The two mainstays of the U.S. capacity to issue warnings are the Emergency Alert System (EAS), which relies primarily on broadcasting media, and the NOAA Weather Radio All-Hazards Network. The National Weather Service (NWS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) sends alerts through NOAA Weather Radio (NWR), now expanded to include warnings for all hazards. Several initiatives are underway within the federal government to improve, expand, and integrate existing warning systems. The most important of these—in terms of developing leading-edge technology—is the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), a public-private partnership in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a leadership role. When completed, IPAWS will be able to receive and verify alerts, then route them for transmission over almost any digital media to designated locations. Many communities, meanwhile, are installing local alert systems that send voice, text messages, and e-mail. Many agree that the long-term goal for emergency alerts is to converge federal warning systems into an integrated network that can interface with localized warning systems and also call centers, such as those used for 911 and 211 calls. As will be discussed in this report, the Emergency Alert System relies on many partners. The role of the federal government has been to lead by reason of its prime responsibility to assure presidential alerts for national disasters. The division of responsibility for alerts has in many cases led to problems with coordination—and uneven effectiveness—of EAS utilization from state to state. There have been expectations among state emergency managers, state broadcaster associations, and others who participate in EAS program planning that the implementation of IPAWS would provide the backbone for a robust emergency alert capability at all levels. The IPAWS program, however, has fallen behind schedule. What appears to be an administrative retrenchment led to a near-exclusive focus on presidential alerts, while programs at the state and local level—and to assist individuals with disabilities—languished. In a report on IPAWS submitted to Congress on September 30, 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) attributed the lack of progress mainly to "shifting program goals, lack of continuity in planning, staff turnover, and poorly organized program information from which to make management decisions." DHS agreed with the recommendations made by GAO in this report; however, recommendations from a 2007 GAO report were agreed to but not met. The National Continuity Programs (NCP) Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), has responsibility for IPAWS. In testimony before Congress, Damon C. Penn, Assistant Administrator of the NCP, testified regarding his intentions to re-energize the department's efforts for IPAWS and other infrastructure and planning initiatives. Mr. Penn assumed these responsibilities in August 2009. He described FEMA as "on schedule to achieve our IPAWS vision by 2012." Four specific goals were cited: Interoperable standards and interfaces. Redundancy in the dissemination network. Integrated message distribution along multiple paths. Additional PEP stations for direct EAS coverage. In addition, NCP is developing a strategic plan for IPAWS that will align federal goals with the needs of state, local, tribal, and territorial officials. The initial stages of the program are projected to be realized on schedule, according to comments by Mr. Penn and Antwane V. Johnson, Division Director/PM, DHS/FEMA, IPAWS, at a June 2010 meeting sponsored by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In response to a requirement in the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, or WARN Act, as signed into law (Title VI of P.L. 109 - 347 ), the FCC worked with commercial mobile service providers to create a Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) that would be able to relay alerts through cell phones. In addition to presidential alerts, which clearly are a federal responsibility, the service would transmit emergency alerts generated by state, local, and other non-federal authorities. The gateway for CMAS is being developed as part of IPAWS. FEMA and the FCC have committed to a timetable for development of IPAWS and CMAS that is intended to deliver mobile alert messages to consumers by April 7, 2012. Policies and programs to improve post-disaster information appear to show the same symptoms of poor planning and coordination that have delayed the implementation of IPAWS and related alert programs. Coordination of federal, state, tribal, and local responsibilities for providing emergency information is addressed in the National Response Framework (NRF). Not all of the resources needed to provide alerts and information before, during, and after an emergency are recognized in the NRF, and it appears that little has been done to link these resources into an effective communications plan. The GAO, for example, has reported on the limitations in disaster planning to assure communications for first responders. Even less attention has been given to getting vital information from the top level of emergency managers and first responders to disaster victims. For example, while the United States continues to invest in improved systems for monitoring earthquake activity, there appears to be no consistent planning for how this information could be used to save lives of earthquake victims. Forecasts about the probable location and intensity of aftershocks could guide evacuations to comparatively safe areas of refuge: information that could be shared in real-time not only with first responders but also with the evacuees—if alert technologies were linked to seismic information networks. Similarly, although plans are widely in place to provide life-saving resources such as shelter, food and water, and medical care and health services, the communications plans that would direct disaster victims to these resources appear to be primarily local. Many plans rely on informing first responders or the National Guard, not the affected community. EAS currently sends emergency messages with the cooperation of broadcast radio and television and most cable television stations. It originated as CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation) in 1951, as part of America's response to the threat of nuclear attack. In 1963, the system was opened to state and local participation. Through most of its existence, the alert system was known as the Emergency Broadcast System. The name was changed when the technology was upgraded and automated during the 1990s. The current Emergency Alert System is required only to transmit federal warnings although neither it nor its predecessors has been used for this purpose. The value to the American people of EAS has been provided largely by the voluntary transmission of local warnings. Congress has placed responsibility for civil defense measures, which include operation of the present-day EAS at the national level, with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now part of DHS. The FCC has been designated by FEMA to manage broadcaster involvement in EAS; it currently provides technical standards and support for EAS, rules for its operation, and enforcement within the broadcasting and cable industries. Non-federal EAS operational plans are developed primarily at the state and local level. The emergency response officials who, typically, initiate an EAS message for a state or local emergency also work with FEMA. The FCC requires states that have developed an EAS plan to file the plans with the FCC. Not all states have FCC-compliant EAS plans that have been approved and reviewed by the FCC. The decentralized process of EAS coordination and implementation contributes to uneven planning; for example, procedures for initiating a message and activating EAS differ from state to state. Umbrella organizations that participate in EAS planning and administration include the Media Security and Reliability Council (an FCC Advisory Committee), the Primary Entry Point (PEP) Administrative Committee, and associations such as the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations, and individual state broadcasting associations. States organize Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs) whose members often include representatives from broadcasting companies or local TV and radio stations as well as public safety officials. Typically the SECCs operate in collaboration with—or under the supervision of—the state office responsible for emergency planning. These committees agree on the chain-of-command and other procedures for activating an emergency message through radio and television. The constraints of current EAS technology, as specified by the FCC, limit a state or local EAS message to no more than two minutes. Emergency alert agreements with broadcasters, therefore, usually provide for both EAS warning messages and follow-up broadcast programming. The participation of broadcast and cable stations in state and local emergency announcements is voluntary. Over 30 radio stations have been designated as National Primary Stations that are required to transmit presidentially initiated alerts and messages. The National Primary Stations form the backbone of the federal-level Emergency Alert System, and are directly under the governance of FEMA. In times of a national emergency, their broadcasts would be relayed by PEP stations to radio and television stations that rebroadcast the message to other broadcast and cable stations until all stations have been alerted. This system of relaying EAS messages is generally referred to as the "daisy chain." State and local emergency alerts enter the daisy chain through the PEPs, which can include the national primary stations (also referred to as Presidential PEPs). The FCC requires the states to initiate weekly or monthly tests; it does not require testing at the national level. There are therefore several levels of governance, each of which uses different combinations of radio broadcast stations to initiate and transmit messages. There is a federal level, for national alerts, administered by FEMA, using radio broadcast stations with equipment that conforms to FCC requirements; there are state plans, as described above; and there can be local plans. States, in particular, will use combinations of radio stations with different broadcast transmission coverage to match the configuration of their geographical areas. One constant is that the FCC sets the requirements for equipment for all stations. The FCC requires broadcast and cable stations to install FCC-certified EAS equipment as a condition of licensing.