National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

 

National Emergency 

Communications Plan 

PRELIMINARY DRAFT v1.02 

National Emergency 

Communications Plan 

PRELIMINARY DRAFT v1.02 

National Emergency 

Communications Plan 

July 2008 

Rev. Aug 7, 2008 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008 

Message from the Secretary 

Numerous after-action reports from major incidents throughout the history of emergency 

management in our Nation have cited communication difficulties among the many 

responding agencies as a major failing and challenge to policymakers. Congress and the 

Administration have recognized that successful response to a future major incidenteither a terrorist attack or natural disaster-would require a coordinated, "interoperable" 

response by the Nation's public safety, public health, and emergency management 

community, both public and private, at the Federal, State, tribal, Territorial, regional, and 

local levels. 

Recognizing the need for an overarching strategy to help coordinate and guide such 

efforts, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop the first 

National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The purpose of the NECP is to 

promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant government officials to 

continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other 

man-made disasters and to ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency 

communications nationwide. 

Natural disasters and acts of terrorism have shown that there is no simple solution-or 

"silver bullet"-to solve the communications problems that still plague law enforcement, 

firefighting, rescue, and emergency medical personnel. 

To strengthen emergency communications capabilities nationwide, the Plan focuses on 

technology, coordination, governance, planning, usage, training and exercises at all levels 

of government. This approach recognizes that communications operability is a critical 

building block for interoperability; emergency response officials first must be able to 

establish communications within their own agency before they can interoperate with 

neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies. 

The NECP seeks to build on the substantial progress that has been made over the last 

several years. Among the key developments at the Federal, State, regional, and local 

levels are: 

Most Federal programs that support emergency communications have been 

consolidated within a single agency-the Department of Homeland Security-to 

improve the alignment, integration, and coordination of the Federal mission. 

All 56 States and U.S. Territories have developed Statewide Communication 

Interoperability Plans (SCIP) that identify near- and long-term initiatives for 

improving communications interoperability. 

The Nation's 75 largest urban and metropolitan areas maintain policies for 

interoperable communications. 
National Emernencv Communications Plan Julv 2008 

The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum is widely accepted and used by the 

emergency response community to address critical elements for planning and 

implementing interoperability solutions. These elements include governance, 

standard operating procedures, technology, training and exercises, and usage of 

interoperable communications. 

The DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is establishing 

Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC) Working Groups 

in each of the 10 FEMA regions to coordinate multi-state efforts and measure 

progress on improving the survivability, sustainability, and interoperability of 

communications at the regional level. 

In developing the NECP, DHS worked closely with stakeholders from all levels of 

government to ensure that their priorities and activities were addressed. The Department 

will continue to coordinate with Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, and the 

private sector, to ensure that the NECP is implemented successfully. 

Ultimately, the NECP's goals cannot be achieved without the support and dedication of 

the emergency response community that was instrumental in crafting it. I ask everyone 

within the emergency response community to take ownership of the NECP's initiatives 

and actions and to dedicate themselves to meeting the key benchmarks. Working 

together, we can achieve our vision: 

Emergency responders can communicateas needed, on demand, and as authorized; 

at all levels of government; and 

across all disciplines. 

P+ Michael Chertoff 

Secretary of Homeland Security 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary.................................................................................................... ES-1

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................

1.1 Purpose of the National Emergency Communications Plan............................. 1

1.2 Scope of the National Emergency Communications Plan................................. 2

1.3 Organization of the NECP ................................................................................... 5

2. Defining the Future State of Emergency Communications.................................... 6

2.1 Vision...................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Goals....................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Capabilities Needed .............................................................................................. 7

3. Achieving the Future State of Emergency Communications.................................. 9

Objective 1: Formal Governance Structures and Clear Leadership Roles.. 11

Objective 2: Coordinated Federal Activities.................................................... 16

Objective 3: Common Planning and Operational Protocols ......................... 20

Objective 4: Standards and Emerging Communication Technologies......... 24

Objective 5: Emergency Responder Skills and Capabilities.......................... 28

Objective 6: System Life-Cycle Planning ........................................................ 31

Objective 7: Disaster Communications Capabilities...................................... 34

4. Implementing and Measuring Achievement of the NECP..................................... 39

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 41
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Executive Summary 

Every day in cities and towns across the Nation, emergency response personnel respond 

to incidents of varying scope and magnitude. Their ability to communicate in real time is 

critical to establishing command and control at the scene of an emergency, to maintaining 

event situational awareness, and to operating overall within a broad range of incidents. 

However, as numerous after-action reports and national assessments have revealed, there 

are still communications deficiencies that affect the ability of responders to manage 

routine incidents and support responses to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other 

incidents.1 

Recognizing the need for an overarching emergency communications strategy to address 

these shortfalls, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office 

of Emergency Communications (OEC) to develop the first National Emergency 

Communications Plan (NECP). Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002

(6 United States Code 101 et seq.), as amended, calls for the NECP to be developed in 

coordination with stakeholders from all levels of government and from the private sector. 

In response, DHS worked with stakeholders from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies 

to develop the NECP—a strategic plan that establishes a national vision for the future 

state of emergency communications. The desired future state is that emergency 

responders can communicate: 

As needed, on demand, and as authorized 

At all levels of government 

Across all disciplines 

To measure progress toward this vision, three strategic goals were established: 

Goal 1—By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban 

Areas Security Initiative (UASI)2 are able to demonstrate response-level 

emergency communications3

 within one hour for routine events involving 

multiple jurisdictions and agencies. 

Goal 2—By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate 

response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine 

events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. 

Goal 3—By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate responselevel emergency communications within three hours, in the event of a 

significant incident as outlined in national planning scenarios. 

 

1

 Examples include The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006; The 9-11 

Commission Report, July 2004; and The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the 

Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, February 2006. 2

  As identified in FY08 Homeland Security Grant Program or on the FEMA Grants website: 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/uasi/fy08_uasi_guidance.pdf. 3

  Response-level emergency communication refers to the capacity of individuals with primary operational leadership 

responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an incident involving multiple agencies, 

without technical or procedural communications impediments.

 ES-1 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

To realize this national vision and meet these goals, the NECP established the following 

seven objectives for improving emergency communications for the Nation’s Federal, 

State, local, and tribal emergency responders: 

1. Formal decision-making structures and clearly defined leadership roles 

coordinate emergency communications capabilities. 

2. Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative 

across agencies and aligned to achieve national goals. 

3. Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to 

effectively use their resources and personnel. 

4. Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications 

capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and 

testing and evaluation. 

5. Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises, 

improved technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilities. 

6. All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency 

communications through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate 

resource allocations, and public-private partnerships. 

7. The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery 

capabilities to communicate during significant events. 

The NECP also provides recommended initiatives and milestones to guide emergency 

response providers and relevant government officials in making measurable 

improvements in emergency communications capabilities. The NECP recommendations 

help to guide, but do not dictate, the distribution of homeland security funds to improve 

emergency communications at the Federal, State, and local levels, and to support the 

NECP implementation. 

Communications investments are among the most significant, substantial, and longlasting capital investments that agencies make; in addition, technological innovations for 

emergency communications are constantly evolving at a rapid pace. With these realities 

in mind, DHS recognizes that the emergency response community will realize this 

national vision in stages, as agencies invest in new communications systems and as new 

technologies emerge. 

There is no simple solution, or “silver bullet,” for solving emergency communications 

challenges, and consequently DHS’ approach to the NECP involves making 

improvements at all levels of government, in technology, coordination and governance, 

planning, usage, and training and exercises. This approach also recognizes that 

communications operability is a critical building block for interoperability; emergency 

response officials must first establish reliable communications within their own agency 

before they can interoperate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies. 

Finally, DHS acknowledges that the Nation does not have unlimited resources to address 

deficiencies in emergency communications. Consequently, the NECP will be used to 

identify and prioritize investments to move the Nation toward this vision. As required by 

Congress, the NECP will be a living document subject to periodic review and updates by 

DHS in coordination with stakeholders. Future iterations will be revised based on 

progress made toward achieving the NECP’s goals, on variations in national priorities, 

and on lessons learned from after-action reports.

 ES-2 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

1. Introduction 

The ability of emergency responders to effectively communicate is paramount to the 

safety and security of our Nation. During the last three decades, the Nation has witnessed 

how inadequate emergency communications capabilities can adversely affect response 

and recovery efforts. Locally, agencies developed ad hoc solutions to overcome these 

challenges. The issue of inadequate coordination of emergency communications received 

national attention in the aftermath of the January 1982 passenger jet crash into the 

14th Street Bridge (and, subsequently, the Potomac River) near downtown Washington, 

DC. The inability of multiple jurisdictions to coordinate a response to the Air Florida 

crash began to drive regional collaboration. More recently, the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, Hurricane Katrina, and other natural and man-made disasters have 

demonstrated how emergency communications capabilities—in particular the lack of 

those capabilities—impact emergency responders, public health, national and economic 

security, and the ability of government leaders to maintain order and perform essential 

functions.4

During each of these events, the lack of coordinated emergency communications 

solutions and protocols among the responding agencies hindered response and recovery 

efforts. These events raised awareness of the issue among public policymakers and 

highlighted the critical role emergency communications plays in incident response. 

These events also prompted numerous national studies and assessments on the state of 

emergency communications, which in turn has helped DHS to formulate a unified 

approach for addressing emergency communications.5

1.1 Purpose of the National Emergency Communications Plan 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 

amended in 2006, mandated the creation of an 

overarching strategy to address emergency 

communications shortfalls. In addition, the 

emergency response community has sought 

national guidance to support a more integrated 

coordination of emergency communications 

priorities and investments. 

• Set national goals and priorities 

for addressing deficiencies in the 

Nation’s emergency 

communications posture 

• Provide recommendations and 

milestones for emergency 

response providers, relevant 

government officials, and 

Congress to improve emergency 

communications capabilities

 

4 “Hurricane Katrina was the most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history. The storm crippled thirty-eight 911-call 

centers, disrupting local emergency services, and knocked out more than 3 million customer phone lines in 

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Broadcast communications were likewise severely affected, as 50 percent of 

area radio stations and 44 percent of area television stations went off the air.” White House Report, The Federal 

Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006.

5

  Such as the Final Report of the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, December 2001; 

the White House Report, The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006; and the Independent 

Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks—Report and Recommendations to 

the Federal Communications Commission, June 12, 2006, all of which documented the numerous failures in 

emergency communications among emergency responders, which affected their ability to effectively respond to 

these incidents.   

 1 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

As a result, Congress directed the DHS’ Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)6

to develop a plan to: 

• Identify the capabilities needed by emergency responders to ensure the availability 

and interoperability of communications during emergencies, and identify obstacles 

to the deployment of interoperable communications systems; 

• Recommend both short- and long-term solutions for ensuring interoperability and 

continuity of communications for emergency responders, including 

recommendations for improving coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal 

governments; 

• Set goals and timeframes for the deployment of interoperable emergency 

communications systems, and recommend measures that emergency response 

providers should employ to ensure the continued operation of communications 

infrastructure; 

• Set dates by which Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments expect 

to achieve a baseline level of national interoperable communications, and establish 

benchmarks to measure progress; and 

• Guide the coordination of existing Federal emergency communications programs.7 

1.2 Scope of the National Emergency Communications Plan

The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) focuses on the emergency 

communications needs of response personnel in every discipline, at every level of 

government, and for the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGO). 

Emergency communications is defined as the ability of emergency responders to 

exchange information via data, voice, and video as authorized, to complete their 

missions. Emergency response agencies at all levels of government must have 

interoperable and seamless communications to manage emergency response, establish 

command and control, maintain situational awareness, and function under a common 

operating picture, for a broad scale of incidents. 

Emergency communications consists of three primary elements: 

1. Operability—The ability of emergency responders to establish and sustain 

communications in support of mission operations. 

2. Interoperability—The ability of emergency responders to communicate among 

jurisdictions, disciplines, and levels of government, using a variety of frequency 

bands, as needed and as authorized. System operability is required for system 

interoperability. 

3. Continuity of Communications—The ability of emergency response agencies to 

maintain communications in the event of damage to or destruction of the primary 

infrastructure.

 

6

 The OEC supports the Secretary of Homeland Security in developing, implementing, and coordinating interoperable 

and operable communications for the emergency response community at all levels of government. The OEC was 

directed by Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, to lead the development of a National 

Emergency Communications Plan. 7

 Appendix 4 provides more detailed information on DHS programs supporting emergency communications. 

 2 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

1.2.1 Approach to Developing the NECP 

The majority of emergency incidents occur at the local level. Therefore, improving 

emergency communications—specifically, operability, interoperability, and continuity of 

communications—cannot be accomplished by the Federal Government alone. For this 

reason, working through OEC, DHS used a stakeholder-driven approach to develop the 

NECP, one that included representatives from the Federal, State, and local responder 

communities as well as from the private sector.8 Exhibit 1 lists the partnerships and 

groups that provided input to the NECP. 

Exhibit 1: Key Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Partnerships 

Entity Roles and Responsibilities 

SAFECOM 

Executive Committee 

(EC) and Emergency 

Response Council 

(ERC)

The SAFECOM EC serves as the leadership group of the ERC and as the 

SAFECOM program’s primary resource to access public safety practitioners and 

policymakers. The EC provides strategic leadership and guidance to the 

SAFECOM program on emergency-responder user needs and builds 

relationships with the ERC to leverage the ERC subject matter expertise. The 

SAFECOM ERC is a vehicle to provide a broad base of input from the public 

safety community on its user needs to the SAFECOM program. The ERC 

provides a forum for individuals with specialized skills and common interests to 

share best practices and lessons learned so that interested parties at all levels of 

government can gain from one another’s experience. Emergency responders 

and policymakers from Federal, State, local, and tribal governments compose 

the SAFECOM EC and ERC. 

Emergency 

Communications 

Preparedness Center 

(ECPC) 

The ECPC was created under the authority of Title XVIII of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, as amended in 2006, to serve as the focal point and 

clearinghouse for intergovernmental information on interoperable emergency 

communications. The ECPC is an interdepartmental organization, currently 

composed of 12 Federal departments and agencies, that assesses and 

coordinates Federal emergency communications operability and interoperability 

assurance efforts. The ECPC is the focal point for interagency emergency 

communications efforts and seeks to minimize the duplication of similar activities 

within the Federal Government. It also acts as an information clearinghouse to 

promote operable and interoperable communications in an all-hazards 

environment. 

Federal Partnership 

for Interoperable 

Communications 

(FPIC) 

The FPIC is a coordinating body that focuses on technical and operational 

matters within the Federal wireless communications community. Its mission is to 

address Federal wireless communications interoperability by fostering 

intergovernmental cooperation and by identifying and leveraging common 

synergies. The FPIC represents more than 40 Federal entities; its membership 

includes program managers of wireless systems, radio communications 

managers, Information Technology (IT) and Land Mobile Radio (LMR) 

specialists, and telecommunications engineers. State and local emergency 

responders participate as advisory members. 

Project 25 Interface 

Committee (APIC) 

As part of the Project 25 (P25) standards development process, the 

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) developed the APIC to 

resolve issues that arose during that process. The APIC is composed of private 

sector representatives and emergency response officials and serves as a liaison 

to facilitate user community and private sector relationships regarding the 

evolution and use of P25 standards. 

National Public 

Safety 

Telecommunications 

Council (NPSTC) 

The NPSTC is a federation of national public safety leadership organizations 

dedicated to improving emergency response communications and 

interoperability through collaborative leadership. The NPSTC is composed of 

State and local public safety representatives. In addition, Federal, Canadian, 

and other emergency communications partner organizations serve as liaisons to 

the NPSTC. 

 

8

 Appendix 6 details the three-phased approach to develop the NECP that relied on stakeholder involvement. 

 3 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Entity Roles and Responsibilities 

National Security 

Telecommunications 

Advisory 

Committee (NSTAC) 

The NSTAC is composed of up to 30 private sector executives who represent 

major communications and network service providers as well as IT, finance, and 

aerospace companies. Through the National Communications System

(NCS), the NSTAC provides private sector-based analyses and 

recommendations to the President and the Executive Branch on policy and 

enhancements to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) 

communications. 

Critical Infrastructure 

Partnership Advisory 

Council (CIPAC) 

The CIPAC is a DHS program established to facilitate effective coordination 

between government infrastructure protection programs and the infrastructure 

protection activities of the owners and operators of critical infrastructure and key 

resources. The CIPAC enables public and private sector representatives to 

engage in candid, substantive discussions regarding the protection of the 

Nation’s critical infrastructure. 

The NECP has been designed to complement and support overarching homeland security 

and emergency communications legislation, strategies, and initiatives. The NECP applies 

guidance from these authorities, including key principles and priorities, to establish the 

first national strategic plan that is focused exclusively on improving emergency 

communications for emergency response providers nationwide. As demonstrated in 

Exhibit 2 below, the NECP provides a critical link between national communications 

priorities and strategic and tactical planning at the regional, State, and local levels. 

Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive listing and explanation of these documents. 

Exhibit 2: Key Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Authorities 

NATIONAL NATIONAL

LEGISLATION & 

STRATEGIES

PREPAREDNESS/ 

INCIDENT 

MANAGEMENT 

POLICY & PLANNING

INITIATIVES

DIRECTIVES & 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL

HSPDs(e.g., 5, 7, 8) EOs (e.g., 12406,3, 

12472, 12656)

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

HOMELAND SECURITY

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/K

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/KA HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

NRF, SUPPORT 

FUNCTION

OPERATIONAL

NIPP NIPP

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GUIDELINES

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GUIDELINES

SCIPs SCIPS TICPs TICPS

Regional Strategic 

Planning

Regional Strategic 

Planning

STRATEGIC

PREPAREDNESS/ 

COMMUNICATIONS 

PLANNING 

INITIATIVES

Hazard Mitigation Hazard Mitigation

Emergency

Operations Plans

Emergency

Operations Plans

NIMS 

HSPDs (e.g., 5, 7, 8) (e.g., 12046,

12472, 12656)

EOs 

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

HOMELAND SECURITY

NECP

Communications-specific

 4 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

1.3 Organization of the NECP 

The NECP establishes a national vision for the desired future state of emergency 

communications. It sets strategic goals, national objectives, and supporting initiatives to 

drive the Nation toward that future state. The NECP also provides recommended 

milestones to guide emergency response providers and relevant government officials as 

they make measurable improvements to their emergency communications capabilities. 

As illustrated in Exhibit 3, the NECP approach is based on three logical steps that inform 

the organization of this document: 1) defining the future state of emergency 

communications; 2) developing a strategy to achieve the future state; and 3) 

implementing the future state and measuring how well it is being implemented. 

Exhibit 3: NECP Approach and Organization 

NECP Approach and Organization 

Future State

Vision 

Goals 

Capabilities 

Strategy

Objectives 

Initiatives 

Milestones 

Implementation

Coordination 

Measurement 

Evaluation Framework 

1.3.1 Defining the Future State of Emergency Communications 

In this first step, DHS worked with stakeholders to develop an overall Vision statement 

(Section 2.1) and established three high-level Goals (Section 2.2) that define the desired 

future state of emergency communications. DHS then identified the emergency 

communications Capabilities Needed (Section 2.3) for the emergency response 

community to achieve the desired future state. 

1.3.2 Developing a Strategy to Achieve the Future State 

Based on the capabilities needed for the emergency response community to achieve the 

desired future state, DHS developed seven Objectives (Section 3). Although all seven 

objectives were designed to support the realization of the long-term vision, execution of 

all initiatives and achievement of national milestones are not necessarily prerequisites for 

achieving the three goals. DHS will continue to work with its stakeholders on the 

implementation of the NECP initiatives and the attainment of these near-term goals. For 

each objective, DHS developed Supporting Initiatives (Section 3), which are intended 

to drive outcomes toward the future state. In crafting each initiative, DHS identified both 

current emergency communications activities that affect the initiative and key gaps that 

drive action in the initiative area. Finally, DHS identified Recommended National 

Milestones (Section 3) that detail the timeline and outcomes of each initiative. 

1.3.3 Implementing and Measuring Achievement of the Future State 

In the final step, DHS provides guidance for implementing the NECP and 

recommendations for measuring success (Section 4). These recommendations are based 

on the legislative requirements for the NECP as outlined in Appendix 1.

 5 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

2. Defining the Future State of Emergency Communications 

The NECP outlines the future vision of emergency communications over the next five 

years. In doing so, it establishes tangible goals by which success can be measured. 

2.1 Vision 

Vision 

The NECP vision is to ensure operability, 

interoperability, and continuity of 

communications to allow emergency 

responders to communicate as needed, on 

demand, and as authorized at all levels of 

government and across all disciplines. 

Emergency response personnel 

can communicate— 

• As needed, on demand, 

and as authorized 

• At all levels of 

government 

• Across all disciplines

2.2 Goals

To work toward this desired future state, DHS defined a series of goals that establish a 

minimum level of interoperable communications and dates by which Federal, State, local, 

and tribal agencies are expected to achieve that minimum level. Although not 

comprehensive, these goals provide an initial set of operational targets which OEC will 

expand further through a process that engages Federal, State, and local governments, the 

private sector, and emergency responders. Section 4.2 outlines how OEC plans to 

measure the nationwide achievement of these goals. 

If emergency responders train regularly and use emergency communications solutions 

daily, they will be able to use emergency communications more effectively during major 

incidents. Therefore, the first two goals focus on day-to-day response capabilities that 

will inherently enhance emergency response capabilities. 

Response-level emergency communications is the capacity of individuals with primary 

operational leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions 

during an incident involving multiple agencies, without technical or procedural 

communications impediments.9

 In addition to communicating with first-level 

subordinates in the field, an Operations Section Chief should be able to communicate up 

the management chain to the incident command level (i.e., between the Operations 

Section Chief and Incident Command).10 During the course of incident response, 

Incident Command/Unified Command may move off-scene, which may require 

establishing communications between Incident Command and off-scene Emergency 

Operations Centers (EOC), dispatch centers, and other support groups. 

 

9

 As defined in the National Incident Command System 200, Unit 2: Leadership and Management. 10 As defined in the National Incident Management System, FEMA 501/Draft August 2007, p.47.   

 6 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

NECP Goals

Goal 1—By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban 

Areas Security Initiative (UASI)11 are able to demonstrate response-level 

emergency communications within one hour for routine events12 involving 

multiple jurisdictions13 and agencies. 

Goal 2—By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate 

response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine 

events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. 

Goal 3—By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate responselevel emergency communications within three hours, in the event of a 

significant event14 as outlined in national planning scenarios. 

 

The NECP identifies seven key objectives to move the Nation toward its overall vision. 

Although all seven objectives are important to achieving all three goals, Objective 7 

focuses primarily on enhancing the ability to communicate during a significant event as 

outlined in Goal 3. Further, through OEC and the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA) Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups 

(RECCWG), DHS will collaborate with State homeland security directors and State 

interoperability coordinators to develop appropriate methodologies to measure progress 

toward these goals in each State. 

2.3 Capabilities Needed 

Leveraging the findings from various sources of information, including analyses, from 

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments on emergency communications, DHS 

completed a comprehensive examination of emergency communications capabilities 

across all levels of government and some private sector entities.15 (A capability enables 

the accomplishment of a mission or task.) Exhibit 4 summarizes the range of emergency 

communications capabilities needed by emergency responders and maps those to the 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.

16 

 

11 As identified in the FY08 Homeland Security Grant Program or on the FEMA Grants website: 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/uasi/fy08_uasi_guidance.pdf. 12 Routine events—During routine events, the emphasis for response-level emergency communications is on operability 

and interoperability. These types of events are further delineated in the Usage element of the SAFECOM 

Interoperability Continuum as planned events, localized emergency incidents, regional incident management 

(interstate or intrastate), and daily use throughout the region. See Appendix 5 for a further description of the 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum. 13 Jurisdiction—A geographical, political, or system boundary as defined by each individual State. 14 Significant events—During significant events, the emphasis for response-level emergency communications is on 

interoperability and continuity of communications. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8: National 

Preparedness (HSPD-8) sets forth 15 National Planning Scenarios, highlighting a plausible range of significant 

events such as terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies that pose the greatest risks to the Nation. Any 

of these 15 scenarios should be considered when planning for a significant event during which all major emergency 

communications infrastructure is destroyed. 15 The National Communications Capabilities Report, 2008. 16 SAFECOM’s Interoperability Continuum was designed to help the emergency response community and Federal, 

State, local, and tribal policymakers address critical elements for success as they plan and implement interoperability 

solutions: http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/tools/continuum/default.html. 

 7 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

These identified capabilities serve as the foundation for the NECP priority objectives, 

initiatives, and recommended national milestones set forth in Section 3. 

Exhibit 4: Emergency Communications Capabilities Needed to Achieve Future State 

Lanes of the SAFECOM 

Interoperability 

Continuum 

Capabilities Needed 

Governance 

• Strong government leadership 

• Formal, thorough, and inclusive interagency governance 

structures 

• Clear lines of communication and decision-making 

• Strategic planning processes 

Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOP) 

• Standardized and uniform emergency responder interaction 

during emergency response operations 

• Standardized use and application of interoperable emergency 

communications terminology, solutions, and backup systems 

Technology 

• Voice and data standards that pertain to real-time situational 

information exchange and reports for emergency responders 

before, during, and after response 

• Uniform model and standard for emergency data information 

exchange 

• Testing and evaluation of emergency communications 

technology to help agencies make informed decisions about 

technology 

• Emergency response communications technology based on 

voluntary consensus standards 

• Basic level of communications systems operability 

Training and Exercises

• Uniform, standardized performance objectives to measure 

effectiveness of emergency responders communications 

capabilities 

• Emergency response providers who are fully knowledgeable, 

trained, and exercised on the use and application of day-to-day 

and backup communications equipment, systems, and 

operations irrespective of the extent of the emergency response 

Usage 

• Adequate resources and planning to cover not only initial 

system and equipment investment but also the entire life cycle 

(operations, exercising, and maintenance) 

• Broad regional (interstate and intrastate) coordination in 

technology investment and procurement planning 

 

 8 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

3. Achieving the Future State of Emergency Communications 

This section describes the strategy for achieving the NECP’s future state for emergency 

communications and for meeting the overall goals identified in Section 2. Specifically, 

this section discusses in detail the seven Objectives that delineate a comprehensive 

assessment of the capabilities needed to close existing gaps and achieve the long-term 

vision. In the near- term, DHS will continue to work with its stakeholders on 

implementing the NECP initiatives and attaining near-term goals. As previously defined, 

the three critical elements of emergency communications are operability, interoperability, 

and continuity of communications. Progress toward achieving each of the seven 

objectives is essential in realizing improvements in all three of these primary elements of 

emergency communications.17 In addition, this section defines Supporting Initiatives

for each objective, with a focus on driving outcomes toward the future state. Each 

initiative identifies current emergency communications activities and key gaps. To 

implement these initiatives, there are Recommended National Milestones to define the 

timelines and outcomes. 

3.1 Objectives, Initiatives, and Milestones 

The objectives and initiatives provide national guidance to Federal, State, local, and tribal 

agencies to implement key activities to improve emergency communications. Milestones 

provide key checkpoints to monitor NECP implementation. The proposed timelines for 

completing these initiatives began when the NECP was delivered to Congress on July 31, 

2008. OEC will then coordinate development of implementation strategies with partner 

organizations at all levels of government, private sector organizations, and nongovernmental associations The NECP identifies the following objectives to improve 

emergency communications for Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency responders: 

1. Formal decisionmaking structures and clearly defined leadership roles coordinate 

emergency communications capabilities. 

2. Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative 

across agencies and aligned to achieve national goals. 

3. Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to 

effectively use their resources and personnel. 

4. Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications 

capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and 

testing and evaluation. 

5. Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises, 

improved technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilities. 

6. All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency 

communications through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate 

resource allocations, and public-private partnerships. 

7. The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery 

capabilities to communicate during significant events. 

 

17 Note that no single objective is discretely linked to any one of the three elements (i.e., operability, interoperability, or 

continuity of communications). Rather, progress in any objective area will result in improvements in each of the 

three emergency communications components.

 9 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Substantial cooperation and collaboration across the stakeholder community are 

necessary to achieve all of the milestones in each objective. The supporting initiatives 

and recommended national milestones represent the DHS’ position on actions that must 

occur and establish completion dates to meet NECP goals. DHS continues to work with 

stakeholders at all levels of government to identify and verify ownership roles to drive 

full participation and implementation of this Plan. 

For some of the milestones, specific leadership and ownership roles are defined based on 

associated mission areas, current activities, existing authorities, and feedback from 

organizations during NECP development. In many cases, specific leadership roles to 

achieve the milestones are not and presently cannot be defined. Although DHS has been 

mandated by Congress to develop the NECP and coordinate its implementation, DHS has 

limited authority to compel responsibilities and leadership roles—and the associated 

expenditure of resources—for external organizations. To implement the NECP, OEC 

will collaborate with its partner organizations to develop strategies that guide 

achievement of the objectives, initiatives, and milestones. Exhibit 4 illustrates these 

integrated elements of the NECP and depicts: A vision of the future state and goals that 

support achievement of the vision; specific objectives to meet these goals; and supporting 

initiatives with national milestones that define the outcomes and timelines required. 

Exhibit 4: The NECP Roadmap 

 10 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 1: Formal Governance Structures and Clear Leadership 

Roles

Formal decision-making structures and clearly defined leadership roles coordinate 

emergency communications capabilities. 

More than 50,000 independent agencies across the Nation routinely use emergency 

communications. Each of these agencies is governed by the laws of its respective 

jurisdiction or area of responsibility. No single entity is, or can be, in charge of the 

Nation’s entire emergency communications infrastructure. In such an environment, 

collaborative planning among all levels of government is critical for ensuring effective 

and fully coordinated preparedness and response. Formal governance structures and 

leadership are needed to manage these complex systems of people, organizations, and 

technologies.18

Current Emergency Communications Activities:19

• National-level policies identify roles, responsibilities, and coordinating structures 

for incident management (e.g., National Response Framework [NRF] and its 

Emergency Support Function #2 [ESF#2], National Incident Management System 

[NIMS] Joint Field Office Activation and Operations—Interagency Integrated 

Standard Operating Procedure Annex E). 

• The Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Guidebook provides 

guidance on establishing a structure for governing statewide communications 

interoperability planning efforts. All 56 States and territories now have SCIPs. 

• The ECPC establishes a governance and decision-making structure for strategic 

coordination of interdepartmental emergency communications at the Federal 

level. 

• FEMA leads the integration of tactical Federal emergency communications during 

disasters and is developing requirements and an associated Disaster Emergency 

Communications (DEC) Integration Framework for fulfilling emergency 

communications needs during disasters. 

• Decision-making bodies at the State, regional, and local levels coordinate 

emergency communications issues (e.g., RECCWG,statewide interoperability 

coordinators and executive committees, local communications committees).20

 

18 Most emergencies occur at the local level and are managed by local incident commanders. To best support the local 

incident commander, Federal and State agencies must ensure the coordination of their interoperability efforts with 

local agencies. This perspective is in agreement with the ERC’s guiding principles, SAFECOM Emergency 

Response Council, Agreements on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable Communications, Summer 2007. 19 A subset of relevant and current emergency communication activities has been identified for each objective in the 

NECP; these subsets are not meant to be comprehensive, but represent examples of stakeholder input collected 

during NECP development. Many additional activities are planned and underway across all levels of government. 20 As defined in Section 1805 of the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2007, RECCWGs assess emergency 

communications capabilities within their respective regions, facilitate disaster preparedness through the promotion of 

multijurisdictional and multiagency emergency communications networks, and ensure activities are coordinated with 

all emergency communications stakeholders within the RECCWG’s associated FEMA region. The FEMA Regional 

Administrator oversees the RECCWG and its activities, and the RECCWG is required to report annually (at a 

minimum) to the FEMA Regional Administrator. The RECCWG advises on all aspects of emergency 

communications in its respective Region and incorporates input from emergency communications stakeholders and 

representatives from all levels of government as well as from nongovernmental and private sector agencies.

 11 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• OEC is developing a governance sustainability and SCIP implementation 

methodology to provide guidance and share lessons learned in creating and 

sustaining effective statewide communications interoperability governance 

structures for SCIP implementation. 

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• In many cases, emergency response agencies are unaware of (or have yet to adopt 

and integrate) national-level policies that define roles, responsibilities, and 

coordinating structures for emergency communications. 

• State Interoperability Executive Committees (SIEC) or their equivalents do not 

have uniform structures, they typically act in an ad hoc capacity, and they often 

lack inclusive membership. 

• The Nation does not have an objective, standardized framework to identify and 

assess emergency communications capabilities nationwide. Thus, it is difficult 

for jurisdictions to invest in building and maintaining appropriate levels of 

operability, interoperability, and continuity of communications. 

• Emergency communications strategic planning efforts vary in scope and often do 

not address the operability and interoperability concerns of all stakeholders. 

• Many agencies often do not consider communications planning to be a priority 

and therefore do not allocate resources for participation in planning activities. 

• There is a need for greater Federal department and agency participation in State, 

regional, and local governance and planning processes. 

• Many States do not have full-time statewide interoperability coordinators, or 

equivalent positions, to focus on the activities needed to drive change. 

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 1.1: Facilitate the development of effective governance groups and 

designated emergency communications leadership roles. Uniform criteria and 

best practices for governance and emergency communications leadership across 

the Nation will better equip emergency response agencies to make informed 

decisions that meet the needs of their communities. Establishing effective 

leadership positions and representative governance groups nationwide will 

standardize decision-making and enhance the ability of emergency response 

agencies to share information and respond to incidents. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS will establish a central repository of model formal 

agreements (i.e., Memorandums of Agreement [MOA], Memorandums of 

Understanding [MOU], and Mission Assignments) and information that will 

enhance interstate and intrastate coordination.21

o Within 12 months, all States and territories should establish full-time 

statewide interoperability coordinators or equivalent positions. 

 

21 This repository is envisioned as a component of the ECPC clearinghouse function. Please refer to Initiative 2.1 for 

additional information and activities regarding the ECPC clearinghouse. 

 12 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 12 months, DHS will conduct a National Emergency 

Communications workshop to provide an opportunity for RECCWG 

participants, statewide emergency communications coordinators, and other 

interested parties to collaborate with one another and with Federal 

representatives from the ECPC and FPIC. 

o Within 12 months, RECCWGs are fully established as a primary link for 

disaster emergency communications among all levels of government at the 

FEMA regional level, sharing information, identifying common problems, 

and coordinating multistate operable and interoperable emergency response 

initiatives and plans among Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies.22

o Within 12 months, SIECs (or their equivalents) in all 56 States and 

territories should incorporate the recommended membership as outlined in 

the SCIP Guidebook and should be established via legislation or executive 

order by an individual State’s governor. 

o Within 18 months, DHS will publish uniform criteria and best practices for 

establishing governance groups and emergency communications leadership 

roles across the Nation. 

• Initiative 1.2: Develop standardized emergency communications 

performance objectives and link to DHS’ overall system for assessing 

preparedness capabilities nationwide. DHS will collaborate with Federal, 

regional, State,23 local, and tribal governments and organizations, as well as with 

the private sector, to develop a more comprehensive and targeted set of evaluation 

criteria for defining and measuring communications requirements across the 

Nation. To prevent duplicative reporting requirements for its stakeholders, DHS 

will ensure these assessment efforts leverage existing reporting requirements (e.g., 

for SCIPs, Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans [TICPs], and State 

Preparedness Reports) and grant program applications (e.g., for the Interoperable 

Emergency Communications Grant Program [IECGP] and the Homeland Security 

Grant Program [HSGP]). Evaluation criteria will be based on the approach being 

followed in DHS’ implementation plans for the National Preparedness 

Guidelines/Target Capabilities List (TCL).24 

 

22 FEMA organizes the United States into 10 FEMA regions. Each FEMA region has its own Regional Headquarters 

led by a Regional Administrator. FEMA regions are responsible for working in partnership with emergency 

management agencies from each state within the respective region to prepare for, respond to, and recover from 

disasters. FEMA regions and their Regional Administrators will be leveraged to provide oversight, implementation, 

and execution for their respective RECCWGs. 23 This collaboration would include State homeland security advisors and statewide interoperability coordinators. 24 DHS is currently developing TCL implementation plans for animal health, EOC management, intelligence, onsite 

incident management, mass transit protection, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)/hazardous material (hazmat) 

rescue and decontamination. Communication requirements will be based on the concepts and principles outlined in 

the NECP and in the baseline principles provided in the NIMS (e.g., common operating picture; interoperability; 

reliability, scalability and portability; and resiliency and redundancy). These requirements will be based on the 

command requirements for response-level emergency communications as defined in the NECP, and will also include 

the full range of communications requirements for all of the standardized types of communications (e.g., strategic, 

tactical, support, public address) identified in the NIMS.

 13 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS will develop a standardized framework for 

identifying and assessing emergency communications capabilities 

nationwide. 

o Within 18 months, DHS’ emergency communications capability framework, 

in preparation for release, will be reviewed during a series of technical 

working group meetings with stakeholders from the emergency response 

community. 

o Within 24 months, the emergency communications capability framework 

will be incorporated as the communications and information management 

capability in the DHS/FEMA National Preparedness Guidelines/TCL, which 

will serve as a basis for future grant policies. 

• Initiative 1.3: Integrate strategic and tactical emergency communications 

planning efforts across all levels of government. Tactical and strategic 

coordination will eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize 

interagency synchronization, bringing together tactical response and strategic 

planning. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS will make available an effective communicationsasset management tool containing security and privacy controls to allow for 

nationwide intergovernmental use. 

o Within 12 months, tactical planning among Federal, State, local, and tribal 

governments occurs at the regional interstate level. 

• Initiative 1.4: Develop coordinated grant policies that promote Federal 

participation and coordination in communications planning processes, 

governance bodies, joint training and exercises, and infrastructure sharing. 

The largest investment category of DHS grant funds is interoperable 

communications. Federal acquisition, deployment, and operating funds 

supporting Federal mission-critical communication systems often cannot be used 

to support State and local communication needs (when otherwise appropriate). 

These limitations on the use of these funds can inhibit the realization of the goals 

of coordination and interoperability, as systems are developed, deployed, and 

maintained. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS fiscal year (FY) 2009 grant policies provides 

guidance on how to best support national interoperability needs through the 

promotion of shared infrastructure, cooperative planning, and coordinated 

governance.

 14 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 12 months, best practices for sharing infrastructure, addressing 

spectrum issues, and developing agreements among Federal, State, and local 

emergency response communicators are promoted through DHS technical 

assistance programs, in accordance with applicable laws. 

 15 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 2: Coordinated Federal Activities 

Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative across 

agencies and aligned to achieve national goals. 

Federal departments and agencies rely on emergency communications capabilities to 

support mission-critical operations (e.g., law enforcement, disaster response, homeland 

security). Traditionally, individual Federal departments and agencies have not 

considered the benefits of planning and implementing emergency communications 

systems in conjunction with other Federal departments and agencies, or with State and 

local agencies. It is critical that Federal programs and initiatives—including grant 

programs—responsible for managing and providing emergency communications, are 

coordinated to minimize duplication, maximize Federal investments, and ensure 

interoperability. 

Current Emergency Communications Activities: 

• The ECPC has been established to serve as the Federal focal point for 

interoperable emergency communications. An ECPC clearinghouse is being 

designed as a central repository for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to 

publish and share tactics, techniques, practices, programs, and policies that 

enhance interoperability for emergency communications. 

• RECCWGs are being established to provide regional coordination points for 

emergency communications preparedness, response, and recovery for Federal, 

State, local, and tribal governments within each FEMA region.

• Federal, State, and local agencies are both independently and jointly upgrading 

and modernizing their tactical communications systems. There are several 

Federal grant programs (e.g., the HSGP and the Public Safety Interoperable 

Communications [PSIC] Grant Program) that State, local, and tribal entities can 

use to enhance their emergency communications capabilities. 

• DHS is establishing the IECGP to support projects that focus on improving 

operable and interoperable emergency communications for State, local, and tribal 

agencies and for international border agencies. IECGP guidance is being 

developed to close gaps associated with governance, planning, training, and 

exercises and currently focuses grant funds on initiatives that are not focused on 

technology. 

• OEC’s Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP) 

helps to enhance interoperable emergency communications among Federal, State, 

local, and tribal governments by providing assistance on governance, SOPs, 

technology, training and exercises, usage, and engineering issues. The ICTAP 

leverages and works with other Federal, State, and local interoperability efforts 

whenever possible to enhance the overall capacity for agencies and individuals to 

communicate with one another. 

 16 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• Information on Federal emergency communications programs, activities, and 

standards is not consistently or adequately shared with State and local agencies. 

• Federal emergency responders are not integrated into existing State and local 

networks because of capacity, frequency coordination, and channel congestion 

issues. 

• Federal grant programs for interoperable emergency communications are not 

targeting gaps in a consistent and coordinated manner. 

• There is a lack of overall Federal coordination at the regional level and 

participation in regional UASI and statewide planning activities (e.g., SIEC). 

• Regulatory and legal issues act as barriers to the further use of shared capabilities 

across all levels of government. 

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 2.1: Establish a source of information about Federal emergency 

communications programs and initiatives. There are a number of Federal 

programs and initiatives focused on emergency communications. DHS will 

establish a focal point for coordinating intergovernmental emergency 

communications to help the Federal Government identify duplicative efforts and 

achieve greater economies of scale. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, Federal departments and agencies leverage the ECPC as 

the central coordinating body for providing Federal input into, and 

comments on, Federal emergency communications projects, plans, and 

reports. 

o Within 12 months and annually thereafter, the ECPC submits a strategic 

assessment to Congress, detailing progress to date, the remaining obstacles 

to interoperable emergency communications, and Federal coordination 

efforts. 

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes a uniform method for coordination and 

information sharing between ECPC and the RECCWGs. 

o Within 18 months, the ECPC web-based clearinghouse portal commences 

operation, with strong consideration given to leveraging existing portals, 

such as the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN), 

DHS ONE-Net, and DHS Interactive. 

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes targeted outreach and training activities 

to ensure that stakeholders across the Nation are aware of the availability of 

ECPC clearinghouse resources. 

• Initiative 2.2: Coordinate all technical assistance programs to provide 

greater consistency for the delivery of Federal services. Coordinated and 

uniform technical assistance will improve the reliability of communications 

 17 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

systems and operator expertise. Technical assistance can be targeted to address 

gaps identified in SCIPs and the priorities outlined in the NECP. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, through the ECPC, a catalog of current technical 

assistance programs will be established, to both ensure the awareness of 

available technical assistance and reduce duplication. 

o Within 6 months, DHS establishes a focal point for consistent and 

comprehensive technical assistance and guidance for emergency 

communications planning with Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. 

o Within 12 months, Federal agencies establish a common methodology 

across all Federal operability and interoperability technical assistance 

programs and will train the personnel who provide technical assistance on 

the use of this methodology. 

o Within 18 months, DHS establishes a consistent and coordinated method for 

States and localities to request Federal technical assistance. 

• Initiative 2.3: Target Federal emergency communications grants to address 

gaps identified in the NECP, SCIPs, and TICPs. Targeted Federal grants will 

allow emergency response agencies to address communications gaps and 

coordinate planning efforts. Federal grant funding represents only a small 

fraction of overall emergency response emergency communications investment. 

Nonetheless, such funding is a key tool by which State and local emergency 

response agencies can address national emergency communication priorities.

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, all IECGP investments are coordinated with the 

statewide interoperability coordinator and SIEC, or its equivalent, to support 

State administrative agency investments, including filling the gaps identified 

in the NECP and SCIPs. 

o Within 12 months, DHS grant policies are developed to encourage regional 

operable and interoperable solutions, including shared solutions, and to 

prioritize cost-effective measures and multi-applicant investments.

o Within 12 months, the ECPC stands up a working group to coordinate grant 

priorities across Federal grant programs.

• Initiative 2.4: Enable resource sharing and improve operational efficiencies. 

Most government-owned wireless infrastructure that supports emergency 

response exists at the State and local levels. Further, many State and local 

agencies have modernized and expanded their systems through mechanisms such 

as Federal grant programs (e.g., the HSGP and the PSIC Grant Program), or they 

are currently in the process of doing so. By working with State and local 

agencies, Federal agencies can benefit from these improvements by leveraging 

both existing and planned infrastructure to improve operability and 

interoperability. In addition, there are a number of Federal-level programs and 

 18 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

initiatives involving the deployment of communications infrastructure, which 

present opportunities for resource and infrastructure sharing (e.g., spectrum, 

Radio Frequency [RF] sites). Federal agencies should work to better understand 

existing and planned programs, initiatives, and infrastructure across all levels of 

government to improve coordination, maximize investments, and more quickly 

field capabilities. 

 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, DHS conducts an assessment of shared regional/State 

systems to determine the potential for resource sharing among Federal, 

State, local, and tribal agencies. 

o Within 12 months, DHS prioritizes sharing opportunities, based on Federal 

emergency communications requirements. 

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes partnerships between Federal, State, 

local, and tribal agencies, as appropriate. 

• Initiative 2.5: Establish interoperability capabilities and coordination 

between domestic and international partners. Emergencies occurring near the 

Mexican and Canadian borders frequently require a bi-national response, 

necessitating interoperability with international partners. These countries often 

have different technical configurations and regulatory statutes than the United 

States. Coordination is essential to ensure that domestic and international legal 

and regulatory requirements are followed. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, and annually thereafter, hold plenary meetings of the 

United States-Mexico Joint Commission on Resolution of Radio 

Interference to address identified interference cases between the United 

States and Mexico. 

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes best practices for emergency 

communications coordination with international partners (i.e., cross border 

interoperability coordination with Mexico and Canada). 

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes demonstration projects between 

Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies, and international partners, to 

improve interoperability in border areas that are at risk for large-scale 

incidents (natural or man-made) requiring international responses (including 

illegal border crossings or smuggling activities that result from an incident). 

 19 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 3: Common Planning and Operational Protocols

Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to effectively 

use their resources and personnel. 

Agencies often create SOPs to meet their unique emergency communications 

requirements. In recent years, with support from the Federal Government, emergency 

responders have developed standards for interoperability channel naming, the use of 

existing nationwide interoperability frequencies, and the use of plain language. NIMS 

represents an initial step in establishing national consistency for how agencies and 

jurisdictions define their operations; however, additional steps are required to continue 

streamlining response procedures. 

Current Emergency Communications Activities: 

• National-level preparedness and incident management doctrines (e.g., NRF, 

NIMS, Joint Field Office Activation and Operations Interagency Integrated 

Standard Operating Procedures, TCLs) are in various stages of development; 

these exist to define common principles, roles, structures, and target capabilities 

for incident response. 

• Strategic and tactical interoperable emergency communications planning has 

begun at the State and local levels (e.g., TICPs, SCIPs, FEMA, State and regional 

emergency communications planning). 

• Common nomenclature initiatives for interoperability channels (e.g., NPSTC 

Channel Naming Report) are underway. 

• FEMA has developed a DEC Integration Framework and continues to support 

both government and nongovernmental organizations in developing plans and 

response frameworks and defining roles and responsibilities. 

• FEMA’s NIMS Integration Center is developing the National Emergency 

Responder Credentialing System (NERCS). 

• Federal grant guidance (e.g., FY 2008 SAFECOM grant guidance; FY 2008 

IECGP grant guidance) exists for migrating current radio practices to plain 

language standards. 

• The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), in coordination with 

OEC, is developing an SOP Development Guide, a Shared Channel Guide v2.0, 

and a brochure on plain language. 

• DHS recently issued Federal Continuity Directive-1, which establishes continuity 

planning guidelines for Federal departments and agencies. 

• The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the National 

Communications System Directive (NCSD) 3-10, Minimum Requirements for 

Continuity Communications Capabilities as planning direction for 

communications capabilities that support continuity of operations. 

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• There are inconsistencies in the use of plain language, the interoperability channel 

naming conventions, the interoperability frequencies, and SOPs. 

 20 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• Nationwide adoption and usage of NIMS, NRF, and NERCS has been slow 

because some users are often unfamiliar with the direction and intent of these 

policies. 

• Inconsistent use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-designated 

national interoperability channels has limited the effectiveness of this 

interoperability solution for emergency response communications systems 

operating in the same frequency band. 

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 3.1: Standardize and implement common operational protocols 

and procedures. A national adoption of plain-language radio practices and 

uniform common channel naming, along with the programming and use of 

existing national interoperability channels, will allow agencies across all 

disciplines to effectively share information on demand and in real time. Using 

common operational protocols and procedures avoids the confusion that using 

disparate coded language systems and various tactical interoperability frequencies 

can create. Use of the existing nationwide interoperability channels with common 

naming will immediately address interoperability requirements for agencies 

operating in the same frequency band.25 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, OEC develops plain-language guidance in concert with 

State and local governments to address the unique needs of agencies/regions 

and disciplines across the Nation. 

o Within 6 months, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) certifies, 

and emergency response accreditation organizations accept, the NPSTC 

Channel Naming Guide as the national standard for FCC-designated 

nationwide interoperability channels. 

o Within 9 months, the National Integration Center’s (NIC) Incident 

Management Systems Integration Division (IMSID) promotes plainlanguage standards and associated guidance. 

o Within 12 months, grant policies for Federal programs that support 

emergency communications are coordinated, providing incentives for States 

to include plans to eliminate coded substitutions throughout the Incident 

Command System (ICS). 

o Within 12 months, Federal agencies identify a uniform naming system for 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) 

designated nationwide interoperability channels, and this naming system is 

integrated into the NPSTC Guide. 

 

25 The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and members of the Interdepartment 

Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), with support from the FCC, revised the NTIA Manual of Regulations and 

Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management. The NTIA amended the Conditions for Use and eliminated 

the requirement to establish an MOU between non-Federal and Federal entities on the use of the law enforcement 

(LE) and IR channels. However, the new conditions do require the non-Federal entity to obtain a license and include 

a point of contact in the license application it submits to the FCC for use of the LE/IR channels. 

 21 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 18 months, DHS develops training and technical assistance programs 

for the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide (NIFOG);26

programs an appropriate set of frequency-band-specific nationwide 

interoperability channels into all existing emergency responder radios;27 and 

preprograms an appropriate set of frequency-band-specific nationwide 

interoperability channels into emergency response radios that are 

manufactured or purchased through Federal funding as a standard 

requirement. 

o Within 24 months, all SCIPs reflect plans to eliminate coded substitutions 

throughout the ICS, and agencies incorporate the use of existing nationwide 

interoperability channels into SOPs, training, and exercises at the Federal, 

State, regional, local, and tribal levels. 

• Initiative 3.2: Implementation of the NIMS and the NRF across all levels of 

government. Emergency response agencies across all levels of government 

should adopt and implement national-level policies and guidance to ensure a 

common approach to incident management and communications support. 

Implementation of these policies will establish clearly defined communications 

roles and responsibilities and enable integration of all communications elements 

as the ICS structure expands from the incident level to the national level. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

 

o Within 12 months, all Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response 

providers within UASI jurisdictions have implemented the Communications 

and Information Management section of the NIMS. 

• Initiative 3.3: Develop and implement model SOPs for specified events and 

all-hazards response. SOPs address the range of informal and formal practices 

and procedures that guide emergency responder interactions and the use of 

interoperable emergency communications solutions. Agencies should develop, 

coordinate, and share best practices and procedures that encompass both 

operational and technical components. Command and control protocols should be 

NIMS-compliant and incorporate the ICS as an operational guide. Procedures for 

the activation, deployment, and deactivation of technical resources should be 

included, as well as roles and responsibilities for the operation, management, 

recovery, and continuity of equipment and infrastructure during an incident. 

Agencies should identify procedures used to trigger and implement backup 

communications solutions if primary systems and solutions should become 

unavailable. As the scale of an incident expands, procedures for the integration of 

 

26 NIFOG is a collection of technical reference material to be used by radio technicians who are responsible for the 

radios to be used and applied during disaster response. NIFOG includes information from the National 

Interoperability Frequency Guide (NIFG), instructions on the use of NIFG, and other reference material. NIFOG is 

formatted to be a pocket-sized guide that is easy for radio technicians to carry. 27 Milestones in this area refer to the programming of an “appropriate set” of interoperability channels. This language 

is used in recognition that most radios used by emergency responders do not have the capacity to hold all of the 

national interoperability channels in addition to their required operational channels. Some radio channels are 

discipline-specific and are inappropriate to program in radios of other disciplines. 

 22 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

communications solutions become increasingly critical. Agencies must institute 

processes by which policies, practices, and procedures are regularly developed 

and reviewed for consistency across agencies. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, DHS identifies and refines model SOPs for tactical 

communications and develops associated SOP training for emergency 

responders. 

o Within 12 months, DHS identifies and refines model SOPs for emergency 

communications during specific types of incidents and all-hazards response 

(beyond tactical communications). 

o Within 18 months, DHS collaborates with partner emergency 

communications organizations to disseminate model SOPs and provides 

SOP training by mission type, incident type, and all-hazards response to 

emergency response agencies. DHS will provide these SOPs and training 

on a regional basis. 

 23 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 4: Standards and Emerging Communication Technologies

Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications 

capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and testing 

and evaluation. 

The emergency response community recognizes that no single technological solution can 

address all emergency communications challenges or meet the needs of all agencies. The 

proprietary nature of many communications technologies creates an ongoing challenge to 

system connectivity and establishing interoperability among them. The presence of 

wireless data networks, Internet Protocol (IP)-based mobile communications devices, and 

location-based commercial services, however, are creating potential opportunities to 

enhance command and control and situational awareness. Accelerating the development 

of standards for existing and emerging technologies can address these technology 

challenges, and therefore improve communications during response operations for both 

routine and significant events. 

Current Emergency Communications Activities: 

• The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), the 

National Association of State Technology Directors (NASTD), and the 

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) are developing a set of 

communications standards—the Project 25 (P25) suite of standards—for digital 

LMR. This effort is being undertaken in cooperation with the emergency 

response community, the private sector, and the Federal Government. 

• The standards for two of the eight P25 interfaces have been developed. 

• OIC is establishing a P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) to assess 

manufacturers’ equipment for compliance with P25 standards. 

• Major documents on Common Air Interface (CAI) standards have been completed 

and products that implement CAI standards are currently being fielded; other 

major P25 standards documents are rapidly being developed. 

• Standards for data exchange are in development to improve information-sharing 

capabilities among disparate emergency response software applications (e.g., 

Emergency Data Exchange Language [EDXL] standards including the Common 

Alerting Protocol, Distribution Element [DE], Hospital Availability Exchange 

[HAVE], Resource Messaging [RM], and the National Information Exchange 

Model [NIEM]). 

• Broadband initiatives and standards development include the P25 Interface 

Committee’s (APIC) Broadband Task Group (BBTG), Project MESA, and the 

NPSTC Broadband Working Group. 

• Research and development (R&D) and testing and evaluation initiatives are 

driven by OIC (e.g., Voice over Internet Protocol [VoIP], Vocoder Testing, 

Multi-Band Radio, and Radio over Wireless Broadband [ROW-B]) and by the 

Department of Defense (DoD) (e.g., Joint Tactical Radio System [JTRS] and Joint 

Interoperability Test Command). 

• The President’s Spectrum Policy Initiative focuses on identifying methods that 

use emerging technologies, such as cognitive radio, to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of spectrum usage. 

 24 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• Several States (e.g., Arizona, California, and Texas) are developing statewide 

“systems of systems” that leverage emerging technologies to establish 

interoperability among different levels of government and span frequency bands. 

• FEMA, following its DEC Integration Framework end-state architecture, is 

developing standardized deployable emergency communications capabilities that 

provide scalable and flexible voice, video, and data services. 

• In the ongoing FCC rulemaking proceeding to establish a nationwide broadband 

emergency response network in the 700 Megahertz (MHz) band, OEC is 

coordinating with Federal emergency response agencies through the FPIC to 

ensure that such agencies have access to this broadband network and that Federal 

interests are represented in network-sharing negotiations with emergency 

response and commercial licensees. 

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) CommTech Program, with support from 

OIC, is funding R&D in the areas of cognitive and software-defined radio (SDR) 

and is providing input to the SDR forum to ensure emergency response needs are 

met by these technologies. 

• DHS’ Science and Technology Directorate’s Command, Control, and 

Interoperability Division is leading a Common Operating Picture R&D program. 

• DOJ and other Federal entities are funding pilot projects to support State, local, 

and tribal emergency services activities. 

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• Personnel responsible for designing or procuring communications systems are 

sometimes unaware of the status of communications standards. 

• The number and diversity of emergency response agencies that are procuring 

systems increases the complexity and difficulty of developing technologies to 

meet these user requirements. 

• Standards development is hindered by the diverse requirements of independent 

emergency response organizations and agencies. 

• Secure communications interoperability across Federal, State, local, and tribal 

emergency communications systems are often hindered by the Federal sector’s 

use of encryption. 

• There is insufficient information about testing and assessing emergency response 

technologies, which makes it difficult for emergency response agencies to make 

informed procurement decisions about technology for use both now and in the 

future. 

• State and local government agencies do not consistently participate in standardsmaking bodies and development processes. 

• A common view of existing incident conditions and resources is not readily 

available or easily shared across Federal, State, and local jurisdictions in a way 

that improves the understanding of the emergency or event 

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 4.1: Adopt voluntary consensus standards for voice and data 

emergency response capabilities. Voluntary consensus standards will enable 

 25 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

agencies to make informed procurement decisions and to benefit from emerging 

technologies. Compliance assessment programs provide a documented 

certification process for communications equipment and programs. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, a P25 CAP is established to test equipment for compliance 

with approved interfaces. 

o Within 6 months, a specifications profile for VoIP is published and tested 

using multiple manufacturers’ equipment. 

o Within 12 months, DHS publishes the P25 CAP Summary Test Reports and 

manufacturers’ Supplier’s Declaration of Compliance (SDoC) for 

equipment. 

o Within 18 months, DHS makes standards and compliance information 

available to emergency response agencies to help inform their 

communications equipment purchases (e.g., the Authorized Equipment List 

[AEL] and the Standardized Equipment List [SEL]). 

o Within 18 months, DHS establishes compliance strategies for non-land 

mobile radio emergency communications technologies. 

o Within 24 months, develop standards for the exchange of real-time 

situational information for emergency responders before, during, and after 

an incident. 

o Within 36 months, develop voluntary consensus standards for emergency 

communications data file structures and messaging formats. 

• Initiative 4.2: Research, develop, test, and evaluate new voice, video, and 

data solutions for emergency communications, based on user-driven needs 

and requirements. Used in conjunction with legacy systems, new technologies 

have the potential to eliminate current technological challenges such as a lack of 

available frequencies and the use of multiple frequency bands. Aggregating the 

demands of emergency response agencies during the development of 

requirements for these emerging technologies will increase the effectiveness of 

the private sector in developing standardized products and services. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 3 months, DHS develops a process for emergency response agencies 

to collaborate with the private sector to aggregate user requirements. 

o Within 9 months, emergency response agencies identify and prioritize nearterm (3–5 years) requirements. 

o Within 24 months, emergency response agencies develop, with the 

cooperation of private sector and other stakeholders, quality-of-service 

parameters for the most important near-term requirements. 

• Initiative 4.3: Transition to and/or integrate legacy systems with nextgeneration technologies based on voluntary consensus standards. 

Transitioning to next-generation technologies may offer emergency response 

 26 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

agencies easier-to-use and more functional capabilities, depending on their 

individual needs. The upcoming FCC narrowbanding deadline calls for nonFederal emergency response agencies operating in frequencies below 512 MHz to 

transition from 25 kilohertz (kHz) to 12.5 kHz channels by 2013 to ensure 

spectrum efficiency. Federal grants can facilitate the migration and transition 

from legacy to approved open architecture and next-generation systems.

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, Federal grant policies are developed to encourage the 

migration to approved interoperable next generation systems. 

o Within 12 months, DHS publishes the results of pilots and evaluations of 

emerging technologies making this information available to emergency 

response agencies and the private sector to support their migration planning, 

standards development, and product development efforts. 

o Within 12 months, DHS publishes information and materials that highlight 

system migration best practices, lessons learned, and the benefits of new 

system capabilities. 

• Initiative 4.4: Implement the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for 

Federal responders. A standard nationwide encryption method will diminish the 

interoperability challenges faced by Federal responders (who previously used 

different methods) and will provide guidance to local and State agencies when 

working with Federal agencies. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 18 months, achieve encrypted interoperability between Federal 

departments and agencies using the AES. 

o Within 18 months, publish a uniform standard for the AES for State, local, 

and tribal emergency responders who decide to use encryption. 

o Within 24 months, Federal grant policies are modified to accommodate an 

AES-encrypted feature for radio equipment used by State, local, and tribal 

emergency responders. 

 27 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 5: Emergency Responder Skills and Capabilities 

Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises, improved 

technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilties. 

Training and exercises play a vital role in preparedness, readiness, and proficiency in 

accessing and using communications capabilities during emergency events. Preparedness 

is essential to ensuring that interoperable emergency communications equipment is well 

maintained, operational, and ready for deployment. Achieving appropriate levels of 

readiness and proficiency ensures that personnel can deploy, set up, and use equipment 

effectively, both on their own and in conjunction with other emergency responders. 

Conducting training and exercises helps emergency responders understand their roles and 

be properly prepared to respond to a wide range of emergency events. 

Current Emergency Communications Activities: 

• Many State and local agencies have adopted NIMS training requirements, which are 

measured by Federal standards (e.g., NIMS 5-Year Training Plan). 

• Incident Type III Communications Unit Leader (COML) training, which 

standardizes the emergency communications component of incident management, 

has been finalized. An awareness course that is intended to provide basic-level, 

communications-specific training to other command unit leaders, is under 

development. 

• There are existing standards and guidelines for national preparedness exercises that 

help standardize and measure exercise efficiency (e.g., the Homeland Security 

Exercise and Evaluation Program [HSEEP]). 

• Large-scale preparedness exercises (e.g., Top Official [TOPOFF]) are being 

conducted with participants across levels of government, in addition to some 

communications-specific exercises (e.g., UASI TICP exercises); additional annual 

exercises are generally conducted at the State and local levels. 

• OEC is developing a planned events methodology to help emergency response 

officials design and execute interoperable communications plans for planned 

events. 

• OEC is developing a Table Top Exercise Methodology as a training aid to reinforce 

interoperability practices and procedures for emergency responders. 

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• Some emergency response agencies have not yet received NIMS training or have 

not adopted NIMS policies. 

• A national standard for Type III COML training and certification has been 

developed, but has not yet been rolled out nationwide. 

• A training curriculum for Communications Unit Technicians (COMT), Radio 

Operators (RADO), and other communications-unit positions has not yet been 

developed. 

• Many emergency response agencies have only a limited number of qualified 

technical staff available to support daily operations and provide surge support for 

emergency communications. 

 28 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• Private sector partners have not been consistently involved in training and 

exercises. 

• There are insufficient communications-specific training courses and field exercises 

available to emergency responders, and there is a lack of coordination with the 

private sector on training and exercises. 

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 5.1: Develop and implement national training programs and 

certification processes. Standardized training programs should be established to 

deliver regular training to all emergency responders who use or manage 

communications resources. To build knowledge and competency throughout the 

emergency response community, this training should be conducted within 

agencies, across disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government, and with key 

private sector organizations. Training programs should be sufficiently 

comprehensive to address small-scale to large-scale events and to build the 

capability for coordinating with a full range of emergency response providers 

during all-hazards scenarios. Specific programs should include training for 

COMLs, COMTs, and the Federal Emergency Communications Coordinators 

(FECC). These programs should be evaluated regularly to determine their 

effectiveness and their impact on performance and proficiency levels, and to 

ensure that the programs’ existing content remains valid, incorporating new 

content as needed. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes national-level training programs and 

certification processes for COML, COMT, and FECC personnel. 

o Within 12 months, DHS finalizes and publishes ICS Communications Unit 

resource definitions (personnel and equipment). 

o Within 12 months, DHS develops a nationwide interoperability channel 

usage guide and ensures that shared channel training curriculum and 

courseware are available. 

o Within 18 months, DHS develops and uses standardized training and 

credentialing for COML and other ICS Communications Unit positions 

across the Nation. 

o Within 18 months, DHS establishes a certification process for other 

emergency communications users and providers, including COMT, 

dispatchers, and emergency response providers. 

• Initiative 5.2: Develop and inject standardized emergency communications 

performance objectives and evaluation criteria into operational exercises. 

Incorporating standardized objectives and evaluation criteria into exercise 

programs will ensure the consistent evaluation of communications performance. 

By evaluating communications as part of operational exercises, leadership will 

gain enhanced awareness and understanding of communications gaps. This 

understanding will ensure communications needs are prioritized appropriately. 

 29 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes standardized exercise evaluation criteria 

based on the emergency communications performance objectives 

established in the DHS/FEMA Communications and Information 

Management Capability Framework. 

o Within 18 months, the exercise evaluation criteria are reviewed in 

preparation for release through technical working group meetings with 

stakeholders from the emergency response exercise community. 

o Within 24 months, the emergency communications criteria are incorporated 

into the Exercise Evaluation Guides of the DHS/FEMA HSEEP. 

• Initiative 5.3: Provide targeted training to improve skills and capabilities of 

technical staff. Although most technicians receive formal communications 

training at the start of their careers as well as informal on-the-job training, 

ongoing or refresher training is not commonly provided, in part because there are 

not enough qualified subject matter experts. Communications technicians 

typically are too burdened with daily operations and maintenance activities to 

engage in formal training campaigns. As a result, users who do not rely on 

communications equipment for their daily missions might be unfamiliar with the 

equipment and procedures for its use. Developing training programs for technical 

staff will increase the number and enhance the expertise of technical and 

operational resources. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

 

o Within 12 months, DHS develops and disseminates training program 

guidance and curricula for emergency communications technical staff. 

o Within 18 months, DHS provides educational and training opportunities to 

emergency response agencies per requests through technical assistance 

programs.

 30 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 6: System Life-Cycle Planning

All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency communications 

through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate resource allocations, and 

public-private partnerships. 

Emergency response providers must upgrade and regularly maintain communications 

systems and capabilities to ensure effective operation; Federal grants can help meet these 

needs. However, initial capital investments in capabilities, enabled by grants, often are 

not accompanied by a plan for long-term sustainability. Grants should allow for 

expanded support of system upgrades, governance, planning, policies and procedures, 

and training and exercises. Federal agencies face a similar challenge in identifying 

sustainable funding mechanisms to upgrade and maintain communications systems. 

Public and private sector partners have their own core competencies and, thus, increased 

collaboration will add long-term value to emergency communications. 

Current Emergency Communications Activities: 

• OEC and OIC published an Interoperability Business Case to help emergency 

response officials develop a compelling business case for funding ongoing local 

interoperability efforts.28

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• Emergency communications are not viewed as a priority by many agencies; thus, 

resources are not allocated for participation in planning activities. 

• Communications planning is not viewed as a priority by many agencies. DHS is 

working to ensure that limited Federal resources are targeted and expended more 

strategically on identified gaps, while maintaining adequate State and local 

flexibility. 

• Many jurisdictions still pursue a short-term, technology-centric approach to solving 

emergency communications problems, but without addressing comprehensive 

planning for the equally important governance mechanisms, SOPs, and regular 

training and exercises. 

• Procurement decisions are often made without consulting neighboring jurisdictions 

or agencies. 

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 6.1: Conduct system life-cycle planning to better forecast longterm funding requirements. Providing planning and business case best 

practices through technical assistance will enable leadership to project the true 

cost of sustaining the organization’s communications system and allow budgeting 

for maintenance and eventual replacement. Grant funding investment 

justifications from States and spending within the Federal Government should be 

 

28 The Interoperability Business Case is available on the SAFECOM website at:  

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1336_interoperabilitybusiness.htm

 31 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

prioritized to support cooperative, regional (intrastate and interstate) system 

planning efforts. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

 

o Within 12 months, DHS will revise current guidance documents that specify 

best practices for achieving basic operable communications while planning 

for interoperability. 

o Within 18 months, DHS will collect and share best practices to help 

emergency response agencies identify emergency communications system 

life-cycle benchmarks to enhance long-term cost planning and budgeting. 

o Within 24 months, Federal grant programs will require system life-cycle 

plans for all communications systems purchased with Federal grant dollars.

• Initiative 6.2: Expand the use of public and private sector partnerships 

related to emergency communications. Although the private sector owns more 

than 85 percent of critical infrastructure, government and emergency response 

agencies own and operate communications systems that support their critical 

missions, including defense, law enforcement, and emergency response.29 The 

private sector’s capabilities include fixed, mobile, and rapidly deployable 

networks, assets, and facilities that can help ensure the success of emergency 

communications. A more comprehensive understanding of the specific service 

offerings and capabilities of private sector organizations will enable emergency 

response agencies to better leverage existing and future communications 

capabilities. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS convenes a summit of emergency responders and 

private sector representatives to identify and make recommendations on 

additional public-private sector partnerships to improve emergency 

communications. 

• Initiative 6.3: Assess existing Federal mission-critical wireless capabilities 

and upgrade and modernize them according to mission needs. In many areas, 

Federal departments and agencies are still working to achieve the basic 

operability to achieve their missions. Federal agencies require high-quality, 

secure, and reliable communications systems to support their mission-critical 

operations. Whether facing a natural disaster or other emergency, tactical 

communications can enable Federal emergency responders to perform their jobs, 

ultimately protecting against the loss of life and property. Federal agencies must 

develop and implement strategies to meet modernization mandates and upgrade 

their infrastructures to attain resilient communications systems. 

 

29 The National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Communications Sector-Specific Plan, p. 11.

 32 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, all Federal departments and agencies assess existing 

communications capabilities and compare them with the capabilities needed 

to complete their missions. 

o Within 12 months, all Federal agencies determine priorities, plan budgets 

and schedules, and design required upgrades to mission-critical subscriber 

and infrastructure equipment. 

• Initiative 6.4: Enhance emergency communications system survivability 

using redundant and resilient system designs. Disasters can adversely affect 

the performance of the communications systems that agencies use for emergency 

response. Emergency response agencies must identify the types of incidents that 

can disrupt the communications system components (e.g., radio repeaters, 

backhaul circuits, and power systems) and develop plans to enhance survivability. 

Implementing redundant infrastructure, developing resilience strategies, defining 

recovery time objectives, and exercising communications continuity plans will 

improve communications system survivability. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS will coordinate with RECCWGs to conduct impact 

analyses of communications systems to identify the impact from the affects 

of the disaster and disruption scenarios analyzed. 

o Within 18 months, DHS will coordinate with RECCWGs to ensure that all 

Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response providers have 

developed and implemented communications continuity plans for 

maintaining or recovering and stabilizing operations during and following 

disaster events. 

o Within 24 months, DHS will coordinate with RECCWGs to ensure that all 

Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response providers have 

coordinated communications continuity exercises and established crisis 

communications procedures and policies.

 33 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 7: Disaster Communications Capabilities

The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, and response and recovery 

capabilities to communicate during significant events. 

Significant incidents require maximum emergency response coordination. Emergency 

response is made more complex because such incidents often damage the 

communications infrastructure. To adequately react to the destruction or disruption of 

communications capabilities, agencies must proactively develop continuity plans, preposition the placement and delivery of deployable communications assets and resources, 

and participate in training and exercise programs that include disaster communicationsresponse scenarios. Appendix 3 provides an overview of Federal emergency response 

agencies and their programs, systems, and services. 

Current Emergency Communications Activities: 

• The Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) component of the FEMA 

DEC describes DHS’ primary rapid and deployable emergency communications 

capability in support of Federal, State, and local responders for the first 96 hours 

following an incident. 

• Since 2006, the FEMA DEC has been working with individual States and 

territories to identify potential communications gaps during responses and to 

mitigate the gaps by pre-planning response packages tailored for each State. 

FEMA plans to complete 23 State and territory DEC Annexes by 2008. 

• The Joint Network Nodes (JNN) is the bridge between the Warfighter Information 

Network–Tactical (WIN-T), a high-capacity network system that enables units 

and command centers to communicate while on the move, and the Army’s 

30-year-old legacy voice communications system, Mobile Subscriber Equipment. 

• The National Guard Bureau (NGB) has deployed the Joint Incident Site 

Communications Capability (JISCC) in 56 States and territories, a transit 

case-based system that includes satellite reach-back communications, incident site 

communications, interoperability gateway communications, and command post 

integration and support equipment. 

• The PSIC Grant Program funded $75 million in Strategic Technology Reserves 

(STR) for States and territories. Investments were made in deployable assets, 

radio caches, infrastructure enhancements, and satellite technology. 

• Some State, local, and tribal agencies are developing statewide communications 

systems and shared systems to expand capabilities. 

• Emergency response providers are enhancing communications continuity plans 

(e.g., backup and mobile/deployable solutions, and strategic technology reserves). 

• Federal priority communications services and reporting systems are available for 

priority access and telecommunications system restoration and recovery (e.g., 

Government Emergency Telecommunications Service [GETS], 

Telecommunications Service Priority [TSP], Wireless Priority Service [WPS], 

and Disaster Information Reporting System [DIRS]). 

• Established in 2002, the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) provides 

Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) for domestic emergencies, both 

 34 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

natural and man-made, and provides command and control of DoD personnel and 

DoD agency and component resources.30 

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action: 

• The emergency response community needs to become better informed about 

Federal agencies’ strategic, policy, and operational capabilities for emergency 

communications. 

• There is no integration framework that describes disaster communications services, 

the community of agencies and companies that provide these services, and the 

procedures for integrating these services and communities. 

• Communications planning activities related to disasters that may overwhelm or 

destroy communications systems are limited. 

• There are multiple deployable and disaster communications asset data sets, but 

there is no comprehensive and accurate data set that could be used to integrate 

communications during a disaster. 

• There is a need for disaster emergency communications technical standards to 

ensure uniform interoperability in terms of design specifications, methods of 

systems employment, processes, and/or operating practices. Some standards are 

mandatory and some are voluntary. 

• Many agencies have a limited ability to identify replacement equipment and 

operations and maintenance funding to ensure the basic operability of their primary 

tactical systems. 

• The ability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions is limited by the 

fragmented nature of spectrum and by the requirement to operate on noncontiguous 

bands. 

• Neither emergency response agencies nor commercial communications providers 

have standardized means for identifying individuals authorized to access and 

receive information about the disaster area. 

• Few agencies conduct communications infrastructure threat and vulnerability 

assessments of their critical communications assets as part of their emergency 

communications planning activities. 

• Many emergency response agencies are unaware of the priority services available 

from the Federal Government during emergencies. 

• Many States do not have MOUs or frequency agreements with NGB to guide the 

use of the JISCC system. 

Priority Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps: 

• Initiative 7.1: Provide an integration framework for disaster 

communications operations and response to ensure that the Federal 

Government can effectively fulfill requests during incident response. 

Although disaster communications capabilities are owned by many agencies and 

private sector entities, there is currently a limited understanding of how these 

capabilities would be integrated during operations. Following Hurricane Katrina, 

 

30 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Report to Congressional Requesters: Homeland Defense, April 2008. 

 35 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

deployable assets were in use across the operations areas, but there was limited 

coordination. In addition, a common operating picture was not available to senior 

leaders across government. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 6 months, DHS develops Disaster Tactical Communications 

Requirements Analysis to assess Federal, State, and local disaster 

emergency communications functional support areas (e.g., restoration, 

mission operations/team support, facility, tactical, and planning and 

coordination). 

o Within 12 months, based on the Disaster Tactical Communications 

Requirements Analysis, DHS develops an Integration Framework and 

Concept of Operations (CONOPS) describing how disaster 

communications requirements are filled and integrated at the national, 

regional, and incident levels. 

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes the capability to track and monitor 

Federal assets during a response scenario. 

• Initiative 7.2: Implement disaster communications planning and 

preparedness activities. Identifying critical communications vulnerabilities and 

developing mitigation strategies is important for all agencies with operational 

responsibilities during significant incidents. Agencies should evaluate the 

readiness posture of communications centers (e.g., Public Safety Answering 

Points [PSAP]) and emergency response and commercial networks that may be 

vulnerable to weather damage, flooding, and man-made disasters. The 

vulnerabilities identified should be a primary focus of disaster planning and 

preparedness activities. System planning activities should account for the 

availability of alternative and backup communications solutions, and resilient and 

diverse pathways to support communications if primary capabilities become 

unavailable. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, RECCWGs will work with State and local agencies to 

assess priority State vulnerabilities that, absent mitigation, could 

jeopardize command and control capabilities and critical mission 

operations. 

o Within 12 months, DHS develops and publishes best practices and 

methodologies that promote the incorporation of vulnerability assessments 

into the emergency communications planning process. 

o Within 24 months, develop plans and procedures to enhance emergency 

911 systems and PSAP communications. 

o Within 24 months, complete disaster communications training and 

exercises for all 56 States and territories. 

 36 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 24 months, all Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies in UASIs 

will have defined alternate/backup capabilities in emergency 

communications plans. 

• Initiative 7.3: Leverage existing and emerging technologies to expand and 

integrate disaster communications capabilities among emergency response 

providers. Deployable communications technologies can provide robust voice, 

video, and data capabilities for agencies during disasters. Packaging these 

capabilities to be quickly deployable and easily integrated and interoperable is a 

significant challenge. DHS will work across the government and the private sector 

to enable more effective pre-positioning and integration of existing and cuttingedge technologies. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, using the results of the Disaster Tactical 

Communications Requirements Analysis, DHS identifies a list of 

technologies that meets the majority of requirements identified. 

o Within 18 months, DHS provides a Disaster Communications Capability 

List to be included in the AEL and the SEL that provides an overview of 

approved interoperable or standardized equipment that should be used 

during response. 

o Within 24 months, DHS will reassess its pre-positioning framework to 

evaluate whether it best meets national disaster communications needs. 

 

• Initiative 7.4: Accelerate the implementation of emergency communications 

components in the NRF, specifically, national access and credentialing. NRF 

establishes a comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident 

response and is used broadly in an operational context for incident management 

activities related to pre-incident prevention and post-incident response and 

recovery. The Joint Field Office (JFO) DEC Branch coordinates Federal 

communications support to response efforts during incidents requiring a Federal 

response. The JFO DEC Branch also coordinates communications support to 

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and emergency responders when 

their systems have been impacted and provides communications and information 

technology support to the JFO and its field teams. Comprehensive use of NRF 

will ensure consistent operations across the Nation and will reduce the risk of 

miscommunication among emergency response agencies. Ensuring suitable 

credentialing for all responders who require access to an incident site is another 

factor that is critical to rapid and effective response and recovery. Depending on 

the extent and impact of the incident, those who require access and credentials 

may include Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency responders, as well as 

NGO and private sector telecommunications infrastructure provider response 

personnel. 

 37 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 24 months, DHS develops national access and credentialing 

guidelines that offer emergency responders, including critical commercial 

communications providers, a means of identifying individuals eligible to 

access and receive information about the disaster area. 

• Initiative 7.5: Implement systems and procedures that ensure the Federal 

Government’s ability to establish situational awareness, develop a common 

operating picture, and provide timely and consistent information during 

crises. The collection and dissemination of information in preparation for and 

during an incident is essential to mitigate threats and to respond efficiently. 

Situational awareness includes predicting the occurrence of a natural disaster or 

an attack; knowing the extent of damage that results from an event; having an 

operating picture that includes the status of response activities, critical 

infrastructures, and public health; and understanding plans for response and 

restoration. Situational awareness processes and activities reduce barriers to 

information sharing.

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes a plan for an integrated asset tracking 

system to enable information sharing across the national, regional, and 

incident levels. 

• Initiative 7.6: Promote the use of priority services programs and expand 

their capabilities (e.g., GETS, WPS, and TSP) to next-generation networks. 

Priority access services are critical to the ability of emergency responders to 

access telecommunications resources during an incident. Significant incidents 

create high demand for telecommunications resources by emergency responders 

and the public. It is critical that emergency response providers have access to 

telecommunications resources when needed to enable information exchange. 

Currently, the National Communications System sponsors several priority access 

services (e.g., GETS, TSP, and WPS) that are available for use by Federal, State, 

local, and tribal agencies. Based on mission requirements, agencies across 

various levels of government should leverage these services to ensure access to 

telecommunications resources when needed. In addition, planning is needed to 

ensure the availability of these services as networks transition to next-generation 

technologies. 

Recommended National Milestones: 

o Within 18 months, OEC will work with statewide coordinators to promote 

the availability and use of priority access services throughout their States 

or territories.

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes plans to transition priority access 

services to next-generation networks.

 38 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

4. Implementing and Measuring NECP Achievement 

The success of the NECP requires the commitment of all emergency response disciplines 

at all levels of government. Achieving its goals and priority objectives will require 

coordination across geographical, political, and cultural jurisdictions and boundaries. 

Therefore, this Plan provides strategic direction and guidance that Congress, Federal 

departments and agencies, State, local, and tribal government officials, and the private 

sector can use to identify future actions to address communications deficiencies. 

4.1 Implementation 

OEC, within DHS’ National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), is designated 

as the primary Federal agent charged with overseeing NECP implementation. In this 

role, OEC will monitor achievement of the NECP’s recommended milestones and 

initiatives and will coordinate with its stakeholders to assess progress in reaching this 

Plan’s goals. OEC’s current options for motivating emergency response agencies to 

implement the NECP include providing technical assistance to State, regional, local, and 

tribal government officials; developing grant policies and coordinating DHSadministered grant programs (e.g., IECGP); and coordinating Federal activities through 

the ECPC and FPIC. In addition, OEC will use statutory reporting requirements to 

monitor and report on progress towards implementing the NECP (e.g., State annual 

reports under the IECGP, RECCWG annual reports, ECPC annual strategic assessment, 

and OEC’s assessment and biennial progress reports). 

Within the first year of the NECP implementation, OEC will partner with key 

stakeholders to determine valid metrics for the objectives and initiatives. OEC will 

provide a status report in its Biennial Progress Report to Congress, due February 2010. 

Implementation of the NECP will be a coordinated effort among all levels of government 

including those listed below. 

Executive and Legislative Branches—The NECP will provide the legislative and 

executive branches with recommended initiatives and national milestones that will 

inform them of emergency communications priorities, activities, and resource 

allocations for consideration and action. 

Federal Agencies—The NECP documents the challenges of coordinating emergency 

communications efforts at the Federal level. Federal responders must also be able to 

work with State and local responders during an emergency. Two key Federal 

partnerships will be used to implement the NECP. Through the ECPC, Federal 

implementation of the NECP will be a collaborative effort, offering all stakeholders a 

better understanding of the achievements at this level. Through FPIC, Federal 

response organizations will work with State and local agencies and governments to 

improve communications and resource sharing. 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments—The NECP provides guidance for 

improved emergency communications to State, local, and tribal agencies and 

governments to better focus Federal funding dollars and provides a forum for regional 

planning and participation. State, local, and tribal governments should strive to align 

with the NECP and implement key initiatives. 

 39 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Private Sector—The NECP identifies private sector support to communications 

during emergencies and recovery efforts and provides consistent direction for private 

sector involvement in standards development, advanced communications 

technologies, and services development and deployment. 

4.2 Metrics 

DHS will use future versions of the following reports and assessments to help assess 

progress toward achieving NECP goals: 

o ECPC Annual Strategic Assessment 

o RECCWG Annual Report 

o OEC’s Biennial Progress Report 

o OEC’s National Communications Capabilities Report. 

Through OEC and the FEMA RECCWGs, DHS will collaborate with State homeland 

security advisors and statewide interoperability coordinators to develop valid 

methodologies for measuring progress toward these goals. 

4.3 Future Requirements 

As reflected in Initiatives 1.2 and 5.2, DHS will collaborate with Federal, State, regional, 

and local governments and the private sector to develop a more comprehensive and 

targeted set of evaluation criteria for defining, measuring, and assessing communications 

requirements across the Nation. To prevent duplicative reporting requirements for 

stakeholders, assessment efforts will leverage existing reporting requirements (e.g., 

SCIPs, TICP, and State preparedness reports) and grant program applications (e.g., 

IECGP and HSGP). Evaluation criteria will be consistent with DHS implementation of 

the National Preparedness Guidelines and the TCL. 

 40 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

 41 

V. Conclusion 

Ultimately, the NECP’s goals cannot be achieved without the support, dedication, and 

commitment of the stakeholders who have been involved in developing this Plan. The 

Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sectors must work together and support each other 

to achieve nationwide operability, interoperability, and continuity of emergency 

communications. The NECP provides stakeholders with a shared strategy to mitigate the 

unique challenges that effective communication presents. By taking the NECP to action, 

this diverse community can truly achieve a unified vision that allows emergency 

responders to communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized, at all levels of 

government and across all disciplines.
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 1

NECP Appendices 

Appendix 1: NECP Legislative Requirements Compliance Matrix

Appendix 2: Alignment with National Strategies, Planning Initiatives, and 

Key Authorities

Appendix 3: Key Federal Emergency Communications Initiatives, 

Programs, Systems, and Services 

Appendix 4: DHS Organizations with Responsibilities and Programs 

Supporting Emergency Communications 

Appendix 5: The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum 

Appendix 6: NECP Stakeholder Coordination 

Appendix 7: NECP Source Documents 

Appendix 8: Glossary of Terms 

Appendix 9: Acronyms
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 2

Appendix 1: NECP Legislative Requirements Compliance 

Exhibit A1-1 is a matrix that maps the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) to the 

Title XVIII legislative requirements. 

Exhibit A1-1: Matrix of Title XVIII Legislative Requirements with NECP Sections 

No. Title XVIII Legislative Requirements NECP Section(s) 

1 

Include recommendations developed in consultation with the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for a 

process for expediting national voluntary consensus standards for interoperable emergency 

communications equipment 

Section 3 – 

Objective 4: Standards & 

Emerging Technologies 

2 

Identify the appropriate capabilities necessary for emergency response providers and relevant 

government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of 

terrorism, and other man-made disasters 

Section 2.3 – 

Capabilities Needed 

3 

Identify the appropriate interoperable emergency communications capabilities necessary for 

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, 

and other man-made disasters 

Section 2.3 – 

Capabilities Needed 

4 

Recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for ensuring that emergency response 

providers and relevant government officials can continue to communicate in the event of 

natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters 

Section 3 – 

Initiatives and Milestones 

for Objectives 2, 3, 5, 7

5 

Recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for deploying interoperable emergency 

communications systems for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments throughout the 

Nation, including through the provision of existing and emerging technologies

Section 3 – 

Initiatives and Milestones 

for Objectives 3, 4, 5, 6

6 

Identify how Federal departments and agencies that respond to natural disasters, acts of 

terrorism, and other man-made disasters can work effectively with State, local, and tribal 

governments in all States, and with other entities 

Section 3 – 

Objectives 1, 2, 7 

7 

Identify obstacles to deploying interoperable emergency communications capabilities 

nationwide and recommend short-term and long-term measures to overcome those obstacles, 

including recommendations for multi-jurisdictional coordination among Federal, State, local, 

and tribal governments 

Section 3 – 

For all objectives, see “Key 

Gaps Driving Action” for 

obstacles and relevant 

“Initiatives” for 

recommendations 

8 

Recommend goals and time frames for the deployment of emergency, command-level 

communications systems and develop a timetable for the deployment of interoperable 

emergency communications systems nationwide 

• Section 2.2 – Goals 

• Section 3 – Relevant 

Initiatives and Milestones 

for all Objectives

9 Recommend appropriate measures that emergency response providers should employ to ensure 

continued operation of relevant governmental communications infrastructure

Section 3 – 

Initiatives 4.2, 4.3, 6.2, 6.4, 

7.2, 7.3

1031 (HR 1) Set a date, including interim benchmarks, by which State, local, and tribal 

governments, and Federal agencies expect to achieve a baseline level of national 

interoperable communications

Section 2.2 – Goals

 

31 This NECP requirement was added by H.R. 1, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public 

Law 110-53), which was signed into law August 3, 2007.
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 3

Appendix 2: Alignment with National Strategies, Planning 

Initiatives, and Key Authorities 

The NECP has been designed to complement and support overarching homeland security and 

emergency communications legislation, strategies, and initiatives. The NECP applies guidance 

from these authorities, including key principles and priorities, to establish the first national 

strategic plan focused exclusively on improving emergency communications for emergency 

response providers nationwide. Moreover, the NECP provides a critical link between national 

communications priorities and strategic and tactical planning at the regional, State, and local 

levels. Exhibit A2-1 illustrates the linkage between the NECP and primary emergency 

communications authorities. 

Exhibit A2-1: Key Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Authorities 

NATIONAL NATIONAL

LEGISLATION & 

STRATEGIES

PREPAREDNESS/ 

INCIDENT 

MANAGEMENT 

POLICY & PLANNING 

INITIATIVES

DIRECTIVES & 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL

HSPDs(e.g., 5, 7, 8) EOs (e.g., 12406,3, 

12472, 12656)

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

HOMELAND SECURITY

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/K

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/KA HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

NRF, SUPPORT 

FUNCTION

OPERATIONAL

NIPP NIPP

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GUIDELINES

NATIONAL 

PREPAREDNESS 

GUIDELINES

SCIPs SCIPS TICPs TICPS

Regional Strategic 

Planning

Regional Strategic 

Planning

STRATEGIC

PREPAREDNESS/ 

COMMUNICATIONS 

PLANNING 

INITIATIVES

Hazard Mitigation Hazard Mitigation

Emergency

Operations Plans

Emergency

Operations Plans

NIMS 

HSPDs (e.g., 5, 7, 8) (e.g., 12046,

12472, 12656)

EOs 

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 

HOMELAND SECURITY

NECP

Communications-specific 

Various emergency communications authorities shape, and are reflected in, the NECP— 

• Legislation—The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by the Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act of 2007, provides the primary authority for the homeland security 

mission and establishes a foundation for emergency communications efforts nationwide. 

Other legislation identifies priorities at the national level and establishes departmental 

responsibilities and processes related to national preparedness and emergency 

communications. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 4

• Strategies—National strategies provide the vision and strategic direction for emergency 

communications elements of the homeland security mission. For example, the National 

Strategy for Homeland Security emphasizes situational awareness as an incident management 

principle and stresses the importance of communications interoperability and survivability. 

This strategy and others, such as the National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets, identify high-level actions and priorities for national 

preparedness related to communications (e.g., improving public safety communications, 

supporting development of interoperable, secure communications systems, coordinating 

interoperability standards, developing redundant communications networks, and promoting 

common standards and terminology for equipment and training). 

• Federal Directives and Executive Orders—These documents set national policies and 

executive mandates for specific initiatives, programs, and associated responsibilities. For 

example, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD 5) required the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) to develop and implement a National Incident Management 

System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). HSPD 8 mandated the development 

of a National Preparedness Goal to help entities build and maintain capabilities to prevent, 

protect, respond, and recover from major incidents. Other directives and executive orders 

identify and assign responsibilities for communications functions (e.g., spectrum, critical 

infrastructure, telecommunications continuity, and alert and warning). 

• Preparedness/ Incident Management DHS Policy and Planning Initiatives—National 

policy and planning initiatives follow from legislation, directives, and orders, implementing 

the programs and activities described therein. Consistent with these DHS policy initiatives, 

the NECP focuses on improving the emergency communications posture nationwide through 

strategic goals, objectives, initiatives, and milestones. Following are descriptions of some 

key Federal policy and planning initiatives for incident management and emergency 

response: 

− National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)—The NIPP, and supporting sectorspecific plans, establishes a comprehensive risk management framework that provides the 

unifying structure for integrating existing and future critical infrastructure and key 

resource (CI/KR) protection efforts into a single national program. The NIPP specifies 

key initiatives, milestones, and metrics required to protect the Nation’s CI/KR and 

provides a coordinated approach that defines the roles and responsibilities of Federal, 

State, and local governments as well as the private sector. 

− National Incident Management System (NIMS)—Provides a nationwide template for 

incident management, establishing uniform doctrine for command and management, 

resources, communications, information management, and supporting technologies. 

Specific to communications, NIMS defines concepts and principles (e.g., interoperability, 

reliability, resiliency), management characteristics (e.g., communications types, planning, 

equipment standards, training), and standards and formats (e.g., radio usage procedures, 

plain language), which are clearly reflected in the NECP. 

− National Response Framework (NRF)—Establishes a comprehensive, national, allhazards approach to domestic incident response. The NRF is used broadly in an 

operational context for incident management activities related to pre-incident prevention 

and post-incident response and recovery. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 5

− National Preparedness Guidelines—Provides readiness targets, priorities, standards for 

assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the Nation’s overall level of 

preparedness. The guidelines consist of standard planning tools, such as the Target 

Capabilities List (TCL), that agencies should develop and maintain to provide guidance on 

the specific capabilities and levels of capability related to the homeland security mission. 

In the area of communications, the TCL stresses the importance of operable, interoperable, 

and redundant communications during an emergency, and provides measures and metrics 

to define how quickly and how effectively critical communications tasks should be 

performed. The NECP was developed consistent with TCL guidelines and preparedness 

objectives, and should help local communities meet their requirements under TCL. 

• State, Regional, and Local Planning—The NECP provides a critical link between national 

priorities and strategic and tactical planning at the regional, State, and local levels. DHS has 

analyzed the progress and gaps identified through State and local planning efforts in 

developing the NECP’s priorities, initiatives, and associated actions. In turn, these national 

priorities will be incorporated into existing and future regional, State, and local planning 

efforts. 

Descriptions of the key legislation, strategies, directives and executive orders, and policy 

initiatives that shape the emergency communications policy environment are provided below. 

A2.1 Legislation 

Exhibit A2-2 describes the key legislation that guides national efforts to ensure communications 

during crises. 

Exhibit A2-2: Key Legislation 

Name Date Description 

The Communications Act 

of 1934, amended by the

Telecommunications Act of 

1996

June 19, 1934; 

February 8, 1996 

Authorizes the Executive Branch to manage communications during wartime 

and non-wartime emergencies, and creates the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) as the chief regulatory authority for communications 

technologies. The FCC works to enhance emergency communications 

capabilities and addresses critical spectrum issues within the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau and in coordination with the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 

Defense Production Act of 

1950 September 8, 1950 

Ensures timely availability of the products, materials, and services needed to 

meet national defense and emergency preparedness requirements, and 

provides an operating structure to support a timely, comprehensive response 

by industry in a national emergency situation. 

Information Technology 

Management Reform Act 

of 1996 (P.L. 104-106) 

February 10, 1996 

Specifies that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

develop standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for 

Federal computer systems. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 

are developed by NIST when there are no existing voluntary standards to 

address the Federal requirements for the interoperability of different systems, 

portability of data and software, and computer security. 

The Balanced Budget Act 

of 1997; Deficit Reduction 

Act (P.L. 109-171) 

August 5, 1997; 

February 8, 2006 

Requires the FCC to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to 

public safety. The Deficit Reduction Act sets a firm deadline of February 

2009 by which television broadcasters must vacate the occupied spectrum for 

the public safety community. 

10 U.S.C. Section 372-380,

Military Support for 

Civilian Law Enforcement 

Agencies, as amended

1998 

Establishes protocols for the development, use, support, and maintenance of 

communications equipment shared by the U.S. military and local law 

enforcement agencies. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 6

Name Date Description 

The Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act 

November 23, 1988

Establishes processes by which the Federal government can provide assistance 

to State, local, and tribal governments, individuals, and nongovernmental 

organizations (NGO) for all-hazards emergency response and recovery. This 

includes establishment and use of temporary communications systems in 

anticipation of or during an emergency. 

Disaster Mitigation Act of 

2000 (P.L. 106-390) October 30, 2000 

Amends the Stafford Act and requires State mitigation plans as a condition of 

disaster assistance. 

The Homeland Security 

Act of 2002 (Public Law 

[P.L.] 107-296) 

November 25, 2002

Establishes the DHS as an executive department of the United States and 

specifies significant responsibilities associated with emergency preparedness, 

response, and recovery, including emergency communications and critical 

infrastructure. Includes provisions for coordinating or (as appropriate) 

consolidating communications systems related to homeland security at all 

levels of government. 

Federal Information 

Security Management Act 

of 2002 (part of P.L. 107-

347) 

December 17, 2002 

Requires Federal agencies to develop a comprehensive information 

technology security program to ensure the effectiveness of information 

security controls over information resources that support Federal operations 

and assets. 

The Intelligence Reform 

and Terrorism Prevention 

Act (P.L. 108-458) 

December 17, 2004 

Addresses national preparedness by identifying the need for a nationwide 

incident command system; establishes the Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility (OIC) for the enhancement of public safety interoperability; and 

calls for studies on interoperable communications standards, spectrum, and 

strategies to meet public safety communications requirements. 

The Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act of 

2007 (P.L. 109-295),

including the 21st Century 

Emergency 

Communications Act of 

2006 

October 4, 2006 

Includes Title VI, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, 

which reorganizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 

amends the Stafford Act, and addresses emergency communications. In 

addition, the legislation amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add 

Title XVIII–Emergency Communications, establishing the Office of 

Emergency Communications (OEC) and specifying its responsibilities. 

Transfers existing programs (e.g., Integrated Wireless Network, Interoperable 

Communications Technical Assistance Program) and elements of other 

programs (e.g., SAFECOM) to OEC and assigns new responsibilities (e.g., 

National Emergency Communications Plan, National Baseline Assessment, 

and outreach and coordination). 

Implementing the 

Recommendations of the 

9/11 Commission Act of 

2007 (P.L. 110-53) 

August 3, 2007 

Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Urban Area 

Security Initiative to provide grants to assist high-risk metropolitan areas to 

prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to terrorist acts. Establishes 

the State Homeland Security Grant Program to assist State, local, and tribal 

governments to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to terrorist 

acts. Directs the Secretary to establish the Interoperable Emergency 

Communications Grant Program to make grants to States to carry out 

initiatives to improve international, national, regional, statewide, local, and 

tribal, interoperable emergency communications. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 7

A2.2 Strategy 

Exhibit A2-3 describes the key homeland security strategies that provide direction for emergency 

communications elements of the homeland security mission. 

Exhibit A2-3: Key Homeland Security Strategies 

Name Date Description 

National Strategy for the 

Physical Protection of 

Critical Infrastructures 

and Key Assets 

February 2003 

Identifies the policy, goals, objectives, and principles for actions needed to 

secure the infrastructures and assets vital to national security, governance, 

public health and safety, economy, and public confidence. Directs DHS to 

partner with the private sector to understand the risks associated with the 

physical vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures and key assets. 

National Strategy to Secure 

Cyberspace February 2003 Establishes priorities and initiatives to improve the physical security of cyber 

systems and communications, including interdependencies. 

National Strategy for 

Homeland Security

October 2007 

(revised) 

Provides a common framework to guide the Nation’s homeland security efforts 

toward achieving four primary goals: (1) prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks; 

(2) protect people, critical infrastructures, and key resources; (3) respond and 

recover from incidents; and (4) strengthen the homeland security foundation 

for long-term success. Specific to communications, the strategy emphasizes 

situational awareness as a critical incident management principle and stresses 

the importance of communications interoperability and survivability. 

A2.3 Directives and Executive Orders 

Exhibit A2-4 describes the key directives and executive orders for ensuring communications 

during crises. 

Exhibit A2-4: Key Directives and Executive Orders 

Name Date Description 

Executive Order 12046,

Relating to the Transfer of 

Telecommunications 

Functions

March 27, 1978 

Delegates presidential responsibilities for management of the Federal 

electromagnetic spectrum to the Secretary of Commerce. Provides for the 

continuation of the Inter-department Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) to 

assist the Secretary in exercising the delegated presidential authority. 

Department of Commerce 

Organization Order 10-10 May 9, 1978 

Establishes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA), delegates presidential responsibilities for management of the 

electromagnetic spectrum to its administrator, and establishes the 

administrator’s authority and responsibility for all radio communications 

systems operated by the Federal government. 

Presidential Directive 53,

National Security 

Telecommunications Policy

November 15, 

1979 

Reaffirms the need for connectivity for the Nation’s leaders and the ability to 

respond, restore, and recover the national telecommunication infrastructure in 

all emergencies. 

Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs

July 14, 1982 

Intends to foster intergovernmental partnerships by providing opportunities for 

State, regional, and local coordination and review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

National Security Decision 

Directive 97, National 

Security Telecommunications 

Policy

June 13, 1983 

Sets requirements for emergency restoration and recovery of communications 

that support the Nation’s leaders, worldwide intelligence, and diplomacy. 

Confirms the provision of interoperable, reliable, and secure communications 

for the President and his chief advisors as a national priority. 

Executive Order 12472,

Assignment of National 

Security and Emergency 

Preparedness (NS/EP) 

Telecommunications 

Functions

April 3, 1984 

Establishes the National Communications System (NCS) as the Federal 

interagency system to ensure that the national telecommunications 

infrastructure is responsive to the NS/EP needs of national leaders, the military, 

the Intelligence Community, and emergency responders. Establishes NCS as 

the focal point for joint industry/government NS/EP communications planning 

and directs the establishment of a national coordinating center. Establishes 

DHS as the agency responsible for planning, providing, operating, and 

maintaining telecommunications services and facilities as part of the National 

Emergency Management Systems. Identifies DHS’ role in advising, assisting, 

and ensuring that State and local governments develop and maintain national 

security and emergency preparedness telecommunications plans. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 8

Name Date Description 

Executive Order 12656,

Assignment of EP 

Responsibilities

November 18, 

1988 

Delegates NS/EP responsibilities to Federal departments and agencies, 

instructs agencies to develop plans and capabilities that will ensure continuity 

of operations, and reaffirms the need for interagency cooperation in the pursuit 

of telecommunications NS/EP. 

NCS Directive 3-1,

Telecommunications 

Operations

August 10, 2000 

Implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and establishes procedures for the 

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program. Authorizes priority 

services for domestic telecommunications services (e.g., Government 

Emergency Telecommunications Service [GETS] and Wireless Priority Service 

[WPS]). 

Executive Order 13231,

Critical Infrastructure 

Protection 

October 16, 2001 

Establishes the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, tasked with 

ensuring the protection of information systems for critical infrastructure, 

including emergency preparedness communications and the physical assets that 

support these systems. 

Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 

(HSPD) 5, Management of 

Domestic Incidents

February 28, 

2003 

Directs the Secretary of DHS to develop and administer a national incident 

management system. The system is to provide a consistent nationwide 

approach to enable Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private 

sector to work together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, prevent, 

respond to, and recover from domestic incidents regardless of cause, size, or 

complexity. 

HSPD 7, Critical 

Infrastructure Identification, 

Prioritization, and 

Protection 

December 17, 

2003 

Calls for Federal departments and agencies to identify, prioritize, and 

coordinate the protection of critical infrastructures and key resources to 

prevent, deter, and mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts to destroy, 

incapacitate, or exploit them. Assigns DHS (delegated to the NCS) as the lead 

for coordinating protection of national critical infrastructures, including the 

communications sector. 

HSPD 8, National 

Preparedness

December 17, 

2003 

Establishes policies to strengthen national preparedness to prevent and respond 

to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a 

national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal. Establishes mechanisms for 

improved delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local 

governments, and outlines actions to strengthen the preparedness capabilities of 

Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal entities. 

Spectrum Policy for the 

21st Century, The 

President’s Spectrum Policy 

Initiative

November 30, 

2004 

Establishes processes to implement a comprehensive U.S. Spectrum Policy to 

foster economic growth, ensure national and homeland security, maintain U.S. 

global leadership in communications technology development and services, 

and satisfy other vital needs in areas such as public safety, scientific research, 

Federal transportation infrastructure, and law enforcement. NTIA leads the 

implementation of this initiative. Also calls for DHS to develop a 

comprehensive plan for non-Federal public safety spectrum needs. 

Executive Order 13407,

Public Warning System June 28, 2006 

Calls for an effective, reliable, integrated, and flexible system to alert and warn 

the American people in all-hazard emergencies. DHS is the Executive Agent 

for the Public Alert and Warning System Program. 

HSPD 20, National 

Continuity Policy May 4, 2007 

Establishes National Essential Functions, which prescribe continuity 

requirements for all executive departments and agencies and provide guidance 

for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments and private sector 

organizations. 

NCS Directive 3-10,

Minimum Requirements for 

Continuity Communications 

Capabilities

July 25, 2007 

Requires that all departments and agencies that support National Essential 

Functions operate and maintain—or have dedicated access to—

communications capabilities at their headquarters and alternate operating 

facilities, as well as mobile in-transit communications capabilities, to ensure 

continuation of mission critical functions across the full spectrum of hazards, 

threats, and emergencies, including catastrophic attacks or disasters. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 9

A2.4 National-Level Policy and Planning Initiatives 

Exhibit A2-5 describes the key national-level policy and planning initiatives that guide 

emergency response efforts. 

Exhibit A2-5: Key National-Level Policy and Planning Initiatives 

Name Date Description 

National Incident 

Management System 

(NIMS) 

March 1, 2004 

The NIMS presents a unified approach to incident management, provides 

standard command and control structures, and emphasizes preparedness, 

mutual aid, and resource management. The NIMS emphasizes that establishing 

and maintaining a common operational picture and ensuring accessibility and 

interoperability are principal goals of communications and information 

management. 

Manual of Regulations and 

Procedures for Federal 

Radio Frequency 

Management 

May 2003 

edition; 

September 2006 

revision 

Issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and 

Information to address the Department of Commerce’s frequency management 

responsibilities pursuant to delegated authority under Section 305 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 

National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan (NIPP) July 2006 

The NIPP, and supporting sector-specific plans, establishes a comprehensive 

risk management framework that provides the unifying structure for integrating 

existing and future critical infrastructure and key resource (CI/KR) protection 

efforts into a single national program. The NIPP specifies the key initiatives, 

milestones, and metrics required to protect the Nation’s CI/KR and provides a 

coordinated approach that defines the roles and responsibilities of Federal, 

State, and local governments as well as the private sector. 

National Preparedness 

Guidelines September 2007 

Provides readiness targets, priorities, standards for assessments and strategies, 

and a system for assessing the Nation’s overall level of preparedness. Consists 

of related preparedness tools, such as the National Preparedness Vision, 

National Planning Scenarios, the Universal Task List, and the Target 

Capabilities List. 

National Response 

Framework (NRF),

including Emergency 

Support Function (ESF) #2

December 2004; 

re-released 

January 22, 2008 

Establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the 

United States to manage domestic incidents. Provides the structure and 

mechanisms to coordinate and integrate incident management activities and 

emergency support functions across Federal, State, local, and tribal government 

entities, and the private sector. ESF #2, led by NCS, ensures Federal 

communications support to Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector 

efforts. 

A2.5 State, Regional, and Local Planning 

Exhibit A2-6 describes some of the key regional, State, and local planning initiatives related to 

emergency communications. 

Exhibit A2-6: Key Regional, State, and Local Planning Initiatives 

Name Date Description 

State and Local Guide 

(SLG) 101: Guide for AllHazard Emergency 

Operations Planning 

September 1996 

Provides emergency response agencies with information on FEMA’s concept 

for developing risk-based, all-hazard emergency operations plans. Clarifies the 

preparedness, response, and short-term recovery planning elements that 

warrant inclusion in State and local Emergency Operations Plans. 

Tactical Interoperable 

Communications Plan 

(TICP) 

December 2006 

TICPs present a region’s plan for establishing and maintaining tactical 

interoperable communications, defined as the rapid provision of on-scene, 

incident-based, mission-critical voice communications among all firstresponder agencies, in support of an incident command system as defined in 

the NIMS model. Developed initially by the Urban Area Security Initiative 

(UASI) areas in response to Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Homeland Security Grant 

Program (HSGP) guidance. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 10

Name Date Description 

Statewide Communication 

Interoperability Plan 

(SCIP) 

March 2008 

Describes the strategic vision, goals, and key long-term and short-term 

strategic initiatives for States to improve communications interoperability. 

Serves as a mechanism and roadmap to align emergency responders at all 

levels of State government to improve communications interoperability. 

Developed initially in response to FY07 HSGP and Public Safety Interoperable 

Communications (PSIC) Grant Program requirements. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 11

Appendix 3: Key Federal Emergency Communications Initiatives, 

Programs, Systems, and Services 

This appendix presents a summary of key Federal initiatives related to emergency 

communications collected as part of the ECPC clearinghouse Federal Interoperability 

Catalog. While this is not an exhaustive inventory of Federal programs, the information below 

represents the most comprehensive data set to date and will act as living document. The 

summary below promotes emergency interoperable communications information sharing and 

awareness among Federal agencies by highlighting programs and initiatives that are related to 

other departments and agencies, including: 

• Policy and Planning Initiatives 

• Federal Systems and Services 

• Information Sharing and Command and Control Centers 

• Standards and Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Initiatives 

• Grant Funding Initiatives 

• Training and Exercise Initiatives. 

Exhibit A3-1 summarizes key emergency communications policy and planning initiatives. 

Exhibit A3-1: Key Emergency Communications Policy and Planning Initiatives 

Type of 

Policy/Plan Key Policies, Plans, and Assessments Lead Agency 

Strategy, 

Legislation, 

Directives 

 See Appendix 2 for overview of National Strategies, Legislation, Directives, and Executive 

Orders related to emergency communications 

 Executive 

branch, 

Congress 

Regulatory, 

Spectrum 

Management 

 Regulation of interstate and international communications (by radio, television, wire, satellite, 

and cable) 

− Spectrum (e.g., 700 MHz D Block, digital television transition, 800MHz rebanding) 

− Alert and warning (e.g., Public Safety Access Point [PSAP], Enhanced 911, Emergency Alert 

System [EAS], commercial mobile alerts) 

− Other (e.g., priority telecommunications and amateur radio services, special temporary 

authority) 

 Federal government spectrum management, communications policy initiatives 

 FCC 

 NTIA 

National 

Preparedness 

Doctrine32

 National Response Framework (NRF), Emergency Support Function #2 (ESF#2), National 

Incident Management System (NIMS) 

 National Preparedness Guidelines: Target Capabilities List (TCL), Universal Task List (UTL), 

National Planning Scenarios 

 DHS 

 DHS 

Emergency 

Communications 

Planning 

 National/regional planning: National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), National Emergency 

Communications Plan (NECP), FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) planning, 

Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC planning) 

 State-level planning: Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP), all-hazard 

emergency operations planning (and communications annexes) 

 Local-level planning: Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans (TICP), all-hazard 

emergency operations planning (and communications annexes) 

 DHS 

 State 

agencies 

 Local 

agencies 

National-Level 

Assessments 

 National Communications Capability Report (NCCR), SAFECOM National Interoperability 

Baseline Survey, DHS Nationwide Plan Review, Tactical Interoperable Communications 

Scorecard Report, others 

 NSTAC Emergency Communications and Interoperability Report, Katrina After Action Reports, 

9/11 Commission Reports 

 DHS 

 Multiple 

authors 

 

32 Appendix 2 provides additional information on National Preparedness Doctrine.
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 12

Exhibit A3-2 presents key tactical and emergency communications systems and programs, as 

well as telecommunications and other support services provided by Federal government 

agencies. 

Exhibit A3-2: Federal Tactical and Emergency Communications Systems and Services 

Department Agency/Bureau Key Programs/Projects/Resources 

Commerce NTIA Office of Spectrum Management (e.g., national interoperability channel 

resources) 

Customs and Border Protection Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet) 

(CBP) Tactical Modernization Program 

Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) 

Mobile Emergency Response System (MERS) 

FEMA National Radio System (FNARS) 

Emergency Alert System (EAS) (with FCC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration [NOAA]), Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS) 

Geo-Targeted Alerting System (GTAS) (with NOAA) 

DHS Web Alert and Relay Network (WARN) 

Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) (with FCC, NOAA/NWS)

National Warning and Alert System (NAWAS) 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) 

Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program (e.g., 

Response/Recovery focusing on Interoperable Communications) 

Immigrations and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) 

Atlas Program 

Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) 

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program 

Wireless Priority Service (WPS) 

Shared Resources (SHARES) High-Frequency (HF) Radio Program 

National Communications 

System (NCS) 

ESF #2 Communications Asset Database (CAD) 

Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) 

Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP) 

SAFECOM (guidance, tools, templates) 

FPIC integration projects 

Communications Asset Survey and Mapping (CASM) Tool 

OEC 

ECPC clearinghouse 

OIC SAFECOM (R&D, T&E, Standards) 

Office of the Chief Information OneNet 

Officer (OCIO) Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) 

Rescue 21 

Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS) 

DHS 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Deepwater 

Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) 

Joint Tactical Radio System 

Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) 

Joint task force civil support assets for disaster relief 

DoD 

Global Information Grid (GIG) 

Army installation land mobile radio (LMR) systems Department of the Army Joint Interoperability Test Command 

U.S. Marine Corps Marine Corps Network Operations and Security Center 

Department of the Navy National Enterprise Land Mobile Radio (ELMR) infrastructure 

Air National Guard (ANG)–Theater Deployable Communications (TDC) 

Joint Incident Site Communications Capability (JISCC) 

DoD 

National Guard Bureau (NGB) Army National Guard (ARNG) Joint Network Node (JNN) / Warfighter 

Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) 

IWN 

DOJ 25 cities Wireless Management Office 

(WMO) DOJ COMMTECH 

WMO/Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) 

Satellite Mutual Aid Radio Talkgroup (SMART) 

DOE OCIO Information Resource Program (includes wireless communications) 

DOI DOI OCIO Enterprise 

Infrastructure Division 

Public Safety Communications Program 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 13

Department Agency/Bureau Key Programs/Projects/Resources 

Bureau of Land Management 

(BML) 

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) assets 

Aircraft Management Division 

(AMD) 

Joint aircraft all-risk-management, with USDA 

Enhanced 9-1-1 DOT National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration Next-Generation 9-1-1 

USDA U.S. Forest Service National Interagency Incident Communications Division (NIICD) (partnership 

with Department of the Interior agencies) 

Treasury Wireless Programs Office IWN 

PSHSB clearinghouse, ESF #2 CAD 

FCC Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) Public Safety Homeland 

Security Bureau (PSHSB) Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) 

NOAA National Weather Service 

(NWS) 

Alert and warning systems (e.g., EAS, GTAS) 

Exhibit A3-3 presents examples of key homeland defense, homeland security, and public safety 

centers that have been established to share critical and sensitive information to protect the 

Nation, and to provide proper levels of command and control over field forces that could be 

brought to bear for incidents that require Federal assistance. These centers coordinate 

information, provide support to Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies engaged in response or 

recovery activities, and ensure that affected parties receive critical or sensitive information in a 

timely manner. 

Exhibit A3-3: Information Sharing and Command and Control Centers

Coordination 

Centers

Lead 

Agency Supporting/Participating Departments and Agencies 

National Operations 

Center (NOC) 

DHS/Office of 

Operations 

Coordination 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Central Intelligence Agency 

(CIA), USCG, Bureau CBP, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), DoD, DOE, Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), DOI, Department of State, DOT, Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), FBI, FEMA, Federal Protective Service (FPS), 

Geo-spatial Mapping Office, ICE, Information Analysis Office, Infrastructure Protection 

Office, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National Capital Region (NCR), 

NOAA, National Security Agency, Postal Inspection Service, DHS Public Affairs, DHS 

Science and Technology Directorate, United States Secret Service (USSS), DHS State and 

Local Coordination Office, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Los Angeles 

Police Department (LAPD), Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia (MPDC), New 

York Police Department (NYPD) 

National Response 

Coordination Center 

(NRCC) 

DHS/FEMA Commerce, DoD, DOE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, DOI, DOJ, 

Department of Labor, Department of State, DOT, EPA, FCC, FEMA, General Services 

Administration, HHS, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NCS, 

National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Treasury, U.S. Agency for 

International Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USCG, USDA, U.S. Postal 

Service, VA, American Red Cross, Corporation for National and Community Service, Small 

Business Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority 

National Response 

Center (NRC) 

DHS/USCG Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), DoD/Edgewood Chemical 

Biological Center (ECBC), DOE, EPA, FBI, FEMA, HHS/Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), DOT/Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB), Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

National Interagency 

Fire Center (NIFC) 

Interior/USFS USFS/BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 

NOAA/NWS, DOI/National Business Center/Aviation Management Division, US Fire 

Administration, National Association of State Foresters 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 14

Coordination 

Centers

Lead 

Agency Supporting/Participating Departments and Agencies 

National Law 

Enforcement 

Communications 

Center (NLECC) 

DHS/CBP ICE 

National 

Coordinating Center 

for 

Telecommunications 

(NCC) 

DHS/NCS Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Comm ISAC) 

National 

Counterterrorism 

Center (NCTC) 

Director of 

National 

Intelligence 

CIA, FBI, and 14 other classified and unclassified agencies 

National Military 

Command Center 

(NMCC) 

DoD Joint Staff of the armed forces 

Exhibit A3-4 presents key standards and RDT&E initiatives involving emergency 

communications. 

Exhibit A3-4: Standards Development and RDT&E Initiatives 

Type of 

Initiative Initiative

Key 

Organizations/Departments/ 

Agencies 

Digital Public 

Safety Radio 

Standards 

APCO Project 25 (P25), P25 Compliance Assessment Program APCO, Telecommunications Industry 

Association (TIA), DHS, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) 

Broadband 

Committees 

APCO Project 25 Interface Committee (APIC) Broadband Task Group, 

Project Mesa, P34 

APCO, TIA, NIST 

Data Exchange 

Standards 

Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Messaging Standards 

Initiative, Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)–Distribution Element (DE), 

Hospital Availability Exchange (HAVE) and Resource Messaging (RM), 

National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) 

DOJ, DHS, COMCARE 

RDT&E 

Programs 

 DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T): 4.9 GHz Wireless 

Standard, Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) specifications, Digital 

Vocoder Working Group, Radio over Wireless Broadband (ROW-B), 

Multi-Band Radio 

 NTIA Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS): Broadband 

Wireless, Digital LMR, IT, Propagation Measurements and Models, 

Spectrum Research, Technology Transfer 

 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center 

(NLECTC) System 

 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) 

 DoD RDT&E programs 

DHS/OIC 

 ITS 

DOJ/National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 

DoC/NTIA, NIST 

DoD 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 15

Exhibit A3-5 presents key Federal grant initiatives related to interoperable and emergency 

communications. 

Exhibit A3-5: Federal Grant Initiatives for Emergency Communications

Type of Initiative Grant Program Lead Agency 

Interoperability Grant 

Programs 

 Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program 

 Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) 

NTIA 

DHS 

National Preparedness 

Grant Programs (scope 

includes interoperable 

communications) 

 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) 

– State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) 

– Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 

– Citizen Corps Program (CCP) 

– Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) 

 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) 

 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) 

 Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) 

 Buffer Zone Protection Plan (BZPP) 

 Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) 

 Homeland Security National Training Program (HSNTP) and Competitive 

Training Grant Program (CTGP) 

DHS 

Grant Guidance, Tools, 

and Assistance 

 Grant guidance materials and associated support 

– SAFECOM grant guidance 

– Authorized Equipment List (AEL) 

– SAVER Program 

– Technical assistance 

 InterAgency Board (IAB), Standardized Equipment List (SEL) 

DHS 

DOJ, DoD, crossgovernmental 

participants 

Exhibit A3-6 presents key Federal training and exercise initiatives involving emergency 

communications. 

Exhibit A3-6: Federal Training and Exercise Initiatives 

Type of 

Initiative Key Program(s) Lead Agency 

Emergency Management Institute (EMI) (e.g., residential courses, 

independent study [e.g., NIMS, NRF], continuity of operations) 

DHS 

Training Communications Unit Leader (COML) curriculum development DHS/OIC, Incident Management Systems 

Integration Division (IMSID), National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group (NWCG), FEMA 

National Exercise Program (NEP) DHS/FEMA 

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) DHS 

Top officials (TOPOFF) 4 DHS/FEMA 

Determined accord DHS/FEMA 

National Nuclear Security Formal Exercise Program DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) 

Disaster response exercises (international and national exercises) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Hurricane preparedness tabletop exercises DHS 

Golden Phoenix DoD 

Exercise 

TICP exercises Requirement by DHS for UASI regions 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 16

Appendix 4: DHS Organizations with Responsibilities and 

Programs Supporting Emergency Communications 

Improving the Nation’s ability to communicate effectively during emergency situations is among 

the most fundamental missions assigned to DHS. With passage of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 and subsequent amendments over the last five years, DHS has assumed lead responsibility 

for many of the U.S. Government’s most important national communications functions, while 

simultaneously creating new programs to meet emerging communications needs at the Federal, 

State, local, and tribal levels. 

The consolidation of emergency communications missions, roles, and responsibilities under DHS 

is an important step toward coordinating and improving communications planning, preparedness, 

protection, crisis management, and recovery operations after September 11, 2001. DHS’ 

communications initiatives and capabilities serve a diverse set of customers: the President; the 

executive branch of the Federal Government; defense and intelligence agencies; law 

enforcement; State, local, and tribal authorities; emergency responders; and critical infrastructure 

owners and operators. 

For the emergency response community, OEC was established in 2007 as the focal point for 

developing, implementing, and coordinating interoperable and operable communications for 

emergency responders at all levels of government. OEC oversees three programs for improving 

emergency communications for Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies—the Integrated 

Wireless Network (IWN), the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program 

(ICTAP), and the SAFECOM program (excluding its RDT&E and standards functions). In 

addition, OEC is responsible for implementing new programs and initiatives to enhance 

interoperable communications, including: 

OEC’s Communications Assets Survey and 

Mapping (CASM) tool provides an inventory 

and analysis of interoperability communications 

planning for use by emergency response agencies 

nationwide. The tool allows agencies to store and 

display data about their communications assets.

• Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP): SCIPs are locally driven, 

multi-jurisdictional, and multi-disciplinary plans to address statewide interoperability. For 

the first time in history, all 56 States and territories have developed SCIPs, marking a 

critical milestone in breaking down 

the barriers of the past and 

establishing a roadmap for future 

interoperability. These plans address 

designated critical elements for 

statewide interoperability and must be 

approved by OEC for a State to 

qualify for grant funding through the Homeland Security Grant Program and Public Safety 

Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. 

• National Communications Capabilities Report (NCCR): The NCCR provides a 

framework for evaluating current emergency communications capabilities across all levels 

of government. The NCCR will help government officials to determine priorities and to 

allocate resources more effectively. 

• Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC): The ECPC is the Federal 

focal point and clearinghouse for coordinating interoperability efforts among Federal 

departments and agencies. OEC currently chairs the ECPC Working Group, which 

coordinated Federal input to the NECP. The ECPC’s annual strategic assessment for 

Congress describes the current status of Federal interoperable communications.
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 17

To accomplish its overall mission, OEC must coordinate with other DHS organizations that have 

responsibilities for ensuring communications and with other Federal departments and agencies. 

The following describes OEC’s primary partners within DHS, including their key 

communications functions, programs, and responsibilities. 

FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) Division, organized under FEMA’s 

Disaster Operations Directorate, prepares for and delivers emergency communications assistance 

during major disasters. FEMA DEC plays a key role in integrating and coordinating Federal 

disaster communications services and capabilities in FEMA regions and in the incident area. 

Key FEMA DEC planning activities include the following: 

• State Emergency Planning: To support FEMA’s integration role, FEMA DEC assists in 

the development of emergency communications plans and procedures for regions and 

States; supports standards and technical advancements to improve communications; and 

conducts training, tests, and exercises of emergency communications capabilities and 

procedures. FEMA DEC also provides an integration and coordination point for Federal 

departments and agencies that provide disaster communications capabilities and support 

during incidents. 

• DEC Integration Branch: The primary responsibilities of FEMA’s Communications 

Integration Branch (CIB) is to advance the establishment of the DEC end-state architecture 

and integrate FEMA DEC services with FEMA Headquarters (HQ), regions, emergency 

communications program offices (e.g., OEC, OIC), communications capability providers 

(e.g., United States Coast Guard, National Guard Bureau, USNORTHCOM), and response 

agencies. The CIB supports the FEMA regional offices by providing assistance and 

guidance in DEC planning and policies, guidance and oversight of the RECCWGs, and 

assistance in a disaster when the region requires such assistance. 

• DEC Tactical Branch: The Tactical Emergency Communications Branch (TECB) of the 

FEMA DEC Division is composed of two key components: Mobile Emergency Response 

Support (MERS) Program Management and MERS Detachments. MERS provides rapidly 

deployable command, control, and disaster emergency communications capabilities and 

tactical operations and logistics support for on-scene management of disaster response 

activities. MERS is a key FEMA disaster response asset that plays an important role in 

supporting disaster response operations 

The National Communications System (NCS) is an interagency system that brings together 

24 Federal departments and agencies in a joint planning framework for National Security and 

Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications. The NCS supports the Executive Office 

of the President for Enduring Constitutional Government, Continuity of Operations (COOP), and 

Continuity of Government (COG), and delivers a suite of priority telecommunications services to 

national leaders. To ensure effective planning and response, the NCS manages the National 

Coordinating Center for Telecommunications (NCC), a public-private partnership for sharing 

information and coordinating response and recovery operations. 

The NCS has a number of responsibilities and programs to enhance communications for the 

emergency response community. As the coordinator for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #2 

(Communications), the NCS is responsible for ensuring that the Nation’s communications 

infrastructure and capabilities are maintained in any emergency situation. The NCS is 

responsible for coordinating the planning and provisioning of NS/EP communications for the 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 18

The NCS SHAred RESources (SHARES) 

High-Frequency (HF) Radio Program

provides a single interagency emergency voice 

and data message-handling system. SHARES 

brings together the assets of thousands of HF 

radio stations to transmit NS/EP information 

when normal communications are unavailable. 

SHARES provides the Federal government with 

a forum for addressing issues affecting HF 

radio interoperability. 

Federal Government under all hazards, including crisis recovery and reconstitution. The NCS 

monitors emergency situations to determine the potential impact on existing telecommunications 

services and to ensure that sufficient 

telecommunications capability is provided to 

support response efforts. 

The NCS also offers an array of NS/EP 

priority communications services and 

programs to support emergency response. 

The Government Emergency 

Telecommunications Service (GETS) 

provides emergency access and priority 

processing on the local and long-distance 

portions of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). The Wireless Priority Service 

(WPS) gives Federal, State, local, and critical infrastructure personnel priority access calling on 

cellular networks for NS/EP purposes during times of high network congestion. The 

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program managed by NCS gives NS/EP users 

priority processing of their telecommunications service requests in the event of service 

disruption. 

The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) was established in 2004 to strengthen 

and integrate interoperability and compatibility efforts to improve Federal, State, local, and tribal 

emergency response and preparedness. Managed by the Science and Technology Directorate, 

OIC helps coordinate interoperability issues across DHS. OIC programs and initiatives address 

critical interoperability and compatibility issues. Priority areas include communications, 

equipment, and training. Key OIC activities include: 

• Standards Acceleration: OIC is working with NIST and the Institute for 

Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) to support the efforts of the emergency response 

community and the private sector, as they accelerate the development of the Project 25 

(P25) suite of standards. P25 standards will help produce voice communications 

equipment that is interoperable and compatible, regardless of manufacturer. In addition to 

interoperability, P25 aims to promote spectral efficiency, backwards compatibility, and 

scalability. OIC is also partnering with emergency responders, Federal agencies, and 

standards development organizations, including the Organization for the Advancement of 

Structured Information Standards (OASIS), to accelerate the creation of data messaging 

standards. The EDXL Messaging Standards Initiative is a practitioner-driven, publicprivate partnership to create information sharing capabilities between disparate emergency 

response software applications, systems, and devices. The resulting Extensible Markup 

Language (XML) standards assist the emergency response community in sharing data 

seamlessly and securely while responding to an incident.

• Compliance Assessment: In collaboration with its partners, OIC is establishing a P25 

Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) to provide demonstrable evidence of P25 product 

compliance. P25 CAP will improve adoption of P25 standards in manufacturer systems 

while creating a mechanism enabling procurement officers and the emergency response 

community to confidently purchase and use P25 compliant products. The P25 CAP 

program ensures that emergency response equipment is compliant, thus improving 

interoperable communications. It also stimulates competition among manufacturers, which 

results in more affordable technologies for the emergency response community.
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 19

• Technology Demonstrations: OIC conducts Technology Demonstration Projects across 

the Nation to test and demonstrate technologies in real-world environments, including data 

and video, and strategically assess results.

• Communications Unit Leader (COML) Training: OIC developed the COML 

curriculum to establish a standardized course of training for communications in a Type III 

incident. The Type III COML course trains emergency responders on how to be radio 

communications leaders during all-hazards emergency operations—significantly improving 

communications across multiple jurisdictions and disciplines responding to an incident. 

The course was delivered to the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Incident 

Management Systems Integration Division (IMSID) and was accepted as NIMS compliant. 

Through the development of the Type III COML course, DHS will provide a tool for 

training communications unit leaders and their command and general staff to perform the 

critical mission of managing interagency and cross-disciplinary communications during allhazards incidents.

The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a project 

to control U.S. borders and reduce illegal 

immigration. The SBINet is a key piece of SBI 

that promotes real-time communications among 

Border Patrol agents. Systems such as the 

Treasury Enforcement Communications System 

are also used to coordinate between CBP’s 

Office of Border Patrol and ICE’s Office of 

Investigations. 

OEC and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are collaborating on a series of 

communications projects to improve interoperability for law enforcement and other first 

responders along the Canadian and Mexican borders. CBP operates and maintains various 

command, control, communications, and 

intelligence (C3I) assets that could be used 

during a crisis. These include very high 

frequency (VHF) and high frequency (HF) 

national tactical radio networks and several 

local communications centers. 

During all crises, U.S. Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE) uses many public and governmentoperated systems to communicate with other executive branch agencies, elements of the 

Intelligence Community, and Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. In an effort to 

improve coordination and interoperability between CBP and ICE, DHS established the Secure 

Border Initiative (SBI) to link a number of organizational components with communications and 

other technology for a comprehensive border enforcement approach. 

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a disciplined command and control (C2) communications 

system that consists of several integrated components that are designed to be interoperable with 

DoD components in times of national emergency and/or war. The U.S. Coast Guard plays an 

active role in Federal interoperability forums, including the ECPC and Federal Partnership for 

Interoperable Communications (FPIC).
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 20

Appendix 5: The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum 

The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, developed with practitioner input from the DHS’ 

SAFECOM program, is designed to help emergency response agencies and policymakers plan 

and implement interoperability solutions for data and voice communications. The tool identifies 

five critical elements that must be addressed to achieve a sophisticated interoperability solution: 

governance, standard operating procedures (SOP), technology, training and exercises, and usage 

of interoperable communications. Jurisdictions across the Nation can use the SAFECOM 

Interoperability Continuum to track their progress in strengthening interoperable 

communications. 

Exhibit A5-1: SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum 

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements

Interoperability is a multidimensional challenge. To gain a true picture of a jurisdiction’s 

interoperability capabilities, its progress in each of the five interdependent elements must be 

considered. For example, when a jurisdiction procures new equipment, it also should plan and 

conduct training and exercises to ensure that it make the best use of the equipment. What 

constitutes optimal interoperability is determined by the individual needs of an agency or 

jurisdiction. The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum is a guide for jurisdictions when they 

are considering new interoperability solution, either because their needs have changed or because 

additional funding has become available. An evolving tool, the SAFECOM Interoperability 

Continuum supports the National Preparedness Strategy and aligns with national frameworks, 

including, but not limited to, the National Response Framework, NIMS, the National Emergency 

Communications Plan, and the National Communications Baseline Assessment. To maximize 

the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum’s value to the emergency response community, 

SAFECOM will regularly update the tool using a consensus process that involves practitioners, 

technical experts, and representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 21

Appendix 6: NECP Stakeholder Coordination 

OEC used a three-phased approach to develop the NECP that relied on stakeholder involvement 

at each stage: Data Gathering and Analysis, Strategy Development, and Plan Development and 

Review. 

Exhibit A6-1: National Emergency Communications Plan Approach 

Stakeholder Outreach and Coordination 

OEC considered stakeholder involvement the single most important element in the NECP 

development process. In accordance with Title XVIII requirements, OEC was directed to 

develop the NECP in cooperation with Federal departments and agencies; State, local, and tribal 

governments; emergency response providers; and the private sector. To engage this diverse 

group of stakeholders, OEC established a cross-governmental focus group of emergency 

response personnel and coordinated with existing councils, committees, associations, and 

partnerships that represent the emergency response community. 

At the Federal level, OEC coordinated with the Emergency Communications Preparedness 

Center (ECPC) and the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC). At the 

State and local levels, OEC worked closely with the SAFECOM Executive 

Committee/Emergency Response Council (EC/ERC) and the National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council (NPSTC). Private sector involvement was coordinated through the 

Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), which included representatives 

from the Communications Sector Coordinating Council, the Emergency Services Coordinating 

Council, the Information Technology Coordination Council, and the State, local, territorial, and 

Tribal Government Coordinating Council. 

Phase 1: Data Gathering and Analysis 

As a key first phase in the development process, OEC drew heavily from a foundation of 

emergency communications documentation and initiatives. During this data gathering and 

analysis phase, OEC worked in coordination with stakeholders to identify key emergency 

communications policies, strategies, plans, and reports for consideration. OEC then analyzed 

findings, lessons learned, issues, gaps, priorities, and recommendations from numerous sources, 

including the NCCR; SCIPs; the 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey and numerous 

after-action reports from September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina and other recent natural and 

man-made incidents. These source documents were key drivers for the NECP’s assessment of 

the current state-of-emergency communications and also helped shape the NECP’s strategic 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 22

goals, objectives, and initiatives. A list of the key documentation used to develop the NECP is 

presented in Appendix 7. 

Phase 2: Strategy Development 

Next, OEC worked closely with stakeholders to develop the high-level strategy for the NECP. 

Building on the legislative requirements, OEC used information gleaned from the data gathering 

and analysis effort, as well as stakeholder involvement, to craft the NECP’s overarching strategic 

goals and priority initiatives. OEC worked with key coordination bodies (e.g., EC/ERC, ECPC, 

and NECP Focus Group) to develop and prioritize the specific near- and long-term emergency 

communications actions needed to implement these initiatives. 

Phase 3: Plan Development and Review 

During the final phases of NECP development, OEC conducted extensive outreach efforts to 

ensure that both DHS and external public and private sector stakeholders had an opportunity to 

review the document. Exhibit A6-2 illustrates the key steps in the evolution of the NECP—the 

key inputs and the considerations that shaped its goals and initiatives—and also demonstrates 

how OEC will work with the emergency response community to use the plan as a framework to 

improve its communications planning and capabilities as well as overall coordination 

nationwide. 

Exhibit A6-2: Key Steps in Evolution of the NECP 

The success of the NECP requires the commitment of all emergency response disciplines at all 

levels of government. Achieving its goals and priority objectives will require coordination 

across geographical, political, and cultural jurisdictions and boundaries. OEC’s current levers 

and incentives for driving NECP implementation include the provision of technical assistance to 

State, regional, local and tribal government officials; grant guidance and the coordination of 

DHS administered grant programs (such as the IECGP); and the coordination of Federal 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 23

activities through the ECPC and FPIC. In addition, OEC will use statutory reporting 

requirements to monitor and report on progress towards implementing the NECP (e.g., State 

annual reports under the IECGP, the RECCWG annual reports, the ECPC annual strategic 

assessment, and OEC’s assessment and biennial progress reports). 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 24

Appendix 7: NECP Source Documents 

State, Local, and Tribal

National Governors Association 2007 State Homeland Security Directors Survey. National 

Governors Association. December 2007. 

Public safety interoperable communications

topped the list of homeland security advisors’ 

concerns in 2007, as States continue to work to 

ensure that first responders from various 

agencies, jurisdictions, and levels of government 

can speak to each other during emergencies or at 

the scene of a disaster. 

Emergency Response Council Agreements 

on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable 

Communications. SAFECOM Emergency 

Response Council (ERC) (with support from 

the Office of Emergency Communications and 

the Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility). July 2007. 

Source: National Governors Association 2007 

State Homeland Security Directors Survey 

Indian Country Border Security and Tribal Interoperability Pilot Program: The Importance of 

Tribes at the Frontlines of Border and Homeland Security (TBS Pilot Program) Final Report. The 

National Native American Law Enforcement Association; the National Congress of American Indians. 

March 2006. 

National Associations, Task Forces, Advisory Committees, and Panels

Joint Advisory Committee on Communications Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public 

Health Care Facilities Report to Congress. February 2008.

IP-based networks enable first responders to 

have the flexibility and tools they need for 

effective response and ... modernize their 

existing radio networks so they work together 

with other existing and future communications 

networks and devices. 

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) Homeland Security 

& Preparedness Version 2.1. 

APCO International. September 2007. 

National Security Telecommunications 

Advisory Committee Report on Emergency 

Communications and Interoperability. The 

President’s National Security 

Telecommunications Advisory Committee. 

January 2007. 

Source: The Joint Advisory Committee on 

Communications Capabilities of Emergency 

Medical and Public Health Care Facilities, 

February 2008 

FCC Independent Panel Reviewing the 

Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks. Federal Communications Commission 

Industry Panel. June 2006 

Why Can’t We Talk? National Task Force on Interoperability. February 2003.

Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications 

Commission. September 1996. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 25

Federal Government Reports, Assessments, Plans, and Strategies

Congress, White House, and Special Commissions

The National Strategy for Homeland Security. White 

House Homeland Security Council. October 2007. The nation’s emergency communications 

systems “must be resilient, either able 

to withstand destructive forces regardless of 

cause or sufficiently redundant to suffer 

damage and remain reliable. 

The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to 

Investigate the Preparation for and Response to 

Hurricane Katrina. Select Bipartisan Committee to 

Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane 

Katrina, U.S. House of Representatives. February 2006. 

Source: The National Strategy for Homeland 

Security, revised October 2007 

The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons 

Learned. White House Homeland Security Advisor. 

February 2006. 

Communications challenges across the Gulf 

Coast region in Hurricane Katrina’s wake 

were more a problem of basic operability, 

than one of equipment or system The 9-11 Commission Report interoperability. . The National Commission 

on Terrorist Attacks. July 2004. Source: Federal Response to Hurricane 

Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006 

The Department of Homeland Security 

The National Communications Capabilities Report. Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Emergency Communications. March 2008. 

Target Capabilities List: A Companion to the National Preparedness Guideline. Department of 

Homeland Security. September 2007. 

National Incident Management System (NIMS). Department of Homeland Security. August 2007. 

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP): Communications Sector Specific Plan. 

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection. May 2007. 

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Emergency Services. Department of Homeland 

Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection. May 2007. 

Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards Summary Report. Department of Homeland 

Security. January 2007. 

2006 SAFECOM Survey— Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) Program 

Assessment. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA. 

January 2007. 

– 66% of public agencies use interoperability 

to some degree 

– Interoperability at local levels tends to be 

more advanced than between State and 

local agencies 

SAFECOM 2006: National Interoperability Baseline TICP Scorecards—

Survey. Department of Homeland Security, SAFECOM 

Program. December 2006.

– 68% of urban metro areas had established 

regional interoperability 

– 80% of urban/metro areas use shared 

systems and/or shared channels daily to 

Answering the Call: Communication Lessons Learned provide interoperability 

from the Pentagon Attack. Department of Homeland 

Security, Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Program. January 2002.
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 26

Appendix 8: Glossary of Terms 

Agreements. Governance capability sub-element encompassing mechanisms approved to 

govern interagency coordination and the use of interoperable emergency communications 

solutions. 

Continuity of Communications. Ability of emergency response agencies to maintain 

communications capabilities when primary infrastructure is damaged or destroyed.

Cross-Discipline. Involving emergency response providers from different disciplines (e.g., 

police, fire, EMS). 

Cross-Jurisdiction. Involving emergency response providers from different jurisdictions (e.g., 

across State, county, or regional boundaries). 

Decision-Making Groups. Governance capability sub-element that refers to a collection of 

public safety practitioners and leaders who pool their expertise to improve interoperable 

emergency communications. 

Emergency Communications. Means and methods for transmitting and receiving information 

necessary for successful incident management, when needed and as authorized. 

Exercises. Training and exercises capability sub-element encompassing emergency scenarios 

developed to establish proficiency in identifying communications resources needed and 

available, implementing processes and procedures, and leveraging solutions to effectively 

establish and maintain communications. 

Funding. Governance capability sub-element encompassing the levels and reliability of 

financial resources available for one-time capital investments and recurring operating costs in 

support of interoperable emergency communications. 

Frequency of Use and Familiarity. Usage capability sub-element encompassing the level of 

familiarity, proficiency, and frequency with which interoperable emergency communications 

solutions are activated and used. 

Governance. Capability element that includes government leadership, decision-making groups, 

agreements, funding, and strategic planning. 

Interoperability. Ability of emergency responders to communicate among jurisdictions, 

disciplines, frequency bands, and levels of government as needed and as authorized. System 

operability is required for system interoperability. 

Jurisdiction. Geographical, political, or system boundary as defined by each State.

Leadership. Governance capability sub-element encompassing the involvement of government 

leaders and their commitment to ensuring the political and fiscal priority of interoperable 

emergency communications. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 27

 

Operability. Ability of emergency responders to establish and sustain communications in 

support of mission operations.

Operability Assurance. Process of ensuring that emergency response providers and 

government officials can continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of 

terrorism, or other man-made disasters. 

Policies, Practices, and Procedures. Standard operating procedures sub-element encompassing 

the range of formal and informal communications policies, practices, and procedures. 

Private Sector Emergency Response Providers. Businesses and other nongovernmental 

organizations that provide emergency services in support of major incidents. 

Response Level Emergency Communications. Capacity of individuals with primary 

operational leadership responsibility33 to manage resources and make timely decisions during a 

multi-agency incident without technical or procedural communications impediments. In addition 

to communicating to first-level subordinates in the field, the Operations Section Chief should be 

able to communicate upwards to the incident command level34 (e.g. between the Operations 

Section Chief and Incident Command). As the incident grows and transitions, Incident 

Command/Unified Command can move off scene and may require communication between 

Incident Command and off-scene EOCs, dispatch centers, and other support groups as 

appropriate. 

Routine Incidents. Emergencies that happen on a regular basis. Examples of these types of 

events are further explained in the Usage element of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum 

as planned events, localized emergency incidents, regional incident management (interstate or 

intrastate), and daily use throughout the region. 

Significant Incidents. Interoperability and continuity of communications are the emphasis for 

response-level emergency communications during significant events. Homeland Security 

Presidential Directive 8: National Preparedness (HSPD-8) sets forth 15 national planning 

scenarios that highlight a plausible range of significant events, such as terrorist attacks, major 

disasters, and other emergencies, that pose the greatest risk to the Nation. Any of these 15 

scenarios should be considered when planning for a significant incident in which all major 

emergency communications infrastructure is destroyed. 

Standard Operating Procedures. Capability element that includes the range of informal and 

formal policies, practices, and procedures that guide emergency responder interactions and the 

use of interoperable communications solutions. 

Strategic Planning. Governance capability sub-element encompassing the disciplined efforts 

and processes to establish long-term goals and objectives for interoperable emergency 

communications. 

System Functionality. Technology capability sub-element encompassing the range of fixed and 

mobile/deployable systems and equipment used for interoperable emergency communications 

and associated voice, data, and video capabilities. 

33 As defined in the National Incident Command System 200 - Unit 2 - Leadership and Management. 34  As defined in the National Incident Management System, FEMA 501/Draft August 2007, p.47. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 28

System Performance. Technology capability sub-element encompassing the availability, 

reliability, and scalability of communications systems and equipment. 

Technology. Capability element that encompasses the systems and equipment that enable 

emergency responders to share information efficiently and securely during an emergency 

incident, and addresses the functionality, performance, interoperability, and continuity 

capabilities of those systems and equipment. 

Training. Training and exercises capability sub-element encompassing the scope and frequency 

of educational activities related to interoperable emergency communications. 

Training and Exercises. Capability element that includes educational activities and simulations 

conducted to help ensure that emergency responders know their roles and are properly prepared 

to respond to a wide range of emergencies. 

Usage. Capability element that refers to the frequency and familiarity with which emergency 

responders use interoperable emergency communications solutions. 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 29

Appendix 9: Acronyms 

AEL Authorized Equipment List 

AES Advanced Encryption Standard 

AFG Assistance to Firefighters Grants 

APCO Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials–International 

APIC APCO Project 25 Interface Committee 

AVL Automatic Vehicle Location 

BBTG APIC Broadband Task Group 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BORTAC Border Tactical Communications 

CAI Common Air Interface 

CAP Common Alerting Protocol 

CAP Compliance Assessment Program 

CASM Communications Asset Survey and Mapping Tool 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CCI Command, Control and Interoperability 

CCP Citizen Corps Program 

CDMA Code Division Multiple Access 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CIPAC Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council 

COG Continuity of Government 

COML Communications Unit Leader 

COMT Communications Unit Technicians 

COOP Continuity of Operations 

COP Committee of Principals 

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services 

CTCSS Continuous Tone Controlled Squelch System 

DEC Disaster Emergency Communications 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DIRS Disaster Information Reporting System 

DM Disaster Management 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOJ Department of Justice 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 30

DOT Department of Transportation 

DSCA Defense Support to Civil Authorities 

EC/ERC Executive Committee/Emergency Response Council (SAFECOM) 

ECPC Emergency Communications Preparedness Center 

EDXL Emergency Data Exchange Language 

EMS Emergency Medical Services 

EMT Emergency Medical Technician 

EOC Emergency Operations Center 

ESF Emergency Support Function 

FAS Frequency Assignment Subcommittee 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FCD Federal Continuity Directive 

FDMA Frequency Division Multiple Access 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard 

FLEWUG Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group 

FM Frequency Modulation 

FPIC Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications 

FY Fiscal Year 

G&T Grants and Training 

GETS Government Emergency Telecommunications Service 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GSM Global System for Mobile Communications 

HAZMAT Hazardous Material 

HF High Frequency 

HSEEP Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive 

Hz Hertz 

ICC Interoperable Communications Committee 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICP Incident Command Post 

ICS Incident Command System 

ICTAP Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program 

iDEN Integrated Digital Enhanced Network 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 31

IECGP Interoperable Emergency Communication Grant Program 

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement 

IMSID Incident Management Systems Integration Division 

IP Internet Protocol 

IR Incident Response 

IRAC Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee 

IT Information Technology 

IWN Integrated Wireless Network 

JISCC Joint Incident Site Communications Capability 

JITC Joint Interoperability Test Command 

JNN Joint Network Nodes 

JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System 

kHz Kilohertz 

LE Law Enforcement 

LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committee 

LETPP Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 

LMR Land Mobile Radio 

MAA Mutual Aid Agreement 

MERS Mobile Emergency Response Support 

MESA Mobility for Emergency and Safety Applications 

MHz Megahertz 

MMRS Metropolitan Medical Response System 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAC Network Access Code 

NCC National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications 

NCCC National Command and Coordination Capability 

NCCR National Communications Capabilities Report 

NCR National Capital Region 

NCS National Communications System 

NCSD National Communications System Directive 

NECP National Emergency Communications Plan 

NERCS National Emergency Responder Credentialing System 

NGB National Guard Bureau 

NGO Nongovernmental Organization 

NIC National Integration Center 

NIEM National Information Exchange Model 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 32

NIFOG National Interoperability Field Operations Guide 

NIJ National Institute of Justice 

NIMS National Incident Management System 

NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NORTHCOM U.S. Northern Command 

NPSPAC National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee 

NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council 

NRF National Response Framework 

NRP National Response Plan 

NS/EP National Security and Emergency Preparedness 

NSTAC National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee 

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

NVOAD National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters 

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

OEC Office of Emergency Communications 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

OIC Office for Interoperability and Compatibility 

P25 Project 25 

PDA Personal Digital Assistant 

PSAP Public Safety Answering Point 

PSIC Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program 

PSWAC Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee 

PSWN Public Safety Wireless Network 

PTT Push-to-Talk 

QoS Quality of Service 

R&D Research and Development 

RADO Radio Operator 

RDT&E Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation 

RECCWG Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group 

RF Radio Frequency 

RoIP Radio over Internet Protocol 

SBI Secure Border Initiative 

SCIP Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan 

SdoC Supplier’s Declaration of Compliance 

SDR Software Defined Radio 
National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 33

SEL Standardized Equipment List 

SHARES Shared Resources Program 

SHSP State Homeland Security Program 

SIEC State Interoperability Executive Council 

SME Subject Matter Expert 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

STR Strategic Technology Reserve 

SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics 

TCL Target Capabilities List 

TDMA Time Division Multiple Access 

TIA Telecommunications Industry Association 

TICP Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan 

TOPOFF Top Officials 

TSP Telecommunications Service Priority 

UA Urban Areas 

UASI Urban Area Security Initiative 

UCALL UHF Calling Channel 

UHF Ultra High Frequency 

ULS Universal Licensing System 

UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFS United States Forest Service 

UTAC UHF Talk Around Channel 

VCALL VHF Calling Channel 

VA Department of Veteran Affairs 

VHF Very High Frequency 

VoIP Voice over Internet Protocol 

VTAC VHF Talk Around Channel 

WIN-T Warfighter Information Network - Tactical 

WPS Wireless Priority Service