacation Public areas

President and

other officials

Governors Local agencies

Incident

Federal agencies

Public

Responder

and resource

communities

Source: FEMA and GAO.

Page 26 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert 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

 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. 

Page 27 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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 pointto-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 

 21SMS is the Short Message Service format, a standard for delivery of text messages that is 

currently available to a majority of wireless subscribers. 

Page 28 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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

Page 29 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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. 

Conclusions 

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 

Page 30 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

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. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

Page 31 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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 goldsteinm@gao.gov. 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 

Page 32 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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 

Page 33 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

Page 34 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

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 manmade 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. 

Page 35 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Table 1: Case Study States and Entities We Contacted

State Emergency management

State association of 

broadcasters Media National Weather Service

Kansas • State emergency 

management 

• Kansas City 

• Kansas Association of 

Broadcasters 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Broadcast 

television 

Virginia • State emergency 

management 

• Fairfax County 

• Virginia Association of 

Broadcasters 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Broadcast 

television 

• Cable 

system 

• Washington, D.C./Baltimore 

Forecast Office 

Mississippi • State emergency 

management 

• City of Jackson 

• Mississippi Association of 

Broadcasters 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Broadcast 

television 

• Jackson Forecast Office 

Florida • State emergency 

management 

• City of Tallahassee 

• Florida Association of 

Broadcasters 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Broadcast 

television 

• Tallahassee Forecast Office 

New York • State emergency 

management 

• New York State 

Broadcasters Association 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Broadcast 

television 

• Cable 

system 

Texas • State emergency 

management 

• City of Fort Worth 

• Texas Association of 

Broadcasters 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Broadcast 

television 

• Cable 

system 

• Fort Worth/Dallas Forecast Office 

California • State emergency 

management 

• Contra Costa County 

• California Broadcasters 

Association 

• Broadcast 

radio 

• Los Angeles/Oxnard Forecast 

Station 

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. 

Page 36 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships Involved in Emergency Communications 

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 

Page 37 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships 

Involved in Emergency Communications 

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 

 1

Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications

Networks, Report and Recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission, 

(Washington D.C.: June 12, 2006). 

Page 38 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships 

Involved in Emergency Communications 

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. 

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/. 

Page 39 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix III: Comments from the Department Appendix III: Comments from the of Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 40 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

(543161) Page 41 GAO-07-411 Issues Surrounding the Emergency Alert System
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. 

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.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER