2014

National Emergency

Communications Plan
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

This page intentionally left blank. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

 i 

MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY 

Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established in 2003, one of its top priorities has 

been—and will continue to be—enhancing the communications capabilities of the Nation’s emergency 

responders. Ensuring operable and interoperable communications and real-time information sharing 

among responders during all threats and hazards is paramount to the safety and security of all 

Americans. 

Emergency communications is a shared mission across all levels of government, the private sector, 

nongovernmental organizations, and even the public. The National Emergency Communications Plan is 

the cornerstone for coordinating this complex mission. The first Plan, published in 2008, was a 

tremendous success thanks to cross-stakeholder engagement and partnerships. DHS worked closely 

with emergency responders at all levels of government to meet critical benchmarks that were 

established in the Plan, including the most comprehensive nationwide assessment of communications 

used by response agencies and individuals. Emergency communications have improved since the first 

National Emergency Communications Plan due to the hard work and spirit of cooperation that are 

prevalent across the public safety community. 

Many changes in the communications operating environment have occurred in recent years, presenting 

both opportunities and challenges for those involved in emergency communications. These changes 

include the emergence of new technologies to communicate and share information during emergencies, 

such as broadband services, applications, and social media, as well as the modernization of networks, 

devices, and information systems that support emergency communications. Concurrently in recent 

years, the Nation has adopted policies that focus on engaging the “whole community” in national 

preparedness activities. 

As a result of this changing environment, DHS has worked closely with Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

territorial jurisdictions and the private sector to update the National Emergency Communications Plan 

with the goal of bringing public safety communications into the 21st Century. This Plan aims to 

maximize the use of all communications capabilities available to emergency responders—voice, video, 

and data—as well as ensure the security of data and information. To do so, the National Emergency 

Communications Plan emphasizes the need for enhancing and updating the policies, governance 

structures, planning, and protocols that enable responders to communicate and share information 

under all circumstances. 

As with the first National Emergency Communications Plan, success will require the support and 

dedication of the emergency communications community that was instrumental in developing the 

recommendations set forth. To that end, I ask for your continued cooperation and assistance as we 

begin the implementation process for the 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan. Only by 

working together will we make progress toward increasing the speed, effectiveness, and efficiency of 

incident-related information sharing and ultimately help save lives and protect America’s communities. 

Jeh Charles Johnson 

Secretary of Homeland Security

Message from the Secretary
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

This page intentionally left blank. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

2014 Goals and Recommendations ii

2014 GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 GOAL 1 – GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP: Enhance decision-making, coordination, and planning for 

emergency communications through strong governance structures and leadership.

Recommendations: 

 Update governance structures and processes to address the evolving operating environment. 

 Increase intra-State collaboration of communications, broadband, and information technology 

activities. 

 Increase regional structures or processes to foster multi-State coordination and information sharing. 

 Enable the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center to serve as the Federal focal point for 

coordination with the First Responder Network Authority. 

 Increase coordination of public safety and national security and emergency preparedness 

communications requirements and policies. 

 Promote opportunities to share Federal emergency communications infrastructure and resources. 

 Promote consistent policies across Federal grant programs and investments. 

 Improve the ability to assess the impact of emergency communications grant funding. 

 GOAL 2 – PLANNING AND PROCEDURES: Update plans and procedures to improve emergency responder 

communications and readiness in a dynamic operating environment. 

Recommendations:

 Update Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans to maintain Land Mobile Radio systems 

and address wireless broadband deployments. 

 Coordinate Federal strategic planning for broadband capabilities through the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center. 

 Enable One DHS to lead the implementation of a DHS strategic plan for emergency communications. 

 Ensure nationwide public safety broadband planning is coordinated throughout each State and 

territory and focuses on responders’ current and future needs. 

 Establish points of contact to coordinate Federal broadband planning and deployment activities. 

 Expand lifecycle planning activities to address broadband deployments and security, as needed. 

 Evaluate, update, and distribute standard operating procedures to address new technologies and 

align them to tactical plans. 

 Ensure standard operating procedures reflect current use of priority telecommunications services. 

 Coordinate with entities from across the broader emergency response community to develop 

communications standard operating procedures. 

 GOAL 3 – TRAINING AND EXERCISES: Improve responders’ ability to coordinate and communicate 

through training and exercise programs that use all available technologies and target gaps in 

emergency communications. 

Recommendations:

 Develop training and exercise programs that target gaps in emergency communications capabilities 

and use new technologies. 

 Identify opportunities to integrate more private and public sector communications stakeholders 

into training and exercises. 

 Increase responder proficiency with Federal and national interoperability channels through training 

and exercises. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

2014 Goals and Recommendations iii

 Use regional governance structures to develop and promote training and exercise opportunities. 

 Leverage technologies, conferences, and workshops to increase training and exercise opportunities. 

 Promote awareness of and cross-training among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial Incident 

Command System Communications Unit personnel through training and exercises. 

 Develop and share best practices on processes to recognize trained Communications Unit 

personnel. 

 Improve States’ and territories’ ability to track and share trained Communications Unit personnel 

during response operations. 

 GOAL 4 – OPERATIONAL COORDINATION: Ensure operational effectiveness through the coordination of 

emergency communications capabilities, resources, and personnel from across the whole 

community.

Recommendations:

 Ensure inventories of emergency communication resources are updated and comprehensive. 

 Enhance jurisdictions’ ability to readily request communications resources or assets during 

operations. 

 Implement Incident Command System communications-related roles, responsibilities, and planning. 

 Ensure operational planning incorporates new technologies and communications partners. 

 Ensure Public Safety Answering Point and Public Safety Communications Center continuity of 

operations planning addresses systems and staffing to support dispatch communications. 

 Update procedures for implementing backup communications solutions. 

 Increase Federal departments’ and agencies’ preparation and support for local emergency 

communications needs. 

 GOAL 5 – RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: Coordinate research, development, testing, and evaluation 

activities to develop innovative emergency communications capabilities that support the needs of 

emergency responders.

Recommendations:

 Coordinate Federal research and development priorities and user requirements through the 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center. 

 Increase collaboration between Federal research and development and technology transfer 

programs across the homeland security, defense, and national security communities. 

 Foster collaborative mission critical voice, data, and cybersecurity research, development, testing 

and evaluation. 

 Government research facilities should facilitate the integration of Next Generation 9-1-1 into a 

nationwide solution. 

 Cultivate an innovative marketplace for applications and technologies through the use of public and 

private partnerships. 

 Support the evolution of alert and warning systems that deliver timely, relevant, and accessible 

emergency information to the public. 

 Update priority service programs to successfully migrate to internet protocol-enabled fixed and 

mobile broadband networks. 

 Increase use and awareness of the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program. 

 Continue to support Project 25 standards development for interoperability.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Table of Contents iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 PROGRESS ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ..................................................... 4

2.0 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LANDSCAPE ................................................................................ 7

2.1 LAND MOBILE RADIO AND WIRELESS BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................... 8

2.2 BROADBAND APPLICATIONS AND SERVICES ............................................................................................... 9

2.3 MODERNIZING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE ACROSS 

THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.................................................................................................................... 10

3.0 NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN STRATEGIC COMPONENTS ..............................15

3.1 GOAL 1: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP............................................................................................... 16

3.2 GOAL 2: PLANNING AND PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 24

3.3 GOAL 3: TRAINING AND EXERCISES ....................................................................................................... 30

3.4 GOAL 4: OPERATIONAL COORDINATION ................................................................................................ 36

3.5 GOAL 5: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................ 42

4.0 IMPLEMENTING AND MEASURING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ...........48

4.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT ................................................................................................. 48

4.2 PLANNING AND REPORTING.................................................................................................................. 50

5.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 52

APPENDIX 1: LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS MATRIX ............................................................................................. A-1

APPENDIX 2: KEY AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES ................................................................................................ A-3

APPENDIX 3: PART OF A BROADER PREPAREDNESS STRATEGY............................................................................. A-7

APPENDIX 4: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................ A-12

APPENDIX 5: SAFECOM INTEROPERABILITY CONTINUUM .................................................................................. A-20

APPENDIX 6: SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IMPLEMENTING THE 2008 NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS 

PLAN........................................................................................................................................................... A-21

APPENDIX 7: SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES ....................................................................................... A-28

APPENDIX 8: 2008 NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA ............... A-32

APPENDIX 9: GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................................... A-36

APPENDIX 10: ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................... A-44
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

This page intentionally left blank. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Executive Summary v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the National Emergency 

Communications Plan (or the Plan) to accelerate improvements for public safety communications 

nationwide. Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 

2002, as amended, directs the DHS Office of Emergency 

Communications to develop and periodically update the 

National Emergency Communications Plan in 

coordination with Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, 

and private sector stakeholders.1

 The law also directs 

the Plan to set benchmarks for enhancing emergency 

communications capabilities and for the Office of 

Emergency Communications to measure progress 

toward achieving those milestones. 

The emergency communications landscape has evolved into a new, complex operating environment 

since the release of the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan. Among the key developments 

are major changes in policy, legislation, budget conditions, and communications technologies. This 

includes the establishment of the First Responder Network Authority, which is charged with ensuring 

the building, deployment, and operation of a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. 

To prepare stakeholders for this dynamic environment, the Office of Emergency Communications led a 

national effort to update the National Emergency Communications Plan to account for new technologies 

for emergency responders. This Plan also addresses the necessity of Land Mobile Radio systems for 

ensuring the availability of mission critical voice capabilities. 

The Office of Emergency Communications conducted outreach to more than 350 stakeholders involved 

in emergency communications to develop this version of the National Emergency Communications Plan. 

This included representatives from all major public safety organizations; emergency management 

agencies; Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments; the private sector; and other 

emergency response agencies or entities such as utilities, nongovernmental organizations, and auxiliary 

resources. 

Leveraging the foundation established by the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan, this Plan 

aims to improve the key communications capabilities of emergency responders at all levels of 

government—notably the policies, governance structures, planning, and protocols that enable them to 

communicate and share information under all circumstances. The National Emergency Communications 

Plan’s top priorities for the next three to five years are: 

 

1

Title 6 United States Code, § 572.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Executive Summary vi 

 Identifying and prioritizing areas for improvement in emergency responders’ Land Mobile Radio 

systems; 

 Ensuring emergency responders and government officials plan and prepare for the adoption, 

integration, and use of broadband technologies, including the planning and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network; and 

 Enhancing coordination among stakeholders, processes, and planning activities across the 

emergency response community. 

To achieve these priorities, the Office of Emergency Communications has centered the National 

Emergency Communications Plan around five goals that provide continuity with the first national plan 

and align to the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.

2

 The National Emergency Communications Plan 

goals are strategic in nature and aim to enhance emergency communications capabilities at all levels of 

government in coordination with the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and communities 

across the Nation. The five National Emergency Communications Plan goals are: 

 Goal 1 - Governance and Leadership: Enhance decision-making, coordination, and planning for 

emergency communications through strong governance structures and leadership

 Goal 2 - Planning and Procedures: Update plans and procedures to improve emergency 

responder communications and readiness in a dynamic operating environment 

 Goal 3 - Training and Exercises: Improve responders’ ability to coordinate and communicate 

through training and exercise programs that use all available technologies and target gaps in 

emergency communications 

 Goal 4 - Operational Coordination: Ensure operational effectiveness through the coordination of 

communications capabilities, resources, and personnel from across the whole community 

 Goal 5 - Research and Development: Coordinate research, development, testing, and evaluation 

activities to develop innovative emergency communications capabilities that support the needs of 

emergency responders

To implement the 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan, the Office of Emergency 

Communications will coordinate with public safety agencies and emergency responders from across the 

Nation through partnerships such as the SAFECOM Executive Committee/Emergency Response Council, 

the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, and the National Council of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators, among others. Together, DHS and its partners will identify strategies and 

timelines to accomplish the Plan’s goals, objectives, and recommendations and measure progress 

nationwide. The National Emergency Communications Plan’s results will help DHS and Federal, State, 

local, tribal, and territorial stakeholders target their resources for emergency communications, including 

training, technical assistance, planning, outreach, and response and recovery operations.

 

2

 See Appendix 5 for more information on the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Executive Summary vii

The future of emergency communications is at a critical juncture. Through the National Emergency 

Communications Plan and the work of the Office of Emergency Communications and its partners, DHS is

committed to ensuring that our Nation’s emergency responders can meet their mission needs and 

achieve the long-term vision of the Plan: 

To enable the Nation’s emergency response community to communicate and share 

information across levels of government, jurisdictions, disciplines, and organizations for all 

threats and hazards, as needed and when authorized
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Introduction 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Nation’s preparedness and resilience continue to be tested by emergencies and disasters of varying 

scope and magnitude. This includes natural disasters that stretch across jurisdictional borders, such as 

hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornados; active shooter incidents in both large and small communities; 

and individual and terrorists’ attempts to disrupt the safety and security of the American people, 

including the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. These and other emergencies are stark reminders that 

our Nation must be ready to respond to all types of threats and hazards—whether natural, 

technological, or man-made. 

Since the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) establishment in 2003, one of its top priorities has 

been to improve the communications capabilities of those who are often the first to arrive at the scene 

of an incident: the Nation’s emergency responders. DHS has partnered with the emergency response 

community to ensure that law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel have access 

to reliable and interoperable communications at all times in order to save lives, protect property and the 

environment, stabilize communities, and meet basic human needs following an incident.3 This 

relationship reflects the fact that a government-centric 

approach is not sufficient to meet the challenges posed by 

today’s threats and hazards.4

 

Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 provided 

renewed focus and vitality to this critical homeland security 

mission.5

 The legislation established the DHS Office of 

Emergency Communications to lead the development and implementation of a comprehensive national 

approach to advance national interoperable communications capabilities. To achieve this objective, the 

Act also required DHS to develop the National Emergency Communications Plan (or the Plan).6

 

3

The term “response” is defined in the National Preparedness Goal and National Response Framework. The Goal establishes 

the capabilities and outcomes the Nation must accomplish in order to be secure and resilient. The National Response 

Framework is a guide to how the Nation responds to all types of disasters and emergencies. http://www.fema.gov/nationalresponse-framework. 

4

 Federal Emergency Management Agency. A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, 

and Pathways for Action, December 2011, pg. 2.

5

Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 109-295).

6

 Appendix 1 provides a legislative compliance matrix that maps the National Emergency Communications Plan to its 

requirements in Title 6 United States Code § 572.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Introduction 2

As the Nation’s first strategic plan for emergency 

communications, the National Emergency Communications 

Plan established a vision for emergency responders at all 

levels of government to strive to achieve: ensuring the 

availability of communications as needed, on demand, and 

as authorized across all disciplines and jurisdictions. To 

achieve this vision, the Plan approached interoperability as

a critical capability that must be developed and enhanced 

through partnerships, ongoing training, and joint planning 

and investments at all levels of government.

Since the release of the first National Emergency 

Communications Plan in 2008, several technological, policy, 

and other developments have directly impacted emergency 

communications. One key development is the Nationwide 

Public Safety Broadband Network, which will be deployed 

using wireless Internet Protocol-based technologies. The 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network will transform 

how emergency responders communicate and share information by increasing the availability of 

wireless broadband access and innovative mobile applications to public safety personnel nationwide. 

In addition to technological developments, new policies provide direction for Federal departments and 

agencies on critical issues such as National Security and Emergency Preparedness communications.7

 

Simultaneously, the Nation is evolving its approach to preparing for and responding to incidents through 

the National Preparedness Goal, which promotes a shared responsibility across all levels of government, 

private and nonprofit sectors, and the general public. DHS is also partnering with public and private 

sector stakeholders to improve the cybersecurity and resiliency of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, 

including telecommunications networks and emergency services.8

 The National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience guides the national 

effort to manage risk to the Nation’s critical infrastructure. 

Further, although natural phenomena such as hurricanes and other extreme weather events are not 

new hazards, trends in the frequency and severity of such events have increased their impact on the 

Nation. The DHS 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review identifies evolving threats from natural 

disasters as having major implications for national preparedness and resilience, including emergency 

communications.9

7

Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions, assigns 

national security and emergency preparedness communications functions to Federal Government entities to ensure Executive 

Branch communications at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive missions.

8

The National Response Framework defines private sector entities as large, medium, and small businesses; commerce, private 

cultural and educational institutions; and industry, as well as public-private partnerships that have been established specifically 

for emergency management purposes.

9

 Current and future versions of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/quadrennialhomeland-security-review-qhsr. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Introduction 3

1.1 PURPOSE 

In light of this changing environment, the Office of Emergency Communications led a national effort to 

develop a new National Emergency Communications Plan. The focus of this Plan is to ensure that 

strategies, resource decisions, and investments for emergency communications keep pace with the 

evolving environment, and that the emergency response community is collectively driving toward a 

common end-state for communications. 

This version builds on the framework established by the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan 

to enhance the key communications capabilities of emergency responders at all levels of government—

notably the policies, governance structures, and planning and protocols that support their ability to 

communicate and share information under all circumstances.10

To develop the 2014 Plan, the Office of Emergency Communications used an extensive outreach 

process, involving more than 350 stakeholders, to identify the key challenges facing emergency 

communications and propose solutions to address them. The Office of Emergency Communications 

considered input from representatives from all major public safety organizations; Federal, State, local, 

tribal, and territorial governments; and key private sector partners, such as the communications and 

information technology sectors. They recommended updating the Plan’s vision, goals, and objectives to 

reflect emergency responders’ increasing use of data and video services during operations, as well as 

the continued need to maintain or upgrade their Land Mobile Radio mission critical voice 

communications capabilities. 

To that end, the National Emergency Communications Plan identifies three top priorities for emergency 

communications over the next three to five years: 

 Identifying and prioritizing areas for improvement in emergency responders’ Land Mobile Radio 

systems; 

 Ensuring emergency responders and government officials plan and prepare for the adoption, 

integration, and use of broadband technologies, including the planning and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network; and 

 Enhancing coordination among stakeholders, processes, and planning activities across the 

emergency response community. 

1.2 SCOPE

The National Emergency Communications Plan is a plan for the Nation. It provides information and 

guidance to those that plan for, coordinate, invest in, and use communications to support response and 

recovery operations. This includes traditional emergency responder disciplines (e.g., fire, law 

 

10 For purposes of the National Emergency Communications Plan, the terms “share information” or “information sharing” refer 

to the exchange of data, information, or knowledge between various organizations, people, and technologies.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Introduction 4

enforcement, emergency medical services), other entities that need to communicate and share 

information during emergencies, such as public health and medical, public works, and transportation 

agencies, as well as appointed and elected officials. The Plan is also designed for Federal, State, local, 

tribal, and territorial governmental personnel who are responsible for setting mission priorities, 

developing budgets, and planning for and acquiring communications technology assets. 

In addition, the National Emergency Communications Plan seeks to increase coordination and planning 

with the growing number of entities that communicate and share information with public safety 

personnel and organizations during emergencies, including the public and other emergency response 

agencies or entities such as utilities, nongovernmental organizations, international partners, auxiliary 

resources, and commercial service providers.11 In addition to interoperability, the Plan also provides 

recommendations to ensure that emergency response providers and relevant government officials (e.g., 

Federal Executive Branch, State, local, tribal, and territorial officials) can continue to communicate in the 

event of disasters and acts of terrorism.12

1.3 PROGRESS 

The 2014 National Emergency Communications Plan builds upon the progress and lessons learned from 

implementing the 2008 Plan. As part of its legislative requirements, the Plan established a baseline level 

of interoperability and set timeframes for jurisdictions to achieve the baseline. Through the 2008 

National Emergency Communications Plan goals, the Office of Emergency Communications measured 

communications capabilities throughout all 56 States and territories. More than 90 percent of the 2008 

Plan’s milestones to enhance emergency communications capabilities were achieved, and the Nation’s 

jurisdictions collectively demonstrated the Plan’s performance-based goals.13

Further, in addition to successfully meeting the Plan’s requirements, the National Emergency 

Communications Plan improved key foundational elements for effective emergency communications. 

For example, as a result of the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan, dozens of new 

governance structures and leadership positions were established at the State and territorial levels to 

coordinate planning and decision-making for interoperability and broadband deployment. In addition, 

hundreds of local public safety agencies have developed tactical plans and protocols to coordinate 

communications during emergencies, and several thousand responders and technicians have been 

trained to lead communications during incidents across the Nation. 

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 

The 2014 Plan supersedes the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan and is effective 

immediately. The framework of the National Emergency Communications Plan is organized as follows: 

 

11 Per the National Response Framework, nongovernmental organizations include voluntary, racial and ethnic, faith-based, 

veteran-based, and nonprofit organizations that provide sheltering, emergency food supplies, and other essential support 

services. Nongovernmental organizations are inherently independent and committed to specific interests and values.

12 6 United States Code § 572.

13 See Appendix 6 for a summary of progress implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Introduction 5

 Section 2.0 – Emergency Communications Landscape. This section provides an overview of the 

evolving operating environment, including key technological developments, and provides 

background for the Plan’s priorities, goals, and recommendations.

 Section 3.0 – National Emergency Communications Plan Strategic Components. This section, as 

depicted in Exhibit 1, establishes the strategy to meet the Plan’s priorities and better position the 

emergency response community for the current and evolving communications operating 

environment. 

 Section 4.0 – Implementation and Measurement. This section describes the approach for 

measuring and assessing progress toward implementing the National Emergency Communications 

Plan and improving emergency communications capabilities at all levels of government, and 

across disciplines, nationwide. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Introduction 6

Exhibit 1. The National Emergency Communications Plan Strategy
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 7

2.0 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS LANDSCAPE 

The emergency communications landscape has changed significantly since publication of the 2008 

National Emergency Communications Plan. At that time, Land Mobile Radio systems were—and still 

are—the primary means for emergency responders to achieve mission critical voice communications. 

Public safety was in the early stages of adopting broadband and mobile data services, and the 

deployment of a nationwide public safety network was a notional concept. As a result, the 2008 

National Emergency Communications Plan goals and priorities were largely focused around building the 

plans, processes, and structures to enhance Land Mobile Radio operability, interoperability, and 

continuity. 

In recent years, a more complex and interdependent landscape has emerged due to new technologies, 

policies, and stakeholders involved in emergency communications. Land Mobile Radio systems 

delivering mission critical voice communications remain an integral component of the landscape; 

however, emergency responders are using more mobile data services and applications to share 

information and augment their mission critical voice 

capabilities. 

In addition, response agencies are becoming more 

connected to other entities that need to communicate 

and share information during emergencies, such as 

public health, medical, and transportation agencies, 

critical infrastructure sectors (e.g., Energy, Information 

Technology, and others), and the public. While 

individuals in these entities are not always trained 

response personnel, they can help share valuable 

information and provide situational awareness during 

response and recovery efforts. This can be attributed to 

technology advancements, such as the widespread use of social media during emergencies, as well as 

new national preparedness doctrine that underscores the importance of engaging the whole community 

during emergencies.14

Moreover, information security and privacy considerations also shape the operating environment. The 

increasing availability of data and information essential to emergency communications operations and 

related technologies has both fundamentally changed and enabled more efficient and effective 

practices. This information is vulnerable to unauthorized access that could affect its confidentiality, 

 

14 Per the National Preparedness Goal, whole community is formally defined as, “A focus on enabling the participation in 

national preparedness activities of a wider range of players from the private and nonprofit sectors, including nongovernmental 

organizations and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of Federal, State, and local governmental partners in 

order to foster better coordination and working relationships.” Refer to Appendix 4, Roles and Responsibilities, for more 

information on the whole community.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 8

integrity, or availability. It is critical to coordinate on security and privacy issues, as well as the 

management of sensitive data, while maintaining the availability and distribution of information for 

those who need it; this entails being transparent about information-sharing practices; protecting 

sources and methods; and ensuring privacy15 and protecting civil liberties, while also enabling law 

enforcement investigations. This section addresses how the convergence of people, processes, and 

technologies is transforming the emergency communications landscape now and into the future. 

2.1 LAND MOBILE RADIO AND WIRELESS BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE 

For nearly a century, the public safety community has used Land Mobile Radio networks for reliable, 

instantaneous, two-way voice communications. Land Mobile Radio systems are designed to meet 

emergency responders’ unique mission critical requirements and support time-sensitive, lifesaving tasks, 

including rapid voice call-setup, group calling capabilities, high-quality audio, and guaranteed priority 

access to the end-user. Because these radio systems support lifesaving operations, they are designed to 

achieve high levels of reliability, redundancy, coverage, and capacity, and can operate in harsh natural 

and man-made environments. Land Mobile Radio technology has progressed over time from 

conventional analog voice service to complex systems incorporating digital and trunking features. These 

enhancements have improved the security, reliability, and functionality of voice communications. 

For the foreseeable future, the public safety community is expected to follow a multi-path approach to 

network infrastructure use and development. Land Mobile Radio systems will remain the primary tool 

for mission critical voice communications for many years to come; in fact, for many public safety 

agencies, maintaining their Land Mobile Radio systems and 

improving operability and interoperability continue to be their top 

communications priorities. 

To augment their Land Mobile Radio capabilities, emergency 

response agencies are increasingly using commercial wireless 

broadband services and, in some cases, procuring private 

broadband networks with faster data capabilities. Although 

commercial broadband networks do not meet public safety’s 

unique requirements for mission critical voice communications, 

they can provide a range of data capabilities that enhance 

operational efficiency. 

 

15

 Applying Fair Information Practice Principles to government and private sector stakeholder programs is a best practice for 

ensuring that privacy protections are included. The Fair Information Practice Principles are the widely-accepted framework of 

principles used to assess and mitigate privacy impacts of information systems, processes, or programs. It contains eight 

interdependent principles: Transparency, Individual Participation, Purpose Specification, Data Minimization, Use Limitation, 

Data Quality and Integrity, Security, and Accountability and Auditing. These principles form a framework that can be applied to 

any type of information collection, use, or sharing activity; the exact implementation of each principle, however, will vary based 

upon context. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 9

Broadband networks, particularly the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, stand to transform 

how emergency responders will communicate by providing unparalleled connectivity and bandwidth 

that enhance situational awareness and information sharing. Moreover, the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network will offer emergency responders benefits that are not available using only 

commercial systems, including the ability to provide coverage of underserved geographic areas and the 

ability to prioritize bandwidth allocations for public safety use, especially during catastrophic incidents. 

The emergency response community’s adoption of broadband capabilities is likely to occur in phases 

over several years. The pace will vary among agencies and jurisdictions depending on the requirements 

of the local operating environment, the lifecycle of current communications systems, and funding levels. 

As the public safety community integrates broadband into its emergency communications operations, a 

number of challenges will need to be addressed at all levels of government. These challenges will 

involve not only technology but, much like Land Mobile Radio, will also involve governance, standard 

operating procedures, training, and sustainable investments. 

2.2 BROADBAND APPLICATIONS AND SERVICES

The move toward a wireless broadband infrastructure will provide the means to transfer large amounts 

of data almost anywhere, at any time, at much faster rates than those available today. Similar to the 

commercial Internet, this high-bandwidth connectivity will allow mobile public safety personnel to use 

software applications to easily exchange media-rich information for emergency response and recovery. 

Mobile applications and services are one of the largest, fastest-growing commercial markets in the 

world. Table 1 provides several examples of public safety broadband applications in use today. Such 

solutions—developed as part of the broader, commercially-based, broadband communications 

ecosystem—will constantly evolve and improve along with innovations in commercial technology. 

Table 1. Examples of Public Safety Broadband Applications

Video Streaming

A firefighter’s helmet camera is streaming real-time video back to an emergency 

operations center. Video surveillance feed from an ensuing crime scene is sent to 

dispatch and then to multiple responders within seconds.

Mapping/

Location-Based 

Services 

Geocoded police points of interest appear on a map on an officer’s mobile device 

as they move about a jurisdiction; map push-pins represent addresses flagged for 

known hazards and include drill-down information such as street level photos and 

recent crime data.

Large Data File 

Transfers 

Detailed images from a disaster scene are integrated with incident management 

databases for decision by incident commanders. Building blueprints are sent to a 

firefighter’s hardened mobile device.

Telemetry

Emergency medical personnel place sensors on a patient during an event and 

transmit vital signs to the nearest hospital. Temperature sensors from firefighter 

devices generate a heat map of a building interior, allowing civil engineers to 

determine the structural integrity of the building.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 10

With the adoption of broadband technologies and applications, understanding and preparing for the 

security risks associated with the open architecture and vast complexity of Internet-based technologies 

and services will be critical for the public safety community. Cybersecurity, for example, is becoming a 

key consideration for public safety officials as new Internet Protocol-enabled technology is integrated 

into their operations. This will require the public safety community to implement effective strategies to 

enhance the resiliency of cyber and Internet Protocol-based infrastructures and safeguard private or 

sensitive information transmitted and stored by connected systems and devices.16,17

In order to meet these challenges, a multifaceted approach will be needed to ensure the confidentiality, 

integrity, reliability, and availability of data. For example, comprehensive cyber training and education 

on the proper use and security of devices and applications, phishing, malware, other potential threats, 

and how to stay on guard against attacks will be required. In addition, planning must match user needs 

against bandwidth requirements and the options for network resiliency. Finally, assessments of cyber 

risks and strategies to mitigate vulnerabilities must be conducted before the deployment of Internet 

Protocol-based networks occurs to ensure that mission requirements can be met securely and reliably 

from the outset. For public safety communications, strong security features will need to be built into 

the design and deployment of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, with the appropriate 

layers of control and security at both the core and access networks.

2.3 MODERNIZING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS: COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION 

EXCHANGE ACROSS THE WHOLE COMMUNITY

In addition to the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, communication network modernization 

is occurring in other parts of emergency management and response communities, with significant 

ramifications for communications and coordination in the field. Among these developments are efforts 

to update the Nation’s 9-1-1 infrastructure to Next Generation 9-1-1, an Internet Protocol-based model 

that will enable the transmission of digital information (e.g., texts, images, and video). In addition, the 

deployment of a nationwide public alerting system is using traditional media, such as broadcast and 

cable, as well as Internet Protocol-based technologies to transmit alerts to mobile phones and other 

devices. 

While communications among responders play the most direct and immediate role in saving lives and 

protecting property, responders can be supported by communications from other stakeholders working 

collectively in the greater environment. As a result, a broader emergency communications ecosystem 

 

16

 The 2013 National Infrastructure Protection Plan defines cybersecurity as “the prevention of damage to, unauthorized use of, 

or exploitation of, and, if needed, the restoration of electronic information and communications systems and the information 

contained therein to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Includes protection and restoration, when needed, of 

information networks and wireline, wireless, satellite, public safety answering points, and 9-1-1 communications systems and 

control systems.” http://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan.

17 In February 2014, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released Version 1.0 of the Framework for Improving 

Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity. The document, created through collaboration between the government and the private 

sector, is a voluntary risk-based approach to cybersecurity that uses industry guidelines to help organizations manage cyber 

risks to critical infrastructure. http://www.nist.gov/cyberframework/upload/cybersecurity-framework-021214-final.pdf. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 11

has emerged that consists of many inter-related components and functions, including communications 

for incident response operations, notifications and alerts and warnings, requests for assistance and 

reporting, and public information exchange.18 The primary functions are depicted in Exhibit 2 and 

described below. 

 Communications for Incident Response and Coordination. These are primarily government-togovernment functions that encompass communications between responders in the field, 

communications between a dispatch center and responders, and communications between 

government agencies at various levels providing incident support. These types of communications 

are critical for establishing command and control, conducting operations, and maintaining 

situational awareness during incidents. 

The primary communications networks 

that serve this function include Land 

Mobile Radio, commercial and private 

wired and wireless broadband 

networks, and, once it becomes fully 

operational, the Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network. 

 Notifications and Alerts and 

Warnings. This key communications 

function involves issuing alerts, 

warnings, and incident-related 

information, primarily from 

government agencies over privately 

owned communications networks and 

services to individuals, private sector 

entities, and nongovernmental 

organizations. The primary objective of alerts and warnings is to communicate potential threat and 

safety-related information to advise and protect the public in emergency situations. Prior to 

anticipated incidents (e.g., hurricanes, severe storms, or floods), the government may issue alerts 

and warnings such as evacuation notices or other information to help the public prepare. Following 

an incident, messaging from government agencies and public information officers is vital to relaying 

time-sensitive information on immediate response and recovery-related services to the general 

public. Several key communications systems enable this function, including the Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System—which consists of the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency 

Alert system—the National Warning System, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

 

18 This graphic depicts the key uses and functions of emergency communications during emergencies. It should not be viewed 

as linear, as emergency communications are increasingly dynamic and multi-directional. For example, although 

communications in many emergency situations start with an individual’s request for assistance, emergencies may start with a 

Federal, State, local, tribal, or territorial government agency’s communications warning of an impending threat or weather 

situation. 

Exhibit 2. Emergency Communications Ecosystem
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 12

Administration Weather Radio All Hazards. DHS’ National Cybersecurity and Communications 

Integration Center and the National Infrastructure Coordinating Center also provide incident-related 

information to critical infrastructure owners and operators so they can take necessary action. In 

addition to these systems, more government agencies are using social media to relay time-sensitive 

warnings and information to the public. 

 Public Information Exchange. Individuals often provide situational awareness to their family

members and communities during incidents. This function is primarily supported by commercial 

networks, including the increasing use of social media by individuals and entities during 

emergencies. This function also applies to communications and information sharing from and 

between private sector entities that support government response, including utility companies and 

critical infrastructure operators that share information on the availability of their services, 

resources, and status of service restoration. 

 Requests for Assistance and Reporting. Emergencies are often first reported to authorities by 

members of the public seeking assistance. Emergency 9-1-1 systems are the key communications 

systems that support this function. In the future, Next Generation 9-1-1 will enhance the 

capabilities of current 9-1-1 networks, allowing the public to transmit pictures, videos, and text 

messages that will provide additional situational awareness to dispatchers and emergency 

responders. In addition to calls to Public Safety Answering Points and Public Safety Communications 

Centers, programs such as the DHS “See Something, Say Something” campaign have increased the 

number of reports and tips from concerned individuals to government agencies, as has the use of 

social media. In addition, amateur radio operators also serve as key contributors in this function as 

they can be important conduits for relaying information to response agencies and personnel when 

other forms of communications have failed or have been disrupted. Some nongovernmental and 

private sector entities support this function by providing situational awareness of an incident to 

assist the government with response and recovery (e.g., utilities reporting on the status of service 

outages, commercial communications companies reporting infrastructure and service outages to the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) through the Disaster Information Reporting System and 

the Network Outage Reporting System.19,20

Modernization of these emergency communications components is facilitating the flow of information 

and communications among government agencies, the private sector, and the public, and in some 

cases, with entities from neighboring countries. The sample scenario in Exhibit 3 demonstrates the 

potential benefits of these interconnected emergency communications functions, including enhanced 

situational awareness, operational coordination, and decision-making.21 Wireless broadband networks 

and applications will greatly influence incident operations as they become more prevalent and are 

 

19 FCC Disaster Information Reporting System: http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/cip/dirs/dirs.html. 

20 FCC Network Outage Reporting System: http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/cip/nors/nors.html.

21 This is a notional scenario. While each of the applications is feasible today, it is not anticipated that all jurisdictions or 

communities will be required or able to implement these capabilities. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 13

more widely adopted by emergency responders. As a result, the scenario provided in Exhibit 3 will 

likely begin to occur more frequently. 

In addition to the benefits of this increased flow of communications and information, there are 

potential communications challenges for the emergency response community. While improvements in 

the quantity, quality, occurrence, timeliness, and type of information available to responders can 

enhance information sharing and communications during operations, they can also overload or 

degrade the information if the flow is not interoperable, properly secured, and managed so that the 

right information gets to the right people, at the right time. This reinforces the need for joint decisionmaking, planning, and investments to coordinate mutually-supportive strategies as Next Generation 9-

1-1, the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, nationwide public alerting systems, and other 

major capabilities are deployed across the Nation. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Emergency Communications Landscape 14

Exhibit 3. Emergency Communications Ecosystem at Work – A Potential Scenario 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 15

3.0 NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN STRATEGIC 

COMPONENTS 

The National Emergency Communications Plan provides strategic direction and recommended key next 

steps for the emergency response community in an evolving communications landscape. For example, 

governance structures and processes need to address both current mission critical and emerging 

technologies; strategic plans must account for the sustainment of Land Mobile Radio and the continued 

integration of broadband; and training and exercises will need to emphasize lessons learned and 

prepare for entirely new operational processes. These priorities need to evolve to address the 

modernization of emergency communications, as well as the role of the whole community supporting 

incident communications.22

As depicted in Exhibit 1, the National Emergency Communications Plan strategy reflects a focus on the 

people, processes, and technology that are critical components to ensuring successful emergency 

communications under all threats and hazards. The National Emergency Communications Plan is 

structured around five strategic goals that drive the emergency response community toward the Plan’s 

vision. Each goal is supported by a series of objectives; within each objective there are several 

actionable recommendations for various partners. They also promote the goals of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, such as the need to identify interoperability and continuity capabilities; identify 

obstacles to deploying interoperable capabilities; and recommend short- and long-term measures to 

enhance coordination and communication among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial 

governments.23

 As with the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan, the Office of Emergency 

Communications will work with its partners to develop appropriate strategies and benchmarks to

accomplish the recommendations. 

The National Emergency Communications Plan’s objectives and recommendations promote the 

concepts outlined in Presidential Policy Directive – 8: National Preparedness; the National Preparedness 

Goal; the National Incident Management System; and the National Planning Frameworks. While the 

majority of the proposed recommendations in the National Emergency Communications Plan support 

the Response mission area and the Operational Communications core capability identified in the 

National Preparedness Goal, many of the actions also foster integration and inter-relationships among 

all five mission areas—Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery. 

 

22 The National Emergency Communications Plan goals and objectives align to the elements of the SAFECOM Interoperability 

Continuum. DHS developed the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum in partnership with the public safety community to help 

agencies and jurisdictions identify their communications needs and track progress in implementing them. See Appendix 5 for 

more information. 

23 6 United States Code § 572. Refer to Appendix 1 for a crosswalk of the legislative requirements to sections of the Plan. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 16

3.1 GOAL 1: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP

 Enhance decision-making, coordination, and planning for emergency communications through 

strong governance structures and leadership 

Role of Governance and Leadership in Emergency Communications 

When the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan was released, the Nation was confronting a 

number of long-standing mission critical voice communications issues—notably, operability, 

interoperability, and continuity challenges among emergency 

responders. These challenges were compounded by the lack 

of coordination among emergency communications disciplines 

and jurisdictions, often leading to disjointed approaches to 

planning and the acquisition of disparate radio systems that 

were not interoperable with neighboring localities. 

The National Emergency Communications Plan was a key step 

toward increasing coordination across the emergency 

response community by promoting governance as a top 

national priority. DHS components helped implement this 

Plan by targeting grant policies, technical assistance offerings, 

and other activities to support coordination, planning, and decision-making across all levels of 

government, jurisdictions, and disciplines. Moving forward, DHS will continue to work with its 

stakeholders to build and update robust governance structures. These structures are important to 

maintaining current voice systems and ensuring that the planning, investment, and deployment of 

broadband systems incorporate emergency responders’ needs and requirements. 

Advancements in Governance and Leadership 

To drive progress in this area, DHS has worked closely with its stakeholders to establish formal 

governance structures and processes at all levels of government—both domestically and 

internationally—and to improve coordination between the emergency response community and the 

private sector. Recognizing the need for statewide coordination, the Office of Emergency 

Communications partnered with State and territorial officials to support the creation and ongoing 

operation of Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies or Statewide Interoperability Executive 

Committees in every State and territory. Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies and Statewide 

Interoperability Executive Committees serve as the primary steering groups for statewide 

interoperability activities. 

The Office of Emergency Communications also provided guidance and support to increase the number 

of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators and created the National Council of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators to foster information sharing and coordination among emergency 

communications leaders. Statewide Interoperability Coordinators serve as the central coordination 

point for the daily operations of a State’s interoperability efforts. They are critical for implementing the 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 17

Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan and coordinating governance activities, grants, training 

and exercises, and policy development to enhance interoperability throughout their State or territory.

24

At the Federal-level, coordination on interoperability issues was limited prior to the release of the 2008 

National Emergency Communications Plan. The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, 

comprised of 14 Federal departments and agencies, was in the early stages of organizing itself as the 

focal point for coordinating Federal emergency communications activities, including coordinating 

Federal input to the National Emergency Communications Plan.25

 In 2010, the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center issued its first strategic agenda and has since instituted a 

collaborative framework that drives coordination 

on Federal priorities and investments in several 

key areas, including Federal broadband programs 

and emergency communications grants. In 

addition, DHS established the One DHS Emergency 

Communications Committee to coordinate intraDHS emergency communications activities. 

Enhancements in governance also extend to State 

and territorial collaboration within and between 

regions and with international partners. For 

example, in 2009, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) appointed Disaster Emergency 

Communications Regional Emergency Communications Coordinators to support the administration of 

the Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups in each of the 10 FEMA 

Regions. These and other regional activities, including the Office of Emergency Communications’

Regional Coordination Program, have helped form relationships between States and territories on key 

emergency communications planning and response actions. 

In addition, coordination with international partners has expanded through the establishment of 

partnerships such as the Southwest Border Communications Working Group and the Canada – United 

States Communications Interoperability Working Group. Both working groups provide opportunities to 

align interoperability strategies and to resolve bilateral issues of common interest concerning crossborder communications and information exchange. 

Key Gaps and Challenges Driving Action 

While the growth in governance bodies at the Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and regional levels 

is a significant accomplishment, many of these entities were originally established to address Land 

Mobile Radio interoperability issues. The emergency response community must now evolve its 

 

24 Prior to the establishment of the Office of Emergency Communication, only eight States had developed strategic plans for 

emergency communications. Currently, all 56 States and territories have Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans and 

work with the Office of Emergency Communications to update them on an annual basis to improve interoperability statewide.

25 The Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-295) established the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center to improve coordination of Federal emergency communications efforts, including 

information sharing, planning, operations, grants, and technical assistance. The Act also directs the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center to coordinate Federal aspects of the National Emergency Communications Plan.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 18

governing structures to address changes in the environment. Fortunately, there is already a strong 

foundation for future progress. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments should focus on 

expanding or updating current structures, processes, and investments in governance. 

A key challenge moving forward will be ensuring coordination between traditional Land Mobile Radio 

governance programs and other decision-making offices, bodies, and individuals that oversee 

broadband and technology deployments in States, localities, tribes, and territories. This includes 

coordination between Statewide Interoperability Coordinators and the State Single Point of Contact for 

the First Responder Network Authority, if different, as well as with those offices and individuals that 

oversee technology procurement, information security, budgeting for broadband systems, and 

emergency management.26

 Collaboration among these individuals, as well as their participation in State 

governing processes, will ensure coordination between legacy communications planning and 

maintenance, such as Land Mobile Radio systems and legacy 9-1-1 systems, and the deployment of new 

technologies and networks, including Next Generation 9-1-1, alerting, and the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network. 

Further, the dynamic nature of the emergency communications landscape requires frequent assessment 

of memberships, policies, and priorities of Federal and regional governing bodies to ensure they are 

positioned to address new challenges. The planning and deployment of the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network will also require continued collaboration between the communications and 

information technology sectors and all levels of government. Increasing these partnerships has many 

benefits in an evolving operating environment, including the ability to share information and resources, 

realize potential cost savings, and help responders overcome challenges associated with access and 

coordination to needed infrastructure and data. 

Objectives and Recommendations 

The National Emergency Communications Plan strives to ensure that existing governance structures and 

processes are updated accordingly to foster collaboration on Land Mobile Radio and emerging 

technologies. The following recommendations are focused on improving cooperation at all levels of 

government, as well as more effectively coordinating Federal activities and financial assistance 

programs. 

 OBJECTIVE 1.1: Strengthen governance structures and processes to enhance State, local, tribal, 

and territorial collaboration and decision-making. The emergency response community has come 

together to form a number of successful governance and leadership structures throughout States, 

localities, tribes, and territories across the Nation, including the establishment of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators, Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies, and Statewide 

Interoperability Executive Committees. They were initially focused on Land Mobile Radio issues; 

 

26 The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96) created the First Responder Network Authority, 

as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to provide emergency 

responders with the first high-speed, nationwide network dedicated to public safety. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 19

however, with the emergence of new technologies and users, these governing bodies must expand 

their focus to address new technologies and other developments. 

Recommendations: 

 Update governance structures and processes to address the evolving operating environment. 

With assistance from DHS, State, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions should assess their 

existing governance structures to ensure they are positioned to address current and emerging 

policy, technology, and planning developments. This could include adding representatives to 

Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies and Statewide Interoperability Executive 

Committees from associations, organizations, or agencies that support or rely on 

communications during response and recovery operations (e.g., emergency management 

agencies, 9-1-1 boards, hospital associations, utilities, and amateur radio organizations). Border 

States should also assess the need for international representation. As part of this effort, States, 

territories, tribes, and jurisdictions should also review and update, as necessary, key operating 

documents for their Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies and Statewide Interoperability 

Executive Committees (e.g., charters, agreements, policies, and procedures) to ensure they are 

positioned to address new technology deployments and facilitate coordination with the 

Statewide Interoperability Coordinators. The National Council of Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators is positioned to provide additional guidance and coordination for this 

recommendation. 

 Increase intra-State collaboration of communications, broadband, and information technology 

activities. States and territories should develop strategies, processes, and best practices to 

increase intra-State coordination among leadership offices that oversee emergency 

communications, information technology, cybersecurity, and broadband programs. For each 

State or territory, this includes ensuring collaboration among the Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators; State Single Point of Contact; chief information officer or chief technology officer; 

chief information security officer; the director of the State Administrative Agency; and the 

State’s Governor’s office, as appropriate. This also 

applies to coordination between governance 

structures with communications oversight, such as 

Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies, 

Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees, and 

9-1-1 Boards. 

 Increase regional structures or processes to foster 

multi-State coordination and information sharing. 

There has been an increased emphasis on regional 

coordination to enhance preparedness for incidents 

that exceed traditional jurisdictional boundaries, such 

as cyber attacks and large-scale natural disasters, like 

Hurricane Sandy in 2012. This focus has led to the establishment of more regional organizations 

across the Nation, such as Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 20

and Regional Interoperability Councils that foster multi-State communications coordination, as 

well as groups like the All Hazards Consortium that focus on general emergency management 

activities.27 State, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions are encouraged to increase their 

involvement in these multi-State partnerships through formal agreements, activities, or sharing 

best practices with neighboring States. They should also look to address activities that cross 

more than one FEMA Region or involve neighboring countries. 

 OBJECTIVE 1.2: Leverage the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center to increase 

coordination of Federal programs and requirements. At the time of the 2008 National Emergency 

Communications Plan, the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center was a nascent 

organization focused on building its membership and identifying joint priorities. The Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center has since evolved to focus on aligning Federal emergency 

communications planning and investments, and facilitating resource sharing. As emergency 

communications technologies and practices evolve, the Emergency Communications Preparedness 

Center should continue to serve as the focal point on key Federal issues, including outreach and 

broadband user requirements.

Recommendations: 

 Enable the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center to serve as the Federal focal 

point for coordination with the First Responder Network Authority. As an interagency 

program comprised of 14 Federal departments and agencies with emergency communications 

responsibilities, the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center is well-positioned to 

provide the First Responder Network Authority with valuable information on the needs of 

Federal stakeholders. The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center member agencies 

represent much of the Federal Government’s role in emergency communications, including 

operational usage, policy, grants, research and development, and technical assistance. To 

provide efficiency and organizational clarity, the Emergency Communications Preparedness 

Center will serve as the primary body for Federal coordination with the First Responder Network 

Authority, including Federal broadband user requirements.28

 Moving forward, the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center should work with the First Responder Network Authority 

to incorporate Federal requirements; provide an inventory of Federal assets for the Nationwide 

Public Safety Broadband Network; coordinate Federal research and development activities; and 

further define the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network’s potential Federal user base.

 

27 Established in 2005, the All Hazards Consortium is focused on homeland security and emergency management issues and 

involves representatives from the States of North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey, and New York, as well as New York City-NY, Newark-NJ, Philadelphia-PA, and the National Capital Region (Washington 

D.C.).

28 In a December 7, 2012, memo from the First Responder Network Authority Board Chairman to the Under Secretary for 

National Protection & Programs Directorate, the First Responder Network Authority expressed its plan to utilize the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center as an ongoing means of interacting and collaborating with key Federal stakeholder 

agencies on network deployment and operations matters.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 21

 Increase coordination of public safety and national security and emergency preparedness 

communications requirements and policies. National security and emergency preparedness 

communications refers to the ability of Federal departments and their leadership to maintain 

communications at all times under all 

circumstances.29 National security and 

emergency preparedness and public safety 

communications capabilities may be linked 

during responses to large-scale disasters 

that require Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

territorial support. The National Security 

and Emergency Preparedness 

Communications Executive Committee was 

established in 2012 to advise the President 

on national security and emergency 

preparedness requirements to enhance the survivability, resilience, and future architecture of 

national security and emergency preparedness communications. Given DHS’ responsibilities for 

both national security and emergency preparedness and public safety communications, the 

Department should work with its Federal partners to increase coordination and information 

sharing between the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center and the Executive 

Committee. Collaboration between these groups can better align Federal communications 

priorities, requirements, and policies.

 Promote opportunities to share Federal emergency communications infrastructure and 

resources. Given fiscal constraints and the continued need to maintain and upgrade legacy 

communications systems, Federal agencies should promote infrastructure and resource 

collaboration across all levels of government. The Emergency Communications Preparedness 

Center should facilitate the exchange of information on existing Federal systems, planned 

modernization, or consolidation efforts to help identify opportunities to share infrastructure 

with Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments. This includes identifying and 

streamlining processes for shared infrastructure for Land Mobile Radio and other 

communications systems that support response and recovery operations.

 OBJECTIVE 1.3: Enhance the coordination and effectiveness of Federal emergency 

communications grants and investments. Federal grant programs have played a vital role in 

building emergency communications capabilities nationwide, particularly related to governance. 

The Office of Emergency Communications coordinates with the SAFECOM Executive 

Committee/Emergency Response Council to annually develop the SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency 

Communications Grants to provide recommendations to grantees for improving interoperability.30

 

This guidance document is also critical for ensuring consistency across the Federal Government’s 

 

29 Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions, July 2012. 

30 The SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants provides grantees with information on emergency 

communications policies and technical standards for improving interoperability. The SAFECOM Guidance is updated annually 

and can be found at www.safecomprogram.gov. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 22

grant programs for emergency communications. Further, in 2008, the Emergency Communications 

Preparedness Center established a Grants Focus Group to improve coordination of Federal 

emergency communications financial assistance programs, including grants, loans, and cooperative 

agreements. Through the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center Grants Focus 

Group, Federal agencies with emergency 

communications grant programs should focus on 

improving: (1) the coordination of grant policies, 

priorities, and processes to enhance consistency; and 

(2) the assessment of grant-funded activities. 

Recommendations: 

 Promote consistent policies across Federal grant programs and investments. To ensure 

Federally-funded investments are coordinated, compatible, and interoperable, Federal 

departments and agencies should adopt and reference common grant guidance, such as the 

SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency Communications Grants, in emergency communications 

grant program materials. This document provides information to grantees seeking to 

implement emergency communications projects. It includes recommendations on how to 

coordinate with statewide leaders to ensure investments align with statewide plans and are not 

duplicative. Also included are recommendations on procurement of standards-based 

equipment to ensure Federally-funded investments are compatible and interoperable. To 

promote consistent policies from the Federal level, DHS will identify effective approaches to 

procuring emergency communications equipment across multiple technologies. In addition, 

DHS will provide sample language that State and local entities can use in contract vehicles to 

support inter- governmental purchasing, reduce duplication in purchases, achieve cost savings, 

and ensure compliance with technical standards that promote interoperability. At the same 

time, the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center Grants Focus Group should continue 

to drive the development and adoption of common policies, procedures, terminology, and grant 

guidance for Federal departments and agencies. This includes increasing the use of the 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center Recommendations to Federal Agencies: 

Financial Assistance for Emergency Communications and the Emergency Communications 

Preparedness Center Federal Financial Assistance Reference Guide, which aim to improve 

Federal agencies’ understanding of key policies and technological standards that promote 

interoperability.31

 Improve the ability to assess the impact of emergency communications grant funding. The 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center Grants Focus Group should coordinate efforts 

to enhance the Federal Government’s ability to understand, assess, and report on Federal 

funding for emergency communications activities. Central to this effort is implementing a 

 

31 The 2013 Emergency Communications Preparedness Center Recommendations to Federal Agencies: Financial Assistance for 

Emergency Communications sets the national strategy for Federal financial assistance programs that fund emergency 

communications—including grants, loans, and cooperative agreements. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 23

standard approach for collecting emergency communications data at the project level. The 

success of this initiative will require participation from all Federal departments and agencies 

responsible for administering emergency communications grants.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 24

3.2 GOAL 2: PLANNING AND PROCEDURES

 Update plans and procedures to improve emergency responder communications and readiness in a 

dynamic operating environment 

Role of Planning and Procedures in Emergency Communications 

Strong governance and partnerships can facilitate another key component of successful emergency 

communications—the development of strategies, plans, and operating procedures. Plans and operating 

procedures are especially critical in the current operating environment, as they can help Federal, State, 

local, tribal, and territorial governments manage their future mission critical voice needs and 

capabilities, as well as the deployment of new mobile data services and applications. To meet this 

challenge, response agencies at all levels of government will need to assess their strategic, business, 

operational, and tactical planning needs on a regular basis and update them as needed. 

Advancements in Planning and Procedures 

The 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan established a planning framework to guide diverse 

stakeholder efforts at all levels of government. As a result, all 56 States and territories have formal 

planning processes, led by their Statewide Interoperability Coordinators, to develop, implement, and 

update statewide strategic plans. The Statewide 

Communication Interoperability Plans have been useful 

in bringing together the emergency communications 

stakeholder community to identify near- and long-term 

initiatives to improve communications.

At the local level, DHS has coordinated the 

development of Tactical Interoperable 

Communications Plans in more than 150 jurisdictions. 

The Department has also worked with many States and 

all 10 FEMA Regions to develop Regional Emergency 

Communications Plans. 

In addition, there has been an increase in both the 

development and use of emergency communications 

standard operating procedures nationwide. Public 

safety organizations’ focus on these procedures has 

helped establish a more consistent and comprehensive approach for establishing intra- and interagency 

communications following an incident, enabling effective emergency responses to disasters and 

incidents such as Hurricane Sandy and the Boston Marathon bombings. 

Key Gaps and Challenges Driving Action 

To date, most emergency communications plans and procedures have focused on achieving operability 

and interoperability of mission critical voice communications capabilities. Given the rapidly evolving 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 25

operating environment, agencies and jurisdictions will need to update or develop new strategies to 

guide the investment, deployment, and security of both Land Mobile Radio and broadband 

communications systems. This includes planning and procedures for how spectrum will be used during 

emergencies, such as which entities are authorized to transmit on specific frequencies and what they 

are allowed to broadcast. Furthermore, given that responsibilities for emergency communications and 

information technology are many times led by different agencies, coordination is critical to ensure 

consistent priorities and strategies for deploying broadband services across States and territories. As an 

example, since some emergencies may require unplanned spectrum assignment changes, agency 

spectrum managers should be involved in emergency communications planning and operations. 

In addition, as the emergency response community continues to integrate broadband services and 

technologies into their daily operations, DHS will work with public and private sector entities to refine 

their existing tactical plans, policies, and standard operating procedures. The DHS Critical Infrastructure 

Partnership Advisory Council is a mature partnership to leverage for coordinating planning across 

sectors that are involved in emergency communications, including the communications, information 

technology, intergovernmental, and emergency services sectors.32

 

Objectives and Recommendations 

The following objectives and recommendations provide guidance to agencies at all levels of government 

to position their strategic, operational, and business planning initiatives in the evolving emergency 

communications environment. 

 OBJECTIVE 2.1: Increase strategic planning at all levels of government to address emergency 

communication gaps, new technologies, and stakeholders. Federal, State, local, tribal, and 

territorial emergency response agencies should update existing or develop new strategic plans to 

address current emergency communications capabilities and gaps, as well as the deployment and 

use of new technologies (e.g., broadband, Next Generation 9-1-1, common alerting protocols, and 

social media).33

 In addition, to facilitate coordination and information exchange throughout the 

broader community, strategic planning for emergency communications should incorporate entities 

from across the Information Sharing Environment, as appropriate.34 The Federal Government will 

continue to coordinate and support national strategic planning efforts for emergency 

communications through guidance and provision of support services, such as technical assistance 

and grant guidance. 

 

32 DHS, Critical Infrastructure Sector Partnerships Home Page. http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure-sector-partnerships. 

33 The Common Alerting Protocol is a digital format for exchanging emergency alerts that allows a consistent alert message to be 

disseminated simultaneously over many different communications systems. http://www.fema.gov/common-alerting-protocol. 

34 The Information Sharing Environment broadly refers to the people, projects, systems, and agencies that enable responsible 

information sharing for national security. https://www.ise.gov.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 26

Recommendations: 

 Update Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans to maintain Land Mobile Radio 

systems and address wireless broadband deployments. States and territories should update 

their Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans to plan for the deployment of wireless 

broadband services, while maintaining and enhancing legacy emergency communications 

systems and functions (e.g., Land Mobile 

Radio, Public Safety Answering Points, and 

Public Safety Communications Centers). In 

addition, Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators are encouraged to collaborate 

with other communications and technology 

officials within their State/territory (e.g., 

State chief information officers, chief 

technology officers, and chief information 

security officers) to ensure a consistent 

approach on statewide planning activities for 

new technology deployments. As part of 

this effort, States should consider involving 

neighboring States in the development of 

the Statewide Communication 

Interoperability Plan. States and territories 

should continue to report progress in

implementing their Statewide 

Communication Interoperability Plans to the Office of Emergency Communications on an annual 

basis.

 Coordinate Federal strategic planning for broadband capabilities through the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center. Decision-makers within Federal departments and 

agencies should determine how their organizations could benefit from broadband technology to 

either improve or augment legacy capabilities. To inform Federal broadband planning efforts, 

Federal departments and agencies should coordinate their broadband requirements (e.g., 

coverage, roaming, priority access, and user base), as well as potential costs and applications, 

through the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center Broadband Focus Group. In turn, 

the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center will coordinate Federal input to the First 

Responder Network Authority for Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network planning and 

development activities. 

 Enable One DHS to lead the implementation of a DHS strategic plan for emergency 

communications. The One DHS Emergency Communications Committee will coordinate the 

implementation and track progress of a Department-wide integrated communications 

interoperability plan. The DHS plan will establish goals and priorities to improve interoperable 

and emergency communications, including Land Mobile Radio voice integration with broadband 

data technology. It will also provide a shared understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 27

ongoing initiatives for integrating parallel emergency communications activities across the 

Department.

 OBJECTIVE 2.2: Increase preparation for the adoption and deployment of the Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network and wireless broadband technologies at all levels of government. 

Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial entities should conduct comprehensive outreach and 

planning to ensure that the deployment of broadband systems and technologies, including the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, meets 

their responders’ communications needs at initial 

operating capability and beyond. This includes having 

a complete understanding of their current broadband 

usage and coverage requirements. It also requires 

coordination with the First Responder Network 

Authority, as the final authority on Nationwide Public 

Safety Broadband Network-related decisions, to 

ensure input to and implementation of the business 

plan for building the foundational elements of the 

organization and the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network infrastructure. As an example, 

the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council has developed a series of user requirements 

to assist the First Responder Network Authority in the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband 

Network’s design and architecture.35

Recommendations: 

 Ensure Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network planning is coordinated throughout each 

State and territory and focuses on responders’ current and future needs. The Single Point of 

Contact within each State and territory should coordinate with local jurisdictions and tribal 

nations to document their current 

broadband usage, identify user needs, and 

establish baseline Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network coverage 

requirements. States and territories should 

also identify potential infrastructure that 

can be shared to fill gaps in network 

deployment to ensure reduced network 

costs and economies of scale.36,37 State and 

territorial Single Point of Contact should 

 

35 The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council Broadband Working Group and its task groups research and define 

public safety broadband requirements in a number of key areas. http://www.npstc.org/broadband.jsp.

36 As discussed in Goal 4, the DHS Communications Asset Survey and Mapping Tool provides a capability to document each 

State and territories’ fixed and transportable assets.

37 The Office of Emergency Communications Technical Assistance Program provides a variety of tools to assist States and 

territories with planning for Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network deployment in coordination with the First Responder 

Network Authority. See http://www.publicsafetytools.info for more information.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 28

also coordinate with local jurisdictions to develop a methodology to prioritize future broadband 

coverage needs.

 Establish points of contact to coordinate Federal broadband planning and deployment 

activities. Federal departments and agencies are encouraged to identify points of contact—

whether an individual, office, or process—to coordinate key planning activities related to the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network’s deployment.38 These points of contact should 

collaborate with the Emergency Communications Preparedness Center, which will coordinate 

overall Federal broadband activities for the First Responder Network Authority, including 

Federal coverage requirements and infrastructure sharing. 

 Expand lifecycle planning activities to address broadband deployments and security, as 

needed. Public safety agencies at all levels of government are encouraged to expand their 

system lifecycle planning efforts for current mission critical Land Mobile Radio systems to 

address the deployment of any planned broadband systems and other technologies, such as 

information technology services. Broadening lifecycle planning can improve coordination and 

planning of system refresh and replacement activities in support of the long-term transition to 

broadband systems. In addition, given the increased cybersecurity threats that could 

compromise broadband systems, agencies’ lifecycle planning should analyze, address, and 

monitor system risks.

 OBJECTIVE 2.3: Improve emergency responders’ ability to communicate and share information 

through comprehensive standard operating procedures. As more emergency responders adopt 

new technologies and applications, standard operating procedures will be critical for responders to 

coordinate and use communications equipment and facilities during 

response and recovery operations. In some cases, procedures may need 

to be updated to address entities, individuals, or organizations that 

provide or use communications during emergencies (e.g., utilities, the 

transportation sector, commercial carriers). In support of this 

recommendation, DHS will periodically update and publish the National 

Interoperability Field Operations Guide to ensure that it provides up-todate radio frequency information to assist those establishing or repairing 

emergency communications in a disaster area.

Recommendations: 

 Evaluate, update, and distribute standard operating procedures to address new technologies 

and align them to tactical plans. Jurisdictions and agencies should periodically assess and revise 

their standard operating procedures to ensure they appropriately incorporate new technologies 

used during response and recovery operations. This includes accounting for social media as a 

means of disseminating and receiving information to and from the public. Standard operating 

procedures should also align with a jurisdiction’s existing tactical plans (e.g., Tactical 

 

38 DHS components should use the One DHS process to ensure a coordinated approach for departmental activities. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 29

Interoperable Communications Plans) to achieve interoperable emergency communications and 

be widely distributed to users—including other emergency response entities such as utility 

companies, public health and medical organizations, or nongovernmental organizations, as 

appropriate.

 Ensure standard operating procedures reflect current use of priority telecommunications 

services. All levels of government should periodically review the priority service programs (e.g., 

Telecommunications Service Priority, Government Emergency Telecommunications Service, and 

Wireless Priority Service) to which they subscribe and ensure they have standard operating 

procedures governing the programs’ use, execution, and testing. Key elements of the standard 

operating procedures should include the capabilities of each service; the method and points of 

contact to activate or subscribe to them; guidelines for usage and training; and potential cost 

recovery mechanisms available for use during State or Federally-declared disasters.39

 Coordinate with entities from across the broader emergency response community to develop 

communications standard operating procedures. As agencies review and update their 

emergency communications standard operating procedures, they are encouraged to involve 

entities that directly provide, use, or support communications during emergencies. This may 

include local, tribal, territorial, and regional entities, as well as international partners, auxiliary 

responders, and industry representatives, as appropriate. Further, standard operating 

procedures should include contact information for key industry representatives to provide 

access to timely communications resources and expedite restoration efforts (e.g., infrastructure 

owners and operators, public health, medical, public works, transportation entities, utility 

companies, and commercial telecommunications carriers). 

 

39 More information on Wireless Priority Service, Telecommunications Service Priority, and Government Emergency 

Telecommunications Service can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/about-office-emergency-communications under “Related 

Resources” on the right.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 30

3.3 GOAL 3: TRAINING AND EXERCISES

 Improve responders’ ability to coordinate and communicate through training and exercise 

programs that use all available technologies and target gaps in emergency communications 

Role of Training and Exercises in Emergency Communications 

Effective training and exercise programs can bolster emergency responders’ proficiency with 

communications equipment, as well as improve their ability to execute policies, plans, and procedures 

governing the use of communications. Continuing to train on Land Mobile Radio systems is necessary to 

ensure that emergency responders can achieve mission critical voice communications. However, as 

wireless broadband and other communications technologies become integrated into response and 

recovery operations, the need for training and exercises becomes even more critical to ensure that 

response personnel are routinely practicing with new communications capabilities to maximize their 

benefits. 

Advancements in Training and Exercises 

Improving emergency responders’ skills and capabilities was one of the 2008 National Emergency 

Communications Plan’s top priorities. Since then, notable strides have been made toward increasing the 

availability of emergency communications-specific training courses and field exercises. In recent years, 

DHS has designed and conducted multiple exercises under 

the Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program to 

assess the Nation’s response capabilities, including 

communications interoperability and continuity. Several 

of these were functional exercises, like the 2011 National 

Level Exercise, that tested communications among multijurisdictional and multi-disciplinary emergency 

responders, command posts, agencies, and government 

officials.40,41

DHS has worked closely with public safety agencies across 

the Nation to increase training opportunities for their communications personnel. For example, more 

than 4,000 emergency responders have taken DHS’ All-Hazards Communications Unit Leader course, 

and more than 1,000 have taken the Department’s Communications Technician course.42

 Both of these 

positions are critical for communications operability and interoperability—especially the functionality of 

communications equipment during incidents or planned events. 

 

40 Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program policy and guidance is available at https://www.llis.dhs.gov/hseep. 

41 National Level Exercise 2011 was a Tier 1 exercise that occurred on May 16-19, 2011. Tier 1 exercises are mandated by 

Congress and coordinated by FEMA. The functional exercise component of National Level Exercise 2011 began with a simulated 

earthquake along the New Madrid fault line. It included more than 10,000 Federal, State, regional, local, private sector, and 

nongovernmental organization participants.

42 More information on Communication Unit Leader and Communications Technician courses can be found at 

http://www.dhs.gov/video/communications-unit-leader-training#. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 31

In addition to training, DHS has worked with States, localities, tribes, and territories to develop exercise 

programs that target their most pressing emergency communications issues. The Office of Emergency 

Communications Technical Assistance Program has helped State, territories, local jurisdictions, and tribal 

nations design, execute, and evaluate communications-focused tabletop, full-scale, and functional 

exercises to address gaps specific to their communications needs. In addition, the Office of Emergency 

Communications’ implementation of the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan showed that 

regular training and exercising have a direct correlation to operational effectiveness.43

Key Gaps and Challenges Driving Action 

While States and territories have made progress to ensure training and exercises support the 

communications needs of their emergency responders, various challenges still remain. Reductions in 

budgets that support State, local, tribal, and territorial training and exercise programs have made it 

difficult for some States to establish formal oversight bodies to recognize and train Communications 

Unit personnel, which presents challenges with consistency in certification criteria. Further, turnover 

and reduction of staff have made it critical to efficiently educate new personnel on emergency 

communications equipment, protocols, and responsibilities. These issues can be compounded by 

logistical challenges associated with responder participation in formal training and exercise activities, as 

they may require shifting staff schedules, overtime pay, and increased time commitment, and travel. 

The National Emergency Communications Plan recognizes the impact that these challenges can have on 

the availability and frequency of communications-focused training and exercise programs. At the same 

time, in order to be effective, these programs will need to evolve to reflect the changing operating 

environment. This means that agencies must assess their programs to ensure they align with national 

response doctrine, such as the National Incident Management System and the National Response 

Framework; account for new communications technologies being used by responders; and address gaps 

identified during assessments and after-action reports. 

Public safety agencies will also need to broaden the scope of their training and exercise programs to 

address communications and information sharing with new entities, as well as the use of new 

technologies. As discussed in Section 2.0, communications from other sources, such as Public Safety 

Answering Points and Public Safety Communications Centers, the private sector, volunteer 

organizations, and the general public, are impacting operational coordination and decision-making for 

public safety officials. Training and exercises will be critical for emergency responders to foster 

coordination with these partners, as well as to manage and filter the large amounts of information (i.e., 

data, video, and voice communications) from these sources. Moving forward, public safety agencies will 

need to consider training and exercises that involve the broader emergency communications community 

and account for both Land Mobile Radio and broadband, as appropriate. 

 

43 DHS, Progress Report on Implementing the National Emergency Communications Plan: Fiscal Year 2012 Report to Congress, 

April 17, 2013, pg. 16.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 32

Objectives and Recommendations 

The 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan training and exercise milestones were focused on

two key areas: (1) expanding communication-specific exercises around the Nation; and (2) developing 

standardized training for emergency responders who use or manage communications resources, mainly 

Land Mobile Radio systems. While this Plan seeks to build on the success of those initiatives, it also 

emphasizes the need for Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial entities to regularly assess and 

update their training curricula and exercise criteria to reflect changes in the operating environment. In 

addition, this Plan provides suggestions to make the most efficient use of training and exercise 

opportunities given budget constraints, as well as recommendations to maximize the benefits of using 

trained Communications Unit personnel during response operations.44

 OBJECTIVE 3.1: Update training and exercise programs to address gaps in emergency 

communications, as well as emerging technologies, policies, and partners. As communications 

technologies continue to evolve, the need for training and exercises becomes even greater to 

ensure personnel are proficient in the increasing number of diverse capabilities used during incident 

response. Agencies will need to assess and update their training and exercise programs to ensure 

relevancy and completeness, and incorporate changes in policies, procedures, partners, and 

technologies. This includes revising training and exercises to ensure consistency with the Homeland 

Security Exercise and Evaluation Program and national response doctrine and guidance, such as the 

National Incident Management System and the National Response Framework. 

Recommendations: 

 Develop training and exercise programs that target gaps in emergency communications 

capabilities and use of new technologies. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial entities 

should review after-action reports from realworld incidents and exercises to determine 

how they can incorporate lessons learned 

into the objectives for their training and 

exercise programs. This may include 

addressing resource gaps, lack of adherence 

to procedures, areas for improvement with 

Land Mobile Radio, or other challenges. 

Programs should also reflect the use of new 

communications technologies, including 

mobile broadband, social media, and wireless 

emergency alerts, as appropriate.

 

44 The Communications Unit is led by a Communication Unit Leader and includes Communication Technicians, incident 

communications center personnel, and technical specialists, all of whom can provide expertise and resources to maintain 

effective communications throughout an incident or event. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 33

 Identify opportunities to integrate more private and public sector communications 

stakeholders into training and exercises. Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions 

should identify domestic and international entities with potential roles in information sharing 

and the delivery of emergency communications during emergencies (e.g., utility companies, 

amateur radio operators, nongovernmental organizations, media companies, and 

telecommunications owners, operators, manufacturers, and suppliers). As appropriate, these 

entities should be incorporated into training and exercise activities on a more regular basis. This 

includes involving the appropriate stakeholders in curriculum or exercise design and execution, 

as necessary.

 Increase responder proficiency with Federal and national interoperability channels through 

training and exercises. Federal agencies should work with emergency response personnel to 

pre-program Federal and national interoperability channels into their radios and conduct regular 

training on them. These shared channels are common resources that are useful for initial onthe-scene coordination and communications. To that end, Federal departments and agencies 

should assess their current communications training curriculum and exercise programs to 

ensure they address the use of interoperability channels in designated public safety spectrum 

bands and the National Interoperability Field 

Operations Guide.45,46

 OBJECTIVE 3.2: Increase awareness and availability 

of emergency communications training and 

exercise opportunities at all levels of government. 

Implementation of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan and analysis of after-action 

reports from real-world incidents have shown that 

participating in training and exercises is a key 

indicator of an entity’s or individual’s success in the 

field. Given the importance of testing, agencies 

should identify cost-effective approaches for 

emergency responders to access these activities 

(e.g., distance learning or local training and 

exercises). Greater awareness of opportunities can 

be achieved through use of new technologies, as 

well as increased messaging of training and exercise 

opportunities through governance bodies. DHS will 

 

45 Interoperability channels are radio channels used for multi-disciplinary and multi-jurisdictional response. Planning radio 

channel usage and programming interoperability channels into radios in advance of emergencies or planned events can 

enhance preparedness and communications.

46 National Interoperability Field Operations Guide Sixth Printing, April 2013. 

http://www.publicsafetytools.info/start_nifog_info.php. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 34

continue to support State, local, tribal, and territorial training and exercises through the Office of 

Emergency Communications' Regional Coordination and Technical Assistance Programs and work 

with the public safety community to ensure these services continue to stay viable and current. 

Recommendations:

 Use regional governance structures to develop and promote training and exercise 

opportunities. Regional governing bodies, such as the Regional Emergency Communications 

Coordination Working Groups and Regional Interagency Steering Committees, should collect 

and disseminate information on relevant and beneficial training and exercise opportunities to 

statewide governing bodies, such as the Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies and 

Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees. In turn, State and territorial entities should 

conduct outreach on training and exercises to increase awareness at the local level and with any 

tribal nations. This can increase preparation and coordination during cross-border or multiState incidents. 

 Leverage technologies, conferences, and workshops to increase training and exercise 

opportunities. Given budget constraints, Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial 

governments should take advantage of scheduled stakeholder meetings and workshops as 

potential opportunities to develop or hold training, tabletop exercises, or operational-based 

exercises. These meetings could also serve as opportunities to review certain training standards 

or discuss communications-related exercise objectives or observations from recent exercises. In 

addition, agencies are encouraged to leverage new technologies to conduct virtual exercises and 

create opportunities to evaluate operational performance.

 OBJECTIVE 3.3: Enhance the awareness, use, and tracking of trained Communications Unit 

personnel during response operations. The 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan 

promoted the development and implementation of national training programs and recognition 

processes for emergency responders who use or manage communications resources. To help 

achieve these objectives, the Office of Emergency Communications, in conjunction with the FEMA 

Emergency Management Institute, implemented Communications Unit Leader and Communications 

Technician courses to ensure that every State and territory has trained personnel capable of 

deploying and operating advanced equipment during an incident or planned event. Over the past 

several years, Communications Unit Leaders and Communications Technicians have been successful 

in maintaining, reestablishing, and coordinating emergency communications functions during major 

disasters, including Hurricanes Sandy and Irene, wildfires in Arizona and New Mexico, and tornadoes 

and ice storms in the South and Midwest. The National Emergency Communications Plan seeks to 

build on this progress by aiming to have all Communications Unit positions (e.g., Communications 

Unit Leader, Communications Technician, and Radio Operator) more effectively integrated into 

operations and to improve States’ and territories’ capability to track and share trained 

communications personnel. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 35

Recommendations: 

 Promote awareness of and cross-training among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial 

Incident Command System Communications 

Unit personnel through training and exercises. 

State, local, tribal, and territorial governments 

are encouraged to develop educational materials 

and training opportunities for dispatchers, 

incident commanders, and executive-level 

leaders to improve their understanding of the 

roles and responsibilities of the Communications 

Unit. In addition, joint Federal and State 

Communications Unit Leader refresher training 

and communications-focused exercise objectives 

can help build awareness between the Communications Unit personnel and others in the 

incident command or command staff. DHS will continue to work with its Federal partners to 

encourage their participation in State exercises to improve their understanding of the 

Communications Unit’s functions.

 Develop and share best practices on processes to recognize trained Communications Unit 

personnel. States and territories are encouraged to review the National Council of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators-endorsed recognition criteria for Communications Unit personnel 

and work with their neighboring States and territories most likely to offer assistance during an 

incident to develop and implement standardized criteria. The National Council of Statewide 

Interoperability Coordinators should continue to explore ways to promote recognition criteria, 

best practices, and lessons learned to improve consistency in Communications Unit training 

across States and territories.

 Improve States’ and territories’ ability to track and share trained Communications Unit 

personnel during response operations. The Office of Emergency Communications will 

coordinate with States and territories to develop and maintain a repository of their trained and 

recognized Communications Unit personnel. States and territories are encouraged to use tools, 

such as those hosted on the Office of Emergency Communications’ Public Safety Technical 

Assistance Tools website, to store and share information with neighboring States for personnel 

deployment.47 Further, incorporating the dispatch and tracking of Incident Command System 

Communications Unit personnel into dispatch decision-support programs or policies can help 

increase the use of trained personnel and improve documentation during response. States and 

territories should collaborate with Public Safety Answering Points and Public Safety 

Communications Centers to improve awareness and understanding of how this can be 

accomplished.

 

47 DHS, Office of Emergency Communications Public Safety Technical Assistance Tools Home Page. 

http://www.publicsafetytools.info. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 36

3.4 GOAL 4: OPERATIONAL COORDINATION

 Ensure operational effectiveness through the coordination of emergency communications 

capabilities, resources, and personnel from across the whole community 

Role of Operational Coordination in Emergency Communications 

While the National Emergency Communications Plan’s first three goals focus on building capabilities to 

achieve operable and interoperable communications, the fourth goal aims to translate those elements 

into operational success, ensuring that communications planning, processes, partnerships, and 

resources are effectively coordinated and utilized during response and recovery operations. Although 

responders require communications to achieve their mission under all circumstances, the need for 

interoperable and continuous communications capabilities is especially urgent during large-scale 

disasters and catastrophic situations. Continuity of communications can be achieved through 

emergency management assistance compacts or the deployment of Federally-owned communications 

equipment (e.g., Cellular on Wheels/Cellular on Light Trucks, generators) until State and local officials 

are able to identify additional resources. In addition to facilitating responder-to-responder 

coordination, these shared communications tools enable responders to request additional support, 

coordinate mutual aid, and integrate equipment and personnel into operations. 

Advancements in Operational Coordination 

Public safety agencies at all levels of government have taken steps to improve their ability to 

communicate as incidents grow and become more complex. This improvement was evident during 

responses to many large-scale disasters and emergencies in 

recent years, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; 

the 2011 Joplin, Missouri, and 2013 Moore, Oklahoma, 

tornadoes; the 2011 East Coast Earthquake; and the 2013 

Boston Marathon bombings. During these and other 

responses, emergency communications services and needs 

were effectively coordinated and integrated across 

disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government. In 

addition, responding jurisdictions used the Emergency 

Management Assistance Compact and cross-border 

memoranda of understanding to streamline requests for 

assistance and expedite deployments of communications 

resources and personnel between States and bordering countries. 

DHS has worked closely with State, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners (e.g., 

communications manufacturers, carriers, and public-private partnerships) to enhance operational 

communications for planned events (e.g., national political conventions, Super Bowl, State of the Union 

Address) and following disasters. The FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications Division has 

partnered with all 56 States and territories to identify emergency communications capabilities and 

requirements to expedite the delivery of Federal communications resources and support during largescale incidents. Additionally, through assistance from the Office of Emergency Communications, States 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 37

continue to inventory their existing emergency communications capabilities using the Communications 

Asset Survey and Mapping Tool to better understand the availability and location of emergency 

communications capabilities. 

Agencies and jurisdictions have also increased their proficiency with incident response principles under 

the National Incident Management System, which provide standard structures and procedures to 

improve coordination and communications. This has led to a more consistent execution of 

Communications Unit roles and responsibilities, as well as the use of Incident Command System forms, 

such as Incident Radio Communications Plans. Also, the increase in the use of simple, easily understood 

language has helped reduce the risk of miscommunication during incident responses. 

Key Gaps and Challenges Driving Action 

Despite these advancements, the changing operating environment is presenting new challenges to 

responder communications. Operational coordination is often complicated during large, complex 

incidents where there are various emergency communications personnel, coordinating structures, 

protocols, and concepts, in addition to commercial telecommunications networks that are congested or 

inoperable. In situations like these, proper application of the National Incident Management System is 

critical to ensure that all organizations are following appropriate procedures. While the National 

Emergency Communications Plan Goals Assessment showed that more jurisdictions are using the 

National Incident Management System concepts, it also identified several remaining inconsistencies in 

their application, which can be problematic as these inconsistencies can hamper communications 

personnel and assets from being effectively integrated and synchronized into operations at the incidentlevel. In addition, knowing how and when to request additional communications-specific resources can 

be difficult, especially at the outset of a disaster. 

Further, communications challenges arising from the 2012 Derecho storm that impacted the Midwest 

and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States reinforced the need for reliable and resilient emergency 

communications networks. As the FCC noted in its storm after-action report, a number of preventable 

system failures caused major disruptions to communications carriers’ networks, preventing the public 

from connecting to 9-1-1 call centers during and shortly after the storm.48 Given the deployment of 

Next Generation 9-1-1 and the important role that it will play in improving situational awareness during 

response operations, continuity of Public Safety Answering Point and Public Safety Communications 

Center operations are critical for communicating and coordinating with responders in the field. 

Objectives and Recommendations 

The following objectives and recommendations seek to improve operational effectiveness by promoting 

the identification and coordination of communications resources; implementing the National Incident 

Management System and National Response Framework components that address communications; 

and ensuring continuity of operations for emergency communications. 

 

48 FCC. Impact of the June 2012 Derecho on Communications Networks and Services, January 2013, 

http://www.fcc.gov/document/derecho-report-and-recommendations. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 38

 OBJECTIVE 4.1: Enhance the ability of jurisdictions to coordinate communications resources and 

services during emergency situations. As incidents escalate, communications resources must be 

able to expand rapidly to meet responders’ needs. The ability to identify communications resources 

and follow the procedures to obtain them is critical to quickly deploying them to the locations 

where they are most needed. This applies to government communications assets, resources, and 

capabilities provided by the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals or 

volunteer groups. Establishing and regularly updating communication asset inventories can help 

expedite the speed in which emergency communications resources are requested and integrated 

into operations. Operational mechanisms, such as emergency management assistance compacts, 

memoranda of agreements, local mutual aid or assistance agreements, and contracts with the 

private sector, help States and localities coordinate and share resources across domestic and 

international borders. 

Recommendations: 

 Ensure inventories of emergency communications resources are updated and comprehensive. 

In order for assets and personnel to be pre-positioned or rapidly deployed to support an 

incident, public safety agencies should have a complete understanding of the available 

communications resources (e.g., radio caches, 

personnel, supplies, and systems) within their 

States and neighboring jurisdictions. Public 

safety agencies, response entities, and 

communications service providers are 

encouraged to maintain and share 

comprehensive inventories of their 

communications capabilities and assets. 

Governance and advisory bodies (e.g., Statewide 

Interoperability Governing Bodies, Regional 

Emergency Communications Coordination 

Working Groups) should also coordinate with 

jurisdictions most likely to request or provide 

resources to develop and periodically update an 

inventory of government and private sector communications assets and personnel, including 

strategic technology reserves. Similarly, Federal departments and agencies should coordinate 

with DHS to ensure that their communications assets available to support incident response are 

integrated within Emergency Support Function #2—Communications.

 Enhance jurisdictions’ ability to readily request communications resources or assets during 

operations. All levels of government should regularly assess and revise any mechanisms and 

procedures (e.g., memoranda of understanding, memoranda of agreement, and pre-scripted 

mission assignments) they have in place with other agencies, neighboring States, tribes, local 

jurisdictions, and private sector entities for coordinating and requesting emergency 

communications resources, including equipment and personnel. This may include establishing 

pre-negotiated contracts with private sector entities and nongovernmental organizations for 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 39

critical resources, such as temporary power. When executing these agreements, jurisdictions 

should clearly define their requirements so that resource providers can engineer the most 

efficient and effective solutions.

 OBJECTIVE 4.2: Increase the implementation of the National Incident Management System

concepts for command, control, and communications. The assessment of the 2008 National 

Emergency Communications Plan goals showed an increase in the use of the National Incident 

Management System across the Nation, along with enhanced cooperation among law enforcement, 

fire, emergency medical services, and other disciplines. The results also showed the need to ensure 

that coordination across these disciplines is fully integrated into pre-planning, and consistently 

executed in accordance with the National Response Framework, the National Incident Management 

System, and Incident Command System command structures and practices. As previously discussed 

in Goal 3, agencies should continue to train and exercise on key Incident Command System 

positions, including positions within the Communications Unit, as well as appropriate templates and 

forms.

Recommendations: 

 Implement Incident Command System communications-related roles, responsibilities, and 

planning. Response agencies at all levels of government emphasize the use of standardized 

National Incident Management System practices, plans, and common terminology during 

incidents involving multiple jurisdictions, disciplines, and agencies to promote unity of effort. As 

such, all agencies and jurisdictions supporting an incident should be involved in pre-planning, 

including development of a single incident action plan and a comprehensive Incident Command 

System Form 205 that identifies interoperability channels for each incident. Further, the 

Incident Command System also prescribes that the roles of operations section chief and logistics 

section chief should each be filled by a single individual to reduce possibly duplicative or 

conflicting orders, improve communications, and enhance information exchange.

 Ensure operational planning incorporates new technologies and communications partners. 

The assessment of the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan goals found that the 

majority of responders leverage commercial voice and/or mobile data solutions during incident 

response. The use of commercial solutions is expected to increase with the deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, especially for mission critical purposes; however, 

the role of these technologies is not always fully integrated into communications planning. To 

prepare for widespread Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network deployment, DHS should 

coordinate with appropriate stakeholders to update the Incident Command System Form 205 

template to include specific fields for commercial voice and data services. 

 OBJECTIVE 4.3: Strengthen resilience, security, and continuity of communications throughout 

response operations. As emergency communications systems and functions become more 

interconnected, they also become more susceptible to vulnerabilities and disruptions in other parts 

of the communications ecosystem. Agencies and jurisdictions at all levels of government must plan 

for the interconnection of voice and data communications throughout the ecosystem. During largescale events, planning and operations for backup communications need to include all available 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 40

assets and resources in the impacted incident area. For example, Land Mobile Radio systems may 

need to be augmented by air and marine mobile communications to create a comprehensive air, 

sea, and ground network with appropriate levels of security and authentication to ensure continuity 

of communications. Commercial cellular voice and data networks are often used as backup options 

as well, but these networks may be overwhelmed by congestion and capacity issues. Achieving 

secure and resilient voice and data communications across the ecosystem is essential for public 

safety and emergency management agencies to execute their missions under all circumstances.

Recommendations: 

 Ensure Public Safety Answering Point and Public Safety Communications Center continuity of 

operations planning addresses systems and staffing to support dispatch communications. As 

part of continuity of operations planning, Public Safety Answering Points and Public Safety 

Communications Centers should address staffing requirements and technical resources to 

support their ability to maintain dispatch communications and functions during incidents.49

 This 

includes succession as well as backup procedures for major systems, such as computer-aided 

dispatch, radio, and power supply. In addition, Public Safety Answering Point and Public Safety 

Communications Center continuity of operations planning should incorporate relevant 

capabilities and assets, such as the Telecommunicator Emergency Response Task Forces 

initiative.50 Telecommunicator Emergency Response Task Forces can help States develop 

programs to train teams that can be quickly mobilized and deployed to assist communications 

centers in the aftermath of disasters. These efforts can strengthen Public Safety Answering 

Points’ and Public Safety Communications Centers’ ability to maintain continuity as the public’s

main point of contact during crises, while also serving as key coordinators of emergency 

management activities by dispatching information to responders. 

 Update procedures for implementing backup communications solutions. In the event that

primary network and dispatch services are disrupted following an incident, agencies must be 

able to quickly implement backup 

communications solutions. As part 

of their continuity and backup 

planning efforts, public safety 

agencies at all levels of government 

should establish and update their 

procedures to determine when and 

how to request and implement 

backup systems to avoid single 

points of failure. Agencies should 

account for priority service 

 

49 The National Emergency Number Association provides Public Safety Answering Points with resources for Continuity of 

Operations and disaster planning. http://www.nena.org/?page=COP_PlanCourse.

50 Established in 2006, the National Joint Telecommunicator Emergency Response Task Force Initiative is a partnership between 

the National Emergency Number Association and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials –International.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 41

programs (e.g., Telecommunications Service Priority, Wireless Priority Service, and Government 

Emergency Telecommunications Service) and the use of new technologies in their backup 

planning and procedures, as well as capabilities that could support coverage and capacity during 

incidents (e.g., auxiliary communications; satellite communications; batteries and power 

supplies; air, sea, and ground networks; and specialized support teams). As part of their 

assessment, agencies should also consider the potential use of communications and information 

technology sectors’ capabilities to support their communications needs. 

 Increase Federal departments’ and agencies’ preparation and support for local emergency 

communications needs. During large-scale incidents, States and localities may require Federal 

support to provide and maintain operable and interoperable communications in an incident 

area, as well as support temporary re-establishment of the basic public safety communications 

infrastructure. To help integrate Federal resources, DHS, as the Federal Emergency Support 

Function #2 coordinator, should ensure the Emergency Support Function #2 Standard Operating 

Procedure is regularly updated and comprehensive to ensure primary and support agencies 

engage in appropriate planning and preparedness activities.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 42

3.5 GOAL 5: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

 Coordinate Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation activities to develop innovative 

emergency communications capabilities that support the needs of emergency responders 

Role of Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation in Emergency Communications 

The growing use of broadband technologies underscores the need for a comprehensive and coordinated 

research, development, testing, and evaluation strategy to ensure emergency responders have the right 

communications technologies, tools, and services to accomplish their mission. Research, development, 

testing, and evaluation programs are critical to identify and develop new commercial products and 

services that meet the unique needs of public safety officials. Research, development, testing, and 

evaluation can also help adapt existing commercial-off-the-shelf products for public safety use to realize 

cost efficiencies, while more quickly delivering innovative commercial solutions to the end-user. The 

importance of testing and evaluation should not be overlooked, as these processes demonstrate how 

systems, networks, and equipment can sustain functionality and satisfy user requirements, particularly 

security, availability, and scalability. As a result, coordinating research, development, testing, and 

evaluation efforts will help ensure that public safety requirements are fully integrated into new 

technologies, and that products and services comply with existing standards and can withstand rugged 

operating environments. 

Advancements in Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation 

Recent advancements in public safety communications research and development have focused on 

developing the next generation of public safety applications and devices. Also, given that Land Mobile 

Radio will continue to be a critical component of emergency communications, research and 

development efforts will continue to focus on Project 25 Land Mobile Radio networks, as well as 

infrastructure that can support Project 25 and long-term evolution networks simultaneously. The DHS 

Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science and Technology Directorate is the 

Department’s lead for research, development, testing, and evaluation, as well as standards acceleration 

related to interoperable communications. Successful research and development efforts can be 

attributed to the impact of research and development efforts involving government, carriers, service 

providers, vendors, and academia. This includes the Department of Commerce’s Public Safety 

Communications Research Program, which is leading the research, development, testing, and evaluation 

for public safety long-term evolution networks to support the planning and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network.51

In addition to communications used for government response and recovery, research and development 

efforts have also improved and modernized communications between the government and the public 

during emergencies. For example, the Wireless Emergency Alerts system, a component of the 

Integrated Public Alert and Warning System, provides public safety officials at the Federal, State, local, 

 

51 Department of Commerce, Public Safety Communications Research Program Overview Home Page. http://www.pscr.gov. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 43

tribal, and territorial levels with the ability to notify the public of emergency situations in real-time via 

mobile devices. Led by the DHS Science and Technology Directorate Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility, these research, development, testing, and evaluation actions and investments have 

produced products and tools that have helped public safety officials protect lives and property. 

Key Gaps and Challenges Driving Action 

The adoption of new technologies for mission critical purposes and emergence of new applications 

should be integrated into and support existing processes. There are many benefits to using standardsbased, open-source, vendor-neutral technologies; however, to meet public safety organizational needs, 

user requirements must be integrated during the development phase. For instance, the unique 

propagation characteristics of long-term evolution will bring advanced capabilities to both public safety 

and the consumer marketplace (e.g., virtual navigation, telemedicine, and crowd casting). To ensure 

these services can sustain mission critical communications, a number of challenges must be addressed, 

including key response features, such as mission critical voice capabilities; cybersecurity; and coverage 

and capacity issues in urban and rural areas. These and other challenges are currently being addressed 

by multiple entities across all levels of government, academia, and the private sector. As such, public 

and private sector entities conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation activities should 

increase collaboration to achieve maximum benefits for emergency responders and ensure that the 

systems and devices used by public safety are keeping pace with technological change. 

Objectives and Recommendations 

The National Emergency Communications Plan aims to increase collaboration of research, development, 

testing, and evaluation activities across all levels of government, as well as include participation from 

academia, the private sector, and the public safety community, including associations such as the 

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials – International and the National Emergency 

Number Association. The recommendations in this section seek to facilitate the development and use of 

new mission critical technologies, fulfill emergency responders’ broadband needs and requirements, 

and foster integration and avoid duplication of efforts. 

 OBJECTIVE 5.1: Ensure a coordinated Federal strategic approach to public safety communications 

research, development, testing, and evaluation. Many Federal departments and agencies sponsor 

research, development, testing, and evaluation programs for public safety communications. 

Increasing coordination across these programs can help integrate common efforts, improve overall 

decision-making, establish common expectations and priorities for users and applications, and 

coordinate investments for products and applications being developed for both Land Mobile Radio 

and broadband technologies. 

Recommendations: 

 Coordinate Federal research and development priorities and user requirements through the 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center. The Emergency Communications 

Preparedness Center Research and Development Focus Group and Broadband Focus Group 

should serve as forums for Federal departments and agencies to coordinate communications-
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 44

related research and development programs, share information with the public safety 

community, and facilitate short- and long-term research and development planning efforts to 

ensure programs and activities are aligned with emergency responder needs. In addition, these 

groups should collect Federal user and service requirements for the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network and provide them to the First Responder Network Authority. 

 Increase collaboration between Federal research and development and technology transfer 

programs across the homeland security, defense, and national security communities. The 

homeland security, defense, and national security communities have significant experience 

developing innovative mobile solutions for agents in the field. For example, the Department of 

Defense has developed a Mobile Device Strategy and Mobile Applications Security Requirements 

Guide focused on improving wireless infrastructure, mobile devices, and mobile applications.52

 

Increasing collaboration between defense and public safety research and development 

programs can help maximize resources on issues that cross disciplines. Potential areas of 

collaboration include leveraging lessons learned and best practices, identifying areas for 

partnerships (e.g., application development, or application and user device security), and 

sharing intellectual property, as appropriate. 

 OBJECTIVE 5.2: Accelerate the development and adoption of mission critical communication 

products, applications, and services. The public safety community’s adoption of Internet Protocolenabled communications capabilities will depend on networks, services, security, and applications 

that meet its needs and requirements. To determine the benefits and expedite the availability and 

adoption of these products and services, public safety organizations must have detailed 

requirements, effective solutions, operational testing, and intuitive interfaces so that users can 

easily deploy solutions in the field with 

predictable performance. Government 

research and development programs 

should engage with private industrydriven research and development 

efforts—including those within the 

communications and information 

technology sectors—to capture the 

innovation and advancements available 

in the commercial marketplace. 

Recommendations: 

 Foster collaborative mission critical voice, data, and cybersecurity research, development, 

testing, and evaluation. As communications technologies migrate to Internet Protocol-based 

networks, government and academic research facilities should identify and develop new 

technologies that address public safety mission critical voice and data requirements that are not 

 

52 Department of Defense. Mobile Device Strategy. http://www.defense.gov/news/dodmobilitystrategy.pdf. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 45

currently offered by commercial solutions. Identifying and developing these technologies will 

require coordination with the public safety community through entities such as SAFECOM, the 

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, the First Responder Network Authority, and 

the First Responder Network Authority’s Public Safety Advisory Committee.53

 To improve and 

enhance the security of emergency communications networks and devices, DHS should 

coordinate with the public safety community to assess and mitigate cyber threats and risks. 

 Government research facilities should facilitate the integration of Next Generation 9-1-1 into a 

nationwide solution. Government research facilities should leverage requirements, lessons 

learned, and best practices from Next Generation 9-1-1 early adopters to spur nationwide 

deployment and adoption. Researchers should give special consideration to understanding: (1) 

how Next Generation 9-1-1 networks will interface with the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network; (2) potential security risks presented by the use of data between Public 

Safety Answering Points, Public Safety Communications Centers, and emergency responders; 

and (3) other potential functions Public Safety Answering Points and Public Safety 

Communications Centers can leverage in an Internet Protocol-centric environment.

 Cultivate an innovative marketplace for applications and technologies through the use of 

public and private partnerships. In coordination with the First Responder Network Authority 

and members of the public safety community—including the Public Safety Advisory Committee, 

SAFECOM, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council, and the Association of 

Public-Safety Communications 

Officials—the Federal Government 

should proactively engage with 

application developers to create and 

maintain mobile applications and 

products for public safety. The 

expanding mobile applications 

marketplace should be used as a model 

to bring commercial innovation to 

emergency communications. Many 

public safety agencies are already 

collaborating with the applications 

community to develop unique applications for their localities; however, long-term growth and 

adoption is predicated on coordination among developers, users, and service providers to 

ensure that applications are readily available and tailored to public safety needs (including 

inputs on user needs, bandwidth, and capacity constraints). This includes coordinating on 

security and privacy issues, as well as the management of sensitive data.

 

53 The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96) required the First Responder Network Authority 

to establish a standing public safety advisory committee to assist them in carrying out its duties and responsibilities. 

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/firstnet_psac_org_chart_and_membership-022013.pdf. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 46

 Support the evolution of alert and warning systems that deliver timely, relevant, and 

accessible emergency information to the public. The emergence of location-based services, 

mobile video, social media, and other applications offers new opportunities for government 

agencies and officials to transmit alert and warning messages to the public. To improve the 

adoption and use of emergency alerting capabilities, such as the Wireless Emergency Alert 

Program, DHS should continue research, development, testing, and evaluation activities for 

potential solutions to enhance the geo-targeting precision of message content and delivery. As 

usage and adoption of Wireless Emergency Alert Program continues to increase, DHS should 

take advantage of opportunities for increased stakeholder feedback (including vendors, 

academic partners, and individuals with access and functional needs) to identify gaps, needs, 

and new technological capabilities that could be integrated into the Wireless Emergency Alert 

Program roadmap to improve performance and response. 

 OBJECTIVE 5.3: Modernize communications standards and programs to keep pace with 

technological change. The Project 25 suite of standards and DHS’ priority service programs support 

interoperability and communications continuity for the public safety community.54 As new 

standards and infrastructures are developed, these programs must evolve to meet changing 

demands and technologies. The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility and the Public Safety 

Communications Research Program should collaborate with the private sector and participate in 

standards development organizations to ensure that public safety capabilities are incorporated into 

current and emerging standards.

Recommendations: 

 Update priority service programs to successfully migrate to Internet Protocol-enabled fixed 

and mobile broadband networks. DHS should continue to partner with Federal departments 

and agencies and communications service providers to ensure that priority service offerings 

keep pace with commercial deployment of Internet Protocol networks, while at the same time 

consider priority requirements for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. This 

approach should generate: (1) a baseline understanding of current program capabilities and 

gaps; (2) an analysis of user needs and desired end-state, including any differences from 

authorized user requirements; (3) a gap analysis of customer needs/end-state and existing 

offerings; (4) a technology roadmap for priority services; and (5) a resource and timeline 

estimate to build and implement service offerings based on the gap analysis, as well as 

technologies from the technology roadmap, including lifecycle costs and timeframes. 

 Increase use and awareness of the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program. The Project 

25 Compliance Assessment Program was created by the Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility, in partnership with the Public Safety Communications Research Program, to help 

the emergency response community make informed purchasing decisions by providing 

 

54 Project 25 resulted in the Telecommunications Industry Association 102 suite of standards for public safety Land Mobile 

Radio and will need to be supported during the development of transitional solutions that permit and maintain interoperability 

between legacy Land Mobile Radio communications and long-term evolution networks. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Strategic Components 47

manufacturers with a method to ensure their equipment complies with Project 25 standards.55 

The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility is transitioning compliance assessment to thirdparty laboratory accreditation organizations. DHS should continue to release summary test 

reports and Suppliers’ Declaration of Compliance documentation to the public safety 

community. DHS should also encourage Federal agencies purchasing Project 25 

communications equipment to use the resources made available by Project 25 Compliance 

Assessment Program. 

 Continue to support Project 25 standards development for interoperability. With the 

recognition that mission critical voice communications are the primary means of 

communications for public safety agencies, the emergency response community should 

continue its commitment to further develop the Project 25 suite of standards for enhanced 

interoperability. DHS, as the senior Federal partner in the Project 25 standards development 

process and the chair of the Project 25 Steering Committee, continues to help drive 

interoperability testing, the addition of enhanced security features, and support for future 

communications capabilities such as Project 25 to long-term evolution interfaces.

 

55 For more information on the Project 25 Compliance Assessment Program, see: 

http://www.pscr.gov/outreach/safecom/p25_cap/p25_cap_docs.php. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementing and Measuring the National Emergency Communication Plan 48

4.0 IMPLEMENTING AND MEASURING THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 

The goals, objectives, and recommendations in Section 3.0 provide the blueprint to enhance emergency 

communications capabilities nationwide, consistent with the National Emergency Communications 

Plan’s legislative requirements. This section reviews DHS’ strategy for implementing and measuring the

National Emergency Communications Plan in coordination with the Plan’s stakeholders. As shown in 

Exhibit 4, this strategy is driven by a repeatable process that the first National Emergency 

Communications Plan established to guide emergency communications planning at all levels of 

government. This strategic management process aims to drive continuous improvement of the Nation’s 

emergency communications capabilities through four primary phases.56

 Analyze: Assess implementation of 

existing planning priorities in conjunction 

with lessons learned from real-world 

incidents, events, and exercises to identify 

areas for continued improvement. 

 Develop: Based on the analysis, generate 

new strategic priorities (e.g., vision, goals, 

objectives, and recommendations) to target 

current gaps and address future needs. 

 Implement: Design supporting activities 

and timeframes for achieving the 

recommendations and building capability. 

 Measure: Regularly assess progress in 

meeting milestones and achieving goals. 

4.1 IMPLEMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT

Although DHS leads the development and management of the National Emergency Communications 

Plan, the implementation is a shared responsibility among the Department and the Plan’s stakeholders. 

This reflects the nature of the emergency communications community, which spans disciplines, 

jurisdictions, and levels of government, and also involves the public and private sectors.57

 

56 This methodology aligns with the National Preparedness System’s six components that provide a consistent and reliable 

approach to support decision-making, resource allocation, and measuring progress toward building, maintaining, and sustaining 

capabilities. 

57 Appendix 4 addresses the key stakeholders responsible for executing the National Emergency Communications Plan’s 

recommended strategies.

Exhibit 4. National Emergency Communications 

Plan Strategic Management Process
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementing and Measuring the National Emergency Communication Plan 49

Exhibit 5. National Emergency Communications Plan

Measures of Success

The ability of responders to communicate and share information to save lives and protect property is 

both the most important and most challenging criteria by which to measure the National Emergency 

Communications Plan’s success. Given the multitude of public safety agencies across the Nation—and 

the large number of incidents to which they respond on a daily basis—consistently evaluating how well 

communications function during response operations is a major challenge that requires cooperation at 

all levels of government. 

To address this difficult task, DHS partnered with public safety agencies and emergency responders 

following the release of the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan to develop an assessment 

program. This collaboration produced a targeted measurement process based on operational 

performance benchmarks that enabled jurisdictions to test their capacity to communicate during 

responses. As a result, more than 2,800 counties or county-equivalents participated in the 

assessment—including thousands of Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial agencies. The 

assessment increased their understanding of how responders coordinate, execute, and communicate 

during real-world incidents, exercises, or planned events.58

 

The measurement process also allowed jurisdictions to gain a baseline understanding of their 

emergency communications capabilities, such as the degree to which training and exercises are 

conducted within a county or county-equivalent. Capability measures were used in combination with 

operational performance measures to provide a more complete understanding of emergency 

communications. In general, jurisdictions with higher overall capability measurements can be expected 

to demonstrate greater operational effectiveness. 

DHS will follow this proven approach to 

measure the progress of this National 

Emergency Communications Plan. 

Specifically, the Plan will focus its 

assessment actions around the following 

three measures, displayed in Exhibit 5. 

 Demonstration of operational 

emergency communications. To 

measure progress toward the National 

Emergency Communications Plan’s 

vision, DHS will employ the same 

methods for testing operational 

performance that were used to 

measure interoperability under the 

2008 National Emergency 

 

58 The criteria used to measure operational performance and interoperability capabilities are presented in Appendix 8. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementing and Measuring the National Emergency Communication Plan 50

Communications Plan.59 DHS will partner with jurisdictions across the country to test their ability 

to demonstrate response-level communications during an incident or event. This includes 

working with Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial agencies on appropriate timeframes and 

benchmarks for these assessments. Also, as broadband technologies and a potentially broader set 

of stakeholders take a greater role in response and recovery operations, DHS will work with 

partners to update the performance criteria, as appropriate. 

 Development of emergency communications capabilities. In addition to operational 

performance, DHS will assess progress in building emergency communications capabilities 

consistent with the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum. Developing these capabilities (e.g., 

governance; policies, practices, and procedures; technology; training and exercises; and usage) is 

the foundation of a jurisdiction’s ability to consistently achieve operational communications at an 

incident. The National Emergency Communications Plan capability assessment was a nationwide 

initiative that helped inform the strategic goals and objectives for the 2014 National Emergency 

Communications Plan. To measure progress since the last assessment, the Office of Emergency 

Communications will work with stakeholders across all levels of government to establish targets 

for their capability levels based on remaining challenges and new developments in the operating 

environment. 

 Completion of National Emergency Communications Plan recommendations and 

implementation actions. The National Emergency Communications Plan goals, objectives, and 

recommendations aim to drive capability improvements at all levels of government. DHS will 

partner with National Emergency Communications Plan stakeholders to identify specific activities 

to support implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. Completion of the recommendations 

will help gauge progress toward achieving the goals and objectives, which in turn help build 

emergency communications capabilities across the Nation. 

4.2 PLANNING AND REPORTING

The National Emergency Communications Plan’s

three-pronged measurement process will generate 

detailed results on progress and provide a basis for 

formulating priorities and strategies for future 

planning. States, territories, urban areas, localities, 

and tribes are encouraged to leverage their 

operational and capabilities data for integration 

into Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk 

Assessments. DHS will work with its partners at the 

Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial levels to 

 

59 The Office of Emergency Communications developed the Communications Interoperability Performance Measurement Guide

to assist public safety officials with measuring the National Emergency Communications Plan goals and assessing performance 

of interoperable communications on a regular basis. 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/oec/oec_performance_measurement_guide.pdf. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementing and Measuring the National Emergency Communication Plan 51

analyze results, understand correlations between performance and capability data points, and assess 

implications for future decision-making. 

The National Emergency Communications Plan’s results will also help DHS and the Federal Government 

better target ongoing support for emergency communications, including training, technical assistance, 

grant guidance, planning assistance, and stakeholder coordination. To ensure awareness, the Office of 

Emergency Communications will provide regular updates to the stakeholder community on the status of 

the National Emergency Communications Plan implementation. This outreach effort will allow 

stakeholders to track their partners’ progress, share implementation best practices, and adopt 

remediation actions, as needed. In addition, the Office of Emergency Communications will provide 

Congress with progress on the National Emergency Communications Plan’s implementation in its 

Biennial Progress Report.

60

 

60 Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires the Office of Emergency Communications to report to Congress on 

DHS’ progress toward achieving national emergency communications goals. In addition, the law requires the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center to report to Congress annually on Federal agencies’ progress.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Conclusion 52

5.0 CONCLUSION 

Since 2008, tremendous progress has been made to enhance emergency responder communications 

capabilities. However, as the emergency communications ecosystem continues to evolve, the Nation 

must build on previous successes and pursue opportunities for improvement. The 2014 National 

Emergency Communications Plan emphasizes the close collaboration by stakeholders to plan for and 

shape the future of emergency communications. The deployment of new technologies provides 

emergency responders access to 

high-speed and cutting-edge 

capabilities, while current emergency 

communications networks offer 

responders the security, reliability, 

and coverage they need to execute 

their mission in an all-hazards 

environment. Striking the right 

balance between addressing existing 

gaps and requirements while also 

integrating new technologies is a 

significant challenge facing public 

safety organizations across all levels 

of government. 

To that end, the National Emergency Communications Plan sets forth five strategic goals to advance the 

capabilities needed for operational success in an increasingly dynamic and interconnected environment. 

The Plan establishes a series of targeted objectives that address each goal and collectively emphasize 

the maintenance and improvement of Land Mobile Radio systems, preparation for the integration of 

emerging technologies, and improved coordination among an expanding emergency response 

community. The Plan identifies actionable recommendations for stakeholders to enhance and update 

the policies, governance structures, planning, and protocols that enable responders to communicate 

and share information under all circumstances. Ultimately, the intent of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan is to ensure the emergency response community drives toward a commonly 

defined end-state for communications. 

Moving forward, emergency response agencies will be making critical decisions regarding resources, 

personnel, and equipment to address the evolving operating environment. The guidance provided in 

this Plan will help to advance their efforts. However, success of the Plan will require the support and 

dedication of the entire emergency communications community, including Federal, State, local, tribal, 

and territorial partners, nongovernmental organizations, the private sector, and the public. In order to 

realize the Plan’s vision, and help bring public safety communications into the 21st century, DHS and the 

Office of Emergency Communications will work diligently to ensure that our Nation’s emergency 

responders can fulfill their mission needs in a seamless and fully interoperable next generation 

communications ecosystem.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

This page intentionally left blank. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Statutory Requirements Matrix A-1

APPENDIX 1: STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS MATRIX 

 6 USC § 572 Requirements

National Emergency 

Communications Plan 

Sections

1

Include recommendations developed in consultation with the 

Federal Communications Commission and the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology for a process for expediting national 

voluntary consensus standards for interoperable emergency 

communications equipment

 Section 3.0 – Objectives 

1.3 and 5.3 

 Appendix 6

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 2.0

 Section 3.0 – Objectives 

1.2, 2.3, 4.1, 4.3, and 5.3

 Section 4.0

 Appendices 6 and 8

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 2.0

 Section 3.0 – Objectives 

1.2, 1.3, 4.1, and 4.3; 

 Appendices 6 and 8

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 3.0 – Objectives 

1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.3, 5.2, 

and 5.3

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 3.0 –Objectives 

1.3, 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 

5.3

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 3.0 – Objectives 

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 

3.2, 3.3, 4.1, and 4.2

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 2.0

 Section 3.0, Objectives 

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 

3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 5.2

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 3.0

9

Recommend appropriate measures that emergency response 

providers should employ to ensure continued operation of relevant 

governmental communications infrastructure 

 Section 3.0 – Objectives 

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 

4.3, and 5.3 

 Appendices 6 and 8
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Statutory Requirements Matrix A-2

6 USC § 572 Requirements 

National Emergency 

Communications Plan 

Sections

10

(House Resolution 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 4.0

 Appendices 6 and 8
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Key Authorities and References A-3

APPENDIX 2: KEY AUTHORITIES AND REFERENCES 

This appendix provides an overview of the key authorities that guide the development, implementation, 

and management of the National Emergency Communications Plan. Title XVIII of the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, as amended, requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish and 

periodically update the National Emergency Communications Plan to guide improvements in emergency 

communications nationwide.61 This law and other related statutory actions have helped define 

improvements to emergency communications. Table A2-1 describes the core set of statutory provisions 

that provides the foundation for the execution of emergency communications functions. 

While this appendix includes the primary authorities that most directly impact emergency 

communications, there are other key homeland security doctrine and plans that influence the 

development and implementation of the National Emergency Communications Plan. These plans—

including the National Planning Frameworks, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the 

National Incident Management System—are discussed in Appendix 3, Part of a Broader National 

Preparedness Strategy. The National Emergency Communications Plan is also consistent with, and 

supports, the DHS 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, which provides a strategic framework 

to guide the activities of participants in homeland security towards the goal of a secure and resilient 

Nation. 

62

Table A2-1. Statutes (in chronological order) 

61 Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

62 DHS, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, June 2014. http://www.dhs.gov/quadrennial-homeland-security-review-qhsr. 

Title Date 

Enacted Description

The 

Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended

(Title 47 United 

States Code §151 et. 

seq.)

1934

Regulates interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio 

in the public interest. Establishes the Federal Communications 

Commission as the chief regulatory authority on communications 

matters. Assigns war powers to the President, thereby enabling the 

Executive Branch of the Federal Government to direct priority 

provisioning of telecommunications services deemed critical to 

national security interests during wartime emergencies.

The Robert T. 

Stafford Disaster 

Relief and 

Emergency 

Assistance Act,

(Title 42 United 

States Code § 101 et. 

seq.)

1988

Describes the programs and processes by which the Federal 

Government provides disaster and emergency assistance to State 

and local governments, tribal nations, eligible private nonprofit 

organizations, and individuals affected by a declared major disaster 

or emergency. Establishes the use of temporary communications 

systems in anticipation of or during an emergency. Applies to 

response and recovery from all hazards.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Key Authorities and References A-4

Title 

The Homeland 

Security Act of 2002

(Title 6 United States 

Code § 101 et. seq.)

2002

Establishes DHS as an executive department of the United States 

Government and specifies significant responsibilities associated with 

emergency preparedness, response, and recovery, including 

emergency communications. Includes provisions for improving the 

management, coordination, and interoperability of communications 

services in support of Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial 

authorities. 

The Intelligence 

Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention 

Act (Title 42 United 

States Code §

2000ee, 50 United 

States Code § 403-1 

et. seq., § 403-3 et. 

seq., § 4040 et. seq.)

2004

Acting on recommendations made by the National Commission on 

Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), 

strengthens the emergency communications provisions codified by 

the Homeland Security Act. Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to establish a comprehensive national approach to 

achieving public safety interoperable communications at all levels of 

government. Establishes the Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility to enhance public safety interoperable 

communications.

The Fiscal Year 2007 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act

2006

Includes Title VI, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act, which reorganizes the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, amends the Stafford Act, and addresses emergency 

communications through Subtitle D—The 21st Century Emergency

Communications Act of 2006. The latter amends the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 by adding Title XVIII—Emergency 

Communications, which establishes the Office of Emergency 

Communications, transfers existing programs and functions to the 

Office, and assigns new responsibilities for developing and 

implementing a comprehensive national approach to achieving 

public safety interoperable communications. This includes 6 United 

States Code § 572 requirements for developing and periodically 

updating the National Emergency Communications Plan.

Security and 

Accountability for 

Every Port Act 

2006

Includes Title VI—Commercial Mobile Service Alerts of the Warning, 

Alert, and Response Network Act, which establishes standards, 

protocols, procedures, other technical requirements and associated 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules that enable 

Commercial Mobile Service providers to voluntarily transmit 

emergency alerts to subscribers. Establishes the Commercial 

Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee to develop and submit 

recommendations to the FCC regarding the technical standards and 

protocols required for transmitting emergency alerts to subscribers. 

Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act to define "essential service provider" as a municipal, 

nonprofit, or private, for profit entity that provides 

telecommunications service, electrical power, natural gas, water and 

sewer services, or any other essential service (as determined by the 

President).

Description Date 

Enacted
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Key Authorities and References A-5

Table A2-2 describes related executive orders and presidential directives that affect the development 

and implementation of the National Emergency Communications Plan. These authorities set national 

policy and provide executive direction in areas closely related to emergency communications, including, 

but not limited to, national preparedness, domestic incident management, critical infrastructure 

resilience, cybersecurity, and continuity of government operations. Many of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan’s concepts and strategies align to, intersect with, or are shaped by these 

authorities. 

Table A2-2. Executive Orders and Presidential Directives 

Title Date 

Enacted Description 

Implementing the 

Recommendations 

of the 9/11 

Commission Act 

2007

Amends the Homeland Security Act and other statutes to improve 

communications for emergency responders through grant programs. 

Provisions include directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

establish the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant 

Program to help States to implement initiatives to improve 

international, national, regional, statewide, local, and tribal 

interoperable emergency communications; and establish the Border 

Interoperability Demonstration Project to facilitate emergency 

communications across international borders.

The Middle Class 

Tax Relief and Jobs 

Creation Act (47 

United States Code § 

1424 et. seq.)

2012

Establishes the First Responder Network Authority, an independent 

entity within the Federal Government, to ensure the building,

deployment and operation of a Nationwide Public Safety Broadband 

Network to enhance the ability of emergency responders to 

communicate. Reallocates the 700 megahertz D Block spectrum for 

public safety use and provides $7 billion in Federal funding toward

the deployment of Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network.

The Board governing the First Responder Network Authority is 

comprised of three permanent members—the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget—and 12 term-limited individuals 

appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

Title Date 

Issued Description

Homeland Security 

Presidential 

Directive –5, 

Management of 

Domestic Incidents

2003

Seeks to enhance management of domestic incidents by 

establishing a single, comprehensive National Incident Management 

System and developing a National Response Plan. (Effective March 

22, 2008, the first edition of the National Response Framework

superseded the National Response Plan; the second edition of the 

National Response Framework was issued May 2012). Provides that 

Federal departments and agencies require States and local entities 

to adopt the National Incident Management System, to the extent 

permitted by law, for providing Federal preparedness assistance. 

Identifies the Secretary of Homeland Security as the principal 

Federal official for domestic incident management.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Key Authorities and References A-6

Title Date 

Issued Description

Executive Order

13407, Public Alert 

and Warning System

2006

Directs the Department of Homeland Security to oversee the 

development of an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and 

comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people and 

to ensure that the President can communicate with the public under 

all conditions.

National Security 

Presidential 

Directive–

51/Homeland 

Security Policy 

Directive–20, 

National Continuity 

Policy

2007

Establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of 

Federal Government structures and operations. Prescribes 

continuity requirements for all Executive Branch departments and 

agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, tribal, and territorial 

governments, and private sector organizations to enable a more 

rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national 

emergency. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop, 

implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity 

communications architecture.

Presidential Policy 

Directive–8, National 

Preparedness

2011

Seeks to strengthen the security and resilience of the United States 

through systematic preparation for threats that pose the greatest risk 

to the Nation’s security. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to oversee the development of the National Preparedness Goal, 

National Preparedness System, National Preparedness Report, and 

a Campaign for Building and Sustaining Preparedness. Emphasizes 

that national preparedness is the shared responsibility of the whole 

community. Replaces Homeland Security Policy Directive-8,

National Preparedness.

Executive Order

13618, Assignment 

of National Security 

and Emergency 

Preparedness 

Communications 

Functions

2012

Assigns national security and emergency preparedness 

communications functions to Federal Government entities to ensure 

the Executive Branch can communicate at all times and under all 

circumstances to carry out its most critical and time sensitive 

missions. Establishes an interagency National Security and 

Emergency Preparedness Communications Executive Committee to 

serve as a forum to address national security and emergency 

preparedness communications matters. Revokes Executive Order 

12472, Assignment of National Security and Emergency 

Preparedness Telecommunications Functions, thereby 

decommissioning the National Communications System.

Presidential Policy 

Directive–21, Critical 

Infrastructure 

Security and 

Resilience

2013

Addresses the roles and responsibilities across the Federal 

Government and establishes a more effective partnership with 

critical infrastructure owners and operators and State, local, tribal, 

and territorial entities to enhance the security and resilience of 

critical infrastructure. Replaces Homeland Security Policy Directive7, Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Part of a Broader Preparedness Strategy A-7

APPENDIX 3: PART OF A BROADER PREPAREDNESS STRATEGY 

The Nation continues to develop and implement strategies to strengthen preparedness and resiliency in 

the midst of a dynamic threat environment. These efforts have yielded the National Incident 

Management System; National Preparedness Goal; National Preparedness System; National Planning 

Frameworks; and a coordinated National Exercise Program. Working together, these components help 

the Nation develop and deliver the core capabilities identified in the Goal, including operational 

communications. 

As a strategic plan for emergency communications, the National Emergency Communications Plan is a 

key component in this portfolio. This appendix describes how the National Emergency Communications 

Plan aligns with, implements, and supports our Nation’s broader national preparedness strategy. 

PRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE - 8 

Signed by the President in March 2011, Presidential Policy Directive-8, National Preparedness, is aimed 

at strengthening the security and resilience of the United States through systematic preparation for the 

threats that pose the greatest risk to the security of the Nation.63

 It consists of four main components: 

the National Preparedness Goal; National Preparedness System; National Preparedness Report; and the 

Campaign to Build and Sustain Preparedness. The directive emphasizes that national preparedness is 

the shared responsibility of the whole community.

As technologies have evolved and responsibilities have expanded to include more nongovernmental 

partners, the National Emergency Communications Plan recognizes that engaging a broad set of 

stakeholders is critical to effective information sharing and communications during emergencies. The 

following section offers additional detail on the National Emergency Communications Plan’s relationship 

to the elements of Presidential Policy Directive-8: 

 

63 White House. Presidential Policy Directive – 8, National Preparedness, March 2011. http://www.fema.gov/ppd8. 

Exhibit A3-1. Key Components of Presidential Policy Directive-8
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Part of a Broader Preparedness Strategy A-8

 National Preparedness Goal: The National Preparedness Goal is the cornerstone for the 

implementation of Presidential Policy Directive-8. It establishes the capabilities and outcomes for 

the Nation to accomplish across all five mission areas (Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, 

Response, and Recovery) in order to be secure and resilient. Each of the five mission areas has 

distinct core capabilities and corresponding target elements necessary for success. While the 

majority of the National Emergency Communications Plan’s proposed recommendations support 

the Response mission area and the operational communications core capability identified in the 

Goal, many of the Plan’s goals and objectives also foster planning and coordination across the 

Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, and Recovery mission areas. 

 National Preparedness System: The National Preparedness System is the methodology through 

which the Goal is implemented. The System consists of six components: (1) identifying and 

assessing risk; (2) estimating the level of capabilities needed to address those risks; (3) building or 

sustaining the required levels of capability; (4) developing and implementing plans to deliver those 

capabilities; (5) validating and monitoring progress; and (6) reviewing and updating efforts to 

promote continuous improvement. The National Emergency Communications Plan has 

incorporated all six of these components as they pertain to emergency communications. In 

particular, the National Emergency Communications Plan’s strategic management process, 

identified in Section 4.0, provides a consistent 

and repeatable approach to support planning, 

decision-making, resource allocation, and 

measuring progress toward building, maintaining, 

and sustaining capabilities. Specific linkages 

between the National Emergency Communications 

Plan and other key components of the Preparedness 

System include:

o Identifying and Assessing Risk and Estimating 

Capability Requirements: As discussed in 

Section 2.0 of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan, public safety officials will 

need to prepare for the increasing security risks 

to the emergency communications architecture. 

This includes, but is not limited to, threats to 

open architecture and Internet-based 

technologies and services; security risks 

presented by data sharing between Public Safety 

Answering Points, Public Safety Communications 

Centers, and first responders; and cyber risks. 

The Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk 

Assessment process provides a common, 

consistent approach for identifying and 

Exhibit A3-2. The National Preparedness 

System
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Part of a Broader Preparedness Strategy A-9

assessing risks and associated impacts. It builds on existing State, local, tribal, and territorial 

hazard identification and risk assessments. Jurisdictions can integrate the findings from the 

National Emergency Communications Plan assessment process into their Threat and Hazard 

Identification and Risk Assessments, which can ultimately provide them with a better 

understanding of overall communications gaps. This can support more informed decisionmaking on resource allocation, operations planning, and mitigation activities. 

o Building and Sustaining Capabilities. Building and sustaining capabilities is a key output of 

the National Emergency Communications Plan. The Plan’s recommendations aim to increase 

emergency communications capabilities through responders’ proficiency with 

communications equipment, as well as training, planning, coordination, and education.

o Validating Capabilities. Exercises, remedial action management programs, and assessments 

are some of the methods to validate capabilities. Effective training and exercise programs can 

bolster emergency responders’ proficiency with communications equipment, as well as 

improve their ability to execute policies, plans, and procedures governing the use of 

communications. The National Emergency Communications Plan emphasizes the need to 

enhance responders’ ability to coordinate and communicate through training and exercises, as 

well as assessing capabilities on a regular basis.

 National Planning System. The National Planning System, part of the National Preparedness 

System, provides a unified system with a common terminology and approach, built around plans 

that support the all-threats and -hazards approach to preparedness. These plans—whether 

strategic, operational, or tactical—enable the whole community to build, sustain, and deliver the 

core capabilities identified in the National Preparedness Goal. The National Emergency 

Communications Plan helps implement several key pieces of the National Planning System, 

including:

o National Response Framework. The National Response Framework, one of five national 

planning frameworks, is a guide for how the Nation responds to all types of disasters and 

emergencies. It identifies roles, responsibilities, and coordinating structures for incident 

response and provides the structure and 

mechanisms to execute national-level policy 

and support for incident management. As 

such, the National Emergency 

Communications Plan aligns to the principles 

and constructs of the National Response 

Framework by providing policy and planning 

guidance that supports the response core 

capabilities, namely operational communications.

o Federal Interagency Operational Plans. The Federal Interagency Operational Plans for each 

mission area further define the concepts, principles, structures, and actions introduced in 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Part of a Broader Preparedness Strategy A-10

their respective frameworks, with a specific focus on these elements at the Federal level. The 

Response Federal Interagency Operational Plan is the plan to which the National Emergency 

Communications Plan is most directly associated, as it addresses specific tasks for the 

operational communications core capability. The National Emergency Communications Plan’s 

goals and recommendations aim to support Federal partners in executing tasks pertaining to 

the operational communications core capability.

o Departmental Plans. Any Federal department or agency with responsibility for emergency 

communications should ensure that its operational plans align to the goals and objectives of 

the National Emergency Communications Plan. For example, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) is developing a Department-wide, integrated communications interoperability 

plan to improve interoperable and emergency communications, including land mobile radio 

voice integration with broadband data technology.

 National Preparedness Report. DHS is required to report annually to Congress on the progress 

the Nation is making towards building and sustaining the core capabilities. The report is 

structured around the core capabilities identified in the Goal. As part of the assessment of the 

operational communications core capability, DHS has and will continue to report on key results 

from implementation of the National Emergency Communications Plan in the annual Preparedness 

Report to Congress. The 2013 National Preparedness Report to Congress, for example, includes 

results from the National Emergency Communications Plan capability assessment. It also credits 

the National Emergency Communications Plan with helping jurisdictions progress beyond the early 

stage of interoperable communications development and close numerous communications 

capability gaps. In addition, the report shows that 92 percent of States and territories rated the 

operational communications capability as a high priority.64

NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Mandated by Homeland Security Presidential Directive- 5, Management of Domestic Incidents, the 

National Incident Management System provides a systematic, proactive approach and template to guide 

departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 

sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects 

of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity. First issued in 2004, the National Incident 

Management System establishes a core set of concepts, principles, terminology, and technologies 

covering the incident command system; multi-agency coordination systems; unified command; training; 

identification and management of resources (including systems for classifying types of resources); 

qualifications and certification; and the collection, tracking, and reporting of incident information and 

incident resources. 

To implement the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan, DHS evaluated jurisdictions’ use of 

the National Incident Management System components, concepts, and principles as they related to 

 

64 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2013 National Preparedness Report to Congress. May 2013.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Part of a Broader Preparedness Strategy A-11

command, control, and communications. This included assessing the effectiveness and regularity of 

Incident Command System implementation, namely the performance of responder roles and 

responsibilities utilizing the Incident Command System command structure; the use of easilyunderstood language; and the use of Incident Action Plans and Incident Command System forms. The 

assessment also reviewed the use of the Operations Section Chief position, which plays a key role in 

facilitating the exchange of information among agencies and across disciplines, and the Communications 

Unit Leader, who is responsible for establishing and maintaining communications interoperability for 

responding agencies. The Office of Emergency Communications will continue to evaluate the 

implementation of the National Incident Management System components, concepts, and principles as 

they relate to communications as part of the National Emergency Communications Plan performance 

and capability assessments. 

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PLAN

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan and its 16 sector-specific plans create a system to protect 

public and privately-owned critical infrastructure. The National Emergency Communications Plan 

acknowledges the importance of critical infrastructure sectors to the emergency communications 

ecosystem; not only does it address leveraging and integrating communications services, teams, and 

capabilities into response operations, it also focuses on the growing interdependencies between the 

communications and other sectors (e.g., transportation, energy, and health). DHS also worked with the 

main private sector partnership—the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council—to coordinate 

the communications and emergency services sectors’ input for the National Emergency Communications 

Plan.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-12

APPENDIX 4: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

This appendix provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the key public and private 

stakeholders who are involved in the emergency communications mission and the implementation of 

the National Emergency Communications Plan. In addition to emergency responders at all levels of 

government, this appendix also addresses key private sector and nongovernmental organizations, as 

well as partnerships and advisory committees, with whom the Federal Government coordinates 

emergency communications policies, plans, and programs. 

All Levels of Government 

The responsibility for responding to and managing planned events and incidents begins at the local 

level—with individuals, first responders, and public officials in the county, city, or town affected by the 

incident. When emergencies escalate, additional support may be requested from other jurisdictions, 

States, or even the Federal Government. Operational communications is a core capability for any 

incident, regardless of size, location, or cause; therefore, each level of government must take the 

necessary preparedness actions to ensure the capacity to communicate with both the emergency 

response community and the affected populations, as well as with other governmental entities. 

Local Jurisdictions

Local leaders, emergency managers, and public safety officials prepare their communities to manage 

incidents locally. Among their numerous responsibilities, these officials provide strategic guidance; 

manage resources; develop and implement policies and budgets; and oversee local preparedness efforts 

to improve emergency management and response capabilities. A number of local entities involved in 

response operations require interoperable, continuous, and secure communications to carry out their 

missions. This includes public safety disciplines, such as local law enforcement, fire, and emergency 

medical service personnel who respond to the early stages of an incident and are primarily responsible 

for the protection and preservation of life, property, evidence, and the environment. In addition, 

emergency management agencies are also involved with coordination and communications during 

incidents by disseminating alerts and warnings and operating emergency operations centers, among 

other key functions. Local Public Safety Answering Points and Public Safety Communications Centers 

also play critical roles by serving as key communications and information conduits between the public 

and emergency responders. Since natural and man-made emergency response efforts generally begin at 

the local level, coordination among these entities is critical to ensuring effective communications and 

information sharing when responding to emergencies of all scopes and sizes. 

State Agencies

State agencies and officials help coordinate and integrate statewide responders and resources into the 

local incident command before, during, and after incidents. States must be prepared to maintain or 

accelerate the provision of emergency communications resources and services when an incident grows 

and local capabilities are unable to keep up with demand. Likewise, if a State anticipates that its 

resources may be exceeded, they must have a process in place to request and integrate Federal 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-13

assistance. A listing of the key statewide officials and governing bodies with responsibility for 

emergency communications are described below. This list is not intended to be exhaustive as some 

States have additional agencies or individuals with whom they interact.65

 Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. The Statewide Interoperability Coordinators serves as 

the State’s single point of contact for interoperable communications and implements the 

Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan, which establishes a vision for interoperability in 

the State. 

 State Single Point of Contact. The single point of contact serves as the coordinator for the State 

and Local Implementation Grant Program and First Responder Network Authority’s efforts with

respect to the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. This person may or may not be the 

Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. 

 Statewide Interoperability Governing Body or Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee. 

The Statewide Interoperability Governing Body or Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee 

serves as the primary steering group for the statewide interoperability strategy. Its mission is to 

support the National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators in efforts to improve 

emergency response communications across the State through enhanced data and voice 

communications interoperability. Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies and Statewide 

Interoperability Executive Committees often include representatives from various jurisdictions, 

disciplines, as well as subject matter experts.

 State Emergency Management Agency Director. The director of the State emergency 

management agency is responsible for ensuring that the State is prepared to deal with any type of 

emergency, as well as coordinating statewide incident response. This includes collaborating with 

appropriate statewide representatives for critical capabilities, such as emergency 

communications. The director may also have the responsibility for statewide 9-1-1 

communications and public alerting. 

 State Information Technology and Security Officials. A State or territory’s chief information 

officer, chief technology officer, and chief information security officer manage key information 

technology and broadband deployment initiatives, including information technology procurement, 

security, and information technology planning and budgeting.

 State 9-1-1 Administrator. This individual manages a State’s or territory’s 9-1-1 functions as 

determined by State legislation. The official title and role of this position may vary by State or 

territory. 

Territories 

Similar to each State, territorial governments are also responsible for coordinating the emergency 

communications resources needed to respond to incidents of all types and any scale, determining their 

 

65 Each State has the ability to designate other officials and offices to oversee aspects of emergency communications and 

information technology. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-14

resource capacity, and ensuring an efficient process for requesting assistance, when necessary. Given 

that their geographical locations often present unique challenges for receiving assistance during times of 

disaster, it is equally important for territorial governments to prioritize emergency communications. It is 

especially critical for territories to build relationships and partnerships among neighboring islands, other 

nearby countries, States, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations, and the Federal 

Government. 

Tribal Nations 

Indian country is geographically dispersed across the United States, and tribe size varies significantly, 

both by enrollment and land area. Federal agencies respect tribal self-government and sovereignty, 

honor tribal treaties and other rights, and strive to meet the responsibilities that arise from the unique 

legal relationship between the Federal Government and tribal governments. Communications and 

emergency services might be handled internally by a tribe; provided by Federal, State, or county 

entities; or handled by any combination thereof. These jurisdictional complexities can greatly 

complicate emergency response and communications. Many reservations are located in rural areas far 

from emergency services, which also pose challenges for first responder communications. 

Federal Departments and Agencies

The Federal Government has an array of capabilities and resources that can be made available to 

support emergency response efforts at all levels of government. Federal departments or agencies may 

function as first responders for incidents involving primary Federal jurisdiction or authorities (e.g., on a 

military base, a Federal facility, or Federal lands). Under these circumstances, a Federal department or 

agency becomes the central coordinator of 

emergency communications activities with State, 

local, tribal, territorial, and regional partners. 

Examples include the United States Coast Guard or 

the Environmental Protection Agency for oil and 

hazardous materials spills and the United States 

Forest Service or the Department of the Interior for 

fires on Federal lands. 

At the same time, the Federal Government is 

responsible for ensuring the efficient delivery of 

Federal capabilities for large-scale and catastrophic 

incidents in support of State, local, tribal, and 

territorial government efforts, as well as other 

Federal partners. This can include the following 

communication functions: 

 Facilitating Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial planning through funding, technical 

assistance, and guidance; 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-15

 Promoting the development of national, regional, and statewide communications plans to address 

how available Federal assets can be incorporated during times of crisis; 

 Promoting the alignment of Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector emergency 

communications plans and preparedness activities to facilitate the development of robust regional 

communications coordination capabilities; and 

 Supporting Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial operational efforts, providing surge capacity 

and coordinating distribution of Federal resources to support emergency communications. 

Private Sector Entities and Nongovernmental Organizations

Private Sector 

As the owners and operators of the majority of the Nation’s critical infrastructure, private sector entities 

are responsible for protecting key commercial communications assets, as well as ensuring the resiliency 

and reliability of communications during day-to-day operations and emergency response and recovery 

efforts. In addition, commercial communications carriers have a primary role in network restoration 

during outages and service failures and support reconstitution for emergency response and recovery 

operations. The communications sector has a history of successfully cooperating both within the sector 

and with response entities at all levels of government. These relationships help government and the 

private sector coordinate joint incident response activities, share and analyze infrastructure information, 

and coordinate standards development and priority 

service technologies. 

The private sector’s extensive experience protecting, 

restoring, and reconstituting the communications 

infrastructure will be particularly important as the 

Nation plans and prepares for the adoption, migration, 

and use of emerging technologies, including 

deployment of the Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network. Its expertise provides insight on 

how to address network vulnerabilities so that 

emergency communications are reliable and resilient 

during times of crisis. 

Depending on the type of incident and its scale, other private sector entities may also have a role 

supporting, facilitating, or using communications during emergencies, as well as provide services and 

networks for the government to alert the public. For example, key private sector partners—including 

privately-owned transportation and transit, telecommunications, utilities, financial institutions, 

hospitals, and other health regulated facilities—may need to establish and maintain a direct line of 

communication between their organization and emergency response officials.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-16

Nongovernmental Organizations

Nongovernmental organizations can play vital roles during emergency response and recovery 

operations, as they have the capability to deliver specialized services that support core capabilities, 

including operational communications.66

 Nongovernmental organizations include voluntary and nonprofit organizations that provide shelter, food, and other essential support services and disaster relief.67

 

As technology evolves, various s are also implementing new ways to facilitate communications and 

information sharing during emergencies. 

Individuals and Volunteer Organizations

As discussed in Section 2.0 of the National Emergency Communications Plan, the public and volunteer 

groups play an increasingly important role in emergency communications. Emergencies are often first 

reported to authorities by members of the public 

seeking assistance, and—more than ever before—the 

public is encouraged to alert the government to 

potentially dangerous or suspicious activities or 

update officials on the aftermath of an incident. For 

example, the Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) “If You See Something, Say Something” 

campaign emphasizes the importance of reporting 

suspicious activity to the proper local law enforcement 

authorities.

Likewise, volunteer organizations such as community 

emergency response teams and auxiliary 

communications volunteers (e.g., amateur radio 

operators; also called Hams) play key roles in 

emergency communications and preparedness. 

Volunteer emergency communications operators and 

groups using amateur radio have been providing 

backup communications to event planners, public safety officials, and emergency managers at all levels 

of government for nearly 100 years. Often, amateur radio services have been used when other forms of 

communications have failed or have been disrupted. Today, nearly all the States and territories have 

incorporated some level of participation by amateur radio auxiliary communication operators into their 

Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans and Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans; this 

allows them to quickly integrate the operators into response efforts, which can strengthen 

communications and operations during incidents of any scale. 

 

66 For a list of all core capabilities, refer to the National Preparedness Goal, www.fema.gov/ppd8. 

67 FEMA. National Response Framework, June 2013, pg. 8. http://www.fema.gov/national-response-framework. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-17

Partnership and Advisory Groups 

Partnership groups are key mechanisms for successful implementation of the National Emergency 

Communications Plan and execution of the national emergency communications mission. They provide 

best practices and subject matter expertise to the government, and allow emergency response 

stakeholders to cultivate working relationships and help shape strategic and operational plans to 

improve emergency communications. With the changes in the emergency communications landscape, 

as noted in Section 2.0 of the National Emergency Communications Plan, the pool of partnerships and 

their roles and responsibilities for supporting emergency communications continues to evolve and 

expand. Table A4-1 includes a listing of key partnership organizations and advisory bodies: 

Table A4-1. Emergency Communications Partnerships and Advisory Groups

Group Description of Roles and Responsibilities

Canada – United States 

Communications 

Interoperability Working 

Group 

The Canada – United States Communications Interoperability Working 

Group is a joint effort between Canada and the United States. It is cochaired by Public Safety Canada and DHS’ Office of Emergency 

Communications. The Interoperability Working Groups goal is to 

support each country’s national interoperability strategy and work to 

resolve bilateral issues of common interest concerning cross-border

communications and information exchange.

Communications Security, 

Reliability and

Interoperability Council

The Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council is 

an advisory committee that provides recommendations to the FCC to 

ensure, among other things, optimal security and reliability of 

communications systems, including telecommunications, media, and 

public safety.

Critical Infrastructure 

Partnership Advisory 

Council 

The Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council is a DHS 

program established to facilitate effective coordination of critical 

infrastructure activities among the Federal Government; the private 

sector; and State, local, tribal, and territorial governments.

Emergency 

Communications 

Preparedness Center 

As the Federal interagency focal point for interoperable and operable 

emergency communications coordination, the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center’s mission is to improve 

emergency communications collaboration across the Federal 

Government, and align initiatives with national goals, policy, and 

guidance. The 14 Federal departments and agencies that comprise the 

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center represent the 

Federal Government’s broad role in emergency communications, 

including planning, policy, operations, grants, and technical assistance.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-18

Group Description of Roles and Responsibilities

National Council of 

Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators

Comprised of all Statewide Interoperability Coordinators, the National 

Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators assists State and 

territory interoperability coordinators with promoting the critical 

importance of interoperable communications and the sharing of best 

practices to ensure the highest level of interoperable communications 

across the Nation.

National Public Safety 

Telecommunications 

Council 

Composed of State and local public safety representatives, the National 

Public Safety Telecommunications Council is a federation of national 

public safety leadership organizations dedicated to improving 

emergency response communications and interoperability through 

collaborative leadership.

National 

Security/Emergency 

Preparedness 

Communications Executive 

Committee 

Executive Order 13618, Assignment of National Security and 

Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions, established the 

National Security and Emergency Preparedness Executive Committee

in July 2012 as a forum—comprised of representatives from at least 

eight designated Federal agencies—to recommend policy and advise 

the President on national security and emergency preparedness 

communications issues.

National Security

Telecommunications

Advisory Committee

The President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory 

Committee is composed of private sector executives who represent 

major communications and network service providers, as well as 

information technology, finance, and aerospace companies. Through 

DHS, the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

provides private sector-based analyses and recommendations to the 

President and the Executive Branch on policy and enhancements to 

national security and emergency preparedness communications.

One DHS Emergency 

Communications 

Committee 

The One DHS Emergency Communications Committee coordinates 

intra-DHS emergency communications activities and addresses the 

many challenges facing the Department’s emergency communications 

programs. The committee aligns these efforts and also provides a 

forum to identify priorities and synergies. It consists of senior officials 

from the 22 DHS components.

Public Safety Advisory 

Committee 

The Public Safety Advisory Committee is a standing advisory committee 

that assists the First Responder Network Authority in carrying out its 

duties and responsibilities. The Public Safety Advisory Committee is 

comprised of 40 representatives from various public safety 

organizations that are part of the DHS SAFECOM program.

Regional Emergency 

Communications 

Coordination Working 

Group 

The Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working 

Groups serve as the single coordination point for emergency 

communications at the regional level. A Regional Emergency 

Communications Coordination Working Group has been established in 

each of the 10 FEMA regions. Each Regional Emergency 

Communications Coordination Working Group has unique membership 

dependent on regional government structure and processes.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Roles and Responsibilities A-19

Group Description of Roles and Responsibilities

SAFECOM Executive 

Committee and Emergency 

Response Council 

SAFECOM is an emergency communications program of the 

Department of Homeland Security. As a stakeholder-driven program, 

SAFECOM is led by an Executive Committee, in support of the 

Emergency Response Council—groups that are primarily composed of 

State and local emergency responders and intergovernmental and 

national public safety communications associations. Both groups 

regularly convene to discuss interoperability, emergency 

communications, and provide input on the challenges, needs, and best 

practices of emergency responders. The Office of Emergency 

Communications develops policy, guidance, and future initiatives by 

drawing on Executive Committee and Emergency Response Council

expertise, best practices, and recommendations.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum A-20

Exhibit A5-1. SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

APPENDIX 5: SAFECOM INTEROPERABILITY CONTINUUM 

Developed with practitioner input from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) SAFECOM 

program, the Interoperability Continuum is designed to assist emergency response agencies and policy 

makers to plan and implement interoperability solutions for data and voice communications. This tool 

identifies the five critical success elements that must be addressed to achieve a sophisticated 

interoperability solution: governance, standard operating procedures, technology, training and 

exercises, and usage of interoperable communications. The Interoperability Continuum can be used by 

jurisdictions to track progress in strengthening interoperable communications. In addition, the DHS 

Office of Emergency Communications has used the Interoperability Continuum to develop the priorities 

and measure the goals of the National Emergency Communications Plan. For more information, see 

Section 4.0 Implementing and Measuring the National Emergency Communications Plan. 

Interoperability is a multi-dimensional challenge. To gain a true picture of a region’s interoperability, 

progress in each of the five interdependent elements must be considered. For example, when a region 

procures new equipment, that region should plan and conduct training and exercises to maximize the 

use of that equipment. Optimal level interoperability is contingent upon individual agency and 

jurisdictional needs. The Continuum is designed as a guide for jurisdictions that are pursuing a new 

interoperability solution, based on changing needs or additional resources; it is an evolving tool that 

supports national preparedness doctrine including, but not limited to, the National Incident 

Management System, the National Response Framework, and the National Emergency Communications 

Plan. To maximize the Interoperability Continuum’s value to the emergency response community, 

SAFECOM will regularly update the tool through a consensus process involving practitioners, technical 

experts, and representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-21

APPENDIX 6: SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IMPLEMENTING THE 

2008 NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 

The 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan advanced a more strategic approach to 

strengthening emergency communications by encouraging emergency response agencies at all levels of 

government to assess their capabilities and target their activities and resources. The National 

Emergency Communications Plan established a vision for the desired future state of emergency 

communications and set performance-based 

goals to measure progress toward that vision. 

The 2008 Plan also included 92 milestones that 

served as key benchmarks for tracking progress. 

This appendix reviews the results of these 

initiatives and other key achievements to 

improve emergency communications since 

publication of the 2008 National Emergency 

Communications Plan. As depicted in Exhibit 

A6-1, it is organized around the measures of 

success as outlined in Section 4.0 of the 

National Emergency Communications Plan: 

 Demonstration of operational emergency 

communications; 

 Development of emergency 

communications capabilities; and 

 Completion of 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan initiatives and recommendations. 

Operational Emergency Communications 

The National Emergency Communications Plan established the first set of national performance goals to 

evaluate emergency communications during local emergencies and complex events, as well as a process 

to measure these goals in every State and territory. The process generated unparalleled data on 

interoperable emergency communications capabilities and gaps. As a result, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial decision-makers can more 

effectively evaluate the impact of funding decisions and allocate future resources where they are most 

needed. The goals of the 2008 Plan were: 

Exhibit A6-1. National Emergency Communications 

Plan Measures of Success
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-22

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

Security Initiative can demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for

routine events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.68

 Goal 2: By 2011, 75 percent of non- Urban Areas Security Initiative jurisdictions can 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 response-level emergency

communications within three hours, in the event of a significant incident as outlined in national

planning scenarios.

To measure the first goal, DHS’ Office of Emergency Communications worked with 60 urban areas to 

assess their ability to demonstrate response-level emergency communications during real-world 

planned events (e.g., large public gatherings, parades, and sporting events). Based on the capabilities 

documented at these assessments, all 60 metropolitan areas demonstrated response-level emergency 

communications in accordance with National Emergency Communications Plan Goal 1. The 

demonstrations illustrated how the metropolitan areas’ organizational and technical investments had 

improved their respective emergency communications capabilities.69

For jurisdictions outside of large metropolitan areas, the Office 

of Emergency Communications worked with all 56 States and 

territories to conduct a national assessment of emergency 

communications capabilities at the county level, including 

county-equivalents and parishes, municipalities, and townships. 

The Office of Emergency Communications designed the 

assessment to help States and territories better understand 

emergency communications capabilities at the local level, 

identify where progress is being made, and target resources to 

address current needs and challenges. 

The Statewide Interoperability Coordinators were responsible 

for coordinating the assessment process with their States’ 

counties, including measuring, collecting, and validating data 

from local emergencies, including unplanned incidents (e.g., 

tornadoes, vehicle accidents, missing persons, and earthquakes) 

or planned events. 

States and territories submitted performance reports covering 

more than 2,800 counties and county-equivalents, which 

68 As defined by the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan, response-level communications is the capacity of 

individuals with primary operational leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an 

incident. 

69 The National Emergency Communications Plan Goal 1 National Report is available at: 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/necp_goal_1_findings_accessible.pdf.

Exhibit A6-2. Operational 

Performance Assessment Results 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-23

involved 30,000 individual public safety agencies. This represented about 87 percent of the 3,226 

jurisdictions that were within the scope of the assessment. Among the jurisdictions that used real-world 

incidents, about 40 percent of them—or 484 counties—assessed communications performance during 

natural disasters, including floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornado outbreaks. This effectively 

satisfied the requirement for the National Emergency Communications Plan Goal 3, as 86 percent of 

those jurisdictions demonstrated response-level communications during major disasters within three 

hours. Exhibit A6-2 provides a break-down of the overall results, also summarized below. 

 34 percent of counties demonstrated “Advanced” response-level communications capabilities, 

meaning that in the reported scenario, the county was generally able to consistently maintain 

response-level communications during routine incidents and events involving multiple 

jurisdictions, disciplines, and agencies and would be able to effectively address a significant 

incident were it to occur. 

 40 percent of counties demonstrated “Established” response-level communications capabilities, 

meaning that in the reported scenario, the county consistently provided response-level 

communications during routine incidents and events involving multiple jurisdictions, disciplines, 

and agencies. 

 16 percent of counties demonstrated “Early” 

response-level communications capabilities, 

meaning that in the reported scenario, the 

county largely used ad hoc communications 

coordination with few documented plans or 

procedures during routine incidents and 

events involving multiple jurisdictions, 

disciplines, and agencies. 

 10 percent of counties did not demonstrate 

any response-level communications 

capabilities, meaning that in the reported scenario, the county did not demonstrate responselevel communications due to a lack of planning, policies, and technical solutions for 

interoperability areas of emergency communications. 

The National Emergency Communications Plan performance assessments clearly showed the progress 

that jurisdictions have made over the past several years toward establishing interoperable emergency 

communications during incidents, events, and exercises. It is important to note that for jurisdictions 

that were able to demonstrate response-level communications, the level of proficiency varied greatly; 

with this in mind, the Office of Emergency Communications has worked with the States, territories, and 

jurisdictions to identify gaps through technical assistance, guidance documents, and similar support 

efforts. 

Emergency Communications Capabilities 

To assess jurisdictions’ emergency communications more broadly, the Office of Emergency 

Communications requested that counties or equivalents report on their overall communications 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-24

Exhibit A6-3. Capability Results

capabilities that align to the elements of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.

70

 For comparison 

purposes, the Office of Emergency Communications designed the capability assessments to closely 

mirror the 2006 SAFECOM National Interoperability Baseline Survey. The survey results revealed 

progress in several key areas, including: 

 Governance: The percentage of jurisdictions involved in formal decision-making groups and 

strategic planning for emergency 

communications had doubled. 

 Standard Operating Procedures: The 

percentage of jurisdictions with formal 

interoperability standard operating 

procedures —meaning procedures that are 

published and activated during incident 

response—increased from 51 percent to 86 

percent of respondents. 

 Use of Interoperable Communications: The 

capability results showed that the percentage 

of jurisdictions that regularly achieve 

interoperability had increased from 65 

percent to 84 percent of respondents in 2011. 

Exhibit A6-3 shows the overall capability results across four lanes of the SAFECOM Interoperability 

Continuum. The Office of Emergency Communications and the States have used the data collected 

through the performance reports in combination with capability data to develop a more complete 

understanding of emergency communications across the Nation. In general, the results showed that 

those counties that demonstrated response-level communications had higher overall capability results 

than those counties that did not demonstrate the goal. 

Achievement of National Emergency Communications Plan Initiatives and 

Milestones 

The 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan includes seven objectives intended to close existing 

capability gaps and achieve the document’s long-term vision. In addition, the Plan included supporting 

initiatives for each objective, along with recommended milestones to define the timelines and 

outcomes. The following section reviews the achievement of key National Emergency Communications 

Plan initiatives and milestones. 

 

70 For more information on the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, refer to Appendix 5. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-25

2008 National 

Emergency 

Communications 

Plan Objectives

Key Accomplishments – National Emergency Communications Plan 

Initiatives and Milestones

Formal 

Governance 

Structures and 

Clear Leadership 

Roles

 The number of States and territories with full-time Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators increased after release of the 2008 National Emergency 

Communications Plan 

 DHS published the Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide 

Communications Interoperability: A Guide for Statewide Communication 

Interoperability Plan Implementation 

 More States and territories established Statewide Interoperability Governing

Bodies and Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees that incorporated 

recommended membership criteria 

 DHS coordinated with SAFECOM to develop the SAFECOM Recommended 

Guidance for Federal Grant Programs (later versions titled SAFECOM Guidance 

on Emergency Communications Grants) annually since Fiscal Year 2009

 The Office of Emergency Communications established the Regional 

Coordination Program and appointed Regional Coordinators in all 10 Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regions

 In 2009, the Office of Emergency Communications held a National Conference 

on Emergency Communications with 475 representatives from the emergency 

response community and private sector

Coordinated 

Federal Activities

 The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center formalized its charter 

and issued its first strategic agenda in 2010

 The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center Grants Focus Group 

improved coordination of Federal financial assistance programs that fund 

emergency communications 

 DHS established the One DHS Emergency Communications Committee to 

coordinate departmental emergency communications activities

 In coordination with other Federal departments and agencies, the Office of 

Emergency Communications compiled a comprehensive catalog of Federal 

Technical Assistance programs for emergency communications

 DHS and Public Safety Canada established the Canada – United States

Communications Interoperability Working Group

Common 

Planning and 

Operational 

Protocols

 The Office of Emergency Communications worked with all States and territories 

to implement and update their Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan

annually 

 DHS developed the Plain Language Guide: Making the Transition from Ten 

Codes to Plain Language and corresponding guidance for Federal grant 

programs to further the use of common language

 The Office of Emergency Communications developed a reference library of over 

200 examples of agreements and standard operating procedures, as well as a 

suite of templates for emergency communications

 DHS worked with more than 150 jurisdictions to develop Tactical Interoperable
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-26

2008 National 

Emergency 

Communications 

Plan Objectives

Key Accomplishments – National Emergency Communications Plan 

Initiatives and Milestones 

Communications Pans to document policies associated with establishing 

interoperable communications within the Urban Areas Security Initiative regions

Standards and 

Emerging 

Communications 

Technologies

 DHS Office for Interoperability and Compatibility established the Project 25 

Compliance Assessment Program, a partnership with the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, industry representatives, and the emergency 

response community

 Office for Interoperability and Compatibility coordinated with FEMA on standards

development and adoption, conformity assessment, industry capability analysis, 

stakeholder support, and technology evaluation for the Integrated Public Alert 

and Warning System

 Office for Interoperability and Compatibility published the Radio over Wireless 

Broadband Pilot Project Report, which evaluated a pilot project to test new 

products and technologies for potential emergency response use

 Office for Interoperability and Compatibility published a specifications profile for 

Voice Over Internet Protocol Bridging System Interface

 The Emergency Communications Preparedness Center developed a Federal 

Broadband Mission Needs Assessment, which evaluates Federal broadband 

communications mission needs and identifies how broadband communications 

can enhance operational effectiveness

 The Office of Emergency Communications completed Technical Assistance 

broadband workshops in numerous States and territories to help them plan for 

the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network

Emergency 

Responder Skills 

and Capabilities

 The Office of Emergency Communications , in partnership with the Office for

Interoperability and Compatibility, FEMA, and other stakeholders, developed and 

implemented a standardized training curriculum for All-Hazards Communication 

Unit Leaders that complies with the National Incident Management System71

 More than 4,000 emergency responders completed the DHS’ All-Hazards 

Communication Unit Leader course and more than 1,000 have taken the 

Department’s Communications Technician course

 The Office of Emergency Communications Technical Assistance Program helped 

States, territories, local jurisdictions, and tribal nations to design, execute, and 

evaluate communications exercises

 More than 100,000 copies of the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide 

were distributed to public safety agencies, which provides radio frequency 

information to assist those establishing or repairing emergency communications 

in a disaster area

 

71 Refer to the Incident Command System Communications Unit Implementation and Best Practices - A Guide for Program 

Development. See http://www.publicsafetytools.info for more information. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Summary of Progress Implementing the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan A-27

2008 National 

Emergency 

Communications 

Plan Objectives 

System Life

Cycle Planning

 DHS developed a comprehensive Emergency Communications System Life

Cycle Planning Guide to assist agencies with designing, implementing,

supporting, and maintaining public safety communications systems

 DHS published the Interoperability Business Case: An Introduction to Ongoing

Local Funding, a guidance document to help emergency response officials

develop compelling business cases to support funding for ongoing local

interoperability efforts

 The Office of Emergency Communications coordinated with Federal, State, and

local stakeholders to collect best practices to develop a lifecycle planning

template for grant applicants

Disaster 

Communications 

Capabilities

 FEMA published the State Emergency Communications Planning Methodology

and Best Practices, which provides guidance, best practices, and methodologies

for incorporating vulnerability assessments into emergency communications

planning, including planning for alternative and backup capabilities when primary

systems become unavailable

 FEMA developed statewide emergency communications annexes to the Regional

Emergency Communications Plans in all 10 FEMA Regions

Key Accomplishments – National Emergency Communications Plan 

Initiatives and Milestones 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Source Documents and References A-28

APPENDIX 7: SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND REFERENCES 

This appendix lists the key source documents that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) used to 

inform and shape the concepts, goals, and recommendations of the 2014 National Emergency 

Communications Plan. This list is not exhaustive; rather, it highlights the primary source documents that 

were developed since the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan. The references are grouped 

by author and then in chronological order. 

White House

Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information

and Communications Infrastructure

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace_Policy_Review_final.pdf

2009

National Security Strategy 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf 2010

Digital Government Strategy: Building A 21st Century Platform To Better Serve the American 

People http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment-strategy.pdf

2012

Federal Departments and Agencies

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD): Department of Defense Mobile Device Strategy 

Memorandum http://www.defense.gov/news/dodmobilitystrategy.pdf 2012

DHS/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): National Incident Management System

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf 2008

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Establishing Governance to Achieve Statewide 

Communications Interoperability - A Guide for Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan 

Implementation http://www.safecomprogram.gov/oec/establishing_governance_guide.pdf

2008

DHS/FEMA: The Response to the 2011 Joplin, Missouri Tornado - Lessons Learned Study 

https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/Joplin%20Tornado%20Response%20Lessons%20Lear

ned%20Report%20Final.pdf

2011

DHS/FEMA: Think Tank Discussion Series on Improving the Emergency Management System 

http://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/collections/2364 2012

DHS/FEMA: A Whole Community Approach to Management - Principles, Themes, and 

Pathways for Action http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1813-25045-

0649/whole_community_dec2011__2_.pdf

2011

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Emergency Communications System Life Cycle 

Planning Guide

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/oec/oec_system_life_cycle_planning_guide_final.pdf

2011

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: National Emergency Communications Plan Urban 

Area Communications Key Findings and Recommendations

http://www.dhs.gov/national-emergency-communications-plan-National Emergency 

Communications Plan -goals

2011

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Public Safety Communications Evolution Brochure

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/oec/public_safety_communications_evolution_brochure.pdf 2011

DHS/FEMA: National Preparedness Report http://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-report

2012

2013
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Source Documents and References A-29

Federal Departments and Agencies 

DHS/Office of Inspector General: DHS' Oversight of Interoperable Communications

http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2013/OIG_13-06_Nov12.pdf 2012

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Incident Command System Communications Unit 

Implementation and Best Practices - A Guide for Program Development

http://www.publicsafetytools.info

2012

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: National Summary of Fiscal Year 2011 Statewide 

Communications Interoperability Plan Implementation Reports http://www.dhs.gov/statewidecommunication-interoperability-plans

2012

DHS/Science and Technology Directorate: Multi-Band Radio Pilot Report, Operational 

Assessment http://www.firstresponder.gov/TechnologyDocuments/Multi%20Band%20Radio%20 

Pilot%20Report.pdf

2012

DOD: Mobile Applications Security Requirements Guide Overview 2012

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: National 9-1-

1 Program State of 9-1-1 Webinar Series http://www.9-1-1.gov/webinars.html 2012

FCC: Recommendations of the Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability

http://www.fcc.gov/document/recommendations-interoperability-board 2012

FCC: Uses and Capabilities of Amateur Radio Service Communications in Emergencies and 

Disaster Relief http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-12-1342A1.pdf 2012

DHS/FEMA: Lessons Learned Report on Boston Marathon Bombings - The Positive Effect of 

Planning and Preparation on Response https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/Boston% 

20Marathon%20Bombings%20Positive%20Effects%20of%20Preparedness_0.pdf

2013

DHS/FEMA: National Response Framework, Second Edition 

www.fema.gov/national-response-framework 2013

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Annual SAFECOM Guidance on Emergency

Communications Grants http://www.safecomprogram.gov/grant.html 2013

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Emergency Communications Preparedness Center 

Annual Strategic Assessment - Report to Congress for 2012 2013

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Emergency Communications Preparedness Center

Recommendations to Federal Agencies: Financial Assistance for Emergency Communications 

http://www.911.gov/pdf/2011_ECPC_Grants_Recommendations_to_Fed_Agencies_Final.pdf

2013

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: National Interoperability Field Operations Guide 

v1.4 www.publicsafetytools.info/start_nifog_info.php 2013

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Progress Report on Implementing the National 

Emergency Communications Plan – Fiscal Year 2012 Report to Congress 2013

DHS/Office of Emergency Communications: Region IV States and Arkansas & Louisiana 

Strategic Interstate Communications Resource Allocation Plan 2013

DHS/Office of Infrastructure Protection: National Infrastructure Protection Plan 2013 Version 

http://www.dhs.gov/national-infrastructure-protection-plan 2013

DHS Science and Technology Directorate: Lessons Learned: Social Media

and Hurricane Sandy Virtual Social Media Working Group and DHS First Responders Group

https://www.llis.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/Lessons%20Learned%20-

%20Social%20Media%20and%20Hurricane%20Sandy.pdf

2013

FCC Field Hearing on Superstorm Sandy, New York, NY, and Hoboken, NJ, February 5, 2013

http://www.fcc.gov/events/superstorm-sandy-field-hearing 2013
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Source Documents and References A-30

Federal Departments and Agencies 

FCC: Impact of the June 2012 Derecho on Communications Networks and Services Report and 

Recommendations http://www.fcc.gov/document/derecho-report-and-recommendations 2013

FCC: Legal and Regulatory Framework for Next Generation 911 Services Report to Congress 

and Recommendations http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-319165A1.pdf 2013

Congressional Panels, Testimonies, and Reports

Congressional Research Service: An Emergency Communications Safety Net: Integrating 9-1-

1 and Other Services http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32939_20080825.pdf 2008

Congressional Research Service: Social Media and Disasters: Current Uses, Future Options, 

and Policy Considerations http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41987.pdf 

2011

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ Subcommittee on 

Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs, Written Statement of Craig Fugate, 

Administrator, FEMA: Understanding the Power of Social Media as a Communication Tool in 

the Aftermath of Disasters, May 5, 2011

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/05/04/written-statement-craig-fugate-administrator-federalemergency-management-agency

2011

U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Written 

Statement of Craig Fugate, Administrator, FEMA: Evolution of Emergency Management and 

Communication, June 8, 2011

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/programs/legislative/testimony/2011/6_8_2011_ 

evolution_of_emergency_management_and_communication.pdf

2011

Congressional Research Service: Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and 

Policy Considerations http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41842.pdf 2012

Congressional Research Service: The First Responder Network and Next-Generation 

Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42543.pdf

2013

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, “The Boston Bombings: A 

First Look,” May 9, 2013 http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/hearing-boston-bombings-first-look 2013

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency 

Preparedness, Response, and Communications Committee, Hearing on “Emergency MGMT 2.0: 

How Social Media & New Tech Are Transforming Preparedness, Response, & Recovery,” June 

4 and July 9, 2013 http://homeland.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-emergency-mgmt20-how-socialmedia-new-tech-are-transforming

2013

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on “Lessons 

Learned from the Boston Marathon Bombings: Preparing for and Responding to the Attack,” 

July 10, 2013

http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/lessons-learned-from-the-boston-marathon-bombingspreparing-for-and-responding-to-the-attack

2013

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on “DHS

Oversight and Coordination of Research and Development Efforts Could Be Strengthened,”

Written Statement of Dave C. Maurer, Director, U.S. Government Accountability Office 

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655898.pdf

2013
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Source Documents and References A-31

National Associations, Advisory Boards and Groups

National Governors Association 2009 State Homeland Security Advisors Survey

http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1002HSASURVEY.PDF 2009

Transportation Safety Advancement Group: Next Generation 9-1-1 What's Next Forum Report 

and Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.tsag-its.org/docs/2011/08/NG9-1-1%20WN%20FAQ%20-%20August%202011.pdf

2011

National Associations, Advisory Boards and Groups

National Emergency Management Association Report: Social Media in the Emergency 

Management Field - 2012 Survey Results

http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/SocialMedia_EmergencyManagement.pdf

2013

The National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee: Report to the President on the 

National Security and Emergency Preparedness Implications of a Nationwide Public Safety 

Broadband Network https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/npsbn-final-report-05-22-

13_0.pdf

2013
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementation Criteria A-32

APPENDIX 8: 2008 NATIONAL EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS PLAN 

IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA 

Section 4.0 of the National Emergency Communications Plan outlines the Department of Homeland 

Security’s (DHS) strategy for implementing and measuring the National Emergency Communications 

Plan in coordination with stakeholders. This includes an assessment of operational communications and 

a broader evaluation of emergency communications capabilities based on the SAFECOM Interoperability 

Continuum and the capabilities identified in Section 2.3 of the 2008 National Emergency 

Communications Plan. 

This appendix presents the criteria that were used to measure both operational performance and 

capability levels under the 2008 Plan. To ensure consistency, DHS plans to use the criteria as the 

foundation to assess nationwide emergency communications. Given changes in the operating 

environment, DHS will work with the emergency response community to update the criteria as 

necessary to reflect the use of new technologies and other key developments. 

Table A8-1. Operational Performance Criteria 

Common Policies and Procedures

Criteria 1  Interagency communications policies and procedures were common or consistent 

amongst all responding agencies

Criteria 2  Established interagency communications policies and procedures were followed 

throughout the incident

Criteria 3  Interagency communications policies and procedures across all responding 

agencies were consistent with the National Incident Management System

Criteria 4

 A priority order for use of interagency communications resources was followed as 

established in standard operation procedures or plans, such as the Tactical 

Interoperable Communications Plan

Criteria 5  A primary interagency operations talk path was clearly established by procedure or 

communicated to responders early in the incident

Criteria 6  Common terminology and plain language were used in all interagency 

communications

Criteria 7  Clear unit identification procedures were used

Criteria 8  Common channel names were used for designated interoperability channels

Criteria 9

 Multiple organizations with inherent responsibility for some portion of the incident 

were present and joined in a unified command with a single individual designated 

with the Operations Section Chief responsibilities

Criteria 10  Span of control was maintained amongst the primary operational leadership: the 

Operations Section Chief and first-level subordinates
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementation Criteria A-33

Table A8-2. Capability Criteria 

Capability Early 

Implementation

Intermediate 

Implementation

Established 

Implementation

Advanced 

Implementation

Governance 

Area decisionmaking groups are 

informal and do 

not yet have a 

strategic plan to 

guide collective 

communications 

interoperability 

goals and funding

Some formal 

agreements exist 

and informal 

agreements are in 

practice among 

members of the 

decision-making 

group for the area; 

strategic and 

budget planning 

processes are 

beginning to be put 

in place

Formal 

agreements outline 

the roles and 

responsibilities of 

an area-wide 

decision-making 

group, which has 

an agreed upon 

strategic plan that 

addresses 

sustainable 

funding for 

collective, regional 

interoperable 

communications 

needs

Area-wide 

decision-making 

bodies proactively 

look to expand 

membership to 

ensure 

representation 

from broad public 

support disciplines 

and other levels of

government, while 

updating their 

agreements and 

strategic plan on a 

regular basis

Communications System Quality and Continuity

Criteria 11

 Communications Unit Leader roles and responsibilities were carried out by the 

Incident Commander/Unified Command or designee. This includes:

 Necessary communications resources were effectively ordered using 

documented procedures; and

 A communications plan was established by procedure or developed early in the 

incident

Criteria 12  No more than 1 out of 10 transmissions was repeated among the primary 

operational leadership due to the failure of initial communications attempts

Criteria 13  Upon failure or overload of any primary communications mode, a backup was 

provided

Criteria 14  Primary operational leadership communicated adequately to manage resources and 

make timely decisions during the incident or event
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementation Criteria A-34

Capability Early 

Implementation

Intermediate 

Implementation

Established 

Implementation

Advanced 

Implementation

Standard 

Operating 

Procedures –

Policies, 

Practices, and 

Procedures

Area-wide 

interoperable 

communications 

standard operating 

procedures are not 

developed or have 

not been 

formalized and 

disseminated

Some 

interoperable 

communications 

standard operating 

procedures exist 

within the area and 

steps have been 

taken to institute 

these 

interoperability

procedures among 

some agencies

Interoperable 

communications 

standard operating 

procedures are 

formalized and in 

use by all agencies 

within the area. 

Despite minor 

issues, standard 

operating 

procedures are 

successfully used 

during responses 

and/or exercises

Interoperable 

communications 

standard operating 

procedures within 

the area are 

formalized and 

regularly reviewed. 

Additionally, the 

National Incident 

Management 

System

procedures are 

well established 

among all 

agencies and 

disciplines. All 

needed 

procedures are 

effectively utilized 

during responses 

and/or exercises

Training and 

Exercise –

Emergency 

Responder Skills 

and Capabilities

Area-wide public 

safety agencies 

participate in 

communications 

interoperability 

workshops, but no 

formal training or 

exercises are 

focused on 

emergency 

communications

Some public safety 

agencies within the 

area hold 

communications 

interoperability 

training on 

equipment and 

conduct exercises,

although not on a 

regular cycle

Public safety 

agencies within the 

area participate in 

equipment and 

Standard 

Operating 

Procedure training 

for

communications 

interoperability and 

hold exercises on 

a regular schedule

Area public safety 

agencies regularly 

conduct training 

and exercises with 

communications 

interoperability 

curriculum 

addressing 

equipment and 

standard operating 

procedures that is 

modified as 

needed to address 

the changing 

operational 

environment

Usage

First responders 

across the area 

seldom use 

solutions unless 

advanced planning 

is possible (e.g., 

special events)

First responders 

across the area 

use interoperability 

solutions regularly 

for emergency 

events, and in 

limited fashion for 

day-to-day 

communications

First responders 

across the area 

use interoperability 

solutions regularly 

and easily for all 

day-to-day, task 

force, and mutual 

aid events

Regular use of 

solutions for all 

day-to-day and 

out-of-the-ordinary 

events across the 

area on demand, 

in real time, when 

needed, as 

authorized
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Implementation Criteria A-35

Capability Early 

Implementation

Intermediate 

Implementation

Established 

Implementation

Advanced 

Implementation

Technology

Interoperability 

within the area is 

primarily achieved 

through the use of 

gateways 

(mobile/fixed 

gateway, console 

patch), shared 

radios, or use of a 

radio cache

Interoperability 

within the area is 

primarily achieved 

through the use of 

shared channels or 

talk groups

Interoperability 

within the area is 

primarily achieved 

through the use of

a proprietary 

shared system

Interoperability 

within the area is 

primarily achieved 

through the use of 

standards-based 

shared system 

(e.g., Project 25)
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-36

APPENDIX 9: GLOSSARY 

After-Action Report. A professional document formulated in partnership with participants in a process. 

Evaluators, sponsoring agencies, and key participants from government agencies participate in the 

formulation of the after-action report. It furnishes a historical record of findings and forms the 

foundation for refinements to plans, policies, procedures, training, equipment, and overall preparedness 

of an entity. The report depicts the process, preliminary observations, and major issues, and makes 

recommendations for improvements.

Applications. A set of features and a user interface that may be realized by fixed or mobile devices. 

User services are logical building blocks of application-layer functionality.

Agreements. Formal mechanisms to govern interagency coordination and the use of interoperable 

emergency communications solutions. 

Assessment. The process of acquiring, collecting, processing, examining, analyzing, evaluating, 

monitoring, and interpreting the data, information, evidence, objects, measurements, images, and 

sound, among others, whether tangible or intangible, to provide a basis for decision-making. 

Amateur Radio Service. A radio communication service for the purpose of self-training, 

intercommunication, and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, who are duly authorized 

persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

Auxiliary Communications. Backup emergency radio communications provided by volunteers who 

support public safety and emergency response professionals and their agencies. 

Broadband. High-speed Internet that allows users to access the Internet and Internet-related services 

at significantly higher speeds than those available through dial-up Internet access services. Broadband 

allows users to access information via the Internet using one of several high-speed transmission 

technologies: Digital Subscriber Line; Cable Modem; Fiber; Wireless; and Satellite. Transmission is 

digital, meaning that text, images, and sound are all transmitted as bits of data. The transmission 

technologies that make broadband possible move these bits much more quickly than traditional 

telephone or wireless connections.

Common Alerting Protocol. The Common Alerting Protocol is a digital format for exchanging 

emergency alerts that allows a consistent alert message to be disseminated simultaneously over many 

different communications systems.

Communications Unit. Within the Incident Command System, an organizational unit in the Logistics 

Section that is responsible for effective incident communications planning, especially in the context of a 

multi-agency incident. Additionally, this unit installs and tests all communications equipment, 

supervises and operates the incident communications center, distributes and recovers communications 

equipment assigned to incident personnel, and maintains and repairs communications equipment on 

site. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-37

Continuity of Communications. The ability of emergency response agencies to maintain 

communications capabilities when primary infrastructure is damaged or destroyed. 

Core Capabilities. Distinct critical elements necessary to achieve the National Preparedness Goal. 

Critical Infrastructure. Systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that 

the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, 

national economic security, national public health or medical, or safety, or any combination of those 

matters. (Source: 2013 National Infrastructure Protection Plan)

Cross-Discipline. Involving emergency response providers from different disciplines (e.g., police, fire, 

emergency medical services). 

Cybersecurity. The prevention of damage to, unauthorized use of, or exploitation of, and, if needed, the 

restoration of electronic information and communications systems and the information contained 

therein to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Includes protection and restoration, when 

needed, of information networks and wireline, wireless, satellite, public safety answering points, and 9-

1-1 communications systems and control systems. (Source: 2013 National Infrastructure Protection 

Plan 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience) 

Dispatch Center. Agency or interagency dispatch centers, 9-1-1 call centers (e.g., public safety 

answering points), emergency control or command dispatch centers, or any naming convention given to 

the facility and staff that handles emergency calls from the public and communication with emergency 

management/response personnel.

Emergency Communications. The means and methods for exchanging communications and information 

necessary for successful incident management. 

Emergency Management Assistance Compact. A congressionally ratified mutual aid compact that 

legally establishes a national system to facilitate resources across State lines during an emergency or 

disaster. 

Emergency Response Providers. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines emergency response 

providers as Federal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental emergency public safety, fire, 

law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), 

and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.

Emergency Support Functions. Used by the Federal Government and many State governments as the 

primary mechanism at the operational level to organize and provide assistance. Emergency Support 

Functions align categories of resources and provide strategic objectives for their use. Emergency 

Support Functions utilize standardized resource management concepts such as typing, inventorying, and 

tracking to facilitate the dispatch, deployment, and recovery of resources before, during, and after an 

incident.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-38

Exercises. Instruments to train for, assess, practice, and improve performance in prevention, 

protection, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities in a risk-free environment. Exercises can be 

used for testing and validating policies, plans, procedures, training, equipment, and interagency 

agreements; clarifying and training personnel in roles and responsibilities; improving interagency 

coordination and communications; improving individual performance; identifying gaps in resources; and 

identifying opportunities for improvement. 

First Responder Network Authority. An independent authority within the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration that is responsible for ensuring the building, deployment, and operation 

of the first high-speed, nationwide public safety broadband network.

First Responders. See “emergency response provider.” (The Implementing the 9/11 Commission 

Recommendations Act of 2007 states that the term first responder shall have the same meaning as the 

term emergency response provider, which is defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002.)

Government Emergency Telecommunications Service. Service that provides national security and 

emergency preparedness personnel priority access and prioritized processing in the local and long 

distance segments of the Public Switched Telephone Network, greatly increasing the probability of call 

completion. Government Emergency Telecommunications Service is intended to be used in an 

emergency or crisis situation when the Public Switched Telephone Network is congested and the 

probability of completing a normal call is reduced. 

Governance. Relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, guidance, processes, and decisionrights for a given area of responsibility. 

Incident Action Plan. An oral or written plan containing general objectives reflecting the overall 

strategy for managing an incident. It may include the identification of operational resources and 

assignments. It may also include attachments that provide direction and important information for 

management of the incident during one or more operational periods. 

Incident Command System. A standardized on-scene emergency management construct specifically 

designed to provide for the adoption of an integrated organizational structure that reflects the 

complexity and demands of single or multiple incidents, without being hindered by jurisdictional 

boundaries. The incident command system is the combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, 

procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure, designed to aid 

in the management of resources during incidents. It is used for all kinds of emergencies and is 

applicable to small and large, complex incidents. The incident command system is used by various 

jurisdictions and functional agencies, both public and private, to organize field-level incident 

management operations. 

Information Sharing Environment. Broadly refers to the people, projects, systems, and agencies that 

enable responsible information sharing for national security.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-39

Internet Protocol-Based Technologies. Any component, device, application, or system designed to 

function on an Internet Protocol network. 

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. A range or sphere of authority. Public safety agencies have jurisdiction at an incident 

related to their legal responsibilities and authority. Jurisdictional authority at an incident can be political 

or geographical (e.g., Federal, State, tribal, local boundary lines) or functional (e.g., law enforcement, 

public health, medical).

Land Mobile Radio Systems. Terrestrially-based wireless narrowband communications systems 

commonly used by Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial emergency responders, public works 

companies, and even the military to support voice and low-speed data communications. 

Lifecycle Planning. The process of designing, implementing, supporting, and maintaining a land mobile 

radio or mobile data-based public safety communications system. Enables practitioners to better 

forecast long-term funding requirements and helps to set the framework for establishing and 

maintaining a public safety system. 

Long-Term Evolution. The next evolution of commercial broadband wireless communications 

technology, which was developed to address the demand for high-speed, data intensive 

communications, such as situational awareness, advanced analytics, database queries, and video 

applications. 

Mission Areas. Groups of core capabilities, including Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and 

Recovery. (Source: National Preparedness Goal)

Multi-jurisdictional. Involving agencies from different jurisdictions (e.g., across State, county, or 

regional boundaries). 

Mutual Aid Agreement or Assistance Agreement: Written or oral agreement between and among 

agencies, organizations, or jurisdictions that provides a mechanism to quickly obtain emergency 

assistance in the form of personnel, equipment, materials, and other associated services. The primary 

objective is to facilitate rapid, short-term deployment of emergency support prior to, during, or after an 

incident. 

National Emergency Communications Plan. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, requires 

DHS to develop the National Emergency Communications Plan; the Plan serves as the Nation’s strategic 

plan for improving emergency response communications and efforts in the United States. 

National Incident Management System. Provides a systematic, proactive approach and template to 

guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the 

private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-40

effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life 

or property and harm to the environment.

National Preparedness Goal. The cornerstone for the implementation of Presidential Policy Directive-8, 

it establishes the capabilities and outcomes for the Nation to accomplish across five mission areas 

(Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery) in order to be secure and resilient. The 

Goal establishes distinct core capabilities and corresponding target elements for each mission area. 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network. A dedicated, wireless, interoperable, communications 

long-term evolution-based network (consisting of a core network and radio access network) that allows 

public safety to receive and share critical information with their counterparts across the Nation. 

National Response Framework. A guide to how the Nation responds to all types of disasters and 

emergencies. It describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents that range from 

the serious but purely local to large-scale terrorist attacks or catastrophic natural disasters. 

National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions. The ability of the Federal 

Government to communicate at all times and under all circumstances to carry out its most critical and 

time sensitive missions. This includes the survivable, resilient, enduring, and effective communications, 

both domestic and international, that are essential to enable the executive branch to communicate 

within itself and with: the legislative and judicial branches; State, local, tribal, and territorial 

governments; private sector entities; and the public, allies, and other nations. 

Nongovernmental Organization. As noted in the National Response Framework, these include 

voluntary, racial and ethnic, faith-based, veteran-based, and nonprofit organizations that provide 

sheltering, emergency food supplies, and other essential support services. Nongovernmental 

organizations are inherently independent and committed to specific interests and values.

Operability. Ability of emergency responders to establish and sustain communications in support of 

mission operations. 

Operating Environment. For the purposes of the National Emergency Communications Plan, this refers 

to the people, processes, policies, and technologies for emergency communications. 

Private Sector Entity. Per the National Response Framework, private sector entities include large, 

medium, and small businesses; commerce, private cultural and educational institutions; and industry, as 

well as public-private partnerships that have been established specifically for emergency management 

purposes.

Public Safety Entity. An entity that provides public safety services and that include services provided by 

emergency response providers, as defined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (see above definition 

for “emergency response providers”). (Source: Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012) 

Public Safety Services. Includes services defined in the Communications Act of 1934 as those with the 

sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or property; that are provided—
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-41

by State or local government entities; or by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a 

governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services; and that are not made 

commercially available to the public by the provider. Also includes services provided by emergency 

response providers, as defined in Section 2 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (see above definition 

for “emergency response providers”).

Public Safety Answering Point. A facility that has been designated to receive 9-1-1 calls and route them 

to emergency services personnel. A Public Safety Answering Point may act as a dispatch center. Public 

Safety Answering Point is often used with the term Public Safety Communications Center. (Source: 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended) 

Reliability. Achieved in public safety land mobile radio systems through equipment redundancy and 

minimizing single points of failures through careful system design. System operators stock spare parts 

and, in some cases, transportable backup systems to restore system failures that do occur. Reliability 

must be considered at the earliest stages of system design. 

Redundancy. Additional or alternate systems, sub-systems, assets, or processes that maintain a degree 

of overall functionality in case of loss or failure of another system, sub-system, asset, or process.

Resources. Personnel and major items of equipment, supplies, and facilities available or potentially 

available for assignment to incident operations and for which status is maintained. Resources are 

described by kind and type and may be used in operational support or supervisory capacities at an 

incident or at an Emergency Operations Center.

Response-Level Emergency Communications. Per the 2008 National Emergency Communications Plan, 

response-level emergency communications are the capacity of individuals with primary operational 

leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during a multi-agency incident 

without technical or procedural communications impediments. In addition to communicating to firstlevel subordinates in the field, the Operations Section Chief should be able to communicate upwards to 

the incident command level (e.g., between the Operations Section Chief and Incident Command). 

Social Media. Refers to the means of interactions among people in which they create, share, or 

exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks.

Standard Operating Procedures. Generally refers to a reference document or an operations manual 

that provides the purpose, authorities, duration, and details for the preferred method of performing a 

single function or a number of interrelated functions in a uniform manner. 

Strategic Planning. Planning process that establishes organizational goals and identifies, scopes, and 

establishes requirements for the provisioning of capabilities and resources to achieve them. 

Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan. Stakeholder-driven, multi-jurisdictional, and multidisciplinary statewide plans that outline and define the current and future vision for communications 

interoperability within the State or territory. The Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan is a 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-42

critical strategic planning tool to help States prioritize resources, establish and strengthen governance, 

identify future technology investments, and address interoperability gaps.

Statewide Interoperability Coordinator. Serves as the State’s single point of contact for interoperable 

communications and implements the Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan.

Statewide Interoperability Governing Bodies. Serves as the primary steering group for the statewide 

interoperability strategy. Its mission is to support the National Council of Statewide Interoperability 

Coordinators in efforts to improve emergency response communications across the State through 

enhanced data and voice communications interoperability. They often include representatives from 

various jurisdictions, disciplines, as well as subject matter experts. 

Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees. Used interchangeably with Statewide 

Interoperability Governing Bodies. 

Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan. A plan providing rapid provision of on-scene, incident 

based mission critical voice communications among all first responder agencies (e.g., emergency 

medical services, fire, and law enforcement), as appropriate for the incident, and in support of an 

incident command system as defined in the National Incident Management System.

Technical Assistance. Support to State, local, tribal, and territorial emergency responders and 

government officials through the development and delivery of training, tools, and onsite assistance to 

advance public safety interoperable communications capabilities.

Technology. Per the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, applies to a 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. 

Telecommunications Service Priority. A program that authorizes organizations to receive priority 

treatment for vital voice and data circuits or other telecommunications services. The 

Telecommunications Service Priority program provides service vendors a Federal Communications 

Commission mandate to prioritize requests by identifying those services critical to national security and 

emergency preparedness. A telecommunications service priority assignment ensures that it will receive 

priority attention by the service vendor before any non-telecommunications service priority service. 

Usage. Per the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, this applies to the frequency and familiarity with 

which emergency responders use interoperable emergency communications solutions. 

Wireless Priority Service. Service offering that provides national security and emergency preparedness 

personnel with priority access and prioritized processing in all nationwide and several regional cellular 

networks, greatly increasing the probability of call completion. It is intended to be used in an 

emergency or crisis situation when cellular networks are congested and the probability of completing a 

normal cellular call is reduced. 
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Glossary A-43

Whole Community. Per the National Preparedness Goal, the term whole community applies to the 

focus on enabling the participation in national preparedness activities of a wider range of players from 

the private and nonprofit sectors, including nongovernmental organizations and the general public, in 

conjunction with the participation of Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governmental partners in 

order to foster better coordination and working relationships.
2014 National Emergency Communications Plan

Acronyms A-44

APPENDIX 10: ACRONYMS 

DHS Department of Homeland 

Security 

FCC Federal Communications 

Commission

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency