Emergency Preparedness
Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated System Will Be Challenging Gao ID: GAO-07-411 March 30, 2007During 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).
According to stakeholders, the media are generally prepared to participate in EAS as required, but EAS has limitations that could affect its performance. Broadcast radio and television, cable operators, and satellite radio operators are required to participate in national EAS alerts, and satellite television will be required to participate in May 2007. Participation in state and local alerts is voluntary. While these media outlets appear generally prepared to participate, FCC has limited measures for ensuring compliance. In addition, stakeholders cited limitations, including an unreliable method for relaying national EAS messages to the public. GAO found a lack of ongoing testing of this relay method. In a national test, three primary relay stations failed, and in one state test, a state representative reported that the message was not received beyond an area roughly 50 to 70 miles from the state capital. Problems with equipment and software caused these failures, which, in a real emergency, could have prevented the public from receiving critical information. Another cited limitation was inadequate training of EAS personnel. FEMA officials and other stakeholders told GAO that the current EAS faces a range of technical, cultural, and other challenges, such as interfacing with newer communications technologies and issuing alerts in multiple languages. FEMA said the alerting system should provide various means to reach the greatest number of people, and FCC reported that a wide-reaching public alert system is critical to the public safety. In November 2005, FCC proposed changes to improve EAS and address some of the challenges facing it. Stakeholders GAO contacted anticipated positive results from some of the potential changes, such as expanding EAS alerts to additional media, but expressed mixed views on other potential changes. For example, the emergency managers GAO contacted generally favored making the transmission of state and local alerts mandatory, whereas the broadcasters GAO interviewed expressed concern about over alerting, which they said could lead the public to ignore EAS messages. Several efforts to develop an integrated alert system--one that would provide effective warnings over all broadcast media devices available to the public--are underway. FEMA is conducting various pilots under a public-private partnership called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. One such pilot, the Digital Emergency Alert System, uses the digital capabilities of the nation's public television stations to provide public alerts. Another effort, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, is aimed at integrating emergency alerts and enables the participation of wireless providers in EAS. However, FEMA officials and others identified challenges to the implementation of an integrated system, including achieving cooperation among federal, state, and local emergency management organizations on the use of a standardized technology for disseminating alerts. Coordination and collaboration among a variety of stakeholders will be critical to ensure that all elements of the system can work together and produce accurate, timely alerts for all Americans.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-411, Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated System Will Be Challenging
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-411
entitled 'Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency Alert System Has
Limitations, and Development of a New Integrated System Will Be
Challenging' which was released on March 30, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2007:
Emergency Preparedness:
Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations, and Development of a
New Integrated System Will Be Challenging:
GAO-07-411:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-411, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
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 Found:
According to stakeholders, the media are generally prepared to
participate in EAS as required, but EAS has limitations that could
affect its performance. Broadcast radio and television, cable
operators, and satellite radio operators are required to participate in
national EAS alerts, and satellite television will be required to
participate in May 2007. Participation in state and local alerts is
voluntary. While these media outlets appear generally prepared to
participate, FCC has limited measures for ensuring compliance. In
addition, stakeholders cited limitations, including an unreliable
method for relaying national EAS messages to the public. GAO found a
lack of ongoing testing of this relay method. In a national test, three
primary relay stations failed, and in one state test, a state
representative reported that the message was not received beyond an
area roughly 50 to 70 miles from the state capital. Problems with
equipment and software caused these failures, which, in a real
emergency, could have prevented the public from receiving critical
information. Another cited limitation was inadequate training of EAS
personnel.
FEMA officials and other stakeholders told GAO that the current EAS
faces a range of technical, cultural, and other challenges, such as
interfacing with newer communications technologies and issuing alerts
in multiple languages. FEMA said the alerting system should provide
various means to reach the greatest number of people, and FCC reported
that a wide-reaching public alert system is critical to the public
safety. In November 2005, FCC proposed changes to improve EAS and
address some of the challenges facing it. Stakeholders GAO contacted
anticipated positive results from some of the potential changes, such
as expanding EAS alerts to additional media, but expressed mixed views
on other potential changes. For example, the emergency managers GAO
contacted generally favored making the transmission of state and local
alerts mandatory, whereas the broadcasters GAO interviewed expressed
concern about over alerting, which they said could lead the public to
ignore EAS messages.
Several efforts to develop an integrated alert system”one that would
provide effective warnings over all broadcast media devices available
to the public”are underway. FEMA is conducting various pilots under a
public-private partnership called the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System. One such pilot, the Digital Emergency Alert System,
uses the digital capabilities of the nation‘s public television
stations to provide public alerts. Another effort, the Warning, Alert,
and Response Network Act, is aimed at integrating emergency alerts and
enables the participation of wireless providers in EAS. However, FEMA
officials and others identified challenges to the implementation of an
integrated system, including achieving cooperation among federal,
state, and local emergency management organizations on the use of a
standardized technology for disseminating alerts. Coordination and
collaboration among a variety of stakeholders will be critical to
ensure that all elements of the system can work together and produce
accurate, timely alerts for all Americans.
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.
[Hyperlink, http://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.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Media Appear Generally Prepared for Required Participation in Emergency
Communications, but the Current National Alert System Has Limitations:
Stakeholders Have Identified Various Challenges Facing the Current
Emergency Alert System and Hold Differing Views on the Proposed Changes
to the System:
Several Projects Are Underway to Develop an Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, but Challenges to Its Implementation Remain:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships Involved in Emergency
Communications:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Table:
Table 1: Case Study States and Entities We Contacted:
Figures:
Figure 1: Flowchart of National-level EAS:
Figure 2: FEMA's Vision of an Integrated Alert and Warning 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:
[End of section]
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.
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, and satellite operators, as well as state EAS contacts,
state and local emergency management officials, state broadcasting
associations, and local cable associations. For the state and local
contacts, we conducted interviews in seven selected states, California,
Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Texas, and Virginia. We
selected geographically diverse states that had recently experienced
major natural disasters or man-made emergencies. We met with officials
of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Commerce's National Weather
Service, and the National Academy of Engineering, a division of the
National Academy of Sciences. We reviewed FCC's proposed rulemaking
related to EAS and the comments FCC received on the rulemaking. We also
spoke with industry trade groups representing broadcast television and
radio stations, cable operators, wireless service providers, public
television, and the disabled community. A more detailed discussion of
our scope and methodology appears in appendix I. We performed our
review from April 2006 through January 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
According to stakeholders, the media are generally prepared to
participate in EAS as required, but EAS has limitations that could
adversely affect its performance. FCC requires broadcast radio and
television stations, cable operators, and satellite radio operators to
participate in national-level EAS alerts. Direct broadcast satellite
television operators will become subject to the requirements in May
2007. To ensure that the media can participate in EAS, FCC has
requirements for equipment and testing that are a condition of
licensing, but it does not require broadcasters to certify their
compliance, and inspects, on average, about 2 percent of licensed
broadcasters and cable operators per year. While stakeholders told us,
and we found during our visits, that media outlets generally appear
equipped to issue an EAS alert as required, FEMA officials also told
us, and we found, that individual outlets vary in their preparedness to
participate in emergency communications. For example, one broadcaster
said it conducts training drills and has a disaster plan that includes
backup power generators and fuel to sustain operations for 2 to 3 days,
while another broadcaster told us it does not have a disaster plan or a
backup generator. In addition, stakeholders, including FEMA
representatives, told us EAS has limitations that could constrain
operations during an emergency. In particular, stakeholders expressed
concern about the reliability of the relay system that would be used to
disseminate national EAS messages to the public, saying it lacks
redundancy and is vulnerable to power outages. Testing of the relay
system is not required. As a result, FEMA and FCC might not be able to
assure Congress and the public that the EAS relay system would work in
the event of a national-level emergency. Furthermore, in a partial test
of the national system, conducted in January 2007, 3 of the 33
available primary relay stations failed to effectively relay the test
message.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 2] Stakeholders we contacted expressed varying
views on the proposed changes. For example, most favored expanding EAS
alerts to other media, such as landline telephone and wireless service
providers. However, stakeholders differed over whether broadcasts of
state and local EAS alerts should be mandatory--the emergency managers
generally favored this idea, but the broadcasters expressed concern
that it could result in overalerting, which could lead the public to
ignore EAS messages. Stakeholders also expressed a range of views on
whether alerts should be issued in languages other than English and on
how alerts could be made more accessible for the disabled.
Several federal efforts to develop an integrated public alert and
warning system--one that, ideally, would provide effective warnings at
all times, in all places, under all conditions, and over all broadcast
media devices available to the public--are underway, yet challenges
remain. FEMA is conducting pilot projects under a public-private
partnership called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. One
such project, the Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS), is testing how
the digital capabilities of the nation's public radio and television
stations and other networks--combined with the voluntary participation
of cell phone service providers, public and commercial radio and
television broadcasters, satellite radio, cable and Internet providers,
and equipment manufacturers--can be used to provide alert and warning
information to the public and to disaster support personnel. Other FEMA
projects are designed to upgrade and expand the relay distribution
system, provide more geographically targeted alerting capabilities, and
develop an Internet-based alerting protocol for federal, state, and
local officials to send and receive alerts using Web technologies. FEMA
has also developed an implementation plan that outlines the agency's
vision for an integrated alert system, and legislation has been enacted
that enables the participation of wireless service providers in EAS.
Despite this progress, challenges remain, including reaching agreement
on a standardized technology for disseminating alerts, gaining
collaboration among EAS stakeholders to ensure that all elements of the
system can work together, providing adequate training for EAS
participants, and obtaining adequate funding. Because of the
technological complexities involved in developing an integrated alert
system, and the need for such a wide range of stakeholders to
participate in its development, we are recommending the establishment
of a forum to bring all interested parties together for a
comprehensive, strategic review of the system's implementation.
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and FCC for their review and comment. In response, DHS
agreed with the intent of our recommendations and provided technical
comments that we incorporated as appropriate. See appendix III for
written comments from DHS. FCC provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
EAS provides capacity for the United States to issue alerts and
warnings to the public in response to emergencies.[Footnote 3]
Broadcast radio and television stations, cable television systems, and
satellite radio operators are currently required to participate in
national-level (or presidential) EAS alerts, while participation in
state and local EAS alerts is voluntary. To date, EAS has never been
used to transmit a national-level alert. The first national warning
system was created in 1951 to allow the President to communicate with
the nation as part of America's response to the threat of a nuclear
attack. The Emergency Broadcast System replaced this system in 1963,
and state and local participation was allowed in 1976. In 1997, EAS
replaced the Emergency Broadcast System.
For presidential, or national-level, EAS alerts, a hierarchical
distribution system would be used to relay the message. Currently, 34
stations have been designated National Primary stations, often referred
to as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 5] The retransmission of
alerts from EAS participant to EAS participant is commonly referred to
as a "daisy chain" distribution system. FCC requires EAS participants
to install FCC-certified EAS equipment as a condition of licensing.
Radio and television broadcast stations, cable companies, wireless
cable companies, and satellite radio must participate in alerts
initiated by the President. By contrast, their participation in state
and local alerts is voluntary. Under FCC rules, EAS participants have
the authority to determine whether to transmit nonfederal emergency
messages.
FCC promulgated new rules to include digital media carriage of national-
level EAS messages. In an FCC report and order released November 10,
2005, EAS requirements were expanded to include digital communications
over digital television and radio, digital cable, and satellite
television and radio. Companies using these media will be required to
install EAS equipment to handle digital formats.[Footnote 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.
Figure 1: Figure 1: Flowchart of National-level EAS:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: FEMA and GAO.
[End of figure]
EAS is part of an overall public alert and warning system under the
jurisdiction of FEMA, one of the component agencies of DHS. In June
2006, the President issued an executive order detailing the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security as they relate
to an integrated and comprehensive alert and warning system. These
responsibilities include administering EAS as a critical component of
the public alert and warning system. FCC manages EAS participation. FCC
currently provides technical standards and support for EAS, rules for
its operation, and enforcement within the over-the-air broadcast,
cable, and satellite broadcast industries. FEMA works with the
emergency response officials, who typically initiate an EAS message for
a state or local emergency.
Several organizations work on issues related to EAS. An FCC federal
advisory committee, called the Media Security and Reliability Council,
has created model disaster recovery plans specific to each media
industry--including broadcast radio and television, cable systems, and
satellite radio and television. Furthermore, in January 2006, FCC
established an independent panel to review the impact of Hurricane
Katrina on communications networks. In a report issued in June 2006,
the panel made several recommendations to FCC related to EAS.[Footnote
7] Other organizations that participate in EAS planning and
administration include the Primary Entry Point Administrative
Council[Footnote 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.
Media Appear Generally Prepared for Required Participation in Emergency
Communications, but the Current National Alert System Has Limitations:
Broadcast radio and television stations, cable operators, and satellite
radio operators are required to participate in national-level EAS
alerts, and satellite television will become subject to the
requirements in May of 2007. These media outlets appear generally
prepared to meet these requirements. However, FCC has limited measures
in place to ensure compliance with EAS requirements. The participation
of media outlets in state and local alerts via EAS, such as weather
warnings or other emergency communications issued by state or local
entities, is voluntary. While media outlets are using EAS to broadcast
emergency information, FEMA officials and other EAS participants that
we contacted told us the current system has limitations. Most notably,
we heard that the relay system, or daisy chain, around which EAS is
designed to disseminate presidential alerts requires additional
augmentation to improve its reliability.
Media Outlets Appear Generally Able to Meet Federal EAS Requirements,
although FCC Has Limited Measures to Ensure Compliance:
FCC requires television, radio, cable[Footnote 9], and satellite radio
broadcasters to participate in national-level EAS alerts. As discussed
later in more detail, the television, radio, and cable operators we
spoke with said they were generally prepared to meet the federal
requirements. However, according to FEMA, individual media outlets vary
in their technical preparedness to mitigate against damage from a
disaster so they can continue reporting and providing critical
information. A FEMA official further told us that, in terms of
preparedness, broadcasters should develop plans for continuity of
operations during emergencies. For example, during Hurricane Katrina
the U.S. Coast Guard used the services of a private ship-to-shore
communications company because almost all other sources of
communications were inoperable.
Broadcast television and radio: Stakeholders such as the National
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) stated that broadcasters are the most
reliable and robust media outlets for delivering emergency information
to the public. According to data from FCC, less than 1 percent of radio
and television stations have sought and received waivers from EAS
requirements. The broadcasters (both radio and television) that we
visited told us they had installed the equipment necessary to issue EAS
alerts and indicated that they were prepared to participate in
emergency communications. A state broadcasting association that we
contacted believes the broadcasters in that state are prepared to
participate in emergency communications. Moreover, another state
broadcasting association told us its members are well prepared today to
issue EAS alerts in large part because of the statewide implementation
of the America's Missing Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) Alert
system. In particular, the association said that the statewide
implementation and testing of the AMBER Alert system exposed
deficiencies with stations' preparedness to participate in EAS alerts,
such as inadequate training in the use of EAS equipment and incorrect
coding of the ENDEC. The state association said it addressed these
issues by conducting EAS seminars across the state.
Additionally, according to an NAB survey published in 2006, the number
of television and radio stations with written disaster recovery plans
has increased since 2003. Of those stations responding to NAB's survey,
the portion with written disaster recovery plans had increased from 47
percent to 71 percent for television stations and from 15 percent to 49
percent for radio stations from 2003 to 2006. However, it was not
clear, from our discussions with broadcasters, how extensively these
plans have been implemented and tested. For example, one broadcaster we
contacted told us it does not have a disaster recovery plan or a backup
power generator at the station. As a result, in the event of a power
grid failure, the station could lose the ability to broadcast. However,
another broadcaster told us its station had a disaster recovery plan
that included a number of safeguards designed to ensure the broadcaster
could stay on the air during emergencies. For example, the broadcaster
said the plan includes having backup equipment or redundancy mechanisms
for all essential equipment, including the EAS receiver, backup
generators, and fuel for 2 to 3 days in addition to three separate
power feeds connecting the station to the power grid. The broadcaster
said it has conducted training drills simulating emergency situations
and is continually working to improve emergency preparedness.
Cable: Representatives of the cable industry, as well as officials from
cable systems that we contacted, told us cable systems are generally
prepared to participate in national EAS alerts as required.
Representatives of the cable television industry, as well as various
cable systems officials, said cable systems are passive participants in
EAS, meaning the cable systems typically retransmit EAS alerts
automatically.[Footnote 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.[Footnote
11] However, according to FEMA, the satellite television operators have
been working with FEMA to ensure they will be able to disseminate EAS
alerts. Additionally, satellite television operators carrying local
television stations are currently passing through EAS messages aired on
local television stations. According to one satellite television
operator, the new federal requirements pose technical challenges, and
to comply with the requirements, the operator would need to develop a
system capable of broadcasting alerts on its channels. According to the
operator, it is working with FCC engineers to set processes and
guidelines to implement EAS, but is still in the early stages of this
process.
Satellite radio: Satellite radio operators were required to participate
in EAS by December 31, 2006.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 13] In addition to these inspections, FCC relies on the
private sector to conduct inspections through its Alternative Broadcast
Inspection Program (ABIP). Under this program, which is administered in
conjunction with state broadcast associations, third parties hired by
the broadcast associations conduct inspections of broadcasters that
mirror FCC's inspections. Broadcasters found to be in compliance
receive a certification ensuring that FCC will not inspect the station
for 3 years under normal circumstances. FCC said it can inspect such a
station if, for example, it received a complaint. According to FCC, all
states in the nation participate in ABIP agreements. Besides requiring
licensees to have the proper equipment, FCC requires them to test their
ability to send and receive EAS alerts. Although this equipment testing
is mandatory, FCC does not receive confirmation that the tests were
conducted properly. However, EAS participants are required to maintain
logs of their EAS tests that are subject to FCC inspection and
enforcement action in cases of noncompliance.
Media Outlets Broadcast State and Local Alerts Voluntarily:
As noted, there has been no national-level EAS alert to date. EAS
participants voluntarily broadcast state and local alerts, such as
weather warnings or other emergency communications. Some television
stations we visited told us they voluntarily issue state and local
alerts for business reasons and to serve the public interest. In
particular, we heard from two television broadcasters that the local
broadcast environment is highly competitive and viewers want emergency
information. Consequently, these television stations provide coverage
and analysis of emergencies for an extended period without
interruptions or commercial breaks. Additionally, in response to
Hurricane Katrina, a state broadcast association in the Gulf Coast
region told us broadcasters conveyed continuous information about
shelters, food, how to locate missing friends and relatives, and where
to access assistance.
Satellite television operators, while not yet required to participate
in EAS, told us they participate in emergency communications by
voluntarily providing services to their subscribers. For example, two
satellite television operators told us that when the terrorist attacks
of September 11 destroyed the World Trade Center, knocking out
broadcasting and cable services in parts of the New York City area and
disrupting the transmission of information on the disaster, satellite
television operators entered into agreements with broadcasters and
cable operators to provide a local broadcast signal, allowing news
stations to provide service to their customers during the immediate
aftermath of the attacks. Satellite television operators provided this
service voluntarily and free of charge. More recently, during the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a satellite television operator said it
dedicated a channel full-time to disseminating emergency-related
information. This channel voluntarily carried messages from FEMA and
the American Red Cross, as well as live press conferences from
government and public safety officials. Additionally, this channel
carried local messages on shelters, transportation, and safety.
Satellite radio operators told us that they carry special emergency
channels and other channels that provide critical information in the
event of regional or national disasters. For example, one satellite
radio operator said it monitors national news organizations, FEMA, and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and transmits
emergency information on its dedicated emergency alert channel during a
regional or national disaster. In recent years, for example, this
emergency channel has covered Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes in Florida,
a chlorine gas leak in Atlanta, and flooding in New England. This
operator told us the emergency channel is provided free of charge and
can be heard on all the operator's radios, regardless of subscription.
Another satellite radio operator told us it offers its subscribers
channels that broadcast news, weather, and official emergency
information during severe and life-threatening weather events for
selected metropolitan areas. This same operator has indicated that it
is working to create a text override, which would be displayed on all
receivers, directing listeners to turn to the emergency channel.
The Current Emergency Alert System Has Limitations:
Although media outlets are using EAS to deliver emergency information,
FEMA officials and other EAS participants told us it has limitations.
In particular, FEMA officials expressed concern about the reliability
of the relay system, or daisy chain, used to disseminate national-level
EAS messages. In addition, they expressed significant concern about the
reliability of electrical power for broadcast stations during
disasters, noting that without electrical power (or fuel for backup
generators), a broadcaster cannot issue emergency alerts.[Footnote 14]
Other stakeholders we contacted characterized the relay system as
antiquated and also identified potential problems with it. We heard
that a lack of redundancy among key broadcasters makes the current
daisy chain system prone to failure. For example, the chair of a state
emergency communications committee told us redundancy is lacking among
the PEP stations, and therefore, if a PEP station were disabled during
a disaster in a major metropolitan area, an EAS alert would likely fail
to reach a sizable portion of the population. A stakeholder also
expressed concern that gaps in radio coverage could hinder the
successful dissemination of EAS alerts. In particular, a representative
of a state broadcast association we contacted indicated that some radio
stations have difficulty in monitoring their PEP because the PEP is
located far away in a neighboring state. Stakeholders also said the
relay system was too slow to transmit EAS alerts to the public in a
timely manner. For example, a technical consultant to a state broadcast
association estimated that it would take an hour to disseminate an EAS
alert throughout the state. Finally, according to the Media Security
and Reliability Council, many states believe the relay system is
unreliable and do not believe an alert would reach the entire state in
a real emergency.
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[Footnote
15]; adding three new PEP sites in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida;
and providing direct FEMA connectivity to key radio and television
stations through new communications paths provided by XM Radio and
public television.
Despite these efforts to improve the relay system, we found a lack of
ongoing testing to ensure that the system would work as intended during
a national-level alert. FCC requires individual stations to test their
EAS equipment, and FEMA tests the 34 PEP stations, but there is no
requirement for a national-level test of the relay system. On January
8, 2007, FEMA conducted an over-the-air national-level EAS test. This
test, which FEMA said was the culmination of several years of effort,
demonstrated that the connectivity to the public radio satellite uplink
worked effectively. However, 3 PEP stations failed to receive and
effectively rebroadcast the national-level test message. FEMA
attributed these failures to problems with software (2 stations) and
hardware (1 station). According to FEMA, these problems have been
resolved, but questions remain about the reliability of the relay
system, since the test was not designed to reach the nonpublic radio
stations that, together with the public radio stations, would be
responsible for relaying a national-level alert. Therefore, FEMA and
FCC might not be able to assure Congress and the public that the relay
system would work during a national-level emergency. Indeed, according
to a state emergency communications committee, in a statewide testing
of EAS, the relay system did not work as intended and the message was
not received beyond an area roughly 50 to 70 miles from the state
capital. The emergency communications committee indicated that the
stations' encoders were set incorrectly to receive the emergency alert
and control rooms at some of the radio stations were unmanned, so no
one was available to manually retransmit the alerts.
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.[Footnote 16] According to the
Partnership for Public Warning, EAS participants require extensive
training to properly set up EAS equipment. The Partnership for Public
Warning further reported that personnel using EAS equipment often lack
proper training and that inadequate training is a main factor
preventing the nation from having a unified warning system. It
subsequently recommended training for all EAS stakeholders to ensure
that they are trained and qualified to perform their roles in the use
of the system. Similarly, a presidential advisory group identified that
training of industry personnel to use equipment properly is a problem
of EAS. State and local officials also identified inadequate training
as a limitation of the current EAS. For example, the director of a
state emergency communications committee described the lack of EAS
training for emergency personnel who craft the messages as the primary
challenge facing his state's EAS. The director further noted that
turnover among these emergency personnel is frequent and creates a
constant need for EAS training. In addition, a state EAS chair
described inadequate training of personnel in crafting EAS alerts as a
significant limitation. A county emergency manager elaborated,
developing a hypothetical example of a poorly crafted EAS message that
could unnecessarily panic the public. He said an EAS alert warning of
flooding in "West Texas" could be interpreted as referring to a city
called West, Texas, or to the entire western portion of the state. If
the city alone was affected, but the western portion of the state was
understood, the alert could be broadcast far beyond the affected areas,
causing unnecessary panic. However, he said, a situation like this
could likely be avoided by providing additional instruction for
emergency personnel on how to create effective EAS messages.
Additionally, a local emergency communications committee chairman added
that local government officials and emergency responders are generally
unaware of the capabilities of EAS and underutilize the system. He told
us additional training could help address this situation.
A final limitation of EAS that we heard about was a lack of
coordination among EAS stakeholders at the state and local levels. A
member of a state emergency communications committee said that,
historically, there has been little coordination between the media and
the state emergency management office and that the broadcast industry
had little involvement in his state's initial EAS plan. A participant
from the Media Security and Reliability Council noted that coordination
among broadcast media and other local stakeholders during emergencies
is a major issue that has yet to be addressed. Such coordination could
be achieved through the development of detailed regional and local
emergency response plans, which would coordinate the actions of local
officials and broadcasters in response to emergencies. He said to date,
such plans have largely not been developed. In one case, we heard of a
lack of coordination among stakeholders on the use of EAS. In
particular, a local radio broadcaster, which also serves as a PEP for a
major metropolitan area, told us it no longer automatically relays EAS
alerts issued by the National Weather Service (NWS). He said
broadcasters are displeased with the increase in programming
interruptions resulting from NWS's increase in EAS activations.
Stakeholders Have Identified Various Challenges Facing the Current
Emergency Alert System and Hold Differing Views on the Proposed Changes
to the System:
We heard from various stakeholders that the current EAS faces many
challenges, making it not fully conducive to the technical capabilities
or the cultural needs of the nation's increasingly mobile, disparate,
and diverse population. For example, the current system provides alerts
via television and radio only and does not issue alerts in multiple
languages. In addition, EAS has limited geo-targeted ability--that is,
it cannot target alert messages to a specific geographic location, and
as discussed earlier, it uses an antiquated relay system that some
stakeholders believe is unreliable for disseminating national-level
alerts. Even though millions of Americans have hearing loss or vision
trouble[Footnote 17], FEMA and others have said that EAS has poor
alerting capabilities for the disabled community. Furthermore, while we
heard that most emergencies originate at the state and local levels,
the broadcast of state and local EAS alerts is not federally mandated.
Ideally, FEMA said the system should be able to provide federal, state,
and local emergency management officials with multiple means (voice,
data, and video using radios, televisions, cell phones, e-mail,
computer devices, pagers, sirens, loudspeakers, and other technologies)
to inform the broadest possible public with coordinated alerts.
Recognizing that an accurate, wide-reaching public alert and warning
system is critical to public safety, in November 2005, FCC proposed
changes to EAS to address some of these challenges. The potential
changes include (1) requiring the mandatory broadcast of state and
local EAS alerts, (2) expanding EAS alerts to other media, (3) issuing
multilingual EAS alerts, (4) making EAS alerts more accessible to
persons with disabilities, (5) distributing alerts to media directly
rather than using the hierarchical relay system, (6) establishing
performance standards to ensure accurate and timely EAS alerts, and (7)
adopting common alerting protocols for EAS alerts. As discussed in the
remainder of this section of the report, we found stakeholders' views
on the impact of the potential changes varied.
Mandatory broadcast of state and local EAS alerts: As stated
previously, the broadcast of state and local EAS alerts is voluntary,
and FCC sought comment on whether it should require EAS participants to
broadcast state and local alerts. The stakeholders we contacted held
divergent views on this proposed change. Supporters of expanding EAS
requirements to cover local alerts generally included state and local
emergency managers but also broadcast media and cable representatives,
who told us they believe the requirement will result in a more
effective system. For example, one emergency manager said that all
emergencies start locally and EAS needs to consider the needs of state
and local entities in order to be effective. A media operator told us
it supports this proposed requirement because an effective EAS requires
more than the voluntary participation of the media outlets. However,
this operator also supports constraints on these requirements to
prevent overalerting--that is, issuing so many alerts that the public
ignores them. Other supporters suggested conditions for new
requirements such as obtaining the support of all stakeholders and
leaving the implementation of the requirement to each state.
Media providers and media advocacy groups that opposed the expansion of
EAS requirements to cover state and local alerts cited various reasons,
including concerns about decreasing the amount of information
communicated during an emergency, difficulties filtering large numbers
of messages, and business concerns. According to one media operator,
mandating state and local EAS alerts could limit the amount of
information provided to viewers if an alert providing general or
outdated information preempted an alert providing detailed, current
information. The operator also said that it could support the
requirement if it specified a time frame for the alert to air, so as to
not interrupt coverage. Other opponents of expansion told us that
voluntarily issuing state and local alerts allows them to filter out
poorly drafted or irrelevant messages. For example, one broadcasters
association said that requiring EAS participants to issue state and
local alerts would give media operators no flexibility in dealing with
badly written messages. This association thinks that if a requirement
exists, the originators of EAS messages will have no reason to make
certain the messages are clearly worded and their audio quality is
high. A media provider also expressed concern about overalerting the
public and said the broadcasters need to be able to filter out
irrelevant information. According to this provider, voluntary alerts
create a balance of power that allows media providers to issue alerts
only when they are appropriate, thereby preventing the system from
being abused or overused. Other stakeholders maintained that requiring
state and local alerts would be an ineffective means of alerting the
public because the alerts lack geographic specificity. According to
these stakeholders, greater use of widespread alerts by media providers
would increase spillover effects--that is, inattention to alerts
resulting from the receipt of too many inapplicable warnings. Satellite
radio operators also expressed concern about overalerting. Moreover,
they told us the national footprint of satellite programming makes
issuing state and local EAS alerts problematic, since a local alert
would be issued nationwide and all subscribers would receive all
alerts. Finally, stakeholders cited business concerns as reasons for
opposing this proposal. One media operator said mandatory alerts
interfere with business because each hour of programming has a limited
number of minutes allotted to sell commercials, and each EAS alert
results in lost revenue for the operator.
Expanding EAS alerts to other media: EAS's current reliance on
broadcasters, cable systems, and satellite radio providers to transmit
emergency messages renders other important communications devices, such
as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and computers--devices
that many Americans use repeatedly in their daily lives--immaterial for
emergency communications. FCC sought comment on including additional
media in EAS, such as landline telephone providers and wireless service
providers. According to a representative of the commercial mobile
(wireless) industry, wireless providers did not favor a mandate
requiring their participation in EAS. However, the representative said
that major commercial mobile service providers recognize the value of
emergency alerts, particularly because of their participation in the
Wireless AMBER Alert system, and would be willing to participate in a
national emergency alert system that reflects the recommendations of
the advisory panel established by the Warning, Alert, and Response
Network Act (WARN Act) to examine this issue.[Footnote 18]
Most other stakeholders favored expanding EAS to other forms of media,
saying doing so would ensure that EAS alerts reach a wider audience.
Stakeholders believed using multiple forms of media would broaden the
reach of an EAS alert, given the trend toward an increasingly
splintered media audience and increasing diversity in modern
communications. Stakeholders believed an ideal warning system should
reach the public through a variety of media forms. Other stakeholders
said the expansion of EAS to other media would be fair, given the
current EAS requirements for traditional broadcasters.
Stakeholders who did not favor expanding EAS requirements to other
media expressed several concerns, suggesting that policymakers should
first address the shortcomings of the current EAS before expanding it
to other media. A radio broadcaster said any expansion of EAS to other
media should not result in additional requirements for broadcasters.
Rather, the broadcaster said, the burden of accommodating other forms
of media should be the responsibility of EAS alert originators. Another
stakeholder questioned the efficacy of expanding EAS to commercial
mobile service devices (i.e., cell phones), claiming such networks are
likely to become overloaded and fail in an emergency.
Multilingual EAS messages: EAS alerts provided only in English might
not be understood by non-English speakers living in the United States.
Until FCC and the media address this issue, FCC proposed that
multilingual emergency information be provided in areas where a
significant proportion of the population is primarily fluent in a
language other than English. FCC asked for comment on other proposals
about how best to alert non-English speakers. The stakeholders we
contacted had divergent views in terms of requiring multilingual
alerts. The majority of broadcasters we spoke with were not in favor of
mandating multilingual alerts, preferring compliance to be voluntary.
They cited numerous challenges associated with requiring multilingual
alerts, including potential technical difficulties to issue alerts in
more than one language at a time. In particular, we heard it is
difficult to transmit clearly worded and recoded messages on time for
multilingual alerts, and that if two separate messages were issued (one
in English and one in another language), the equipment might construe
the first message as an error and delete it. Any message delays could
have negative consequences for the public. Broadcasters and others
expressed a fundamental concern about choosing how other languages
would be chosen to issue the alerts. Some broadcasters serving major
metropolitan areas told us many languages are spoken in their
communities, so it would be problematic to choose just one non-English
language for the EAS alerts. One broadcaster told us his radio station
does not have the staff to translate EAS alerts into other languages,
but if the station received the multilingual alerts, it would try to
pass them along.
One emergency manager we contacted voiced support for multilingual
alerts and believed that requiring them is long overdue, especially in
communities that are becoming increasingly diverse and economically
disadvantaged. Furthermore, one broadcasters association mentioned that
during Hurricane Katrina and its immediate aftermath, as many as
300,000 people were without emergency information because they did not
speak English fluently and emergency information was unavailable in any
language other than English. Another emergency manager told us that
some rural counties in his state have large migrant worker populations
that do not speak English; however, there are no emergency
communications targeted to non-English speakers in those areas.
Accessibility to persons with disabilities: According to the National
Center for Health Statistics, there are approximately 54 million adults
in the United States with some level of hearing or vision trouble. FEMA
and others have said EAS has poor alerting capabilities for the
disabled community. FCC said that it is committed to ensuring that
persons with disabilities have equal access to public warnings and are
considered in emergency preparedness planning. FCC sought comment on
making EAS alerts more accessible to people with disabilities. While
stakeholders were not opposed to making alerts more accessible, many
believed accessibility could be addressed at the individual level. For
example, eight stakeholders we interviewed said that improving access
to EAS alerts for the disabled could be done at the individual level.
According to these stakeholders, access can be improved through
multiple sensory alerting devices, such as bed shakers, vibrating
pagers, and flashing lights, as well as by subscription to additional
alert systems, which deliver important emergency alerts, notifications,
and updates during major crises. One stakeholder we interviewed told us
about a system that sends emergency information to registered devices
such as e-mail accounts, cell phones, text pagers, satellite phones,
and wireless personal digital assistants.
Organizations representing the disabled have said that individuals with
hearing and vision disabilities are subject to inconsistent aural and
visual information in EAS alerts. They also told us that because of
inadequate captioning during breaking news events and the lack of an
audio description of crawling text alerts, those with hearing and
vision disabilities can miss vital information during emergencies. One
organization said that disabled individuals currently have less access
to EAS messages than they did in the past, because video alert messages
include only truncated versions of audio alert messages, make increased
use of crawling text and on-screen graphics with no related audio
information, and do not comply with related captioning mandates.
The National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM), a research and
development facility dedicated to media and information technology
issues for people with disabilities, compiled a working draft of
information requirements intended to improve access to emergency
alerts. According to NCAM's information model, a warning message should
be compatible with various transmission systems and provide warning
message details in text, audio, multiple languages, and images or other
visual forms. Additionally, NCAM's information model recommends the use
of multiple presentation forms appropriate to the needs of individual
recipients; the appropriate use of font size, foreground/background
color, and other visual attributes in image and text presentations; and
the use of appropriate language for comprehension by the at-risk
audience.
Point-to-multipoint distribution of EAS alerts: The current EAS uses a
relay system to distribute national-level emergency alerts, which--as
mentioned previously--some EAS participants view as unreliable. FEMA
has added satellite uplink connectivity to approximately 860 public
radio stations so that they can receive national-level alerts directly.
FCC sought comment on whether EAS alerts should be distributed directly
to media outlets in a point-to-multipoint distribution system, rather
than through the relay system. The stakeholders we contacted who
offered opinions on this issue overwhelmingly favored the point-to-
multipoint distribution, but some expressed concerns about the
technical difficulties associated with its implementation. For example,
a representative from a PEP station expressed concern that implementing
a point-to-multipoint system would be challenging given the increasing
prevalence of automated stations in the commercial radio industry. The
representative also expressed concern that stations located in downtown
areas might not be able to receive alerts in a satellite-based system
because buildings often block the sight lines that are required to
receive such satellite signals. According to a state broadcast
association representative and a broadcast engineer, a point-to-
multipoint system would require more levels of redundancy than EAS
currently has. The engineer further told us that attempts to develop a
satellite-based point-to-multipoint alert distribution system in his
state had been unsuccessful despite significant investments of time and
funds.
Performance standards: Currently no performance standards exist to
ensure that the American public receives accurate, timely alerts and
warnings. FCC sought comment on whether performance standards are
necessary. Most of our interviewees agreed that developing performance
standards would help to ensure accurate, timely alerts. According to
one emergency manager, developing performance standards is very
important because everyone learns from mistakes, so the system would
continue to improve and the public would be more likely to receive
accurate and timely alerts. A broadcast association representative told
us that FCC should have a role in determining performance standards for
EAS alerts to ensure high-quality messages and proper standards for
operating EAS equipment.
Common alerting protocols: Endorsed by many entities responsible for
alerts, Common Alerting Protocols (CAP) might offer the most practical
means of quickly creating an effective interface between the emergency
manager and multiple emergency alert systems to improve national alert
and warning capability. FCC sought comment on whether common protocols
are necessary for the rapid flow of emergency alerts to the public. The
majority of stakeholders we contacted who were knowledgeable about CAP
supported its adoption. According to Society of Broadcast Engineers
comments filed with FCC, CAP will provide a universal language that can
be understood by the growing array of digital communication devices.
The comments indicated that CAP has the potential to become the
language translator not only for incoming and outgoing warnings but
also for non-EAS alerts and advisories. For example, CAP's capabilities
can be used to trigger sirens, which would benefit those with visual
impairments. According to a chief information officer of one state,
adopting CAP is the key to success for any public warning system.
However, the system should be open--that is, nonproprietary. He further
said that CAP should evolve through an inclusive process that takes
into account the opinions and needs of all stakeholders, including
television, radio, microwave, and satellite services providers, among
others.
Several Projects Are Underway to Develop an Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System, but Challenges to Its Implementation Remain:
According to FCC, several federal initiatives are underway to improve,
expand, and integrate existing warning systems. For example, FEMA is
conducting various pilot projects under a public-private partnership
called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System and has also
developed an implementation plan that outlines its vision for an
integrated alert system. Legislation has also been enacted that enables
the participation of wireless service providers in EAS. Despite this
progress, FEMA officials and other stakeholders said challenges to the
implementation of an integrated system remain, including issues
associated with coordination, training, and funding.
FEMA Pilot Projects and Other Initiatives Aim to Integrate the
Emergency Alert System:
FEMA officials told us they are trying to develop a technologically
enhanced alert and warning system that provides effective warnings at
all times, in all places, under all conditions, and over all broadcast
media devices available to the public. According to FEMA, the new
integrated system will build on the current EAS and leverage advanced
communications technologies to provide additional methods of
originating and disseminating EAS messages. The agency has established
various pilot projects related to the development of an integrated
public alert and warning system. One such pilot, called the Digital
Emergency Alert System, is testing how the digital capabilities of our
nation's public radio and television stations and other networks--
combined with the voluntary participation of cell phone service
providers; public and commercial radio and television broadcasters;
satellite radio, cable, and Internet providers; and equipment
manufacturers--can be used to provide alert and warning information to
the public and to disaster support personnel. As stated by FEMA, a goal
of the pilot is to expand the system so that everyone, regardless of
location or time of day, will receive emergency information. The
national DEAS pilot will run for 1 year beginning in January 2007, with
all public broadcasting stations (over 300 nationwide) to be DEAS-
enabled by December 2007. In conjunction with DEAS, FEMA plans to
upgrade the existing EAS network. To provide a resilient PEP radio
station for every state and territory, FEMA plans to eventually expand
the number of PEP stations from 34 to 63, and will add 3 PEP stations
in 2007. FEMA has also recently provided satellite connectivity to 15
existing PEP radio stations in hurricane-affected states and
territories (12 states and 2 territories). Furthermore, FEMA is working
with the Primary Entry Point Administrative Council to provide
equipment and technical support to five radio stations in the Gulf
Coast states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) to
help ensure they are prepared for the 2007 hurricane season and other
future storms or disasters.
Other FEMA initiatives include the (1) development of the Geo-Targeted
Alerting System, (2) piloting of the DHS Web Alert and Relay Network,
and (3) provisioning of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) all-hazards radios for public schools. The Geo-Targeted Alerting
System is a pilot program to integrate near-real-time weather and
hazard predictions and provide geo-targeted alerting to homes,
buildings, and neighborhoods via cell phones, landline phones, pagers,
desktop computers, sirens, and other geo-aware devices. This pilot is
planned to conclude in 2007 with the development of a national Geo-
Targeted Alerting System deployment plan. The Web Alert and Relay
Network is a pilot program to enable federal, state, and local
officials to send and receive alerts using Web technologies, and to
provide links to state and local alert and warning Web pages. This
relay network pilot started in 2005 and is expected to extend to all
states and territories by 2011. Last, DHS has provided all-hazards NOAA
weather radios to 16,000 public schools and plans to ensure that all
remaining public schools in the United States have the radios by 2011.
FEMA has also developed an implementation plan outlining its vision for
an integrated alert system, which FEMA summarizes as "one message over
more channels to more people at all times and places." The plan
outlines various tasks related to executing the integrated alert and
warning system that are designed to ensure, among other things, that
the President can alert and warn the American people under all
conditions. One key task is for FEMA to consult, coordinate, and
cooperate with private and public sector entities, including
communications media organizations and federal, state, territorial,
tribal, and local governmental authorities, including emergency
response providers, as appropriate. As shown in figure 2, with an
integrated alerting system, FEMA envisions coordinated messages
traveling over more channels to reach the public through multiple media
devices, including cell phones, pagers, road signs, and the Internet,
as well as the existing EAS technologies.
Figure 2: Figure 2: FEMA's Vision of an Integrated Alert and Warning
System:
[See PDF for image]
Source: FEMA and GAO.
[End of figure]
Also related to the development of an integrated alert system is the
enactment of the WARN Act.[Footnote 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[Footnote 20], to recommend the technical specifications and
protocols that will govern wireless providers that choose to
participate in emergency alerting. The advisory panel is to submit its
recommendations to FCC within 1 year of October 13, 2006, the date of
the act's passage. Subsequently, the act requires FCC to complete
rulemaking proceedings to adopt relevant technical standards and to
allow wireless providers to transmit emergency alerts. Thereafter,
wireless providers will have 30 days to elect to participate in
emergency alerts. Wireless providers must either choose to participate
in emergency alerting or inform both their new and existing customers
that they do not provide this service. Thus, if the act's deadlines are
met, wireless providers will be able to elect to participate in
emergency alerts starting not later than September 2008. The committee
is chaired by the FCC Chairman and includes 42 other members
representing stakeholders in government (at the federal, state, local,
and tribal levels), the wireless communications industry, broadcasters,
the disabled community, and other subject area experts.
Stakeholders Cited Challenges to the Implementation of an Integrated
Alert System:
FEMA officials believe an integrated alert system will have advantages
over the current system but told us challenges to its implementation
remain. A key challenge, FEMA said, is gaining the cooperation of
federal, state, and local emergency management organizations on the use
of a standardized technology for disseminating alerts. Many believe a
standardized technology, or common messaging protocol, is necessary to
distribute simultaneous messages over multiple platforms. Additionally,
we believe the implementation of an integrated alert system will
require collaboration among a variety of stakeholders to ensure that
all elements of the system can work together and can convey accurate,
timely emergency alerts to all Americans. According to FEMA's
implementation plan, consulting, coordinating, and cooperating with
diverse stakeholders are cornerstones in the effective execution of the
public alert and warning system. Furthermore, the plan says all of the
FEMA pilot projects require regular interaction with private sector and
media organizations. However, there does not appear to be a
collaborative, consensus-based forum for all interested stakeholders--
public and private--to work together to develop processes, standards,
systems, and strategies related to implementing an integrated system.
The Partnership for Public Warning previously existed as such a forum,
and its objectives included fostering communication, cooperation, and
consensus among key stakeholders; promoting and conducting research and
studies on alert and warning issues; assisting and advising government
officials on the development, implementation, and operation of public
warning systems, technologies, policies, and procedures; and supporting
the timely generation of standards, specifications, and protocols. In
the absence of such a forum, coordination might continue on an ad hoc,
rather than a strategic, basis. According to one stakeholder, federal
efforts to develop an integrated system have focused thus far on the
ability of EAS to deliver a national alert, to the exclusion of state
and local needs. In particular, a state emergency manager told us his
organization, which has developed an advanced alert system, had not
been contacted by FEMA regarding its experience in the system's design
or implementation.
Extending alerts to wireless providers is another challenge to the
implementation of an integrated alert system that stakeholders
identified. In general, commercial mobile services networks are
designed for point-to-point communications, whereas EAS today relies on
broadcasters for point-to-multipoint communications. Commercial mobile
services (i.e., wireless) networks are not currently designed to
broadcast messages on a point-to-multipoint basis like television and
radio networks. Instead, wireless networks currently send messages by a
point-to-point design in which network traffic is routed to and from
individual recipients using database and switching technology. Given
their point-to-point design, these networks generally only have the
capacity to serve a certain percentage of subscribers at any one time.
Because wireless networks are designed for point-to-point
communications and do not have the capacity to serve all subscribers
simultaneously, a representative of the industry told us wireless
providers would be unable to deliver a national-level EAS alert on a
timely basis. FEMA told us it plans to use CAP to accommodate cell
broadcast, SMS[Footnote 21], and other various transmission standards
so that one- way alerting messages can be distributed through wireless
networks. As required by the WARN Act, the Commercial Mobile Service
Alert Advisory Committee is addressing the technical issues currently
affecting the participation of wireless providers in emergency
communications.
In addition to these technical challenges, stakeholders have noted that
other challenges currently facing EAS will also face an integrated
system, including the challenges associated with accessibility,
training, and funding. FEMA, for example, has said that the
difficulties involved in making EAS alerts accessible to non-English
speakers and to the disabled will likewise be barriers to the
development of an integrated alert and warning system. Similarly, the
Congressional Research Service has observed that incorporating
technologies that expand the reach of EAS for people with special
needs, such as those with disabilities, the elderly, and those who do
not understand English, at a reasonable cost, is one of the challenges
of delivering an effective warning system that is truly nationwide.
Advocates for the disabled have expressed particular concern about the
costs of purchasing the additional equipment that the disabled may need
to receive emergency information through individualized means.
According to these advocates, the cost of such equipment generally
falls on the disabled consumers, who, the advocates told us, are more
likely to have limited financial resources than other consumers. As a
step toward addressing the accessibility challenge, FEMA said it is
planning to conduct pilot projects during the 2007 hurricane season to
show how the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System will provide
more effective alerts for disabled communities in the future.
Providing adequate training in the proper use of emergency alert
equipment and in the drafting of effective alert messages will remain a
challenge in developing an integrated system. As noted, the Partnership
for Public Warning identified inadequate training as a main factor
preventing the nation from having a unified warning system and
recommended training for all EAS stakeholders. A state emergency
manager also told us that training of all stakeholders is vital to a
comprehensive alert and warning system, and a state broadcasters
association representative said training is the only way to address the
possibility of human failure, which he described as the key challenge
in developing an integrated system. Stakeholders further emphasized the
importance of training emergency personnel to develop well-crafted
alert messages that the public will be able to understand and act on
appropriately. To address the training challenge, FEMA is developing a
Web site that will provide general EAS and other public alert and
warning training for emergency managers. FEMA expects this Web portal
to have full operational capability in 2008. However, strategies to
convey training information, coordination with a variety of government
and other stakeholders who can facilitate an EAS training environment,
and measures to ascertain the program's effectiveness have not been
completed and tested.
Finally, FEMA cited a lack of funding as a challenge to the
implementation of the integrated system. According to FEMA, it is
currently funded to provide enhanced public alert and warning
capabilities primarily in three states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama), and significant additional funding is required to field
integrated public alert and warning system improvements across the rest
of the United States.
Conclusions:
The ability to communicate reliable emergency information to the public
is critical during disasters, and effective emergency warnings allow
people to take actions that could save lives and property. While EAS is
one of the mainstays of the nation's capacity to issue such warnings,
its reliability is uncertain. With no requirements to test the relay
system for disseminating national alerts and with no nationwide test
results--apart from the partial test conducted in January 2007, in
which three primary relay stations failed to transmit or receive the
emergency message--the public lacks assurance that the system would
work in a national emergency. Although several federal initiatives are
underway to integrate existing warning systems and FEMA is planning to
nearly double the number of primary relay stations in order to increase
the system's redundancy, these initiatives have just begun to receive
funding and are likely to take years to implement. In the meantime,
questions remain about the reliability of EAS's relay system.
Adequate training for all EAS participants is critical to ensure that
they are qualified to use the equipment and to draft effective
emergency messages that the public will be able to understand and act
on appropriately. Despite the federal government's efforts to integrate
and improve EAS, the system will be ineffective if the public ignores
alerts or does not take appropriate action based on the information
provided.
Effectively implementing an integrated alert system will require
collaboration among a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including those
at the federal, state, and local levels; private industry; and the
affected consumer community. FEMA believes that the effective execution
of the public alert and warning system requires consulting,
coordinating, and cooperating with diverse stakeholders. However, a
regular forum for public and private stakeholders to discuss emerging
issues related to the implementation of the integrated alert system
does not exist. Without such a forum, coordination among the diverse
stakeholders could occur on an ad hoc basis, but there would be no
systematic means of bringing all interested public and private
stakeholders together for a comprehensive, strategic review of the
processes, standards, systems, and strategies related to the
implementation of the integrated public alert and warning system.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the Emergency Alert System is capable of operating as
intended and that coordination with a variety of stakeholders on the
implementation of the integrated public alert and warning system
exists, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the
Director, FEMA, to work in conjunction with the Chairman, FCC, to take
the following actions:
* 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.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS and FCC. In its response, DHS
agreed with the intent of our recommendations and noted that FEMA will
continue to conduct regular tests of the system in coordination with
FCC to include the new quarterly "over-the-air" tests of the national-
level relay. DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated
into the report as appropriate. Written comments from DHS are provided
in appendix III. FCC provided comments via e-mail and noted that its
staff circulated a Second Report and Order addressing various issues
raised in the November 2005 further notice of proposed rulemaking
including (1) extension of EAS to other media, (2) transmission of EAS
alerts issued by governors, and (3) issues related to the development
of a next-generation EAS. Further, FCC provided technical comments that
we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Chairman of FCC;
and the Director of FEMA. We will make copies available to others upon
request. The report is available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. Contact points for our offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or 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.
Signed by:
Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Vice-Chairman:
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Henry Waxman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John D. Dingell:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joe Barton:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Edward J. Markey:
Chairman:
The Honorable Fred Upton:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Jose Seranno:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ralph Regula:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dennis J. Kucinich:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report, initiated under GAO's general authority to examine
government operations, provides information on (1) the media's ability
to meet federal requirements for participating in the Emergency Alert
System, (2) stakeholder views on the challenges facing the Emergency
Alert System and potential changes to it, and (3) the progress made
toward developing an integrated public alert and warning system.
To meet these objectives, we collected information from various
stakeholders on the Emergency Alert System (EAS), challenges facing EAS
and proposed changes to it, and efforts to develop an integrated
system. In particular, we interviewed representatives of media
providers, including radio and television broadcasters, cable
companies, satellite television and satellite radio operators, state
and local emergency management officials, and state broadcasting
associations. We also interviewed officials with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the National Weather Service (NWS), and the National
Academy of Engineering. In addition, we met with industry trade
associations, including the National Association of Broadcasters, the
National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the Wireless
Association (commonly referred to as CTIA), and the Association of
Public Television Stations, and with two organizations representing the
disabled--the National Council on Disability and the National Center
for Accessible Media. We analyzed data on the number of waivers to EAS
requirements that FCC granted to media providers. Additionally, we
reviewed FCC's proposed rulemaking related to EAS and the comments FCC
received on the rulemaking.
To obtain information from the state and local levels, we employed a
case study approach. The case studies consisted of interviews with
state and local officials and representatives in seven states:
California, Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, New York, Texas, and
Virginia. We selected these states because of their recent experience
with natural disasters or man-made emergencies and their geographic
diversity. We interviewed state and local emergency management
officials, state broadcasting association directors or officers, and
representatives of other media organizations involved in emergency
communications, including local broadcast radio, television, cable
systems, and National Weather Service Forecast Offices. Table 1
provides more detailed information on the states and localities we
selected and the entities we interviewed.
Table 1: Case Study States and Entities We Contacted:
State: Kansas;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
* Kansas City;
State association of broadcasters:
* Kansas Association of Broadcasters;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
* Broadcast television;
National Weather Service: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
* Fairfax County;
State association of broadcasters:
* Virginia Association of Broadcasters;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
* Broadcast television;
* Cable system;
National Weather Service:
* Washington, D.C./Baltimore Forecast Office.
State: Mississippi;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
* City of Jackson;
State association of broadcasters:
* Mississippi Association of Broadcasters;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
* Broadcast television;
National Weather Service:
* Jackson Forecast Office.
State: Florida;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
* City of Tallahassee;
State association of broadcasters:
* Florida Association of Broadcasters;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
* Broadcast television;
National Weather Service:
* Tallahassee Forecast Office.
State: New York;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
State association of broadcasters:
* New York State Broadcasters Association;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
* Broadcast television;
* Cable system;
National Weather Service: [Empty].
State: Texas;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
* City of Fort Worth;
State association of broadcasters:
* Texas Association of Broadcasters;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
* Broadcast television;
* Cable system;
National Weather Service:
* Fort Worth/ Dallas Forecast Office.
State: California;
Emergency management:
* State emergency management;
* Contra Costa County;
State association of broadcasters:
* California Broadcasters Association;
Media:
* Broadcast radio;
National Weather Service:
* Los Angeles/Oxnard Forecast Station.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Public-Private Partnerships Involved in Emergency
Communications:
Various public-private partnerships work on issues related to EAS,
including the Media Security and Reliability Council, the independent
panel established to review the impact of Hurricane Katrina on
communications networks, and the Partnership for Public Warning.
Information on these entities follows.
Media Security and Reliability Council: The Media Security and
Reliability Council (MSRC) is a federal advisory committee established
by FCC to study, develop, and report on communications and coordination
designed to ensure the optimal reliability, robustness, and security of
the broadcast and multichannel video programming distribution
industries in emergency situations.
MSRC's mission was to prepare a comprehensive national strategy for
securing and sustaining broadcast and multichannel video facilities
throughout the United States during terrorist attacks, natural
disasters, and all other threats or attacks nationwide. Additionally,
MSRC was to develop and provide recommendations to FCC and the media
industry on detecting, preparing for, preventing, protecting against,
responding to, and recovering from terrorist threats, natural
disasters, or other attacks on America's infrastructure and people.
Members of MSRC, including senior representatives of mass media
companies, cable television and satellite service providers, trade
associations, public safety representatives, manufacturers, and other
related entities, developed, among other things, best practice
recommendations, model documents, and other resources. For example, the
council developed best practice recommendations for media companies
aimed at helping to (1) ensure the security and sustainability of
broadcast and multichannel video facilities throughout the United
States; (2) ensure the availability of adequate transmission capability
during events or periods of exceptional stress due to natural
disasters, man-made attacks, or similar occurrences; and (3) facilitate
the rapid restoration of broadcast and multichannel video programming
distributor services in the event of disruptions.
In addition, MSRC developed model vulnerability checklists and disaster
recovery plans for local radio and television stations, cable systems,
and satellite operators. In particular, MSRC's best practices
recommended that each national media facility have a vulnerability
assessment and a disaster recovery plan that is periodically reviewed,
updated, and practiced. A disaster recovery plan enables the media
provider to assess the vulnerability of and impact on critical systems
and to recover operations and essential services in the event of a
natural or man-made disaster or other emergency. Topics covered in the
disaster recovery plan include vulnerability assessment and prevention,
plan distribution and maintenance, staff roles and responsibilities,
essential equipment and materials, internal and external
communications, emergency procedures, recovery and restoration
procedures, and periodic plan testing. Documents and additional
information on MSRC can be found on its Web site,
http://www.mediasecurity.org/.
Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on
Communications Networks: FCC established the panel to (1) study the
impact of Hurricane Katrina on the telecommunications and media
infrastructure, including public safety communications; (2) review the
sufficiency of the recovery efforts with respect to infrastructure; and
(3) make recommendations for improving disaster preparedness, network
reliability, and communication among first responders in the future. In
June 2006, the panel issued a report summarizing its findings.[Footnote
22] According to the report, Hurricane Katrina had a devastating impact
on the communications networks in the Gulf Coast region because of
flooding, lack of power and fuel, and the failure of redundant pathways
for communications traffic. The panel reported that state and local
officials did not use EAS to provide localized emergency evacuation and
other important information. According to the panel, because EAS was
not activated, inconsistent or erroneous information was sometimes
provided within the affected area. The panel also reported that a major
challenge was ensuring that emergency communications reach Americans
who have hearing or vision disabilities or do not speak English. The
panel made several recommendations to FCC related to EAS. For example,
the panel recommended that FCC take action to revitalize EAS by (1)
educating state and local officials, as well as the public, about EAS;
(2) completing its proceeding to explore the viability of expanding EAS
to other technologies; and (3) exploring the viability of establishing
a comprehensive national warning system that complements existing
systems. The panel made other recommendations aimed at making alerts
more accessible for persons with disabilities and non-English speakers.
Partnership for Public Warning: The Partnership for Public Warning
(PPW) was a public/private not-for-profit institute that worked to
promote and enhance efficient, effective, and integrated dissemination
of public warnings and related information so as to save lives, reduce
disaster losses, and speed recovery. PPW was created as a nonprofit
consortium for the government, private industry, and the public to work
together to identify the major challenges to improving the nation's
public warning capability and reach consensus on effective solutions
and strategies. Participants included state and local emergency
managers, private sector industry executives, nonprofit organizations,
representatives of academia and of special needs constituencies such as
the deaf and hard of hearing, members of the public, and federal
agencies.
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/.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
March 8, 2006:
Mr. Mark L. Goldstein:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Goldstein:
RE: Draft Report GAO-07-411, Emergency Preparedness: Current Emergency
Alert System Has Limitations and Development of a New Integrated System
Has Challenges (GAO Job Code 543161):
The Department of Homeland Security appreciates the opportunity to
review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) makes two recommendations to the
Administrator at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. The recommendations
are designed to ensure that the Emergency Alert System operates as
intended and that coordination with stakeholders on the implementation
of the integrated public alert and warning system exists. We agree with
the intent of the recommendations.
We agree that additional planning and effort is required to ensure that
the relay system upon which the Emergency Alert System (EAS) depends is
reliable and effective and that EAS participants have the training to
issue effective EAS alerts. To that end, FEMA will continue to conduct
regular tests of the system in coordination with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to include the new quarterly "over-the-
air" tests of the national-level relay. In addition, FEMA, in
coordination with the FCC, will continue to work to fulfill the
requirements of Executive Order 13407, Public Alert and Warning System,
which includes: (1) assessing how well the current system works, (2)
implementing improvements to the overall system, and (3) improving the
training for EAS operators as well as making the system more user
friendly.
GAO also recommends that FEMA, working in conjunction with the FCC,
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. FEMA
recognizes the need for Federal, state, and local stakeholders to work
together to rapidly improve the public alert and warning "system of
systems." To that end, FEMA will continue to meet regularly with the
FCC and other community stakeholders to ensure that the evolving public
alert and warning systems will effectively protect life and property.
For example, FEMA and the FCC are working closely together through such
forums as the Commercial Mobile Services Alert Advisory Committee
(CMSAAC) to address the challenges of implementing an integrated alert
system. In addition, FEMA will continue to work with the FCC,
Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other
stakeholders through our Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) pilot programs to ensure that all stakeholders are able to
participate in the improvement process. Finally, FEMA will continue to
sponsor IPAWS meetings and conferences, as well as participate in other
related meetings, to ensure effective coordination is occurring among
alert and warning stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
(543161)
FOOTNOTES
[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.
[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 at-large through a threat-based,
color-coded system so that protective measures can be implemented to
reduce the likelihood or impact of an attack.
[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.
[6] Satellite radio operators were required to participate in national-
level EAS alerts by December 2006, satellite television operators by
May 2007.
[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.
[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.
[10] A television broadcaster told us that EAS alerts transmitted by
cable systems could override the broadcasters‘ local coverage of
emergency events, blocking important late-breaking information with a
generic EAS alert. FCC has declined to adopt rules to prevent cable
systems from overriding broadcast programming when transmitting state
or local EAS alerts. However, it allows cable operators and
broadcasters to enter into agreements in which the parties can agree
that cable operators will not override broadcast programming when
transmitting state or local EAS alerts.
[11] The satellite television operators, which are also called Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers, include DIRECTV and EchoStar.
[12] At the time or our review, the satellite radio industry consisted
of two companies, XM Satellite Radio and SIRIUS.
[13] FCC 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.
[14] Concern 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.
[15] For additional information on the Digital EAS program, see the
last section of this report.
[16] For information on these pilot projects, see the last section of
this report.
[17] According 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.
[18] The 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.
[19] P.L. 109-347, title VI.
[20] The Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee was not
established as a federal advisory committee. The committee held its
first meeting on December 12, 2006.
[21] SMS is the Short Message Service format, a standard for delivery
of text messages that is currently available to a majority of wireless
subscribers.
[22] 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).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
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:
Public Affairs:
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:
