This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-740 
entitled 'Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental 
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable 
Communications' which was released on July 20, 2004.

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 Requesters:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

July 2004:

Homeland Security:

Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to 
Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications:

GAO-04-740:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-740, a report to congressional requesters:  

Why GAO Did This Study:

Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can 
be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. 
This report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable 
wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that 
federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these 
communications. 

What GAO Found:

In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level 
of government could fix the nations interoperable communications 
problems. Success would require effective, collaborative, 
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. 

The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless 
communication systems ability to talk among themselves as necessary 
and authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions 
compared to needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and 
measure progress over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do 
this are not currently available. The Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) intends to obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of 
a nationwide survey. However, at the time of our review, DHS had not 
yet developed its detailed plans for conducting this survey and 
reporting its results. 

The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts 
to improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a 
national architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing 
technical and financial support for state and local efforts to improve 
interoperability. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
established the federal governments Wireless Public Safety 
Interoperable Communications Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to 
achieve national wireless communications interoperability. However, 
SAFECOMs authority and ability to oversee and coordinate federal and 
state efforts has been limited by its dependence upon other agencies 
for funding and their willingness to cooperate. OMB is currently 
examining alternative methods to implement SAFECOMs mission. In 
addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is 
establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to 
coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability in 
several functions, including wireless communications. The exact 
structure and funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are 
still being developed.

State and local governments can play a large role in developing and 
implementing plans to improve public safety agencies interoperable 
communications. State and local governments own most of the physical 
infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states 
play a central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal 
Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in 
concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability 
channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad 
input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a 
foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level 
of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary 
source of support. However, states are not required to develop 
interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should 
be included in such plans. 

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a 
nationwide database and common terminology for public safety 
interoperability communications channels; (2) assess interoperability 
in specific locations against defined requirements; (3) through federal 
grant awards, encourage state action to establish and support a 
statewide body to develop and implement detailed improvement plans; and 
(4) encourage that grant applications be in compliance with statewide 
interoperability plans, once they are developed. GAO also recommends 
that the Director of OMB work with DHS to review SAFECOMs functions 
and establish a long-term program with appropriate authority and 
funding to coordinate interoperability efforts across the federal 
government.

DHS generally agreed with our first two recommendations but did not 
specifically address the other recommendations to DHS. OMB had no 
comments.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact William Jenkins at (202) 
512-8777 or jenkinsw@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide 
Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued:

Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve:

State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability 
Planning and Communications:

Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning:

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning:

Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure:

Cross Border Planning:

Cross Border Radio Interference:

Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues:

Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band:

Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of 
Public Safety Wireless Communications:

Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements:

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and 
Emerging Public Safety Communications and Interoperability:

Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications:

Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment:

Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent 
Assessments of Alternative Technologies:

Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve:

Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability:

Appendix VFederal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support 
Interoperability Planning:

First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term 
Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs:

Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked 
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans:

Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present 
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:

Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits 
Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels:

No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are 
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:

No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate 
Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions:

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce:

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Related Products:

Bibliography:

Tables:

Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications Interoperability 
Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:

Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding Sources and 
Their Eligible Uses:

Figures:

Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications:

Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests for 
Communications Funds:

Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations:

Abbreviations:

AGILE: Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement:

CAPRAD: Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database 
System:

COPS: Office of Community Oriented Policing Service:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

DOC: Department of Commerce:

DOJ: Department of Justice:

EMS: Emergency Management Services:

FCC: Federal Communications Commission:

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:

IWN: Integrated Wireless Network:

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Agency:

NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:

NIJ: National Institute of Justice:

NPSTC: National Public Safety Telecommunications Council:

PSWAC: Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee:

NCC: Public Safety National Coordination Committee:

NLECTC: National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center:

NTIA: National Telecommunications and Information Administration:

ODP: Office for Domestic Preparedness:

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

PSWN: Public Safety Wireless Network:

SAFECOM: Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

July 20, 2004:

The Honorable Tom Davis, Chairman: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Christopher Shays, Chairman:
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International 
Relations: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Adam H. Putnam, Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental 
Relations and the Census: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

The inability of first responders--police officers, fire fighters, 
emergency medical service personnel, public health officials, and 
others--to communicate effectively over wireless systems with one 
another as needed during an emergency is a long-standing and widely 
recognized problem in many areas across the country.[Footnote 1] 
Reports have shown that when first responders cannot communicate 
effectively as needed, it can literally cost lives of both emergency 
responders and those they are trying to assist. Thus, effective 
communications between and among wireless communications systems used 
by federal, state, and local public safety agencies is generally 
accepted as not only desirable but essential for the protection of life 
and property. Public safety officials generally recognize that 
effective "interoperable" communications is the ability to talk with 
whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to 
talk with everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of 
wireless systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an 
emergency incident, whether that incident is a "routine" spill from an 
overturned tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist 
attack.

Various reports have documented a number of barriers to achieving 
interoperable public safety wireless communications, including 
incompatible and aging equipment, limited and fragmented funding, 
fragmented planning and collaboration, and limited equipment standards. 
The federal government has been addressing these issues for over 15 
years through the attempts of a variety of federal agencies to define 
the extent of the problem and to identify potential solutions. The 
September 11 attacks have resulted in greater public and governmental 
focus on the role of first responders and their capabilities to respond 
to emergencies, including terrorist incidents. In our November 6, 2003, 
testimony[Footnote 2] before subcommittees of the House Committee on 
Government Reform we identified three principal challenges to improving 
interoperable communications for first responders: (1) clearly 
identifying and defining the problem; (2) establishing national 
interoperability performance goals and standards that balance 
nationwide standards with the flexibility to address differences in 
state, regional, and local needs and conditions; and (3) defining the 
roles of federal, state, and local governments and other entities in 
addressing interoperability needs. We noted that perhaps the 
fundamental barrier to addressing all of the long-standing problems in 
interoperable communications is the lack of effective, collaborative, 
interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning and that no one first 
responder group or governmental agency can successfully "fix" the 
interoperability problems that face our nation.

In this report, we examine (1) issues in determining the current 
interoperable communications capabilities of first responders 
nationwide, including the scope and severity of interoperable wireless 
communications problems across the nation; (2) the potential roles that 
federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these 
communications, and (3) how the variety of federal grants for state and 
local first responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of 
interoperable problems and the development of comprehensive plans to 
address those problems.

To address these issues, we met with officials of the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of Defense 
(DOD), and obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation. We also met 
with officials from the states of California, Florida, Georgia, and 
Washington and local governments within those states. We chose these 
four states because we had information that they were active in 
addressing interoperability issues and because California and 
Washington provided an opportunity to examine specific interoperability 
issues that might be presented by national borders with Mexico and 
Canada. We obtained and reviewed documentation from federal, state, and 
local officials regarding interoperability issues, plans and 
activities. In addition, we attended several meetings of public safety 
communications officials and met with staff of the National Governors 
Association. See appendix I for more details on our objectives, scope, 
and methodology. In addition, information on cross-border 
communications issues we obtained during field visits to the states of 
California and Washington is included in appendix II. We conducted our 
work from July 2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the 
nation--including the current interoperable communications 
capabilities of first responders and the scope and severity of the 
problems that may exist--has not been determined. Although various 
reports have documented the lack of interoperability of public safety 
first responders wireless communications in specific locations, 
complete and current data do not exist documenting the scope and 
severity of the problem at the local, state, interstate, or federal 
levels across the nation. Accumulating these data may be difficult, 
however, because several problems inhibit efforts to identify and 
define current interoperable communications capabilities and future 
requirements. Current capabilities must be measured against a set of 
requirements for interoperable communications, and these requirements 
vary according to the characteristics of specific incidents at specific 
locations. Who needs to talk to whom, when they need to talk, and what 
set of communications capabilities should be built or acquired to 
satisfy these requirements depends upon whether interoperable 
communications are needed for day-to-day mutual aid, task force 
operations that occur when members of different agencies come together 
to work on a common problem such as the National Capitol Region sniper 
investigation, or major events such as a terrorist attack. Requirements 
for interoperable communications also may change with the expanding 
definition of first responders--from the traditional police, fire, and 
emergency medical providers to include such professions as health care 
providers and other professions--and the evolution of new technology. A 
federal program, the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable 
Communications Program, also known as SAFECOM, has embarked on an 
effort to establish a national baseline of interoperable communications 
capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is still working out the details 
of the study that would be used to develop the baseline.

The federal government, states, and local governments have important 
roles to play in assessing interoperability needs, gaps in meeting 
those needs, and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps. 
The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term 
commitment, and focus to assist state and local governments to meet 
these goals. For example, currently national requirements for 
interoperable communications are incomplete and no national 
architecture exists, there is no single nationwide database of the 
frequency channels used by public safety agencies to coordinate 
frequencies, and no common nomenclature exists for interoperability 
channels. States alone cannot develop the requirements or a national 
architecture, compile the nationwide frequency database, or develop a 
common nationwide nomenclature. In 2001, the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) established SAFECOM to unify the federal government's 
efforts to help coordinate work at the federal, state, local, and 
tribal levels in order to provide reliable public safety communications 
and achieve national wireless communications interoperability. 
However, SAFECOM was established as an OMB E-Gov initiative with a goal 
of improving interoperable communications within 18-24 months--a 
timeline too short for addressing the complex, long-term nature of the 
interoperability problem. In addition, the roles and responsibilities 
of various federal agencies within and outside DHS involved in 
communications interoperability have not been fully defined, and 
SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts 
has been limited in part because it has been dependent upon other 
federal agencies for funding and has operated without signed 
memorandums of understanding negotiated with various agencies. DHS, 
where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it is 
establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to 
coordinate the federal response to the problems of wireless and other 
functional interoperability and compatibility. The office will include 
SAFECOM, but, as of June 2004, its exact structure and funding were 
still being developed.

States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal 
points for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications. 
The FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and 
procedures the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in 
managing emergency communications and are usually in control at large 
scale-events and disasters, states should administer the 
interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of communications 
spectrum. States can play a key role in improving interoperable 
communications by establishing a management structure that includes 
local participation and input to analyze and identify interoperability 
gaps between "what is" and "what should be," developing comprehensive 
local, state, and regional plans to address such gaps, and funding 
these plans. The states we visited or contacted--California, Florida, 
Georgia, Washington, Missouri and a five state Midwest consortium--were 
in various stages of formulating these management structures. However, 
states are not required to establish a statewide management structure 
or to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on 
what should be included in such plans. In addition, no requirement 
exists that interoperability of federal communications systems be 
coordinated with state and local government communications systems. The 
use of a standard database on communications frequencies by public 
safety agencies within the state and common terminology for these 
frequencies in preparation and implementation of these statewide 
interoperable plans are essential but are also not required. Without 
planning, coordination, and applicable standards--in other words, 
without a commonly understood and accepted blueprint or national 
architecture--the communications systems developed between and among 
locations and levels of government may not be interoperable.

The federal grant structure does not fully support statewide planning 
for communications interoperability because, among other things, grant 
guidance is inconsistent and does not include interoperability planning 
requirements. In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level grant 
reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that federal funds are 
used to effectively support improved regional and statewide 
communications systems. In an effort to address the issue of 
inconsistent guidance, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated with other agencies 
to develop standard grant guidance and requirements for planning, 
building, and training for interoperable communication. DOJ's Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program and DHS's Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), used portions of the guidance in 
their grant application requirements.[Footnote 3]

We are making recommendations to DHS and OMB to improve the assessment 
and coordination of interoperable communications efforts. We recommend 
that the Secretary of DHS (1) develop a nationwide database of 
interoperable public safety frequency channels and a standard 
nationwide nomenclature for these channels, (2) establish requirements 
for interoperable communications and assist states in assessing 
interoperability in their states against those requirements; (3) 
through DHS grant guidance, encourage states to establish a single 
statewide body to assess interoperability and develop a single 
comprehensive statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and 
local communications systems in all frequency bands, and (4) at the 
appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that any purchase 
of interoperable communications equipment with federal funds must be 
certified as being in conformance with statewide interoperability 
plans. We also recommend that the Director of OMB in conjunction with 
DHS review SAFECOM's functions and establish those functions as a long-
term program with adequate authority and funding.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Homeland 
Security discusses actions the department is taking that are generally 
consistent with the intent of our recommendations but do not directly 
address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to 
establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable 
communications within the state, the development of comprehensive 
statewide interoperability plans and tying federal funds for 
communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable 
plans. The Department's comments are discussed later in this report. 
The Department letter is reprinted in appendix VII.

Background:

Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a 
necessary means for achieving an important goal--the ability to respond 
effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated 
actions of first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural 
disasters, or terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed 
out that needed interoperable communications capabilities are based on 
whether communications are needed for (1) "mutual-aid responses" or 
routine day-to-day coordination between two local agencies; (2) 
extended task force operations involving members of different agencies 
coming together to work on a common problem, such as the 2002 sniper 
attacks in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; or (3) a major event 
that requires response from a variety of local, state, and federal 
agencies, such as major wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks 
of September 11, 2001. A California State official with long experience 
in public safety communications breaks the major event category into 
three separate types of events: (1) planned events, such as the 
Olympics, for which plans can be made in advance; (2) recurring events, 
such as major wildfires and other weather events, that can be expected 
every year and for which contingency plans can be prepared based on 
past experience; and (3) unplanned events, such as the September 11th 
attacks, that can rapidly overwhelm the ability of local forces to 
handle the problem.

Interoperable communications are but one component, although a key one, 
of an effective incident command planning and operations structure. As 
shown in figure 1, determining the most appropriate means of achieving 
interoperable communications must flow from an comprehensive incident 
command and operations plan that includes developing an operational 
definition of who is in charge for different types of events and what 
types of information would need to be communicated (voice, data, or 
both) to whom under what circumstances. Other steps include:

* defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities 
needed for specific types of events;

* assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications 
needs;

* identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined 
requirements;

* assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable 
communications requirements; and:

* developing a comprehensive plan--including, for example, mutual aid 
agreements, technology and equipment specifications, and training--for 
closing the gap between current capabilities and identified 
requirements.

Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change 
over time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and 
technology (e.g., new equipment), and additional spectrum as it becomes 
available. Consequently, both a short-and long-term "feedback loop" 
that incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and 
needed changes is important.

Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Many Agencies and Groups Have Examined and Reported on Interoperability 
Issues:

The first responder community is extensive and extremely diverse in 
size and the types of equipment in their communications systems. 
According to SAFECOM officials, there are over 2.5 million public 
safety-first responders within more than 50,000 public safety 
organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over 
90 percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure. 
This intricate public safety communications infrastructure 
incorporates a wide variety of technologies, equipment types, and 
spectrum bands.[Footnote 4] In addition to the difficulty that this 
complex environment poses for federal, state, and local coordination, 
85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many emergency management 
technicians, are volunteers with elected leadership. Many of these 
agencies are small and do not have technical expertise; only the 
largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.

In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific 
communication systems development approach prevailed--resulting in 
none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public 
safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications 
systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for 
interoperability. This meant that each state and local agency developed 
communications systems to meet their own requirements, without regard 
to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For 
example, a Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) analysis of Fire and 
Emergency Management Services (EMS) communications interoperability 
found a significant need for coordinated approaches, relationship 
building, and information sharing.[Footnote 5] However, the PSWN 
program office found that public safety agencies have traditionally 
developed or updated their radio systems independently to meet specific 
mission needs.

According to a study conducted by the National Task Force on 
Interoperability,[Footnote 6] public safety officials have unique and 
demanding communications requirements. According to the study, however, 
when the issue of interoperability is raised, officials respond that 
they are unable to even talk to their own personnel, much less expand 
their communications to include reliable and interoperable local and 
regional communications, and, ultimately reliable and interoperable 
local, state, and federal communications. The events of September 11, 
2001, which called for an integrated response of federal, state, and 
local first responders, highlighted the need for interoperable first 
responder communication across disciplines and throughout levels of 
government.

The attacks on New York City and the Pentagon have resulted in greater 
public and governmental focus on the role of first responders and their 
capabilities to respond to emergencies, including those resulting from 
terrorist incidents. One result has been significantly increased 
federal funding for state and local first responders, including funding 
to improve interoperable communications among federal, state, and local 
first responders. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated at least 
$154 million targeted specifically for interoperability through a 
variety of grants administered by the Department of Homeland Security, 
the Department of Justice, and other agencies. Other available grants, 
such as the Homeland Security Grant, could be used for a variety of 
purposes, including interoperable communications.

For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with 
public safety spectrum issues, including communications 
interoperability issues.[Footnote 7] A variety of federal departments 
and agencies have been involved in efforts to define the problem and to 
identify potential solutions, such as the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC), and the National Telecommunications 
and Information Agency (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce (DOC), 
among others. Today, a combination of federal agencies, programs, and 
associations are involved in coordinating emergency communications.

DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first 
responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM 
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office 
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov initiatives, 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created SAFECOM to 
unify the federal government's efforts to help coordinate the work at 
the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable 
public safety communications and achieve national wireless 
communications interoperability. The SAFECOM program was brought into 
DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Institute 
of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over 60 
entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting 
or programs. According to NIST, the summit familiarized key 
interoperability players with work being done by others and provided 
insight into where additional federal resources may be needed.

In addition to the many federal agencies and programs involved with 
shaping first responder interoperable communication policies, a range 
of public safety associations play a significant role in defining the 
problems and solutions to emergency communications interoperability. 
For example the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council 
(NPSTC) is a federation representing public safety telecommunications. 
The purpose of NPSTC is to follow up on the recommendations made by the 
Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to FCC and the 
National Telecommunications and Information Agency on public safety 
communication needs.[Footnote 8] In addition, NPSTC acts as a resource 
and advocate for public safety telecommunications issues and is working 
with SAFECOM to develop requirements for first responder 
communications.

FCC established the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC) 
to advise them on spectrum policy decisions for public safety 
interoperable communications. In July 2003, NCC made several 
recommendations to FCC for improving communications interoperability. 
The NCC's charter expired on July 25, 2003 and it has since been 
dissolved.

In 2002, the National Governors Association released a report that 
recommended that governors and their state homeland security directors 
(1) develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications, (2) 
ensure adequate wireless spectrum to accommodate all users, (3) invest 
in new communications infrastructure, (4) develop standards for 
technology and equipment, and (5) partner with government and private 
industry.[Footnote 9]

These associations and task forces are just a small representation of 
the many organizations identified by DHS and NIST as contributors to 
public safety interoperable communications efforts.

Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public 
safety wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies 
have been assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available 
frequencies become congested and as new technology made other 
frequencies available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now 
operate over multiple frequency bands--operating on these different 
bands required different radios because technology was not available to 
include all bands in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional 
capabilities but fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum, 
making communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another 
technical factor inhibiting interoperability is the different 
technologies or different applications of the same technology by 
manufacturers of public safety radio equipment. One manufacture may 
design equipment with proprietary technology that will not work with 
equipment produced by another manufacturer.

Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide 
Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued:

The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the 
nation--including current interoperable communications capability and 
the scope and severity of any problems--has not been determined. 
Although various reports have documented the lack of interoperability 
of first responders' wireless communications in specific locations, 
complete and current data do not exist documenting current 
interoperable communications capabilities and the scope and severity of 
any problems at the local, state, interstate, or federal level across 
the nation.

SAFECOM plans to conduct a nationwide survey to assess current 
capabilities of public safety agency wireless communications. 
Accumulating these data may be difficult, however, because several 
problems inhibit efforts to identify and define current interoperable 
communications capabilities and future requirements. Improving the 
interoperability of first responder wireless communications requires a 
clear assessment of the current state of public safety wireless 
communications interoperability, using a set of defined requirements; 
an operational definition of any problems; and a planning framework to 
guide the resolution of those problems. However, defining 
interoperability problems is difficult because interoperability 
requirements and problems are situation specific and evolve over time.

Federal Plans to Obtain Data on the Scope and Nature of Interoperable 
Communications Problems:

By 2008, SAFECOM expects all public safety agencies in the United 
States to have a minimum level of interoperability, as defined by a 
national interoperability baseline. However, SAFECOM officials said 
they lack current nationwide information on the interoperable 
communications problems of first responders. Two key studies in the 
late 1990s sponsored by DOJ and PSWN program provide a nationwide 
picture of wireless interoperability issues among federal, state, and 
local police, fire, and emergency medical service agencies at that 
time.[Footnote 10] Both studies describe most local public safety 
agencies as interacting with other local agencies on a daily or weekly 
basis. As a result, most local agencies had more confidence in 
establishing radio links with one another than with state agencies, 
with whom they less frequently interact. Local public safety agencies 
interact with federal agencies least of all, with a smaller percentage 
of local agencies expressing confidence in their ability to establish 
radio links with federal agencies.

However, the events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in a 
reexamination of the circumstances in which interoperable 
communications should extend across political jurisdictions and levels 
of government. To obtain a current national picture, SAFECOM 
established as a key objective to assess by July 2005 the current state 
of interoperability across the nation and create a nationwide baseline 
describing public safety communications and interoperability. The 
baseline will be the basis for measuring future improvements made 
through local, state, and federal public safety communications 
initiatives. SAFECOM officials said their study will be designed to 
measure actual interoperability capabilities in a sample of locations 
selected to represent the national condition. According to these 
officials, SAFECOM will conduct a gap analysis, which will compare the 
actual levels of interoperability within a state to the various 
scenarios used in a nationwide statement of requirements and determine 
the minimum level of interoperability that needs to be obtained.

Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless 
communications interoperability will be difficult because the 
definition of who to include as a first responder is evolving, and 
interoperability problems and solutions are situation specific and 
change over time to reflect new technologies and operational 
requirements. In a joint SAFECOM/AGILE[Footnote 11] program planning 
meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a national baseline 
is necessary to know what the nations' interoperability status really 
is, to set goals, and to measure progress. However, at the meeting, 
participants said they did not know how they were going to define 
interoperability, how they could measure interoperability, or how to 
select their sample of representative jurisdictions; this was all to be 
determined at a later date. At the time of our review, SAFECOM 
officials acknowledged that establishing a baseline will be difficult 
and said they are working out the details of their baseline study but 
still expect to complete it by July 2005.

DHS also has other work under way that may provide a tool for such 
self-assessments by public safety officials. An ODP official in the 
Border and Transportation Security Directorate of DHS said ODP is 
supporting the development of a communications and interoperability 
needs assessment for 118 jurisdictions that make up the Kansas City 
region. The official said the assessment will provide an inventory of 
communications equipment and identify how the equipment is used. He 
also said the results of this prototype effort will be placed on a CD-
Rom and distributed to states and localities to provide a tool to 
conduct their own self assessments. SAFECOM officials said they will 
review ODP's assessment tool as part of a coordinated effort and use 
this tool if it meets the interoperability requirements of first 
responders.

Interoperability Issues Change as the Definition of First Responders 
Expands and Technology Evolves:

Public safety officials generally recognize that interoperable 
communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they 
want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of 
the time. However, there is no standard definition of communications 
interoperability. Nor is there a "one size fits all" requirement for 
who needs to talk to whom. Traditionally, first responders have been 
considered to be fire, police, and emergency medical service personnel. 
However, in a description of public safety challenges, a federal 
official noted that the attacks of September 11, 2001, have blurred the 
lines between public safety and national security. According to the 
Gilmore Commission, effective preparedness for combating terrorism at 
the local level requires a network that includes public health 
departments, hospitals and other medical providers, and offices of 
emergency management, in addition to the traditional police, fire, and 
emergency medical services first responders.[Footnote 12] Furthermore, 
Congress provided an expanded definition of first responders in the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, which defined "emergency response 
providers" as including "Federal, State, and local emergency public 
safety, law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical 
(including hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel, 
agencies, and authorities."[Footnote 13]

Technological changes also present new problems and opportunities for 
achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications. 
According to one official, in the 1980s a method of voice transmission 
called "trunking" became available that allowed more efficient use of 
spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking 
technologies developed, and these systems were not interoperable. This 
official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more 
prevalent and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become 
more important.

In addition, technical standards for interoperable communications are 
still under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between 
industry and the public safety user community developed what is known 
as Project 25 (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, 
Project 25 standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in 
the United States for public safety communications. DHS purchased 
radios that incorporate the P-25 standards for each of the nation's 28 
urban search and rescue teams. PSWN believes P-25 is an important step 
toward achieving interoperability, but the standards do not mandate 
interoperability among all manufacturers' systems. Standards 
development continues today as new technologies emerge that meet 
changing user needs and new policy requirements.

Finally, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and 
high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital 
communications systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are 
potential sources of new interoperability problems. Availability of new 
spectrum can also encourage the development of new technologies and 
require further development of technical standards. For example, the 
FCC recently designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) 
band, for use and support of public safety. The FCC provided this 
additional spectrum to public safety users to support new broadband 
applications such as high-speed digital technologies and wireless local 
area networks for incident scene management. The FCC requested in 
particular comments on the implementation of technical standards for 
fixed and mobile operations on the band. NPSTC has established a task 
force that includes work on interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz 
band.

Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve:

The federal government has a long history in addressing federal, state, 
and local government public safety issues--in particular 
interoperability issues. Congress has also recently contributed to the 
development of policies. In October 2002 the House Committee on 
Government Reform issued a report entitled How Can the Federal 
Government Better Assist State and local Governments in Preparing for a 
Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Attack? The Committee's first finding 
was that incompatible communication systems impede intergovernmental 
coordination efforts. The Committee recommended that the federal 
government take a leadership role in resolving the communications 
interoperability problem.

In December 2003, the SAFECOM and the AGILE program within DOJ issued a 
joint report in which they established a series of initiatives and 
goals extending over the next 20 years. The report concludes that a 
continuous and participatory effort is required to improve public 
safety communications and interoperability. OMB created the SAFECOM 
program as a short-term (18-24 months) E-Gov initiative. It had no 
designated long-term mission. However, OMB has identified SAFECOM as 
the primary program responsible for coordinating federal efforts to 
improve interoperability. How to institutionalize that role is still an 
evolving process. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the 
various federal agencies--the FCC, DOJ, and others--involved in 
communications interoperability have not been fully defined and 
SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts 
is limited. DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it 
is establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to 
coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability and 
compatibility. The exact structure and funding for the office, which 
will include SAFECOM, are still being developed.

There are areas in which the federal government can provide leadership, 
such as developing national requirements and a national architecture 
for public safety interoperable communications, national databases, and 
common, nationwide terminology for communications. Moreover, the 
federal government alone can allocate communications spectrum for 
public safety use.

Establishing National Requirements and a National Architecture:

One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability 
strategy has been the lack of a statement of national mission 
requirements for public safety--what set of communications capabilities 
should be built or acquired--and a strategy to get there. A key 
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is to complete 
a comprehensive Public Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement 
is to provide functional requirements that define how, when, and where 
public safety practitioners communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS 
announced the release of the first comprehensive Statement of 
Requirements defining future communication requirements and outlining 
future technology needed to meet these requirements. According to DHS, 
the statement provides a shared vision and an architectural framework 
for future interoperable public safety communications.

DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that 
will define future communications services as they change or become new 
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions. 
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will 
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but did not provide 
specific details. One example of potential future development is 
expanded coverage to include public safety support functions. The 
current statement is incomplete because it only addresses the 
functional requirements for traditional public safety first responders-
-Emergency Medical Services personnel, firefighters, and law 
enforcement officers. The statement recognizes the existence of but 
does not include in this version those elements of the public safety 
community--such as transportation or public utility workers--whose 
primary mission provides vital support to public safety officials.

A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation 
of interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and 
agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to effectively and 
efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO has promoted 
the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means to a 
challenging goal: agency operational structures that are optimally 
defined in both business and technological environments.[Footnote 14] 
Office of Management and Budget officials told us that OMB charged 
SAFECOM with developing a national architecture, which will include 
local, state, and federal government architectures. According to these 
officials, SAFECOM is to work closely with state and local governments 
to establish a basic understanding of what infrastructure currently 
exists, and to identify public safety communication requirements. 
SAFECOM officials said development of a national architecture will take 
time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local governments to 
establish their communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will 
then collect the state and local architectures, and fit them into a 
national architecture that links federal communications into the state 
and local infrastructure.

Standard Databases to Support Interoperable Communications Not 
Established:

State and local officials consider a standard database to be essential 
to frequency planning and coordination for interoperability frequencies 
and for general public safety purposes. The Public Safety National 
Communications Council (NCC), appointed by the FCC to make 
recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications 
spectrum, recommended that the FCC mandate Regional Planning Committee 
use of a standard database to coordinate frequencies during license 
applications. In January 2001, the FCC rejected this recommendation 
noting that while the NCC believed that use of this database would 
ensure avoidance of channel interference between spectrum users, 
mandating use of the database was premature because it had not been 
fully developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to revisit the 
issue of mandating the database once the database is developed and has 
begun operation.

In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC noted that on July 18, 
2003 the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council demonstrated 
to FCC staff what it represented was an operational version of the 
database, now named the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and 
Database System (CAPRAD). The NCC urged the FCC to reevaluate its 
position in light of the demonstration of CAPRAD, and, if appropriate, 
to adopt a rule requiring its use by Regional Planning Committees in 
their planning process.

Officials at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 
Center (NLECTC)--Rocky Mountain Center[Footnote 15] said they are 
developing and administering the CAPRAD database. Center officials told 
us CAPRAD is a frequency pre-coordination database that is evolving as 
the user community defines its requirements. For example, they said 
CAPRAD was used to develop a draft nationwide 700 MHz frequency 
allocation plan that included interoperability frequencies, 
frequencies allocated to states for general state purposes, and 
frequencies allocated to the general public safety community. FCC 
designated Regional Planning Committees[Footnote 16] and frequency 
coordinators[Footnote 17] can then use this plan as a starting point to 
develop detailed plans for their regions. Center officials said that 
several RPCs have also loaded their 700 and 800 MHz regional plans into 
CAPRAD for review by adjacent RPCs or officials needing information on 
a regional plan. Center officials also told us that they are working on 
a comparable SIEC model to include interoperability channels across all 
bands.

State and local officials we visited were familiar with the database 
and generally favored its use. For example, a California state official 
wrote us that some California state and local officials participated in 
the drafting of this NCC recommendation and believe its use will assist 
in preventing interstate interference. State and local officials in the 
State of Washington said that the use of the CAPRAD database should be 
mandatory. The officials said CAPRAD would facilitate new spectrum 
allocation and pre-coordination of spectrum. In addition, they said 
CAPRAD holds the potential of eliminating interference between users, 
and is the first universally accepted frequency coordination database. 
It holds the promise of a one-stop frequency coordination database, 
according to a Washington State Department of Information Services 
official.

Common Terminology for Interoperable Channels Not Established:

Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address 
communication interoperability problems in a given local government, 
state, or multi-state region. For example, the regional communications 
chairs of the Florida Regional Domestic Security Task Forces have noted 
that non-technical barriers are the most important and difficult to 
solve. Police and fire departments often have different concepts and 
doctrines on how to operate an incident command post and use 
interoperable communications. Similarly, first responders, such as 
police and fire departments, may use different terminology to describe 
the same thing. Differences in terminology and operating procedures can 
lead to communications problems even where the participating public 
safety agencies share common communications equipment and spectrum.

State and local officials have drawn specific attention to problems 
caused by the lack of common terminology in naming the same 
interoperability frequency. In January 2001 the FCC rejected an NCC 
recommendation that the FCC mandate through its rules that specific 
names be designated for each interoperability channel on all public 
safety bands. The Commission said it would have to change its rules 
each time the public safety community wished to revise a channel label 
and that this procedure would be too cumbersome.

In its final report on July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed its earlier 
recommendation and added a recommendation that all radios that include 
a channel-selection display be required to use the standard names. The 
NCC said standard names are essential to achieve interoperability 
because all responders to an incident must know what channel to which 
they must tune their radios. The NCC said adoption of such standard 
names will avoid confusion resulting from use of different names for 
the same frequency by different jurisdictions. In an earlier May 29, 
2003 report, the NCC noted multiple examples where lack of common 
channel names had disrupted coordination of effective response to 
incidents. The NCC noted that the problem could endanger life and 
property in a very large-scale incident. In addition, the NCC noted 
that its recommendation could be implemented in a short time at 
virtually no cost and that the recommendation was consistent with 
previous FCC actions. For example, the NCC noted that the FCC had 
designated channels specified for medical communications use for the 
specific purpose of uniform usage.

Converting SAFECOM's Functions to a Long-Term Program:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created SAFECOM in 2001 to 
unify the federal governments' efforts to coordinate work at the 
federal, state, local and tribal levels on improving interoperable 
communications. According to OMB, SAFECOM is the umbrella program for 
all Federal interoperability efforts and will work with state and local 
interoperability initiatives. DHS is the managing partner of the 
SAFECOM project with six additional agencies as partner agencies. The 
partner agencies include the Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, 
Justice, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture. According to OMB, 
all of these agencies have significant roles to play in public safety 
communications, emergency/incident response and management, and law 
enforcement.

Our April 2004 report on Project SAFECOM[Footnote 18] compared 
SAFECOM's progress against its overall objective of achieving national 
wireless communications interoperability among first responders and 
public safety systems at all levels of government. This broad objective 
could not be fully realized within the target of 18 to 24 months. 
However, we also noted that two major factors have contributed to the 
project's limited progress toward this objective: (1) a lack of 
consistent executive commitment and support and (2) an inadequate level 
of interagency collaboration. We concluded that until these 
shortcomings are addressed, the ability of SAFECOM to deliver on its 
promise of improved interoperability and better response to emergencies 
will remain in doubt. We recommended that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security direct the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to 
complete written agreements with other federal agencies and 
organizations representing state, local, and tribal governments that 
define the responsibilities and resource commitments that each of those 
organizations will assume. These agreements should include specific 
provisions for funding the project and measuring its performance.

In addition, key program structure and funding issues seriously limit 
the ability of SAFECOM to affect the future long-term development of 
the interoperability function and mission. SAFECOM's program and 
funding structure were established to address the public safety 
wireless communications problems as a short-term, 18-24 month project. 
However, DHS recognizes that a long-term, intergovernmental effort will 
be needed to achieve the program's overall goal of improving emergency 
response through broadly interoperable first responder communications 
systems. As a result, DHS set a SAFECOM goal to establish a "system of 
systems" by 2023 that will provide the necessary interoperability for 
public safety users. The program funding structure as established does 
not support a long-term program. Because SAFECOM is an E-Gov project, 
each year OMB instructs federal agencies designated as a partner with 
SAFECOM to provide specified amounts of funding to SAFECOM. SAFECOM 
negotiates an annual Memorandum of Agreement on funding or program 
participation with each of these agencies; however, in our Project 
SAFECOM report, we said that by the end of our field work in 2004 
SAFECOM had signed an agreement with only one agency in fiscal year 
2004.

Representatives of federal, state, and local public safety users 
identified as a high priority the development of a business case with 
long term sustainable funding for a national office for public safety 
communications and interoperability and recommended that this office 
should become a part of the annual President's budget request process. 
SAFECOM officials said establishment of a budget funding line for 
SAFECOM was discussed for fiscal year 2005 budget, but the budget does 
not contain a funding line for SAFECOM in fiscal year 2005 or beyond.

Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles and Responsibilities for 
Interoperability:

DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program 
and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it 
does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in 
relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies 
that have missions that may be related to the OMB assigned mission for 
SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies, 
including ODP within DHS, AGILE in DOJ; DOD; the FCC; the NTIA within 
DOC, and other agencies. For example, the Homeland Security Act assigns 
ODP primary responsibility within the executive branch for preparing 
the United States for acts of terrorism, including coordinating or, as 
appropriate, consolidating communications and systems of 
communications relating to homeland security at all levels of 
government.

An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted authority to ODP 
to serve as the primary agency for preparedness against acts of 
terrorism, to specifically include communications issues. He said ODP 
is working with states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a 
strategic planning process that assesses and funds their requirements. 
As indicated earlier, ODP also plans to develop tools to link these 
assessments to detailed interoperable communications plans. According 
to this official, SAFECOM, as part of the Science and Technology 
Directorate, is responsible for (1) developing standards; (2) research, 
development, testing, and evaluation of public safety communications; 
and (3) advising ODP about available technologies and standards.

In addition, although OMB states that SAFECOM is the umbrella program 
to coordinate actions of the federal government, it does not include 
all major federal efforts aimed at promoting wireless interoperability 
for first responders. Specifically, the Justice Department continues to 
play a strong role in interoperability after establishment of DHS. Key 
Justice programs--the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law 
Enforcement (AGILE) and the Interoperable Communication Technology 
Program administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS)--did not transition to the SAFECOM program in the new 
Department of Homeland Security.

AGILE is the Department of Justice program to assist state and local 
law enforcement agencies to effectively and efficiently communicate 
with one another across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. It is 
dedicated to studying interoperability options and advising state and 
local law enforcement agencies. The SAFECOM program director also said 
most of the federal research and development on prototypes is being 
conducted within the AGILE program.

SAFECOM and AGILE officials told us they have a close working 
relationship. The SAFECOM and AGILE programs also held a joint planning 
meeting in early December 2003 and developed an action plan that 
SAFECOM and AGILE said they were committed to implement, given 
available resources.

DHS must also coordinate with the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
address chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive 
events. A November 2003 Defense Science Board (DSB) report said DOD's 
role includes, when directed, military support to civil authorities, 
and that DOD assistance could be required to assist in incident 
response. But the Board concluded that DOD must improve communication 
interoperability between first responders and federal, state, and local 
agencies involved in emergency preparedness and incident response.

SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address 
public safety spectrum management and coordination. The National 
Governors' Guide to Emergency Management noted that extensive 
coordination will be required between the FCC and the NTIA to provide 
adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local, state, and federal 
communications. However, the current legal framework for domestic 
spectrum management is divided between the NTIA within the Department 
of Commerce, responsible for federal government spectrum use and the 
FCC, responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum use. 
In a September 2002 report on spectrum management and coordination, we 
found that FCC and NTIA's efforts to manage their respective areas of 
responsibility are not guided by a national spectrum strategy.[Footnote 
19] The FCC and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum planning 
efforts and have recently taken steps to improve coordination, but have 
not yet implemented long-standing congressional directives to conduct 
joint, national spectrum planning. We recommended that the FCC and the 
NTIA develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national 
spectrum plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with this 
recommendation. In a separate report, we also discussed several 
barriers to reforming spectrum management in the United 
States.[Footnote 20]

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of 
Commerce said it had issued two spectrum policy reports on June 24, 
2004, in response to the President's initiative, entitled Spectrum 
Policy for the 21st Century. The Department said the second report 
recommends an interagency effort to study the spectrum use and needs of 
the public safety community, a public safety demonstration program, and 
a comprehensive plan to address the spectrum shortage, interference, 
technology, and security issues of the public safety community. The 
Department also said that the DHS would be an integral partner in 
fulfilling its recommendations.[Footnote 21]

SAFECOM's Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited:

SAFECOM is involved in several federal coordination initiatives, 
including efforts to coordinate federal funding, but according to its 
officials, it does not have the oversight authority or pertinent 
information to fully accomplish this objective.

The SAFECOM program is attempting to coordinate federal grant funding 
to maximize the prospects for communication interoperability grants 
across federal agencies by means of interagency guidance. We selected 
several grant programs to determine how this guidance was used. We 
found that COPS (with DOJ) and FEMA (within DHS) used this guidance, at 
least in part, in their coordinated 2003 Interoperable Communications 
Equipment grants, and ODP used the guidance in its 2004 Homeland 
Security and Urban Areas Security Initiative grant programs. However, 
COPS and FEMA officials said that it was difficult to incorporate 
SAFECOM's recommended criteria for planning public safety 
communications systems into their joint guidance because statutory 
language for their grant programs focuses on the purchase of equipment 
without specifically addressing planning.

SAFECOM also does not have authority to require federal agencies to 
coordinate their grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged 
in an effort with DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that 
could facilitate federal oversight of interoperable communications 
funding to jurisdictions and allow states access to this information 
for planning purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication 
of funding and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, 
maximize efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data 
collection tool for lessons learned that would be accessible to state 
and locals. However, SAFECOM officials said that the challenge to 
implementing the coordinated project is getting federal agency 
collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004, the database only 
contains award information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA Interoperability 
Communications Equipment Grants. The database does not contain grant 
award information from the Office for Domestic Preparedness on its 
Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants or its Homeland Security 
grants (HSG), nor from FEMA's Emergency Management Preparedness Grant 
or any other federal agency grant funds.

SAFECOM's oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon 
its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in 
the process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three 
specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several 
initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency 
Coordination Council (FICC)[Footnote 22] and establishment of a process 
for federal agencies to report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal 
activities and investments in interoperability; (2) developing 
standards; and (3) developing a national architecture for addressing 
communications interoperability problems. OMB officials said 
identification of all current and planned federal agency communications 
programs affecting federal, state, and local wireless interoperability 
is difficult. According to these officials, OMB is developing a 
strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to 
enforce the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials 
said they are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination 
process by developing written agreements with other federal agencies 
and by obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to 
the SAFECOM governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this 
newly refocused SAFECOM role does not include providing technical 
assistance or conducting operational testing of equipment.[Footnote 23] 
They said that their authority to conduct such activities will come 
from DHS enabling directives. SAFECOM officials also said that they 
have no enforcement authority to require other agencies to use the 
SAFECOM grant guidance in their funding decisions or to require 
agencies to provide grant program information to them for use in their 
database.

A New DHS Office of Interoperability and Compatibility:

The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS has been 
tasked to lead the planning and implementation of the Office of 
Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC). The new office is responsible 
for coordinating DHS efforts to address interoperability and 
compatibility of first responder equipment, to include both 
communications equipment and equipment such as personal protective 
equipment used by police and fire from multiple jurisdictions. The plan 
as approved by the Secretary states that by November 2004 the new 
office will be fully established and that action plans and a strategy 
will be prepared for each portfolio (type or class of equipment). The 
plan presents a budget estimate for the creation of the office through 
November 2004 but does not include costs to implement each portfolio's 
strategy.

In addition, plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of 
various federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new 
office will have over federal agency communications programs. The 
Science and Technology Directorate is the manager of the new office, 
which is expected to establish partnerships with all relevant offices 
and agencies to effectively coordinate similar activities. These 
partners include representatives from national associations of 
emergency response providers, DHS and other government agencies, 
standards development organizations, and industry. The DHS plan for the 
new office includes a tool for relevant offices to identify areas in 
which they have current interoperability-related projects and thus 
identify program overlap inside and outside DHS and gaps in coverage. 
As of June 2004, the exact structure and funding for the office, 
including SAFECOM's role within the office, were still being developed.

State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability 
Planning and Communications:

In our November 6, 2003,testimony, we identified three barriers to 
improving public safety wireless interoperable communications: problem 
definition, establishing interoperability goals and standards, and 
defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other 
entities.[Footnote 24] Of all these barriers, perhaps the most 
fundamental has been limited and fragmented planning and cooperation. 
No one first responder group, jurisdiction, or level of government can 
successfully address the challenges posed by the current state of 
interoperable communications. Effectively addressing these challenges 
requires the partnership and collaboration of first responder 
disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government--local, state, 
federal, and tribal. In the absence of that partnership and 
collaboration, we risk spending funds ineffectively--especially for 
immediate, quick response solutions--and creating new problems in our 
attempt to resolve existing ones. An integrated planning process that 
is recognized by federal, state, and local officials as representing 
their interests is necessary to achieve that partnership and 
collaboration.

Although no one level of government can successfully address 
interoperability communications challenges, the federal government can 
play a leadership role developing requirements and providing support 
for state efforts to assess their interoperable communications 
capability and develop statewide plans for transitioning from today's 
capability to identified required capability.

States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies 
and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 
notes that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of 
federal preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local 
officials also believe that states, with broad local and regional 
participation, have a key role to play in coordinating interoperable 
communications supporting these missions.[Footnote 25] The Public 
Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report on the role of the state 
in providing interoperable communications, agreed. According to the 
PSWN report, state leadership in public safety communications is key to 
outreach efforts that emphasize development of common approaches to 
regional and statewide interoperability. The report said that state 
officials have a vested interest in establishing and protecting 
statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety 
communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional 
boundary.

However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to 
(1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and (2) 
prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum 
to meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint 
task force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state, 
and local officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and 
local interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully 
addressed, have significant potential to improve public safety wireless 
communications interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare 
comprehensive and integrated statewide plans that address the specific 
interoperability issues present in each state across first responder 
disciplines and levels of government.

State and Local Governments Well Positioned to Play Key Roles:

Planning requires a structure to develop and implement plans over time. 
States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice 
to serve as a foundation for interoperability planning. As recognized 
by the Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in 
managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are 
usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency 
incidents. In addition, the FCC noted that states are usually in the 
best position to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. 
Furthermore, according to DHS officials, state and local governments 
own over 90 percent of the physical infrastructure for public safety 
communications. Recent DHS policies have also recognized states as 
being in a key position to coordinate state and local emergency 
response planning. The Office for Domestic Preparedness has designated 
states as the appropriate source to develop state homeland security 
strategies that are inclusive of local needs, including communication 
needs.

According to PSWN, state leaders can also, through memorandum of 
understandings (MOU), help to define interagency relationships, reach 
procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of statewide or 
regional interoperability committees, and encourage joint efforts to 
deploy communications technology. State and local officials we talked 
with generally agreed that states can coordinate communications 
planning and funding support for state communications systems and 
coordinate interoperability efforts of local governments. For example, 
several officials said the state can facilitate the planning process by 
including key stakeholder input in the decision making process and 
ensuring that communications interoperability issues are addressed. 
These officials also see state roles in providing common infrastructure 
and developing routine training exercises.

Several state and local agencies that we talked with emphasized that 
they are taking steps to address the need for statewide communications 
planning. State officials also told us that statewide interoperability 
is not enough because incidents first responders face could cross state 
boundaries. Thus, some states are also taking actions to address 
interstate interoperability problems. For example, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio officials said that their states have 
combined efforts to form the Midwest Public Safety Communications 
Consortium to promote interstate interoperability. According to these 
officials, they also have taken actions to form an interstate committee 
to develop interoperability plans and solicit support from key players, 
such as local public safety agencies.

Statewide Interoperable Communications Committees Offer Potential for 
Coordinated Statewide Planning:

FCC recognized a strong state interest in planning and administering 
interoperability channels for public safety wireless communications 
when it adopted various technical and operational rules and polices for 
the 700 MHz band. In these rules and policies, FCC concluded that 
administration of the 2.6 MHz of interoperability channels in that band 
(approximately 10 percent) should occur at the state-level in a State 
Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC). FCC said that states play 
a central role in managing emergency communications and that state-
level organizations are usually in control at large-scale events and 
disasters or multi-agency incidents. FCC also found that states are 
usually in the best position to coordinate with federal government 
emergency agencies. FCC said that SIEC administrative activities could 
include holding licenses, resolving licensing issues, and developing a 
statewide interoperability plan for the 700 MHz band. Other SIEC 
responsibilities could include the creation and oversight of incident 
response protocols and the creation of chains of command for incident 
response and reporting.

State and local officials recognize that the interoperability 
responsibilities that FCC identified for SIECs in the 700 MHz band are 
also applicable to interoperability channels in other frequency bands. 
However, FCC did not retroactively apply the SIEC concept to 
interoperability channels in the 800 MHz band or in the below 512 MHz 
band nor did it apply the SIEC concept to the new 4.9 GHz band. The 
Commission also did not require states to establish a SIEC because it 
found that some states already have a mechanism in place that could 
administer the interoperability channel, and requiring a SIEC would be 
duplicative. The Commission did provide that the administration of the 
700 MHz interoperability channels defaults to Regional Planning 
Committees (RPC) should a state decide not to establish or maintain a 
SIEC for this purpose. Available data conflict on how many states have 
established SIECs or similar bodies, but do indicate that from 12 to 15 
states did not implement a SIEC.[Footnote 26]

The Public Safety National Coordination Committee, an FCC advisory body 
for the 700 MHz band, noted that SIECs are optional--there is no 
requirement that the states implement such committees. NCC recommended 
that FCC require all states to establish a SIEC or equivalent to 
provide each state with an identified central point of contact for 
information on that state's interoperability capability. NCC, however, 
also expressed concerns about the extent of state control and the lack 
of a broad representation of local membership in the SIECs.[Footnote 
27] NCC recommended to FCC that the name SIEC be changed to the 
Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee to be more inclusive of 
all agencies in the state.

We found general support in the states that we visited for NCC's 
recommendation to establish a Statewide Interoperability Executive 
Committee as the central point of contact for information on a state's 
interoperability capability. A state official from California told us 
that California's long history of collaboration in mutual aid 
communications activities was in part the basis for this NCC 
recommendation. According to officials of the Florida State Technology 
Office and local public safety officials, they support a central point 
of contact for statewide interoperability efforts. State of Washington 
officials said the recommendation appeared consistent with what they 
are doing in Washington. Local officials in the state of Washington 
told us that the term "statewide" is inclusive--it represents both the 
state and local governments interests.

The states we visited or contacted were in the early stages of 
formulating their SIECs, and their roles and responsibilities are still 
under development.

* Recently the state of California established the California Statewide 
Interoperability Executive Committee. The Office of Emergency Services 
sponsors the Committee, which is responsible for setting technical and 
operational standards for all existing and planned public safety 
interoperability frequencies in California. Committee membership is 
designed to recognize the broad diversity of local communications needs 
because California has long recognized that responsibility for and 
command of an incident lies with the jurisdiction where the emergency 
or disaster occurs, which in the vast majority of incidents is the 
local government. Thus, a majority of the Committee's 35 members are 
representatives of local government, followed by the state agencies 
that support local government, and the federal agencies that support 
state and local government. Additionally, two California RPCs and the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials have 
representation on the Committee. The Committee is supported by 9 to 10 
working groups addressing various aspects of interoperability 
governance. California has several state communications systems and the 
coordination of these systems will be addressed by a Committee working 
group.

* In March 2003, the state of Florida established the Florida Executive 
Interoperable Technologies Committee. The Committee's membership 
includes state and local government officials from each of the seven 
Domestic Security regions in Florida and is chaired by the State 
Technology Office. The Committee's role is still evolving. The 
Committee and State Technology Office are responsible for the oversight 
and management of all interoperable communications issues (voice and 
data). The State Technology Office manages the interoperable radio 
frequency resources for the state. Furthermore, the state has 
identified the need for a single, comprehensive mutual aid plan and 
assigned the task of developing the plan to the Committee. However, the 
Committee's role in reviewing all state and local communications plans 
is still not determined.

* The Washington State Interoperability Executive Committee, formed by 
state legislation enacted on July 1, 2003, is a permanent subcommittee 
of the Information Services Board. The legislation specified membership 
for state agencies and associations representing city government, 
county government, local government fire departments, Sheriffs and 
Police Chiefs, and emergency managers. Federal agencies were not 
included as voting members of the Committee, which issued an interim 
public safety communications plan on March 30, 2004. The interim plan, 
developed using a recent inventory of state communications systems, 
outlines various potential solutions and the implementation timeline. 
These are interim solutions and did not reflect local governments' 
concerns. However, the plan will be updated to incorporate local 
government survey responses. A final plan is due by December 31, 2004. 
The Committee intends to incorporate the existing mutual aid plans into 
the new statewide interoperability plan.

* In Georgia, the state did not opt to form a State Interoperability 
Executive Committee. Instead, the 700 MHz RPC Interoperability 
Committee is responsible for managing all radio frequency bands on 
behalf of the state of Georgia.

Content and Scope of Statewide Interoperability Plans Not Established:

A comprehensive statewide interoperable plan can provide the guiding 
framework for achieving defined goals for interoperability within a 
state and for regions within and across states (such as Kansas City, 
Mo. and Kansas City, Kans.). NCC recommended that all SIECs prepare an 
interoperability plan that is filed with FCC and updated when 
substantive changes are made or at least every three years. NCC also 
recommended to FCC that SIECs, for Homeland Security reasons, should 
administer all interoperability channels in a state, not merely those 
in the 700 MHz band. According to NCC, each state should have a central 
point identified for information on a state's interoperability 
capability.

None of the four states we visited had finished preparation and funding 
of their state interoperability plans. Washington and Florida were 
preparing statewide interoperability plans at the time we visited. 
Georgia officials said they have a state interoperability plan but that 
it is not funded. However, one other state we contacted, Missouri, has 
extended SIEC responsibility for interoperability channels beyond the 
700 MHz band.[Footnote 28] The Missouri SIEC has also designated 
standard operational and technical guidelines as conditions for the use 
of these bands. SIEC requires applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to 
these conditions in order to use these channels in the state of 
Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said the state developed its 
operational and technical guidelines because FCC had not established 
its own guidelines for these interoperability channels in the VHF and 
UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight other states and 
expressed concern that these states will develop different guidelines 
that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines. He said FCC was 
notified of Missouri's actions but has not taken action to date. In 
another example, California intends to prepare a statewide 
interoperability plan. California's SIEC is re-examining California's 
previous stove piped programs of communications interoperability 
(separate systems for law enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need 
to maintain tactical channels within disciplines while promoting cross-
discipline interoperability.

FCC-designated frequency coordinators expressed support for a 
comprehensive interoperability plan in July 2002. The Commission had 
suggested that the frequency coordinators for the VHF and UHF bands 
develop an interoperability plan for these bands. FCC said it 
envisioned that the coordinators would jointly develop an 
interoperability plan for the management and nationwide use of these 
interoperability channels. The frequency coordinators in a joint 
response rejected FCC's overture, stating that the actual management 
and operational guidelines for the VHF and UHF frequencies should be 
integrated with other interoperability frequencies in the 700 and 800 
MHz bands, and with other interoperability channels in spectrum 
identified by NTIA for interoperability with the federal government. 
The frequency coordinators said operational and management planning 
should include all of these channels to better coordinate future 
assignment and use and that NCC and SIECs were better vehicles for 
developing the guidelines requested by FCC.

Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in 
Statewide Plans:

In some cases, for example, responding to such major events as 
tornadoes or wildfires, state and local government first responders 
also require interoperable communications with federal agencies. 
According to OMB, seven federal agencies have significant roles to play 
in public safety communications, emergency/incident response and 
management, and law enforcement. These agencies are the Departments of 
Homeland Security, Defense, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Health and 
Human Services, and Agriculture.

As mentioned previously, FCC designated frequency coordinators told FCC 
that planning for interoperability channels should include federal 
spectrum designated for interoperability with state and local 
governments. We found several examples in our field work that support 
inclusion of federal agencies in future state and local planning for 
interoperable communications. For example, a Washington State official 
told us that regional systems within the state do not have links to 
federal communications systems and assets. In another example, 
according to an emergency preparedness official in Seattle, a study of 
radio interoperable communications in a medical center also found that 
federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are 
not integrated into hospital or health communications systems, and 
other federal agencies have no radio infrastructure to support and 
participate in a health emergency such as a bio-terrorism event. He 
told us that he has no idea what the federal communications plan is in 
the event of a disaster; and he said he does not know how to talk to 
federal health officials responding to an incident or what the federal 
government needs when they arrive.

Local officials in Washington State also told us that communications 
and coordination between civil and military emergency communication 
organizations need improvement. These officials expressed concern that 
the Department of Defense has not fully coordinated with local 
officials to ensure that local jurisdictions can communicate with 
Defense. According to the Washington National Guard Civil Support Team 
and emergency management officials, the Guard Civil Support Team first 
responders can exchange radios with other first responders in order to 
communicate. In addition, the Civil Support Team can communicate on all 
frequency bands using a Navy Unified Command Communications Suite. 
Georgia National Guard officials said that they do not participate in 
the All Hazards Council planning process to coordinate interoperable 
communications.

The federal government is developing a system that could improve 
interoperable communications on a limited basis between state and 
federal government agencies. The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) is a 
radio system that is intended to replace the existing radio systems for 
the DOJ, Treasury, and DHS. IWN is an exclusive federal law enforcement 
communications system that is intended to interact and interface with 
state and local systems as needed but will not replace these systems. 
According to DOJ officials, IWN is intended to improve federal to 
state/ local interoperability but will not address interoperability of 
state and local systems.

However, federal interoperability with state and local wireless 
communications systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control 
different frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance 
interoperability, NTIA has identified 40 federal government frequencies 
that can be used by state and local public safety agencies for joint 
law enforcement and incident response purposes.[Footnote 29] FCC, 
however, designated different frequencies for interoperability in the 
VHF band and in the UHF band from spectrum it controls for use by state 
and local public safety agencies.

In addition, complicated FCC licensing and coordination requirements 
may further limit effective use of federal frequencies by state and 
local agencies. FCC officials told us in response to our draft report 
that FCC rules are consistent with what NTIA and FCC agreed to 
regarding use of federal spectrum by non-federal agencies generally. 
However, as a condition for their use of the federal VHF and UHF 
frequencies, FCC requires individual state and local public safety 
applicants to develop a written agreement between each nonfederal 
agency and a federal sponsor and to use this agreement to obtain an FCC 
license. FCC regulations permit federal agencies to use 700 MHz band 
public safety frequencies under its control if the Commission finds 
such use necessary, and the state/local government licensee approves 
the sharing arrangement.

PSWN suggested using SIECs to perform the necessary planning and 
coordination between FCC and NTIA for joint use of their separately 
controlled frequencies. PSWN noted that the federal government 
maintains a significant presence in many states, and that interoperable 
communications must cut across all levels of government. Thus, PSWN 
said it is essential that NTIA and federal entities and federal 
spectrum be involved in the SIEC planning process from the beginning. 
NCC recommended that FCC require the use of standard MOUs and sharing 
agreements where licensee authorizes federal agencies and other 
authorized users to use its frequencies. FCC noted that respondents to 
its notice seeking comments on NCC proposals were divided and that 
requiring a formal rule could only serve to increase administrative 
burden on the states, many of whom may be poised to implement the MOUs 
and sharing agreements or similar documents voluntarily. Thus, FCC 
decided not to require the use of MOUs but strongly recommended that 
states have the relevant SIEC or other entity responsible for the 
administration of the interoperability channels use MOUs.

Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning:

Total one-time replacement of the nation's communications systems is 
very unlikely, due to the costs involved. A 1998 study cited the 
replacement value of the existing public safety communication 
infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion.[Footnote 30] DHS officials 
said this estimate is much higher when infrastructure and training 
costs are taken into account. Furthermore, DHS recently estimated that 
reaching an accelerated goal of communications interoperability will 
require a major investment of several billion dollars within the next 5 
to 10 years. As a result of these extraordinary costs, federal funding 
is but one of several resources state and local agencies must use in 
order to address these costs. Given these high costs, the development 
of an interoperable communications plan is vital to useful, non-
duplicative spending. However, the federal funding assistance programs 
to state and local governments do not fully support regional planning 
for communications interoperability. Federal grants that support 
interoperability have inconsistent requirements to tie funding to 
interoperable communications plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal 
and state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure 
that federal funds are used to effectively support improved regional 
and statewide communications systems. Additional barriers to supporting 
regional planning, such as fragmented funding structures, limitations 
on time frames to develop and implement plans, and limited support for 
long-term planning are discussed in appendix V.

Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked 
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans:

Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications 
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal 
funds for interoperable communications; however, the current funding 
requirements do not support this planning process. Although recent 
grant requirements have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional 
approach to planning, current federal first responder grants are 
inconsistent in their requirements to tie funding to interoperable 
communications plans. States and locals are not required to provide an 
interoperable communications plan as a prerequisite to receiving some 
federal grant funds. As a result, there is no assurance that federal 
funds are being used to support a well-developed strategy for improving 
interoperability. For example, the fiscal year 2004 HSG or UASI grants 
require states or selected jurisdictions to conduct a needs assessment 
and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to ODP.[Footnote 31] However, 
the required strategies are high-level and broad in nature. They do not 
require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan be 
submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.

In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) and FEMA for 
Interoperable Communications Equipment did not require that a 
communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds. 
However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were 
actively engaged in a planning process and a multijurisdictional and 
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to 
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability 
plans, federal grants also lack consistency in defining what "regional" 
body should conduct planning.

Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present 
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:

State and local officials also said that the short grant application 
deadlines for recent first responder grants limited their ability to 
develop cohesive communications plans or perform a coordinated review 
of local requests. Federal officials acknowledged that the limited 
submission timeframes presents barriers to first responders for 
developing plans prior to receiving funds. For example, guidance in 
several federal grant programs--the Homeland Security Grant, UASI 
grant, COPs and FEMA communication equipment grants, and Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant--allow states only 30 or 60 days from the date of 
grant announcement to submit a grant proposal. These time frames are 
sometimes driven by appropriations language or by the timing of the 
appropriations enactment.

Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to state and locals for 
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance 
periods, and according to state and local officials, do not support 
long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters Grants, 
COPS and FEMA's Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants, and 
National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance 
periods.[Footnote 32] UASI, HSG program, and Local Law Enforcement 
Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.

No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are 
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:

The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review 
process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used 
for communication projects that complement each other and add to 
overall statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state 
officials said that each agency reviews its own set of applications and 
projects, without coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants 
could be given to bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting 
interoperability solutions. In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from 
COPS and FEMA attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting 
communication systems within bordering jurisdictions by coordinating 
their review of interoperable communications equipment grant proposals. 
However, COPS and FEMA are only two of several federal sources of funds 
for communications interoperability.

In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated 
with other agencies to create the document Recommended Federal Grant 
Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants, 
which lays out standard grant requirements for planning, building, and 
training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is 
designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first 
responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which 
grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for 
applicants.[Footnote 33] The guidance recommends standard minimum 
requirements, such as requirements to "define the objectives of what 
the applicant is ultimately trying to accomplish and how the proposed 
project would fit into an overall effort to increase interoperability, 
as well as identify potential partnerships for agreements." 
Additionally, the guidance recommends, but does not require, that 
applicants establish a governance group consisting of local, tribal, 
state, and federal entities from relevant public safety disciplines and 
purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with phase one of 
Project-25 standards. SAFECOM has also recently sponsored the formation 
of the Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC), which 
consists of a federal grant coordination working-group. Federal 
officials said that the council will assist in shaping the common grant 
guidance for Federal initiatives involving public safety 
communications.

Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants, 
various agencies have statutory language which make it difficult to 
coordinate their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said 
that certain statutory provisions underlying the grant programs 
presented barriers to the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and 
SAFECOM to consolidate the grant application process for the 2003 
Interoperable Communications Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA 
coordinated their application process for the grants and used sections 
of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide their application requirements. 
COPS and FEMA officials said that the combined COPS and FEMA 
application process was intended to maximize the use of funds and 
reduce duplication and competition between the two agencies' 
Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials explained that 
COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a combined grant 
application process because the COPS grant required a twenty-five 
percent match while the FEMA grant did not have such a requirement. 
However, COPS officials said FEMA added a twenty-five percent match of 
"in-kind" resources to its grant requirements in order to reduce 
competition between the COPS and FEMA grant programs.

The House Committee on Appropriations report for DHS's fiscal year 2004 
appropriation states that the Committee is aware of numerous federal 
programs addressing communications interoperability through planning, 
building, upgrading, and maintaining public safety communication 
systems, among other purposes. The Committee directed that all DHS 
grant programs issuing grants for the above purposes incorporate the 
SAFECOM guidance and coordinate with the SAFECOM program when awarding 
funding. To better coordinate the government's efforts, the Committee 
also encouraged all other federal programs issuing grants for the above 
purposes to use the guidelines outlined by SAFECOM in their grant 
programs. However, SAFECOM officials said that they have no enforcement 
authority to require other agencies to use this guidance in their 
funding decision or to require agencies to provide grant program 
information to them for use in their database.

States are also initiating actions to address the lack of a centralized 
state-level grant review process. For example, the state of Washington 
is developing a centralized grant structure to review local requests 
for communications funds against a statewide interoperable 
communications plan that is being developed by their SIEC. The funding 
process is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests for 
Communications Funds:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Conclusions:

A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable 
communications problems for public safety has been the lack of 
effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental 
planning. Jurisdictional boundaries, unique public safety agency 
missions, and cultural differences among first responder organizations 
have often fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration. 
No one first responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can 
"fix" the nation's interoperability problems, which vary across the 
nation and often cross first responder agency and jurisdictional 
boundaries. Changes in spectrum available to federal, state, and local 
public safety agencies--primarily a federal responsibility conducted 
through the FCC and the NTIA--changes in technology, and the evolving 
missions and responsibilities of public safety agencies in an age of 
terrorism all highlight the ever-changing environment in which 
interoperable communications needs and solutions must be addressed. 
Interdisciplinary, intergovernmental, and multijurisdictional 
partnership and collaboration are essential for effectively addressing 
interoperability shortcomings.

The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the 
nation--including current capabilities and the scope and severity of 
problems that may exist--has not been determined. Long-term prospects 
for achieving functional interoperable communications are hindered by 
the lack of an institutionalized process--at the federal, state, 
regional, or local levels--to systematically identify and address 
current shortcomings.

The federal government can offer leadership and support for state 
efforts to develop and implement statewide interoperability plans for 
achieving specific interoperability goals. The federal government is 
best positioned to address nationwide issues, such as setting national 
requirements, developing a national architecture, establishing 
national performance standards, and the development of national 
databases and common nationwide nomenclature for interoperability 
channels. Moreover, acting through the FCC and the NTIA, the federal 
government alone has the authority to address public safety spectrum 
allocation, including expanding or altering current spectrum 
allocations. The federal government can also play a major role through 
such means as technical assistance and grant guidance in supporting 
state efforts to prepare comprehensive statewide interoperability plans 
for developing federal, state, and local communications systems that 
can communicate with one another as needed and as authorized. However, 
developing and implementing effective statewide plans that draw on the 
perspectives and expertise of the federal government and local public 
safety agencies and jurisdictions is not a task that can be completed 
in a matter of weeks.

The federal government's ability to provide consistent, focused, long-
term attention to interoperable communications needs has been hampered 
by the lack of a designated agency with the authority and ability to 
coordinate the wide-variety of federal efforts that exist. OMB has 
described SAFECOM as the umbrella program to unify and coordinate the 
federal government's interoperable communications efforts. Although 
SAFECOM has made progress in developing grant guidance, issuing 
interoperable communications requirements, beginning the process of 
assessing current interoperable communications capability, and 
otherwise coordinating federal efforts, it is dependent upon other 
federal agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. The 
Department of Homeland Security has recently announced the 
establishment of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility--of 
which SAFECOM would be a part--as the focal point for coordinating 
federal efforts for wireless and other functional interoperability. 
However, the exact nature of its roles and responsibilities are still 
being determined. Moreover, this office would still face many of the 
challenges that SAFECOM has faced in coordinating the interoperability 
efforts of a variety of federal agencies outside of DHS, such as the 
FCC and the Departments of Justice and Commerce.

With federal leadership and support and local participation and 
support, states can serve as a key focus for efforts to assess and 
improve interoperable communications by developing and implementing 
statewide bodies to assess interoperability issues and guide efforts to 
remedy identified problems through statewide interoperability plans.

Federal assistance grants to state and local governments do not fully 
support statewide planning for wireless communications 
interoperability. Specifically, federal grants do not fully support 
regional planning and lack requirements to tie federal assistance to an 
approved statewide interoperability plan. Interoperability plans for 
public safety communications systems, once prepared, should guide 
federal funding assistance programs to state and local governments.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To improve interoperable wireless communications for first responders, 
we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
ensure that the following actions are taken:

* In coordination with the FCC and the NTIA, continue development of a 
nationwide database of all interoperable public safety communications 
frequencies, establish a common nomenclature for those frequencies, and 
establish clear timeframes to complete both efforts;

* In consultation with state and local governments, determine the 
current status of wireless public safety interoperable 
telecommunications across the nation by assessing interoperability in 
specific locations against interoperability requirements that can be 
measured, and assist states in assessing interoperability in their 
states against those requirements;

* Through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single 
statewide body responsible for interoperable communications and that 
this body shall prepare a single comprehensive statewide 
interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communication 
systems in all frequency bands. The statewide interoperability plan 
shall be based upon the nationwide standard frequency database and use 
the standard nationwide nomenclature for interoperability channels, 
once they are developed; and:

* At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that 
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved 
only upon certification by the statewide body responsible for 
interoperable communications that such grant applications are in 
conformance with statewide interoperability plans. DHS should give 
states adequate time to develop these focal points and plans and to 
provide guidance on development of such plans.

We further recommend that the Director, OMB, in conjunction with DHS, 
review the interoperability mission and functions now performed by 
SAFECOM and establish these functions as a long term program with 
adequate coordination authority and funding.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We sent a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce, Defense, 
Homeland Security, and Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, 
and the Office of Management and Budget. We did not receive comments 
from OMB or the Department of Defense. The other agencies provided 
technical comments that we have incorporated into the final report as 
appropriate. In addition, we received written comments from the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security. The 
Department of Commerce said in a letter dated July 12, 2004 that it 
issued two reports on spectrum policy in June, 2004 (See appendix VI.) 
We added this information to the report text as appropriate.

The Department of Homeland Security provided written comments on a 
draft of this report in a July 8, 2004 letter, which is reprinted in 
Appendix VII. With respect to our first recommendation, DHS said it is 
developing a nationwide database of interoperable public safety 
communications frequencies in its fiscal year 2004 program as part of 
its support to the Computer Assisted Pre-coordination Resource and 
Database System (CAPRAD). DHS also said it plans to work with the 
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) on a common 
nomenclature across public safety disciplines and jurisdictions. DHS 
did not mention coordination with the FCC and the NTIA on these 
matters; the FCC regulates state and local public safety wireless 
communications, and the NTIA regulates federal public safety spectrum. 
Either or both the FCC and the NTIA may also take action on the 
development of national databases and common nomenclature. DHS also 
only refers to the use of this database in the 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz 
bands: we believe it should be used for interoperable frequencies in 
all federal, state, and local public safety bands. We have amended our 
conclusions and recommendation to note the importance that DHS 
coordinate with the FCC and the NTIA on these matters across all 
interoperable public safety communications frequencies.

With respect to our second recommendation, DHS said it is developing a 
methodology to establish a national baseline of public safety 
communication and interoperability capabilities with input from the 
public safety community. We believe that DHS should also consult 
directly with state and local governments in developing requirements 
and assessing interoperability in the individual states against those 
requirements. We have amended our recommendation to include appropriate 
language.

With respect to our third recommendation, DHS noted that it had created 
coordinated grant guidance that encourages grant applicants to consider 
systems requirements to ensure interoperability with systems used by 
other disciplines and at other levels of government. DHS also discusses 
a methodology it developed in conjunction with the state of Virginia 
for development of a statewide communications system that ensures input 
from local levels, and states that this methodology will be available 
through the SAFECOM grant guidance for states interested in 
implementing a statewide system. However, the DHS letter did not 
directly address our recommendation about encouraging states to create 
statewide bodies for interoperable communications that would establish 
statewide interoperability plans for federal, state, and local 
communications systems in all frequency bands.

With respect to our fourth recommendation, DHS discusses a "bottoms-up" 
approach to development of a meaningful governance structure and a 
strategic plan for statewide communications and interoperability 
developed with its partner, the state of Virginia. However, DHS ' 
comments do not directly address our recommendations that DHS grant 
guidance require at the appropriate time that federal grant funds for 
communications equipment be approved on condition that such grants are 
in accordance with statewide interoperability plans.

We plan to send copies of this report to relevant congressional 
committees and subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of 
the Federal Communications Commission and other interested parties. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site 
at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it 
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Thomas James, Assistant 
Director at (202) 512-2996. Key contributors to this report are listed 
in appendix VIII.

William O. Jenkins, Jr.: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

To examine the availability of data on interoperable wireless 
communications across the nation, we reviewed our November 6, 2003, 
testimony where we said that the first challenge to addressing first 
responder wireless communications interoperability issues was to 
clearly identify and define the problem and where we identified the 
absence of effective coordinated planning and collaboration as the 
fundamental barrier in addressing interoperability issues. We held 
further discussions on these problems with state and local officials 
about these issues during our field work in California , Florida, 
Georgia, and Washington. We also discussed these issues with state and 
local officials from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and 
during various public safety conferences and follow-up meetings. On the 
basis of these discussions, we developed a framework to analyze these 
issues. (See fig. 1.) We also held discussions with relevant federal 
officials about identifying and defining interoperable communications 
of first responders and about the applicability of this framework in a 
proposed federal nationwide survey of public safety wireless 
interoperability capabilities and requirements.

To examine potential roles that the federal government can play in 
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, 
we met with officials of key federal agencies about their roles in 
setting and implementing policy on interoperable communications for 
first responders. These agencies were the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of 
Defense (DOD), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce, and 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We obtained and reviewed 
relevant documentation about federal programs and projects addressing 
interoperable communications. We also interviewed state and local 
officials to obtain their views about the role the federal government 
should play in addressing interoperability issues.

To examine potential roles that local and state governments can play in 
improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, 
we interviewed state and local officials in California, Florida, 
Georgia, and Washington and staff of the National Governors 
Association. We chose these four states because we had information that 
they were active in addressing interoperability issues and because 
California and Washington provided an opportunity to examine specific 
interoperability issues that might be presented by national borders 
with Mexico and Canada. We also met with public safety officials at 
meetings of (1) the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council; 
(2) the Public Safety Wireless Network program office; and (3) the 
Public Safety National Coordination Council, an FCC committee that 
advised the Commission on spectrum policy decisions for public safety 
interoperable communications. We obtained and reviewed reports, 
testimonies, and other documents relating to public safety wireless 
communications and identified examples of state and local government 
roles in organizing and providing for first responder communications. 
We evaluated these examples of state and local government roles for 
potential application to other state and local governments. We also 
interviewed relevant federal officials about potential state and local 
government roles in improving first responder wireless communications 
interoperability issues.

To examine how the variety of federal grants for state and local first 
responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of interoperable 
problems and the development of comprehensive plans to address these 
problems, we selected key federal grant programs that fund projects 
supporting state and local government first responder communications 
systems and reviewed program documentation and appropriations language 
for policies affecting interoperable communications. We also obtained 
relevant legislation and interviewed federal, state, and local 
officials to obtain their views on these issues.

To obtain information on cross-border communications issues, we visited 
San Diego, California, and Olympia, Washington, and talked to 
appropriate state and local officials. We also discussed these issues 
with federal officials at the Department of Commerce and FCC. We 
obtained and reviewed relevant documentation from the local, state, and 
federal officials.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning:

Two issues related to radio spectrum allocation affect public safety 
communications across the United States borders with Canada and Mexico 
(1) the lack of coordinated cross border spectrum planning and (2) 
radio interference to users of the allocated spectrum. The United 
States, Canada, and Mexico are addressing these issues through various 
negotiations.

Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure:

Radio frequency spectrum allocation has not kept pace with technology 
and demand. The process used to allocate spectrum over the years has 
resulted in a problem that is still unresolved, according to the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO). One 
official said past decisions in United States spectrum policy were 
based on the overall demands for spectrum and the limitations of 
technology at the time. According to this official, these decisions 
made sense individually, but collectively those decisions have a 
negative impact on the current ability of public safety agencies to 
interoperate. (See fig. 3.):

Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The radio frequency spectrum within the United States extends from 9 
KHz to 300 GHz and is allocated to more than 450 frequency bands. The 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the use of 
frequencies for state and local governments and has allocated certain 
portions of the spectrum for public safety agencies. Initially, almost 
all public safety communications were confined to the low end of the 
frequency range, but as technology advanced, higher frequencies became 
possible, offering a temporary solution for congestion and crowding. 
The result--public safety operates in 10 separate bands, which has 
added capabilities, but which has also caused the fragmentation that 
characterizes the public safety spectrum today and make it difficult 
for different agencies and jurisdictions to communicate.

Cross Border Planning:

According to National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA), Canada and Mexico have developed spectrum use 
and rules independent of that of the United States. In particular, 
Canada uses the fixed and mobile bands contained in the band 138-174 
MHz for all users, including military, civilian, and government. Canada 
also uses a different channeling structure than the United States and 
is in the process of narrow banding portions on a different schedule 
than the United States. Moreover, the majority of the Canadian 
population resides in the United States/Canadian border area. 
Therefore, it is very difficult for the United States to identify and 
coordinate frequencies for new uses in the border area. The United 
States/Mexican border presents different problems in that neither 
country is aware of the operations authorized by the other country in 
the border area because there is no formal agreement to exchange data 
or coordinate use.

According to FCC, frequency band plans are also not consistent along 
the United States borders with Canada and Mexico. For example, the 
Canadian band plan for 800 MHz is different than the Mexican band plan 
primarily because of demographic differences in the border regions. 
According to FCC, some degree of harmonized spectrum has been achieved 
in the 800 MHz and 700 MHz public safety bands, but interoperability in 
the VHF and UHF bands is difficult to achieve because these bands are 
highly encumbered and have been operating for many years under 
different channel plans and different uses. State and local officials 
in Washington state also said they expect that the 700 MHz band will 
not be available for the foreseeable future along the Canadian border 
because Canada currently restricts use of the 700 MHz band for 
television broadcast purposes only. According to these officials, 
Canadian authorities have not initiated a process to relocate the 
television broadcasters out of the 700 MHz band. In addition, local 
Washington officials said that communication barriers result from 
border counties using different frequencies and equipment than one 
another.

Cross Border Radio Interference:

Interference among users of radio frequency spectrum has been a driving 
force in the management of spectrum at the national and international 
levels for many years. Interference among these users can occur when 
two or more radio signals interact in a manner that disrupts or 
degrades the transmission and reception of messages. Our work in 
California and Washington state highlighted interference issues with 
United States/Mexico and United States/Canada. For example:

* Unlicensed radio users in Mexico cause interference to United States 
public safety agencies. For example, some Mexico radio users interfere 
with United States public safety communication frequencies because 
Mexico does not have complementary regulations governing its frequency 
use, according to local California public safety officials. 
Furthermore, in the 162-174 MHz band, there is also a problem with 
interference to federal government operations. Many of these 
interference cases involve unauthorized stations in Mexico.

* According to local public safety officials in California, Mexico does 
not limit the frequency power that radios can emit. Mexican taxi radio 
users can emit enough power to force public safety radio repeaters in 
California to open up, and taxis can use them to make their radio 
calls. For example, San Diego County was forced to switch from their 
UHF and VHF radio systems to a more expensive 800 MHZ system, in order 
to operate without interference. In addition, Imperial County has 30 
VHF frequencies potentially available for use but can only use two of 
them because of interference from Mexico.

* Interference is also an issue along the Canadian border because 
spectrum policies in the United States and Canada are not aligned. 
United States-devised solutions will not be able to be used in the 
shared Canadian area, according to local Washington State officials.

Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues:

Efforts are underway by the United States to address cross border 
problems with Canada and Mexico. According to an NTIA official, NTIA 
expects in the long term that agreements will be made with both Canada 
and Mexico that will provide equal segments in specified frequency 
bands that will be available for exclusive use by each administration. 
This type of arrangement will mitigate the problems associated with 
different uses, different channeling plans, and different plans for 
future use. The official said NTIA is now involved in negotiations with 
both countries to develop this type of arrangement and that both Canada 
and Mexico are in agreement with this approach. He said that the time 
to accomplish the migration of existing use from the segments 
designated to the other administration is the main factor that must be 
addressed for successful completion of these efforts.

In the short-term, NTIA plans to hold meetings with the Canadian 
government about four times a year to complete the negotiation of 
segmenting certain bands, to improve coordination procedures, to 
identify channels for shared use, and to identify common interference 
prediction techniques. With Mexico, NTIA plans in the near term to meet 
with a Mexican delegation to negotiate protocols involving the 
segmentation of certain land-mobile bands. NTIA also plans to 
participate in meetings of the Joint Commission,[Footnote 34] which 
meets twice a year to address interference problems between stations of 
both countries.

FCC is also in the initial stages of forming an agreement with Canada 
on the use of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band, which will 
include a channel(s) to be used for mutual aid and interoperability. At 
this time, Mexico has not allocated the 700 MHz band for public safety. 
In other bands where public safety spectrum is not harmonized, 
agreements typically define shared use of spectrum, including power 
limitations to prevent interference across the border.

Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band:

One question of interest to the Congress is whether a single nationwide 
frequency should be designated for public safety in the United States 
and as it relates to the United States borders with Canada and Mexico. 
Both FCC and NTIA told us that sufficient bands exist for state and 
local public safety. FCC said that currently five mutual aid 
frequencies in the 800 MHz band are included in agreements with Canada 
and Mexico, with the possibility of additional channel(s) in a future 
agreement with Canada in the 700 MHz band. Similarly, an NTIA official 
told us there are several interoperable frequencies in the 162 MHz to 
174 MHz band and the 406-420 MHz band for state and local public 
safety.[Footnote 35]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of 
Public Safety Wireless Communications:

The SAFECOM program has established goals and objectives for the years 
2005, 2008, and 2023 in its current work program. This program was 
developed in December 2003 at a joint SAFECOM and AGILE planning 
meeting with input from federal, state, and local representatives. The 
SAFECOM Program Manager said that the SAFECOM Executive Committee 
approved the program as developed in the December meeting. Key 
objectives for the year 2005 include: the completion of a statement of 
requirements for public safety interoperable communications; 
establishment of a research, development, test, and evaluation program 
for existing and emerging public safety communications and 
interoperability; establishment of a technical assistance program for 
public safety communications and interoperability; and development of a 
process to advance standards necessary to improve public safety 
communications and interoperability.

We provide descriptive material on these objectives, including why 
SAFECOM believes they are needed, major benefits anticipated if 
successfully completed, and key responsibilities of various parties to 
their accomplishment.

Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements:

One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability 
strategy has been the lack of a statement of national mission 
requirements for public safety--what set of communications capabilities 
should be built or acquired--and a strategy to get there. A key 
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is to complete 
a comprehensive Public Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement 
is to provide functional requirements that define how, when, and where 
public safety practitioners communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS 
announced the release of the first comprehensive Statement of 
Requirements defining future communication requirements and outlining 
future technology needed to meet these requirements. According to DHS, 
the statement provides a shared vision and an architectural framework 
for future interoperable public safety communications.

DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that 
will define future communications services as they change or become new 
requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions. 
SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will 
incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs, but did not 
provide specific details. One example of potential future development 
is expanded coverage to include public safety support functions. The 
current statement is incomplete because it only addresses the 
functional requirements for traditional public safety first responders 
- Emergency Medical Services personnel, firefighters, and law 
enforcement officers. The statement recognizes the existence of but 
does not include in this version those elements of the public safety 
community--such as transportation or public utility workers--whose 
primary mission provides vital support to public safety officials.

In addition, the frequent changes in SAFECOM management teams and 
changing implementation strategies has resulted in major changes in how 
SAFECOM intends to achieve its ultimate goals. As originally conceived 
while SAFECOM was in the Treasury Department, the program would build 
upon Public Safety Wireless Network's (PSWN) efforts to achieve 
interoperability among state and local agencies by building an 
interoperable federal communications network. The SAFECOM program 
implementation strategy changed when the program was transferred to 
FEMA to focus on helping first responders make short-term improvements 
in interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration projects and 
research. At that time, the development of an interoperable federal 
system was seen as a long-term goal.

DHS describes SAFECOM's current goals as a vision that by the year 
2023:

"There is an integrated system-of-systems, in regular use, that allows 
public safety personnel to communicate (voice, data, and video) with 
whom they need on demand, in real time, as authorized:

Public safety can respond anywhere, bring their own equipment, and can 
work on any network immediately when authorized.

Public safety will have the networking and spectrum resources it needs 
to function properly."

SAFECOM officials said under this concept each major region of the 
country--for example, New York City, Chicago, and Saint Louis and their 
adjacent suburban jurisdictions--will have their own "system" which is 
made up of multiple subsystems, such as police agencies, that have 
established relationships. Part of the SAFECOM concept is that a 
centrally dispatched Urban Search and Rescue team can respond to any of 
these cities/regions and operate with the equipment that they bring 
with them.

However, a national architecture has not been prepared yet to guide the 
creation of interoperable communications. An explicit and commonly 
understood and agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to 
effectively and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, 
we have promoted the use of architectures, recognizing them as a 
crucial means to a challenging goal: agency operational structures that 
are optimally defined in both business and technological environments. 
Office of Management and Budget officials told us that OMB charged 
SAFECOM with developing a national architecture, which will include 
local, state, and federal government architectures. According to these 
officials, SAFECOM is to work closely with state and local governments 
to establish a basic understanding of what infrastructure currently 
exists and to identify public safety communication requirements. 
SAFECOM officials said the development of a national architecture will 
take time because SAFECOM must first assist state and local governments 
to establish their communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will 
then collect the state and local architectures, and fit them into a 
national architecture that links federal communications into the state 
and local infrastructure.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and 
Emerging Public Safety Communications and Interoperability:

The SAFECOM Program Plan includes an objective for 2005 to establish a 
research, development and testing, and evaluation program that 
identifies and develops a long-term, sustainable technical foundation. 
The SAFECOM program plans provide funding and promote coordination 
across the federal government to test and evaluate existing 
communications and bridging technologies and to create a research and 
development program addressing emerging technologies, such as software 
defined radio.

Public safety agencies have been addressing communications 
interoperability for many years under the name "mutual aid." Under 
mutual aid agreements public safety agencies have been monitoring each 
other's activities and radio communications through the use of scanners 
or exchanging radios. The agencies have built cross-patches into 
dispatcher consoles to interconnect radio systems. They also have 
agreed on the shared use of specific frequencies for first responders, 
such as police forces and fire departments. For example, the state of 
California sponsored the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio 
System that provides a common set of channels statewide for mutual aid.

Other technology options are also becoming available to public safety 
agencies from government agencies and commercial vendors. For example, 
the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed and fielded a high 
technology system that includes both civilian and military 
communications equipment that is capable of satellite communications 
and traditional public safety VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz spectrum 
bands.[Footnote 36] According to NRL, all bands can be linked to every 
other band and to normal telephone lines, private cellular networks, 
and satellite links. According to NRL, its system comes in various 
sizes and configurations that have been used at the 2002 Olympic Games 
and Superbowl XXXVII and can meet other Homeland Security incidents.

New commercial technologies and systems are also becoming available. 
According to some state and local officials, they have to rely upon 
vendors for information on these new products because they do not have 
a single independent source of comprehensive information and the 
federal government can play a valuable role in testing and evaluating 
these technologies. For example, officials representing the Midwest 
Consortium told us that the federal government could create a 
clearinghouse of technical support for the state and local agencies. 
Therefore, rather than using the equipment vendors for technical advice 
on what to purchase and what type of systems to build, the state and 
local agencies could look to the federal government for technical 
assistance.

But federal officials said there is no single source of data on new 
vendor equipment and that their first task is to identify what 
equipment is available. For example, federal laboratory officials in 
Boulder, Colorado, said they recently conducted a literature search in 
which they identified 11 vendors that make 24 models of Project 25 
portable/mobile radio equipment, 7 vendors that make 9 models of 
conventional Project 25 repeater/base stations equipment, and only 1 
vendor that makes Project 25 base stations using trunking technology. 
However, they said another center had prepared a list of entirely 
different equipment.

Federal laboratory officials said that many of these technologies have 
not been tested and that there is no coordinated program today to test 
and evaluate vendor equipment and technologies. These officials said 
that various federal agencies conduct testing - for example, the Office 
of Law Enforcement Standards in the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service. 
They said these agencies may also have different test objectives, for 
example, the NTIA/ITS laboratory conducts data analysis evaluation, 
while the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in 
Rome, New York, concentrates primarily on operational testing.

SAFECOM officials said that their role is to coordinate research, 
development, test, and evaluation activities for the federal government 
as part of their contribution to communications interoperability. They 
acknowledged that the federal government has multiple initiatives under 
way and that no cohesive plan to coordinate these initiatives exists 
today. These officials said SAFECOM plans to create standardized 
procedures for uniform testing procedures by the federal government. 
However, they said that because the SAFECOM program has not been 
authorized, they cannot create a unified research, development, test, 
and evaluation program without statutory authority.

Technical Assistance for Interoperable Public Safety Communications:

First responders must have the necessary technical support and training 
needed to properly communicate with each other using wireless 
communications on a day-to-day basis as well as in emergency 
situations. First responders will be challenged to perform at their 
best ability, especially during a major incident such as a terrorist 
attack or natural disaster. Therefore, ongoing technical assistance and 
training is needed.

The SAFECOM Program Plan states that the public safety community 
expressed their need for technical assistance, including support for 
planning, development, implementation, and assessment of public safety 
communications systems. In response, SAFECOM is developing a plan to 
provide technical assistance and training to the public safety 
community. The plan or work package includes (1) creating a one-stop 
shop, which will consist of a Web portal and call in center and (2) 
providing training and technical assistance, which will consist of a 
practitioner resource group, training and assistance, national calling 
channels, and technical assistance publications for the public safety 
community. According to SAFECOM officials, the technical assistance 
work package has been approved for funding in fiscal year 2005.

State and local government officials told us what a national technical 
assistance and outreach program for the public safety community should 
include. A Georgia official said that training should also be provided 
by the federal government to improve wireless communications among 
public safety officials. According to SAFECOM training should consist 
of tools and templates to train multiple public safety agencies and 
personnel on how to use interoperable communications equipment and 
processes. For example, officials from the state of Georgia told us the 
federal government should provide programs and assistance to coordinate 
the design and implementation of communications systems. Local 
officials in the state of Washington agreed that the federal government 
could offer staff assistance or technical support to the state and 
local public safety officials.

According to local officials in Florida, the federal government should 
require that public safety officials have communications training. 
These local officials told us that the police are required to train and 
pass qualifications for using their gun at least once a year; however, 
they use their guns less than their communications equipment. There are 
no requirements to train on using the communications equipment. Local 
officials in San Diego County told us that the federal government could 
use other federal entities, such as the National Accreditation for Law 
Enforcement, as a model to educate and train public safety agencies. 
The National Accreditation for Law Enforcement could use state agencies 
as consultants to provide technical and operation advice to small 
localities.

First responders must plan for and train on new technologies or the 
technology could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of 
emergency responders. The states we visited or contacted are using 
gateway technology as a short-term solution to achieving communications 
interoperability. However, this technology only patches different 
systems together and has to be used properly to be effective. For 
example, an official in California told us some public safety officials 
caused an entire system to crash at the most critical point of 
communications when they used it for the first time during an emergency 
because they had not been properly trained on the system. In addition, 
use of gateway systems may result in too many people trying to talk, in 
turn, taxing the communication systems.

Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications:

State and local public safety officials we talked with told us they 
needed national guidance on standards. For example, members of the 
Midwest Consortium we spoke with said they needed more national 
guidance on standards and technical issues and the establishment of a 
national entity made up of federal, state, and local entities that set 
standards. However, consortium officials emphasized that federal 
communications standards and initiatives must be reasonable, balanced, 
and consistent with state and local jurisdictions' funding capabilities 
and their communication needs and objectives.

OMB has established the development of standards for first responder 
interoperability at all levels of government as a SAFECOM objective. 
SAFECOM is to develop these standards by working in partnership with 
federal, state, local, and tribal public safety organizations. SAFECOM 
is working on a plan to address the development of national standards 
to improve public safety communications and interoperability. A key 
initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is development 
of a process to advance standards needed to improve public safety 
communications. This initiative will identify, test, and where 
necessary, develop standards in coordination with the public safety 
community and ongoing standards activities.

In our November 2003 testimony, we noted that a partnership between 
industry and the public safety user community developed what is known 
as Project 25 (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, 
P-25 standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the 
United States for public safety communications. PSWN believes P-25 is 
an important step toward achieving interoperability, but the standards 
do not mandate interoperability among all manufacturers' systems. 
Federal officials also told us significant work remains to complete the 
development of the Project 25 standards and to test vendor equipment 
against these standards. The SAFECOM work plan states that SAFECOM will 
devote resources to accelerate the completion of the Project 25 suite 
of standards and create a common radio nomenclature for first 
responders.

Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment:

One problem that occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001, was 
that incompatible radio systems prevented police and fire department 
personnel from talking to one another. The DHS Secretary recently 
announced that DHS has identified technical specifications for a 
baseline interoperable communications system as the short-term solution 
to allow first responders to communicate by voice--no matter what 
frequency on which they are operating. SAFECOM officials said that the 
specifications the Secretary referred to are for generic bridging 
technologies that interconnect first responders' different land mobile 
radios. According to these officials, the Secretary has also determined 
that local emergency-based communications interoperability 
capabilities should be in locations of critical concern by December 
2004. These officials said that this date is the deadline for putting 
an interim solution in place for interoperable radio communications for 
police, fire, and emergency first responders.

Some states are already using the bridging equipment or audio switches 
identified as a short-term solution by DHS and have identified several 
nontechnical barriers to successful use of the equipment. A state 
official in California told us that first responders need to plan their 
use of these technologies and become trained on using the technology, 
or it could have a negative impact on emergency response to an 
incident. This official said, for example, that some public safety 
officials had not been properly trained on using one vendor's system, 
causing the system to fail at a critical point the first time they used 
the system in an emergency. According to this official, this technology 
must be used properly to be effective. Local officials in the State of 
Washington also told us that multiple units of these systems could 
overload communications because too many officials are trying to talk 
at the same time. A federal laboratory official said the bridging or 
audio switches provide the benefits of interoperability of disparate 
radio systems but have several shortfalls. These shortfalls include a 
requirement that users be within coverage of their home radio systems 
and that the use of bridging equipment may require pre-incident 
coordination. He said there are 4 major vendors, and about 30 vendors 
in total that make bridging equipment. He said testing has been 
conducted on only 2 of the major vendors' equipment.

Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent 
Assessments of Alternative Technologies:

State and local officials said they want an independent source of 
information on new products and that the federal government can play a 
valuable role in providing that information. SAFECOM officials said 
they intend to include their bridging specifications in federal grant 
guidance as a condition for using federal funds to purchase bridging 
equipment. However, they said that the specifications for such 
equipment may be released and in use before their testing program for 
switches and bridging technologies is complete. They said public safety 
agencies must rely on vendor data to determine whether the untested 
systems meet DHS's requirements. SAFECOM officials also recognize that 
significant training on such equipment must accompany the delivery of 
the equipment to first responders. The officials said COPS and ODP have 
developed a template for providing technical assistance training for 
bridging equipment.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve:

State and local governments play a large, perhaps defining, role in 
resolving the communications interoperability problem. As recognized by 
the Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in 
managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are 
usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency 
incidents. FCC also said that states are usually in the best position 
to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. According to 
the National Strategy for Homeland Security,[Footnote 37] local 
officials stress that they are the first to respond to any incident and 
the last to leave the scene of an incident. According to the SAFECOM 
program, state and local governments also own 90 percent of the public 
safety communications infrastructure.

In our November 2003 testimony, we identified fragmented planning and 
cooperation as the key barrier to improving interoperability of public 
safety wireless communications systems. In the past, a stovepiped, 
single jurisdiction or agency-specific systems development approach 
prevailed--resulting in none or less than desired interoperable 
communications systems. Public safety agencies have historically 
planned and acquired communications systems for their own jurisdictions 
without concern for interoperability. This meant that each state and 
local agency developed communications systems to meet their own 
requirements, without regard to interoperability requirements to talk 
to adjacent jurisdictions. For example, a PSWN analysis of Fire and EMS 
communications interoperability found a significant need for 
coordinated approaches, relationship building, and information 
sharing. However, the PSWN program office found that public safety 
agencies have traditionally developed or updated their radio systems 
independently to meet specific mission needs.

The PSWN program also concluded that state leaders can, through 
memorandums of understanding (MOU), help to define interagency 
relationships, reach procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of 
statewide or regional interoperability committees, and encourage joint 
efforts to deploy communications technology. State and local officials 
that we talked with generally agree that states can coordinate 
communications planning and funding support for state communications 
systems and coordinate local governments' interoperability efforts. For 
example, several officials said the state can facilitate the planning 
process by including key stakeholder input in the decision making 
process and ensure that communications interoperability issues are 
addressed. However, officials also see state roles in providing common 
infrastructure and developing routine training exercises.

Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions 
that coordinate and facilitate efforts to address problems of 
interoperable communications within their states. For example, as we 
indicated previously, states we visited have or are in the process of 
establishing SIECs to enhance communications interoperability 
planning, including the development of interoperability plans and 
administration of interoperability spectrum. California in 2003 also 
established the Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee 
(PSRSPC) to develop and implement a statewide integrated public safety 
communications system for state government agencies that facilitates 
interoperability and other shared uses of public safety spectrum with 
local and federal agencies. In Florida, the governor issued an 
executive order in 2001 to establish seven Regional Domestic Security 
Task Forces that make up the entire state. Each of the regional task 
forces has a committee on interoperable communications under Florida's 
State Working Group. The Florida legislature supported that effort by 
establishing the task forces in law and formally designating the 
Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency 
Management as the lead agencies. The Task Forces consist of agencies 
from Fire/Rescue, Emergency Management, and public health and 
hospitals, as well as law enforcement. In addition, it includes 
partnerships with education/schools, business, and private industry.

In addition, planning on a regional basis is key to interoperable 
communications systems development. The Public Safety Wireless Network 
report also notes that although in the past public safety agencies have 
addressed interoperability on an individual basis, more recently, 
local, state, and federal agencies have come to realize that they 
cannot do it alone. The report also notes that officials at all levels 
of government are now taking action to improve coordination and 
facilitate multijurisdictional interoperability. We talked with 
officials from several state and local agencies about their efforts to 
address interoperability issues on a regional basis. For example:

* In Georgia and Washington, state and local emergency consequence 
planning continues to be structured around the all-hazards planning 
model and are broken down into regions. The regions are made up of one 
or more counties that include cities, towns, and tribal nations within 
the regional geographical boundaries. This regional configuration was 
implemented to develop regional interoperability plans, distribute 
federal grant funds, develop emergency responder equipment priority 
lists, plan and execute training exercises, create regionally based 
mutual aid plans, and develop volunteer infrastructure to support 
citizens' involvement in homeland security initiatives.

* The King County Regional Communications Board system in Washington 
State is a multijurisdictional coordination body. Communication 
decisions are made by the group and not made by individual 
jurisdictions. This regional cooperation is informal and not legislated 
or mandated.

* The San Diego County Regional Communications System was established 
in 1994 to provide an interoperable wireless network available to all 
public safety agencies.

State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not 
enough because incident first responders face could cross boundaries. 
Thus, some states are also taking actions to address interstate 
interoperability problems. For example, state officials from Illinois, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio said their states have combined 
efforts to form the Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to 
promote interstate interoperability. These officials told us that the 
governors of their five member states plan to sign an MOU with each 
other to signify that each state is willing to be interoperable with 
the other states and provide communication assistance and resources to 
the other states, to the extent that it does not harm their own state. 
According to these officials, they also have taken actions to form an 
interstate committee to develop interoperability plans and solicit 
support from key players such as local public safety agencies. The 
benefits of the consortium are increased interoperability on a larger 
regional basis, an exchange of technical information, greater power 
over vendor manipulation because of increased purchasing power, an 
exchange of pricing and technical information, and lessons learned from 
their collective experiences.

Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability:

Although efforts are underway to address communications 
interoperability issues, state and local public safety officials face 
challenges in addressing communications interoperability. According to 
state and local public safety officials, some of the key challenges 
they are confronted with today include (1) multiple statewide 
communication systems, (2) turf or control issues, and (3) lack of 
communications training for public safety officials.

Federal officials told us that states have multiple state 
communications systems that make communications interoperability 
planning more difficult. The states we visited have multiple statewide 
communications systems. For example, in the state of Washington, the 
departments of Transportation, Corrections, and Health use 
communication systems operating in the 800 MHz frequency band, while 
the National Guard and Emergency Management Division operate 
communications systems with the spectrum reserved for federal agencies. 
The remainder of the state agencies operates in the 150 MHz frequency 
band. Similarly, Florida has several statewide systems such as State 
Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) and Forestry systems that are not 
compatible. Because the forestry system operates on a different 
frequency band than SLERS, it does not allow users to communicate with 
law enforcement except through console patches. The SLERS was 
originally designed primarily for 8 state law enforcement entities. 
Membership now includes 17 law enforcement entities in 15 state 
agencies.

Some local jurisdictions also have multiple communications systems. For 
example, San Diego and Imperial Counties have developed and implemented 
a radio system referred to as the Regional Communications System (RCS). 
RCS's primary mission is to provide an interoperable wireless network 
available to all public safety and public service agencies within the 
counties, regardless of jurisdiction or level of government. However, 
according to local public safety officials in California, political, 
funding, and technology limitations such as incompatible communications 
equipment have prevented full participation in the system by the city 
of San Diego and other jurisdictions in the counties. According to a 
local government official in California, however, RCS and the city have 
collaborated on planning the transition from their current systems to a 
P-25 compatible system, which he said will provide seamless 
interoperability for all public safety agencies operating in the 
Southern California region.

According to PSWN, efforts to develop and implement regional or shared 
systems are hindered by perceptions that management control of radio 
system development and operations will be lost. As a result, 
coordination and partnership efforts do not evolve, and "stop gap" 
measures are implemented to address specific interoperability 
requirements. Interoperable communications is meaningless unless first 
responders overcome turf issues and learn to cooperate in any given 
incident, according to Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium 
members. The Consortium members said that the technical part of 
building interoperability is easy, compared with the political and 
operational issues. As a result, the planning process for addressing 
political and operational issues is vital.

In the state of Washington, a potential obstacle to effective 
coordination may lie in the historical relationship between state and 
local governments. The state has 39 counties and 268 towns and 
counties. According to a Century Foundation report, local and regional 
governments in Washington have a long tradition of home rule and 
independent action, which makes it difficult for state officials to 
coordinate the activities of the units of local government. Washington 
state and local officials said that the political power in the state is 
decentralized, and the local city and county governments may resist 
state-driven mandates. Things get done on a consensus basis at the 
local level.

According to local officials in Washington, that type of relationship 
does not exist between the state and local jurisdictions or the federal 
agencies and local jurisdictions. Regionally based planning is 
problematic due to resistance by locally elected officials, lack of 
trust between officials in different jurisdictions or disciplines, and 
competition over resources, according to a Century Foundation report. 
For example, one of the concerns of the Washington SIEC planning group 
was that the state could not force locals to participate or adhere to 
the development of a statewide communications plan, they could only 
invite locals to participate.

[End of section]

Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support 
Interoperability Planning:

Federal grant funds can be used to facilitate and encourage coordinated 
regional planning. However, there are currently several challenges to 
the ability to use these funds to support the long-term coordinated 
regional planning that we have identified as being essential to 
improving interoperable communications. First, federal funds are 
structured to address short-term needs for the development of 
interoperability projects rather than long-term planning needs for 
communications interoperability. Second, federal grants have 
inconsistent requirements to plan regionally. Third, the first 
responders grant structure is fragmented, which can complicate 
coordination and integration of services and planning at the state and 
local levels, and has presented additional barriers to federal efforts 
to coordinate communications funds. Fourth, uncoordinated federal and 
state level grant reviews limit the government's ability to ensure that 
funds are used to improve regional and statewide communications 
interoperability.

First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term 
Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs:

A study conducted in 1998 estimated the current replacement value of 
the existing public safety LMR infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 
billion.[Footnote 38] According to a PSWN report, DHS officials have 
said that this estimate is much higher when infrastructure and training 
costs are taken into account. In addition, reaching an accelerated goal 
for improving communications interoperability will require a major 
investment of several billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. 
The estimated cost of an LMR system for a state or local jurisdiction 
can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars, 
depending on the size and type of system being implemented. According 
to PSWN, these cost estimates account only for the procurement of the 
equipment and infrastructure and do not include ongoing operation and 
maintenance costs. According to another Public Safety Wireless network 
(PSWN) funding report, the extraordinary investment in LMR systems 
makes obtaining the necessary funding to finance the replacement or 
upgrade of LMR systems one of the greatest challenges facing public 
safety agencies. This is especially true because public safety 
communications systems typically reach the end of their useful life 
cycle in 8 to 10 years. In addition, the National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration (NTIA) and Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) have established a new migration plan that will 
require that all federal and state and local public safety agencies 
replace current LMR equipment with narrowband (12.5 kHz) equipment by 
2008 and 2018, respectively. Federal funding is but one of several 
resources state and local agencies must utilize in order to address 
these financial challenges.

State and local public safety officials say that they do not have 
reliable federal funding support for the planning costs associated with 
the long-term development of interoperable communications. State and 
locals officials from states that we visited identified the lack of a 
sustained funding source for communications as a major barrier. Local 
officials emphasized that public safety agencies need a re-occurring 
source of funds for communications because interoperability barriers 
cannot be fixed with a one-time grant.[Footnote 39] For example, local 
public safety officials from Washington state asserted that, once the 
granted project is complete, locals still have intense fiscal pressures 
to face in the support and operation of the communication systems. As a 
result, state and local agencies need to provide assurances that they 
can sustain the projects that the grants have developed. However, they 
emphasized that further federal support is needed to help with these 
costs. Officials from Georgia and California also expressed the need 
for federal support in addressing on-going costs and suggested creating 
a dedicated source of funds similar to the interstate highway program 
or 911 tax to assist states with implementing the long-term solutions.

We have identified several federal grants that can be used to address 
first responder communications (See table 1.) Among these grants, in 
fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated funds for two programs 
specifically dedicated to improving first responder interoperable 
communications. However, since 2003, the funding for these grant 
programs has changed significantly. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) received approximately $154 million to provide 
grants for interoperable communications equipment[Footnote 40]. In 
fiscal year 2004 FEMA's line-item budget for this program was cut and 
was not explicitly picked up anywhere else in DHS. The COPS program was 
awarded only $85 million as the sole source for the interoperable 
communications equipment grant for fiscal year 2004. In addition, the 
President's fiscal year 2005 budget proposal allocates no funds for the 
Interoperable Communications Equipment grant program to the DHS and 
suggests reductions in other funding sources that state and locals are 
eligible to use for communications interoperability. For more details 
on changes to these funding sources, see table 1.

Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications Interoperability 
Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004:

Dollars in millions.

FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment Grant[A]; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS; 
FY 2003: $80.

COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, DOJ; 
FY 2003: $75; 
FY 2004: $85.

Homeland Security Grant Program[B]; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for 
Domestic Preparedness, DHS; 
FY 2003: $2,066; 
FY 2004: $1,700.

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for 
Domestic Preparedness, DHS; 
FY 2003: $596; 
FY 2004: $725.

Assistance to Fire-fighters Grant; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for 
Domestic Preparedness,[C] DHS; 
FY 2003: $750; 
FY 2004: $750.

Emergency Management Performance Grants; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS; 
FY 2003: $165; 
FY 2004: $180.

National Urban Search and Rescue Response System; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS; 
FY 2003: $60; 
FY 2004: $60.

Local Law Enforcement Block Grants; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice 
Assistance, DOJ; 
FY 2003: $400; 
FY 2004: $225.

Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
Discretionary Grants; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice 
Assistance, DOJ; 
FY 2003: $151; 
FY 2004: $159. 

Source: GAO analysis of congressional appropriations, the president's 
fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, DHS, DOJ, and Catalogue of Federal 
Domestic Assistance data.

Notes: The fiscal year 2003 FEMA and COPS Interoperable Communications 
Equipment grants were grants specifically targeted toward improving 
first responder communication equipment to increase interoperability.

[A] In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State 
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The 
new grant program includes three different grant programs.

[B] Until fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by FEMA.

[C] The president's fiscal year 2005 Budget Proposal funds this program 
under the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

[End of table]

Local, state, and federal officials agree that regional communications 
plans should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal 
funds for interoperable communications. However, the officials 
emphasize that federal grant conditions and requirements do not support 
this planning process. While there are several grants to assist first 
responders in preparing for emergency response, state and local public 
safety officials from the states that we visited said that these grants 
do not provide adequate support for dedicated staff resources for 
communications planning or allow adequate time for state and locals to 
plan. Officials emphasized that most public safety organizations that 
are tasked with addressing the planning functions for the operational, 
technical, and coordination needs of communications systems, such as 
Regional Planning Committees, State Interoperability Executive 
Committees, and system managers rely on volunteer efforts of first 
responders, who also have full-time duties in their regular jobs.

With new spectrum policies for narrow banding, local first responders 
are skeptical that they will have the staff resources to meet 
potentially significant additional workloads in these new challenges. 
For example, managers of a regional communication system serving 
multiple counties in Washington state documented this concern in a 2003 
filing to the FCC. The filing stated,

"The success of the regional planning approach can no longer be left to 
the volunteer efforts of the engaged public entities, particularly for 
something as complicated and intense as the re-banding proposed in the 
Supplemental Filing. All local governments are stretched to the maximum 
in our combined situation of economic challenges and security 
uncertainty. This has a limiting effect on the ability of the skilled 
personnel who normally engage in the regional planning efforts to 
continue engagement at the high levels that would be necessary to deal 
with a re-banding effort. This is even more the case in the complex 
border areas where numerous technical, procedural and perhaps political 
issues need to be resolved to make the effort a success. Region 43 
strongly supports the need for a national pool of experts and funding 
to work with the RPCs as they undertake the re-banding in their 
Regions. These need to be people and resources that can do the hard 
work of inventorying systems, understanding spectrum relationships, 
evaluating the unique terrain and topography of the area and helping 
establish technically and operationally competent migration strategies 
that work for the unique situations of each Region But Committees on 
their own can't do this work effectively, and left to their own 
resources, we will see staggered and inconsistent results across the 
country."

Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked 
Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans:

As we mentioned previously, creating communications interoperability 
requires a coordinated regional approach. Recent grant requirements 
have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning, 
which has resulted in more local efforts to plan using a 
multidisciplinary and multi-jurisdictional approach rather than the 
stove-piped planning that formerly existed. For example, grant criteria 
used in the fiscal year 2003 COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications 
Equipment grants encouraged multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary 
approaches, which resulted in grants being given to applicants that 
developed regional and multidisciplinary partnerships. For example, 
officials from Florida that received the COPS grant award for $6 
million told us that as a result of this encouraged regional approach, 
they applied for the grant using a consortium of nine counties that 
formed a plan for interoperability and will use the funds on a 
multiregional basis to increase interoperability within and among their 
jurisdictions. State and local officials that we spoke with said that 
the federal government needs to do more to encourage regional 
communications planning and that this requirement should be made a 
condition of receiving grants.

In our November 6 testimony, we also identified coordinated planning 
for communications interoperability as a pre-requisite to effectively 
addressing communication issues. However, current federal first 
responder grants are inconsistent in their requirements to tie funding 
to interoperable communications plans. States and locals are not 
required to provide an interoperable communications plan as a pre-
requisite to receiving some federal grant funds. As a result, there is 
no assurance that federal funds are being used to support a well-
developed strategy for improving interoperability. For example:

* The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) requires 
states to conduct a needs assessment and submit a State Homeland 
Security Strategy to Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP); however, 
the required strategy is high-level and broad in nature. It does not 
require that project narratives or a detailed communications plan be 
submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.

* The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant requires a Needs 
Assessment and Urban Area Strategy to be developed by grantees, but 
also does not require project narratives or detailed plans.

* The COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment grants did 
not require that a communications plan be completed prior to receiving 
grant funds. However, grantees were required to provide documentation 
that they were actively engaged in a planning process and a 
multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary project narrative was 
required for submission. If applicants intended to use the funds to 
support a project that was previously developed, they were required to 
submit the plan for review.

An ODP program official acknowledged that requirements to develop a 
detailed communications needs assessment are missing and that ODP is 
currently developing an assessment tool. The official said that 
grantees could use this tool to assess their specific communication 
needs and conduct a gap analysis. The analysis would be used by the 
jurisdictions to develop an interoperable communications plan that 
would support the State and Urban Area Homeland Security strategies.

State and local public safety officials that we spoke with reported 
that because of the lack of federal requirements to submit plans for 
interoperable communications; some federal grant funds are being spent 
on individual projects without a plan to guide these expenditures. 
States that we visited received federal funds that could be used for 
communications, but did not have statewide communications plans to 
guide decisions on local requests for federal funds. To combat this 
concern, the state of Washington Emergency Management Division said 
that it is holding back on allocating its obligated funds until its 
State Executive Interoperability Committee has developed a statewide 
communications plan that can be used to guide decisions on local 
request for communication funds.

In addition to variations in requirements to create communications 
interoperability plans, federal grants lack consistency in defining 
what "regional" body should conduct planning. Regions are defined 
differently by different federal agencies. The COPS office, which 
provided grant funds for interoperable communications equipment, 
defined eligible regions as Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
(MSA's).[Footnote 41] The Office for Domestic Preparedness' (ODP) Urban 
Areas Security Initiative's provided grants to "urban area" regions, 
which were defined--in some cases--as a subset of a MSA. On the other 
hand, FEMA awarded its grants for interoperable communications 
equipment based upon a jurisdictional nomination from the state 
governor. Furthermore, FCC has defined regions for communications 
planning based upon other characteristics. However, all four of the 
agencies encourage state and locals to conduct "regional" planning for 
communications.

Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present 
Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning:

In addition to resources for planning, first responders emphasized that 
the limited time provided to first responders to conduct planning for 
communications interoperability before submission of grants presents a 
barrier. State and local officials from the Office of Emergency 
Management Services expressed concern about their inability to develop 
effective plans within the current grant timeframes. State officials 
from California's Office of Emergency Management said that the short 
turn around timeframe on the ODP Homeland Security and UASI grants 
limited their ability to perform a high-level grant review or assist 
with local planning. ODP required that grantees submit a proposal 
within 30 days of the announcement. As a result, state officials said 
that they were allowed only enough time to review whether local grant 
proposals matched an itemized equipment list provided by ODP and could 
not perform an evaluation of local grant proposals or provide 
assistance to the locals in planning for and writing their grants. A 
representative from a county Office of Emergency Services in California 
expressed the same sentiment. He said that grants are coming with such 
short timeframes that localities are operating with a total lack of 
information before submitting the grants. He stressed that states and 
localities need time to study what they need in order to get something 
worthwhile. Officials from the other three states that we visited--
Florida, Georgia, and Washington--also articulated similar concerns.

Similar to state and local officials, federal officials expressed 
concerns about first responders' ability to plan for long-term regional 
communication systems within the current 30 or 60 day submission time 
frames allotted for the grants. Officials from SAFECOM said that in 
order to alleviate the previous stove pipe communications planning of 
agencies, regional planning should be a pre-requisite to receiving 
federal funds. However, they emphasized that if planning were required 
as a condition for receiving grants, states would have to be given 
enough lead time to prepare a successful plan. The officials said that 
the current time frames placed on grants does not allow states or 
jurisdictions enough time to effectively create a communications plan 
that would make the most efficient use of federal funds. Adequate lead 
time may be a 1 or 2 year planning period. In addition, states should 
be given a planning model to demonstrate how to successfully plan for 
communications--including creating a governance structure as the first 
step. SAFECOM officials said that they are trying to develop this type 
of model in the Commonwealth of Virginia. ODP is also developing a 
similar model in Kansas City, Missouri.

COPS officials administering the fiscal year 2003 Interoperable 
Communications Technology grant also said that requiring that a 
communications plan be developed prior to receiving grants would be a 
positive thing, if the grantees were given an appropriate amount of 
time to develop a plan before submission--perhaps several months. They 
noted that they did not require that grantees have a communications 
plan developed prior to receiving federal funds because the grantees 
only had 30 days from the grant announcement to submit their proposals. 
The Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, Assistance to Firefighters 
grants also allow states only 30 or 60 days to submit a grant proposal. 
Demonstration grants also have been awarded to state and locals for 
communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance 
periods and do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance 
to Firefighters Grant, COPS and FEMA's Interoperable Communications 
Equipment grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue Response System 
grants all have 1-year performance periods.[Footnote 42] UASI, HSGP, 
and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.

Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits 
Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels:

In our 2003 testimony,[Footnote 43] we pointed out that the federal 
first responder grant programs' structure was fragmented, which can 
complicate coordination and integration of services and planning at the 
state and local levels. We also highlighted the variation in grant 
requirements for first responders grants. For example, DHS's Assistance 
to Firefighters grant had a maintenance of effort requirement while the 
Fire Training Systems grant had no similar requirement.

In this report, we find that fragmentation exists within Communications 
Interoperability grants that presents challenges to federal efforts to 
coordinate and streamline the funding process. Multiple agencies 
provide communication interoperability funding and have different 
guidelines and appropriations language that define how the funds can be 
used. A list of interoperable communications grant sources from 2003 
through 2004 within DHS and DOJ and their eligible uses are listed in 
table 2.

Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding Sources and 
Their Eligible Uses:

Grant name/description: FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment 
Grant[A]; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: No; 
Training: No; 
Exercises: No.

Grant name/description: COPS Interoperable Communications Technology 
Grant; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services, DOJ; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: No; 
Training: No; 
Exercises: No.

Grant name/description: Homeland Security Grant Program[B]; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for 
Domestic Preparedness, DHS; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: Yes; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: Yes.

Grant name/description: Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for 
Domestic Preparedness, DHS; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: Yes; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: Yes.

Grant name/description: Assistance to Fire-fighters Grant; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Office for 
Domestic Preparedness,[C] DHS; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: No; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: No.

Grant name/description: Emergency Management Performance Grants; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: Yes; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: Yes.

Grant name/description: National Urban Search and Rescue Response 
System; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: FEMA, DHS; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: No; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: Yes.

Grant name/description: Local Law Enforcement Block Grants; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice 
Assistance, DOJ; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: Yes; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: No.

Grant name/description: Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants; 
Federal agency, department administering the grant: Bureau of Justice 
Assistance, DOJ; 
Equipment acquisition: Yes; 
Planning: No; 
Training: Yes; 
Exercises: No. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS and DOJ data.

[A] The Homeland Security Grant and all other grants listed, with the 
exception of the FEMA and COPS "Interoperable Communications Equipment 
grants," provide funding for various emergency preparedness activities, 
which may include improving interoperable communications.

[B] In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State 
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The 
new grant program includes three different grant programs.

[C] Until fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by the FEMA.

[End of table]

Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants, 
various agencies have statutory language that make it difficult to 
coordinate their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said 
that certain statutory provisions underlying the grant programs 
presented barriers to the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and 
SAFECOM to consolidate the grant application process for the 2003 
Interoperable Communications Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA 
coordinated their application process for the grants and used sections 
of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide their application requirements. 
According to COPS and FEMA officials, the combined COPS and FEMA 
application process was intended to maximize the use of funds and 
reduce duplication and competition between the two agencies' 
Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials explained that 
COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a combined grant 
application process because the COPS grant required a twenty-five 
percent match while the FEMA grant did not have such a requirement. 
However, COPS officials said FEMA added a twenty-five percent match of 
"in-kind" resources to its grant requirements in order to reduce 
competition between the COPS and FEMA grant programs.

In addition to matching requirements, the underlying statutory language 
for COPS and FEMA interoperable communications grants made it difficult 
to incorporate some of the SAFECOM grant guidance recommendations. For 
example, SAFECOM grant guidance recommended that applicants conduct 
planning for developing public safety communications and specified 
eligible planning activities. However, the underlying statutory 
language for the COPS and FEMA grants focuses on the purchase of 
equipment without specifically addressing planning. COPS and FEMA 
officials said that they were able to justify allowing certain planning 
activities directly related to the purchase of equipment, but could not 
require that funds be used to develop a communications system. SAFECOM 
grant guidance also recommended addressing maintenance and other life-
cycle costs of communications equipment; however, the statutory 
language underlying COPS and FEMA interoperable communications 
equipment grants focuses on funding the purchase of equipment rather 
than maintenance and other related costs.

No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are 
Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability:

Federal officials that we spoke with agreed that, generally, there is 
no high-level review of communications interoperability across the 
federal government to ensure that the full range of granted projects 
compliment each other and add to overall statewide and national 
interoperability. Each agency reviews its own set of applications and 
projects. As a result, grants can be given to bordering jurisdictions 
that propose conflicting interoperability solutions. For fiscal year 
2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA attempted to eliminate 
awarding funds to conflicting communication systems within bordering 
jurisdictions by selecting different applicant pools and coordinating 
their review of grant proposals. The COPS office selected the largest 
MSAs from each state and territory as well as the 50 largest MSA's 
regardless of state, to apply for COPS funds.[Footnote 44] FEMA 
requested that the governor of each state nominate one lead 
jurisdiction to submit a grant proposal, taking into account the 
state's demographics and the location of critical infrastructure. In 
addition to selecting applicants from different jurisdictions, COPS and 
FEMA engaged in a process to ensure that projects from neighboring 
jurisdictions did not conflict with or duplicate each other. The 
collaboration that occurred between COPS and FEMA to review the 2003 
Interoperable Communications Equipment grant proposals was a step 
forward, however, these agencies constitute only two of several federal 
agencies that provide funds for communications interoperability.

A coordinated high-level review of key federal grant programs that 
award funds for communication purposes does not exist. In response to 
this challenge, SAFECOM has recently sponsored the formation of the 
Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC), which includes a 
federal grant coordination working group. The FICC is an informal 
council consisting of federal agencies, whose mission is to help local, 
tribal, state and federal public safety agencies improve public safety 
response through more effective and efficient interoperable wireless 
communications by reducing duplication in programs and activities, 
identifying and promoting best practices and coordinating federal 
grants, technical assistance, training, and standards.[Footnote 45] 
Federal officials said that FICC will assist in shaping the common 
grant guidance for federal initiatives involving public safety 
communications. As of April 23, 2004, officials said that FICC has held 
two meetings.

State governments that we visited also did not have a coordinated or 
centralized grant review process to ensure that communications grant 
funds in the programs that we reviewed were being used to support 
projects that were complimentary and not duplicative. Florida State 
Technology Office (STO) officials, who are members of Florida's 
Domestic Security Oversight Board (DSOB), said that the DSOB was 
concerned that there was no overall centralized review of grant 
applications for federal funding and no central review of federal funds 
passing through the state to local governments.[Footnote 46] For 
example, STO has the statutory authority to review plans for new or 
expanded communication systems. However, STO officials said that some 
local communications plans are not reviewed by the state because there 
is no requirement that locals must submit their plan to STO for review 
before grant approval.[Footnote 47] Florida is now developing a funding 
working group under the DSOB to review funding requests for 
communication interoperability.

Officials that we spoke with in California also acknowledged that there 
has been no centralized grant review process for funds that can be used 
for communications interoperability. Officials from the grants 
administration division within the Office of Emergency Services said 
that they do not have a centralized review of grant funds in California 
because several state and local agencies receive funds directly to 
their agencies or jurisdictions from the federal government.

Local officials were concerned that this lack of a coordinated review 
of grants used across the state for communications interoperability can 
result in grants being awarded to bordering jurisdictions or localities 
that propose conflicting interoperability solutions and, therefore, 
compound existing barriers to regional or statewide interoperability. 
As a result, the state of Washington has set up a structure to 
facilitate centralized grant review of federal and state funding to 
ensure that they promote regional interoperability. Officials intend to 
use a statewide communications plan being developed by their State 
Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC) to review local funding 
proposals.

No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate 
Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions:

Currently, there is no database that can be used as a tool for 
coordinating federal or state oversight of funding for interoperable 
communications systems. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with 
DOJ to create a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate 
federal oversight of interoperable communications funding to 
neighboring jurisdictions and allow states access to this information 
for planning purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication 
of funding and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, 
maximize efficiency of limited federal funding, and serve as a data 
collection tool for lessons learned that would be accessible to state 
and locals. According to federal officials, this database is 
operational; however, its use is limited in its ability to coordinate 
federal oversight of grant funds for several reasons. First, the 
database does not contain information from the majority of relevant 
federal agencies and SAFECOM has no enforcement authority to require 
that all federal agencies provide information to the database or use it 
guide decisions in their grant approval process.

In addition, SAFECOM officials said that it is unclear how to obtain 
the needed information from formula grants on the use of federal funds 
for communications. The State Homeland Security grant issued by ODP is 
a large grant provided to states that can be used for communications 
interoperability, among other things. However, federal officials said 
that once these funds enter the states, there is no reporting 
obligation on the use of the funds by jurisdiction--this information is 
lost. According to these officials, formula grants that go directly to 
the jurisdictions, like the ODP UASI grants, have the potential to be 
tracked and used within the database if ODP provides application and 
award information for the database. The officials said that, as a 
result of limitations that may exist in obtaining the relevant 
information from formula grants, the database would likely only include 
information from discretionary grants, earmarks, or grants provided 
directly to the local jurisdictions.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce:

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: 
Washington, D. C. 20230:

July 12, 2004:

Mr. William 0. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Jenkins:

Thank you for providing the Department of Commerce with an opportunity 
to comment on the General Accounting Office's (GAO) draft report 
entitled Homeland Security: Achieving Interoperable Communications 
Among First Responders Requires Cooperation (GAO-04-740). The 
Department is pleased to see that GAO recognizes the important 
leadership role that the Federal Government can play in achieving 
interoperability goals for first responders.

I appreciate the efforts of the GAO in investigating and reporting on 
the complex issues surrounding public safety communications 
interoperability. The Administration fully supports the highest level 
of attention to the ability of our Nation's first responders to 
communicate effectively. The Bush Administration has accomplished a 
good deal in addressing first responder interoperability, including 
coordination of federal grant programs, encouraging advanced 
technological development, and improving coordination among public 
safety officials at all levels of government. As your draft report 
indicates, more can be done.

The Department of Commerce strives to encourage the best technology and 
most effective telecommunications and spectrum policies to deal with 
the rapidly changing communications requirements of public safety 
agencies. To that end, the Department of 
Commerce released two spectrum policy reports on June 24TH in response 
to the President's Initiative, entitled Spectrum Policy for the 21st 
Century. In these reports, the Department documents a year-long, 
interagency effort to study and recommend improvements to the spectrum 
management system in the United States. These reports make specific 
recommendations dealing with interoperability among federal, state, and 
local public safety agencies. Of particular note to your inquiry, 
Report 2 recommends an interagency effort to study the spectrum use and 
needs of the public safety community, a public safety demonstration 
program, and a comprehensive plan to address the spectrum shortage, 
interference, technology, and security issues of the public safety 
community. The Department of Homeland Security would be an integral 
partner in fulfilling these recommendations. Both reports are available 
on the Web site of the Department of Commerce's National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any additional 
questions about the Department of Commerce's role in improving 
communications interoperability among our nation's first responders, 
please contact Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information 
Michael D. Gallagher at (202) 482-1840.

Signed by: 

Sincerely, 

Donald L. Evans

[End of section]

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528:

July 8, 2004:

Mr. Norman J. Rabkin:

Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Re: GAO Draft Report: Homeland Security: Achieving Interoperable 
Communications Among First Responders Requires Cooperation, GAO-04-
740; GAO Engagement 440234:

Dear Mr. Rabkin:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft 
report to the Honorable Tom Davis, the Honorable Christopher Shays, and 
the Honorable Adam H. Putnam, House Committee on Government Reform, 
entitled "HOMELAND SECURITY: Achieving Interoperable Communications 
Among First Responders Requires Cooperation", GAO-04-740, June 2004.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agrees with GAO's assessment 
that interoperable communications among public safety first responders 
is essential. Unfortunately, in many cases, agencies cannot perform 
their mission critical duties because they are unable to share vital 
voice or data information via radio with other jurisdictions in day-to-
day operations and in emergency response to incidents including acts of 
terrorism and natural disasters.

To address this public safety need, SAFECOM works with existing federal 
communications initiatives and key public safety stakeholders to 
address the need to develop better technologies and processes for the 
cross jurisdictional and cross-disciplinary coordination of existing 
systems and future networks. SAFECOM was established as an E-Government 
(E-Gov) initiative and placed in DHS to serve as the umbrella program 
within the federal government to help local, tribal, state, and federal 
public safety agencies improve public safety response through more 
effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications. By 
definition, communications interoperability is the ability of public 
safety agencies to talk across disciplines and jurisdictions via radio 
communications systems, exchanging voice and/or data with one another 
on demand, in real time, when needed and as authorized. [NOTE 1] As a 
program driven by public safety practitioners, SAFECOM harnesses 
diverse federal resources in service of the public safety community.

The solution to the problems of public safety communications and 
communications interoperability is not a single or even a set of 
discrete tasks. There is no simple solution. Instead, the 
identification and orchestration of many programs over various time 
periods is required.

SAFECOM's Mission:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) originally defined SAFECOM's 
mission in three parts: (1) coordination of federal activities; (2) 
developing standards; and (3) developing a national architecture. To 
accomplish these goals, SAFECOM has taken a systematic approach towards 
addressing the problem. This approach began in May 2003 when the 
program was transferred to the Directorate for Science and Technology 
(S&T) at DHS. Included in this approach are the following steps.

Identify the problem, recognizing that it is a problem with many 
complex elements. SAFECOM recognizes that before interoperability can 
occur, reliable, mission-critical, agency-specific communications are 
essential for public safety agencies. SAFECOM also recognizes that more 
than ninety percent of the public safety communications infrastructure 
is owned and operated at the local and state level. Addressing the 
problems of communications interoperability will therefore require 
involvement of the local and state public safety and government 
communities.

SAFECOM recognized early the need to earn the trust and participation 
of the national associations representing local and state public and 
government officials. A governance structure was developed and 
implemented by SAFECOM to incorporate these local and state 
stakeholders. This governance structure also includes federal emergency 
response providers, and SAFECOM continues to support the Federal 
Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC) [NOTE 2] as a means 
of addressing the unique issues related to federal interoperability. 
Evidence of the success of this strategy can be seen by the recent 
letter of support developed by ten of the major local and state public 
safety associations.

Work with the leadership of the public safety community to gather 
comprehensive needs and requirements in order to develop appropriate 
approaches to solutions, referred to as work packages. SAFECOM recently 
released the first ever comprehensive Public Safety Communications 
Statement of Requirements (SoR) outlining what public safety needs to 
effectively communicate in their response to emergencies. This SoR was 
developed in full partnership with the National Public Safety 
Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) and the Department of Justice's 
AGILE Program (now referred to as CommTech). [NOTE 3]

In partnership with the leadership of the public safety community, 
develop a process by which to systematically attach the problems and 
needs to programmatic solutions. SAFECOM has drafted a plan for a 
technical architectural framework for public safety communications. The 
strategy for the plan is centered on the development of an 
architectural framework that satisfies the real-world requirements of 
public safety responders. The framework outlines what the overall 
structured approach is for facilitating interoperability. Functional 
standards then define the details of the structure, and indicate how 
the architecture (and its components) will operate.

Identify current initiatives addressing this problem and develop a 
coordination strategy to leverage existing work while decreasing 
unnecessary duplication of efforts. Beginning at the National Summit on 
Public Safety Communications and Interoperability in June 2003, 
SAFECOM, in partnership with the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and the former AGILE Program, developed an extensive 
database on federal programs and national organization efforts aimed at 
improving public safety communications at all levels of government. The 
resulting survey, assessment, and database allow SAFECOM to effectively 
identify and coordinate relevant programs.

Implement the solutions strategy to develop short-and long-term 
projects to address public safety communications and communications 
interoperability needs. In December 2003, SAFECOM hosted its first 
complete stakeholder strategy meeting in San Diego, California. The 
resulting strategy outlined short-and long-term projects that the 
stakeholders felt were absolutely necessary for SAFECOM to pursue in 
order to improve interoperability. SAFECOM has since obligated 
resources for each of these projects in its budget, but is still 
waiting to receive funding from its federal funding partners.

SAFECOM's Philosophy:

Emphasis on Coordination:

These accomplishments are just examples of the successful steps SAFECOM 
has taken over the course of the last year. In addition, to fulfill its 
mission as an umbrella program, SAFECOM has sponsored the creation of a 
Federal Interagency Coordination Council (FICC) to coordinate funding, 
technical assistance and standards development across the federal 
government for communications and interoperability. The FICC is 
comprised of the National Institute of Justice's CommTech (formally 
known as AGILE), the DHS Wireless Management Office, Department of 
Justice Wireless Management Office, Department of Agriculture, Office 
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), Community Oriented Policing Services 
(COPS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National 
Telecommunications Industry Administration, Federal Communications 
Commission, Department of Defense, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and others. SAFECOM is creating partnerships among diverse 
federal programs to streamline methodologies employed in efforts to 
improve communications interoperability.

One of the ways that SAFECOM coordinates federal activities is through 
the development of coordinated grant guidance, which outlines 
eligibility for grants, the purposes for which grants may be used, and 
guidelines for implementing a wireless communication system. Although 
SAFECOM does not have grant making authority, it has created this grant 
guidance, with input from the public safety community, in order to help 
to maximize the efficiency with which public safety, communications-
related grant dollars are allocated and spent. The SAFECOM grant 
guidance was included as part of the COPS and FEMA grants in FY03 and 
was incorporated in the COPS and ODP grant processes in FY04.

Bottom-Up Approach:

SAFECOM recognizes that over 90% of the nation's public safety 
communications infrastructure is owned by localities and states. 
Therefore, as SAFECOM partners with other federal agencies, it remains 
a program designed by public safety for public safety creating 
interoperability solutions that are driven from the bottom-up.

An example of SAFECOM's 'bottom-up approach' is evident in its work 
with local agencies within the Commonwealth of Virginia (VA). SAFECOM 
partnered with VA to develop a strategic plan for statewide 
communications and interoperability. In alignment with its 
practitioner-driven philosophy, SAFECOM developed a methodology to 
ensure local practitioner input into the VA statewide plan. This 
methodology will serve as a model for other states and regions 
developing statewide communications and interoperability plans.

SAFECOM is further partnering with local public safety communities on 
an initiative called RapidCom9/30 to ensure that a minimum level of 
public safety interoperability is in place in ten key urban areas by 
September 30, 2004. The RapidCom9/30 project will provide incident 
commanders in charge of managing/directing various responding agencies 
the ability to adequately communicate with each other and the 
respective command center within 1 hour of an incident. By working with 
public safety practitioners at the local level, SAFECOM seeks to 
develop effective solutions to improve public safety communications and 
interoperability.

SAFECOM Response to Specific GAO Recommendations for Executive Action:

(1) Develop a nationwide database of interoperable public safety 
communications frequencies and establish a common nomenclature for 
those frequencies.

The SAFECOM Program is developing a nationwide database of 
interoperable public safety communications frequencies in its FY04 
program as part of its support to the Computer Assisted Pre-
coordination Resource and Database System, CAPRAD. CAPRAD is a secure, 
web-based application that assists State and Local public safety 
frequency coordinators across the nation efficiently allocate spectrum 
in the 700 MHz public safety frequency band. The CAPRAD Spectrum 
Management Toolset was originally developed at the request of the 
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC). NPSTC is a 
federation of State and local associations representing public safety 
telecommunications. Funding for CAPRAD has historically been provided 
by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) AGILE program. In addition 
to 700 MHz spectrum management, CAPRAD is currently being expanded in a 
number of areas as requested by the user community including:

- Management of the newly allocated 4.9 MHz public safety frequency 
band Management of the Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee 
(SIEC) spectrum set aside frequencies:

- Development of a user friendly, graphical nationwide database of 
interoperable public safety communications frequencies:

- Initiation of a Public Safety Wireless Telecommunications 
Infrastructure Database application:

Among the initial CAPRAD enhancements planned under SAFECOM are:

- Continued development of a Public Safety Wireless Telecommunications 
Infrastructure Database application to include information on 
additional interoperability resources and assets:

- Enhancements in response to the President's Spectrum Policy Initiative 
Reports (June 04) calling for mandatory use of CAPRAD and standardized 
web-based frequency coordination, see http://www.ntia.doc.gov/:

To address the need for a common nomenclature across public safety 
disciplines and jurisdictions, SAFECOM plans to work with NPSTC to 
leverage existing efforts addressing incident command systems. The 
complete scope of the common nomenclature issue is currently being 
defined.

(2) Determine the current status of wireless public safety 
interoperability telecommunications across the nation by assessing 
interoperability in specific locations against interoperability 
requirements that can be measured, and establish a national baseline 
for interoperable communications.

DHS, through the SAFECOM program, is addressing the need for a national 
baseline of public safety communication and interoperability 
capabilities across the nation. During the SAFECOM/AGILE Joint Program 
Planning Meeting in December 2003, key public safety practitioners and 
stakeholders voiced the need for a measure of the nation's current 
level of interoperable communications. SAFECOM, with input from the 
public safety community, is developing a methodology to establish this 
baseline.

In order to develop this measurement tool, SAFECOM will define the 
optimal metrics, assess previous studies into the state of 
interoperability, conduct a gap analysis, and launch and support a 
project team to conduct the baseline assessment. SAFECOM has developed 
a Statement of Work for the baseline activities and a Request for 
Quotes will be released in July 2004.

Once complete, this baseline will be the basis for measuring future 
improvements made through local, state, and federal public safety 
communications initiatives and will be used to define a minimum level 
of interoperability.

(3) Through federal grant guidance encourage state action to establish 
a single statewide body responsible for interoperable communications 
and that this body shall prepare a single comprehensive statewide 
interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communications 
systems in all frequency bands. The statewide interoperability plan 
shall be based upon the nationwide standard frequency database and use 
the standard nationwide nomenclature for interoperability channels, 
once they are developed.

SAFECOM has created coordinated grant guidance that outlines 
eligibility for grants, the purposes for which grants could be used, 
and guidelines for implementing a wireless communication system. The 
SAFECOM grant guidance was included as part of the COPS and FEMA grants 
in FY03 and was incorporated in the COPS and ODP grant processes in 
FY04. Although SAFECOM does not directly manage any grant making 
programs, it has created grant guidance, with input from the public 
safety community, in order to help to maximize the efficiency with 
which public safety communications related grant dollars are allocated 
and spent. The SAFECOM grant guidance encourages applicants to consider 
systems requirements to ensure interoperability with systems used by 
other disciplines and at other levels of government. Because SAFECOM 
recognizes that many federal dollars are allocated at the local level, 
this grant guidance recommends that dollars spent at any level consider 
coordination between local, state, and federal agencies development of 
solutions to public safety interoperability and communications. As a 
model of such coordination, SAFECOM has developed, in conjunction with 
the Commonwealth of Virginia, a methodology for the development of a 
statewide communication system that ensures input from the local level. 
This methodology will be available through the SAFECOM grant guidance 
for states interested in implementing a statewide system.

(4) At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that 
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved 
only upon certification by the statewide body responsible for 
interoperable communications that such grant applications are in 
conformance with statewide interoperability plans. DHS should give 
states adequate time to develop these focal points and plans and to 
provide guidance on development of such plans.

SAFECOM developed coordinated grant guidance outlining eligibility for 
grants, the purposes for which grants could be used, and guidelines for 
implementing a wireless communication system. This guidance was 
distributed to the relevant federal grant making programs and adopted 
in FY03 and FY04 solicitations. Among these guidelines is the 
development of a meaningful governance structure that brings together 
the appropriate parties in the development of a communications 
solution. SAFECOM believes that such a governance structure, which 
includes representation of statewide bodies or initiatives, is critical 
to the success of any communications initiative. However, it is 
important to note that the notion of governance is based on a locally 
driven principle that focuses on the end user needs and requirements. 
To model this bottom up approach, SAFECOM has partnered with the 
Commonwealth of Virginia to develop a strategic plan for statewide 
communications and interoperability. In alignment with its practitioner 
driven philosophy, SAFECOM developed a methodology to ensure local 
practitioner input into the statewide plan which will serve as a model 
for other states and regions developing statewide communications and 
interoperability plans. To develop this strategic plan, SAFECOM 
conducted six focus group sessions with local practitioners in diverse 
regions across the commonwealth in preparation of a larger strategic 
planning session held in Richmond, VA. SAFECOM believes that by working 
with public safety practitioners at the local level, the Commonwealth 
of Virginia will develop an effective statewide strategy for the 
improvement of public safety communications and interoperability.

SAFECOM's Role in the Newly Created Office for Interoperability and 
Compatibility:

DHS, in an effort to more effectively address the needs of public 
safety, has established a national interoperability program office to 
significantly improve interoperability and compatibility, allowing 
firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel to 
communicate and share equipment with each other during a major 
disaster. The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS 
has been tasked to lead the planning and implementation of the national 
interoperability office in coordination with other DHS programs. 
Modeled after the SAFECOM program, the new office will focus on 
coordination of federal efforts to improve public safety 
interoperability. The interoperability office will create a series of 
portfolios to address critical interoperability and compatibility 
issues related to the emergency response provider and homeland security 
communities. The SAFECOM program will serve as the communications 
portfolio and will continue to manage and coordinate communications 
interoperability issues.

Additional SAFECOM Comments to the GAO Report:

On page 51, the GAO report states: "Similarly, an NTIA official told us 
there are several interoperable frequencies in the 162MHz to 174MHz 
band and the 406-420 MHz band for state and local public safety."

SAFECOM Comment: The actual UHF band is 406.1 to 420MHz, since 406MHz 
is reserved for EPIRB signals to track downed airmen/aircraft etc.

On page 39, the GAO report states that the SAFECOM grant guidance is 
"designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first 
responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which 
grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for 
applicants."

SAFECOM Comments: In addition to outlining the eligibility for grant 
dollars and the purposes for which federal dollars can be used, the 
SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus guidelines for implementing a 
wireless communications system. This guidance is useful in directing 
all agencies towards interoperability goals, even if they are not 
specifically applying for federal funding.

Conclusion:

SAFECOM continues to work aggressively to improve public safety 
communications and interoperability. By partnering with local, state 
and federal public safety agencies, SAFECOM has taken important steps 
to address the interoperability issue. These include the development of 
grant guidance, the first statewide practitioner driven plan (The VA 
Plan), and the first ever comprehensive Statement of Requirements (SoR) 
for public safety. Ongoing efforts to create a baseline understanding 
of the nation's level of interoperability, to develop consistent 
methodologies for and provide technical assistance through the FICC, 
and build a national architecture for public safety communications will 
continue as high priority SAFECOM projects. SAFECOM, with its partners, 
is assuring a safer America through effective public safety 
communications.

Additional information on the SAFECOM Program can be obtained at 
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this draft report. If 
you have questions or need clarification regarding our comments, please 
contact Mr. Thomas Krones, (202) 401-5861, or e-mail: 
Thomas.krones@dhs. ov.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Anna F. Dixon:

Director, Bankcard Programs and GAO/OIG Liaison:

NOTES: 

[1] SAFECOM has adopted this definition of public safety communications 
interoperability from the National Task Force on Interoperability's 
report "Why Can't We Talk? Bridging the Communications Gap to Save 
Lives," released in February 2003.

[2] FPIC was formerly known as the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless 
Users Group (FLEWUG), and represents the federal communications user 
community.

[3] The SoR was released in April 2004. The SoR is considered to be a 
`living document,' that will require additional review as new user 
groups are identified and as technology progresses. The current 
document is version 1.0. 

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

William O. Jenkins (202) 512-8777 Thomas James (202) 512-2996:

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to the above, Leo Barbour, Karen Burke, Katherine Davis, 
Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary Malavenda, and Shirley 
Perry made contributions to this report.

[End of section]

GAO Related Products:

Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and 
Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing. GAO-04-798T. 
Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004.

Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 
Requires Stronger Collaboration. GAO-04-494. Washington, D.C.: April 
16, 2004.

Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 
Communications for First Responders. GAO 04-231T. Washington, D.C.: 
November 6, 2003.

Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs. GAO-03-
1146T. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.

Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management 
With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed. GAO-03-277. Washington, 
D.C.: January 31, 2003.

Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability 
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management. GAO-02-906. Washington, D.C.: 
September 26, 2002.

[End of section]

Bibliography:

Congressional Research Service. FY 2005 Budget Request for First 
Responder Preparedness: Issues and Analysis. By Shawn Reese. 
Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2004.

Congressional Research Service. DHS: First Responder Grants: A Summary. 
Washington, D.C.: October 2003.

Congressional Research Service. First Responder Initiative: Policy 
Issues and Options. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated August 28, 
2003.

Congressional Research Service. FY2003: Appropriations for First 
Responder Awareness. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated June 2, 
2003.

Congressional Research Service. Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of 
Selected Federal Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: 
April 2003.

Congressional Research Service. Analysis of Selected Aspects of 
Terrorism Preparedness Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington, 
D.C.: Updated March, 13, 2003.

Gilmore Commission. Third Annual Report to the President and the 
Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities 
for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington, D.C.: 
2001.

National Governors Association. A Governor's Guide to Emergency 
Management. Volume Two: Homeland Security. Washington, D.C.: 2002.

National Task Force on Interoperability. Why Can't We Talk? Working 
Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives. Washington, 
D.C.: 2003.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Information Material--'How To' Guide 
for Funding State and Local Public Safety Wireless Networks. Fairfax, 
Virginia: 2003.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Federal Interoperability Assistance 
Support--Funding Strategy Best Practices Report. Fairfax, Virginia: 
2002.

Public Safety Wireless Network. The Report Card on Funding Mechanisms 
for Public Safety Radio Communications. Fairfax, Virginia: 2001.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Fire and Emergency Management Services 
(EMS) Communications Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia: 1999.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost 
Study. Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Strategies for Public 
Safety Radio Communications. As prepared by BoozAllen & Hamilton. 
Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Mechanisms for Public 
Safety Radio Communications. Prepared by Booz Allen & Hamilton. 
Fairfax, Virginia: 1997.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Final Report of the Public Safety 
Wireless Advisory Committee. Fairfax, Virginia: 1996.

Public Safety Wireless Network. Public Safety Coordination and 
Preparedness Guide. Fairfax, Virginia.

Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Federal Government in 
Public Safety Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.

Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Local Public Safety 
Community Government in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability. 
Fairfax, Virginia.

Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the States in Public Safety 
Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.

U.S. Department of Justice. Wireless Communications and 
Interoperability Among State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. 
Washington, D.C.: 1998.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications 
interoperability--communications that use radio frequency waves, such 
as cellular telephones and other types of wireless radios--instead of 
telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We did not address 
interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland security 
functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and information 
technology.

[2] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges 
in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO 04-
231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).

[3] Congress authorized the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS) within the Department of Justice to administer the 
Interoperable Communications Technology Program. The program awarded 14 
grants totaling more than $66 million to first responders for 
interoperable communications in 2003 and provides technical assistance 
to grantees. 

[4] The spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the 
electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been allotted 
for the public safety community.

[5] Fire and EMS Communications Interoperability, April, 1999. The 
Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to 
promote effective public safety communications and to foster 
interoperability among local, state, federal, and tribal communications 
systems. PSWN was incorporated into DHS as part of the SAFECOM project 
in 2003.

[6] Why Can't We Talk? Working Together to Bridge the Communications 
Gap to Save Lives: Feb. 2003). The Task Force was formed and funded by 
the National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, and included 
representatives from associations across the public safety community, 
such as fire and police chiefs, emergency managers, mayors, cities, and 
states. 

[7] The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless 
communications of all kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the 
range from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is 
concentrated in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 3.1 
gigahertz, because these frequencies have properties that make this 
portion of the spectrum well suited for many important wireless 
technologies. Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation that 
propagate in space as the result of particle oscillations. The number 
of oscillations per second is called "frequency," which is measured in 
units of hertz. The term "kilohertz" refers to thousands of hertz and 
"gigahertz" to billions of hertz. 

[8] Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee: 
Sept. 1996. The FCC and the Department of Commerce's National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration formed the Advisory 
Committee in June 1995 to provide advice on the specific wireless 
communications requirements of public safety agencies through the year 
2010 and to make recommendations for meeting those needs. Members were 
drawn from private industry, federal agencies, and state and local 
public safety agencies. The FCC regulates state and local government 
use of radio frequency spectrum and the NTIA regulates federal 
government use of radio frequency spectrum.

[9] A Governor's Guide to Emergency Management. Volume Two: Homeland 
Security (Washington, D.C.: 2002). 

[10] Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and Local 
Law Enforcement Agencies, January, 1998 by DOJ, and "Fire and EMS 
Communications Interoperability, April, 1999" by PSWN. DOJ's study 
concentrated on wireless interoperability issues within the state and 
local law enforcement community, while PSWN's study assessed 
communications interoperability issues within the fire and emergency 
medical services communities.

[11] The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement 
(AGILE) is a key DOJ program promoting wireless interoperability for 
first responders. 

[12] Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the 
Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism 
Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 15, 2001. The panel is 
generally referred to as the Gilmore Commission, after its Chairman 
James S. Gilmore, III.

[13] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296,  2 (6), 116 
Stat. 2135, 2140.

[14] An enterprise architecture can be viewed as a link between an 
organization's strategic plan and the program and supporting systems 
implementation investments it intends to pursue to systematically 
achieve its strategic goals and outcomes. As such the architecture is 
basically a blueprint, defined largely by interrelated models, that 
describes (in both business and technology terms) an entity's "as is" 
or current environment, its "to be" future environment, and its 
investment plan for transitioning from the current to the future 
environment. See Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise 
Architecture and Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing 
GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).

[15] The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) 
Support Office operates as part of the National Law Enforcement and 
Corrections Technology Center-Rocky Mountain Center (NLECTC-RM). 
NLECTC is a program of the National Institute of Justice, the research 
and development arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. The NLECTC is 
hosted by the University of Denver. The NPSTC Support Office and its 
work on CAPRAD is funded by the Department of Justice AGILE program. 
AGILE funding also supports the FCC designated Regional Planning 
Committees.

[16] In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio 
Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum 
while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop 
regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications 
needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum, 
approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by 
local, regional and state users. A regional planning process was 
adopted to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a 
similar process to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands. 
Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to 
meet state and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum, 
and accommodate new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology 
equipment. They are responsible for creating and managing regional 
plans.

[17] FCC has certified specific associations to perform the 
coordination process used to choose appropriate frequencies for public 
safety mobile radio systems. This coordination is essential to ensure 
that the numerous systems across the country have clear and 
interference free operation on these critical radio systems. 

[18] Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort 
Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April 
2004).

[19] Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced 
Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906 
(Washington, D.C.: September, 2002).

[20] Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum 
Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed, GAO-03-277 
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

[21] We did not evaluate these studies for purposes of this report.

[22] FICC is an informal council consisting of federal agencies, whose 
mission is to help local, tribal, state, and federal public safety 
agencies improve public safety response through more effective and 
efficient interoperable wireless communications by reducing 
duplication in programs and activities, identifying and promoting best 
practices and coordinating federal grants, technical assistance, 
training, and standards. Proposed FICC members are federal agencies 
within DOJ, DHS, Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and 
Commerce.

[23] See appendix III for a discussion of SAFECOM's objectives to 
establish by 2005 (1) a research, development testing, and evaluation 
program that identifies and develops a long-term, sustainable technical 
foundation for interoperability improvements; and (2) a program to 
provide technical assistance to the public safety community.

[24] Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 6, 2003).

[25] Appendix IV discusses the evolving role of states and the 
challenges they face in addressing communications interoperability 
problems.

[26] FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or 
similar bodies, and 12 states with RPCs assuming the SIEC role. 
However, PSWN data show 7 states with SIECs, 13 states with SIEC like 
committees, 15 states with statewide safety communication committees 
that have responsibilities broader than SIECs, and 15 states where RPCs 
have assumed SIEC responsibilities.

[27] NCC, which had recommended SIECs at the state level to administer 
interoperability channels, concluded that some state governments may be 
using their SIECs to control all aspects of interoperability channels 
use rather than the administrative purposes as intended by FCC. In 
addition, NCC found that some states have expanded the role of their 
SIECs to include other state-level functions, such as procurement, and 
that, in the absence of FCC guidance, some states had designated SIECs 
without an appropriately broad range of public safety agency members. 

[28] Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC's designated 
interoperability channels (except for certain legacy mutual aid 
channels) in the VHF and UHF bands. 

[29] NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-
day communications needs of nonfederal public safety agencies. 

[30] Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless 
Network Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.

[31] In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State 
Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program. The new 
program includes three different grant programs.

[32] In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS 
officials said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable 
Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable 
Communications Technology Program have a 1 year time period but that 
no-cost extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case 
basis to accommodate unavoidable delays.

[33] In response to a draft report, DHS said that, in addition to 
outlining the eligibility for grant dollars and the purposes for which 
federal dollars can be used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides 
consensus guidelines for implementing a wireless communications system. 
DHS said this guidance is useful in directing all agencies towards 
interoperability goals, even if they are not specifically applying for 
federal funding.

[34] The U.S.-Mexico Joint Commission on Resolution of Radio 
Interference is also known as the CMERAR in Spanish, the Joint 
Commission, or the Mixed Commission. The Joint Commission's principal 
mission is to resolve interference cases between U.S./Mexican users 
along our common borders. The CMERAR typically meets twice a year, and 
the Co-Chair of the U.S. Section is the Chief of FCCs Enforcement 
Bureau. Working groups meet on an as-needed basis and deal with 
interference cases on a local level. 

[35] The Department of Homeland Security in its written response to a 
draft of this report noted that the actual UHF band is 406.1 MHz to 420 
MHz, since 406 MHz is reserved for EPIRB signals to track downed 
airmen/aircraft etc.

[36] We did not review the NRL's system performance.

[37] National Strategy for Homeland Security, White House Office of 
Homeland Security.

[38] Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless 
Network Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.

[39] SAFECOM has identified several investment areas that must be taken 
into account in the life-cycle of a public safety communication system, 
in their recent grant guidance. These include: planning for public 
safety communication systems; building communication systems; 
upgrading/enhancing communication systems and equipment; replacing 
communication systems and equipment; maintaining communication systems 
and equipment; training public safety staff on issues related to 
emergency response communications; and managing public safety 
communications projects. 

[40] In technical comments to a draft of this report, COPS officials 
said of this $154 million, Congress directed that $5 million of COPS 
appropriations be earmarked for NIST and $3 million for NIJ/AGILE.

[41] In the application guidance, the Metropolitan Statistical Areas 
were defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus, 
together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and 
social integration with that core. 

[42] In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS 
officials said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable 
Communications Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable 
Communications Technology Program have a one year time period but that 
no-cost extensions of time were available to grantees on a case-by-case 
basis to accommodate unavoidable delays.

[43] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Reforming Federal Grants to 
Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 
2003).

[44] The COPS Application Guidance states that after eliminating 
duplicate MSAs from the two categories, their methodology resulted in 
the identification of 74 candidates that could apply for the grant. A 
lead jurisdiction was designated within the MSA to promote multi-
jurisdictional, interoperable partnerships with neighboring 
localities. In the application guidance a Metropolitan Statistical 
Areas was defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus, 
together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and 
social integration with that core. 

[45] Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within the DOJ, DHS, 
Defense, Agriculture, and Commerce. 

[46] The Domestic Security Oversight Board prepares Domestic Security 
Funding Recommendations--including recommendations for funding 
interoperable communications--to the governor and state and 
legislature. Decisions on the used of federal and state homeland 
security funds are based upon the recommendations of the oversight 
board.

[47] STO officials said that the one exception to this rule is their 
review of Emergency Medical Services grants, which requires a state-
level review before approval for federal or state funds.

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

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:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: