Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and 

Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews

OIG-06-30 March 2006
Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was established by 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment to the Inspector General 

Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and special reports prepared by our office as 

part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within the 

department. 

This report examines DHS’ progress in adopting standards for first responder equipment. It is based 

on interviews with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, 

statistical analyses, and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our office, and 

have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. It is our hope that this 

report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We express our 

appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

 

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
 

Table of Contents 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 

 

 Background......................................................................................................................................3 

 Results of Review ..........................................................................................................................10 

 S&T Has Made Limited Progress in Adopting Standards for Equipment and 

 Communication Interoperability...........................................................................................11 

 DHS Needs to Ensure First Responder Compliance with S&T Equipment Standards ........20 

 S&T Has Established a Centralized Process to Adopt Equipment Standards ......................26 

 

 Management Comments and OIG Analysis ..................................................................................30 

Tables 

 Table 1: Universe of First Responder Equipment Standards in the 

 Homeland Security Standards Database ......................................................................13 

 Table 2: S&T Funds Provided to External Organizations, FY 2003 – FY 2005 .......................30 

 

Diagrams 

 Diagram 1: S&T Organizational Structure for Adopting Equipment Standards.......................4 

Appendices 

 Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology .......................................................................37 

 Appendix B: Management Response to Draft Report ...............................................................39 

 Appendix C: Major Contributors to this Report ........................................................................47 

 Appendix D: Equipment Standards Adopted by S&T ...............................................................48 

 Appendix E: Report Distribution...............................................................................................51
 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Abbreviations 

AEL Authorized Equipment List 

ANSI American National Standards Institute 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FY Fiscal Year 

HSA Homeland Security Act of 2002 

HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program 

HSSD Homeland Security Standards Database 

IAB InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization and Inter Operability 

IEEE Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers 

NFPA National Fire Protection Association 

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

ODP Office of Domestic Preparedness 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

P.L. Public Law 

PPR Office of Programs, Plans, and Requirements 

SDO Standards Development Organization 

SED Systems Engineering and Development 

SEL Standardized Equipment List 

SLGCP Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness 

SSAWG Standards Subject Area Working Group 

S&T Science and Technology Directorate 

U.S.C. United States Code 

 
OIG 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 1 

Executive Summary

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) established the Science & 

Technology directorate (S&T) as the primary research and development 

component for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).1

 S&T is 

responsible for providing the first responder community, including state and 

local governments, with the technological capabilities to effectively respond 

to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other catastrophic events. To 

accomplish its mission, S&T adopts standards for equipment used by first 

responders.2

 

Adopting centralized, uniform standards for equipment assists first responders 

in procuring and using equipment that is safe, effective, and compatible. 

Standardizing communications equipment provides firefighters, police, and 

other emergency personnel with the ability to communicate better and 

coordinate their efforts during crisis situations using devices that conform to 

specifications that promote interoperability.3 

We assessed S&T’s progress in adopting standards for equipment and 

communication interoperability for first responders. Our review examined 

S&T operations and performance in fulfilling these efforts by assessing (1) 

coordination with other DHS components to ensure dissemination and 

awareness of adopted equipment standards; (2) the number and types of 

adopted standards related to first responder equipment and communication 

interoperability; and, (3) the procedures with which DHS ensures first 

responder compliance with S&T equipment standards. 

 

1

 Public Law (P.L.) 107-296. 

2

 First responders, also known as “emergency response providers,” are those individuals responsible for the protection 

and preservation of life, property, evidence, and the environment in the early stages of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, 

or other large-scale emergency. Emergency response providers include “Federal, State, and local emergency public 

safety, law enforcement, emergency response, [and] emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities) 

personnel...” (United States Code (U.S.C.), Title 6, Section 101(6).) 3

 “Communication interoperability” is the ability of first responder agencies to use communications systems, such as 

radios, mobile and landline telephones, and computers, to securely communicate with one another across disciplines and 

jurisdictions. Communication includes exchanging voice and data transmissions on demand, in real time, and using 

compatible equipment. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 2 

DHS has appropriately centralized the standards adoption process within 

S&T, and has effectively partnered with Standards Development 

Organizations (SDOs) and other external organizations to fulfill its standards 

adoption mission. However, S&T relies heavily on these external 

organizations because it has no authority to implement a more scientific and 

broadly applicable process for developing standards. 

Overall, S&T has made some progress in adopting standards for equipment 

and communication interoperability, adopting 12 standards. However, those 

standards do not include any relating to interoperability or decontamination. 

The standards S&T has adopted are for personal protective and detection 

equipment. No new equipment standards have been adopted since February 

2004. In addition, S&T standards infrequently apply to equipment items that 

DHS designates as eligible for purchase by first responders. Therefore, S&T 

cannot ensure that first responders consistently purchase equipment that 

complies with its standards. 

We have identified four issues that affect S&T’s ability to adopt and enforce 

equipment standards. S&T: 

● Does not accurately track the status of standards being considered for 

adoption, 

● Has inadequate performance measures to establish timelines for 

completion of its standards adoption process, 

● Has no regulatory authority to compel first responders to purchase 

equipment that conforms to S&T standards. Therefore, it must rely on 

DHS’ Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to ensure, through 

management activities related to ODP’s grants, that first responders 

procure equipment that conforms to S&T-adopted standards, and 

● Is not consistently advising ODP on which categories of equipment 

conform to its standards. 

To improve the process for adopting and ensuring compliance with equipment 

and communication interoperability standards for first responders, we are 

making four recommendations to the Under Secretary for Science and 

Technology to (1) ensure that the S&T standards database accurately captures 

all relevant data necessary for tracking the status of standards being 

considered for adoption; (2) determine methods by which the time required to 

adopt standards can be accelerated; (3) establish quantifiable performance 

measures to achieve more timely adoption of standards; and, (4) evaluate the 

DHS-sponsored equipment listings so that they conform to currently 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 3 

applicable S&T standards. Two recommendations are directed for the action 

of the Under Secretary for Preparedness, to (1) reference DHS informational 

resources for equipment in all ODP grant guidance disseminated to first 

responder recipients and (2) mandate that all equipment purchased by first 

responders, using ODP grant funds, complies with corresponding standards 

adopted by S&T. 

Background 

The events of September 11, 2001, and more recently Hurricane Katrina, 

demonstrate the need for first responders to communicate across various 

disciplines and jurisdictions. It is crucial for the first responder community to 

be properly equipped with the most effective protective gear in order to 

respond to all hazard events. Further, in emergency situations, first 

responders offer the greatest potential to save lives. 

The HSA created a national approach for protecting the homeland against 

potential terrorist attacks and other disasters. Pursuant to the HSA, DHS was 

assigned the foremost responsibility, using a full range of governmental and 

private partnerships, for minimizing damage and assisting in the recovery 

from disasters that occur within the United States. 

Within DHS, S&T is the principal research and development component. 

S&T’s mission is to organize the scientific and technological resources of the 

United States to prevent or mitigate the effects of terrorist attacks and natural 

disasters. S&T is to improve the technology and capabilities available to first 

responders through the adoption and dissemination of standards for 

equipment.4

 It fulfills its mission through its four components: the Office of 

Programs, Plans, and Requirements (PPR); the Office of Research and 

Development; the Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency; 

and, the Office of Systems Engineering and Development (SED). PPR and 

SED are the offices that have primary responsibility for researching and 

adopting relevant standards for first responders. 

Equipment Standards

PPR is responsible for adopting personal protective, detection, 

decontamination, and communication interoperability equipment standards for 

first responders. Specifically, PPR can adopt equipment standards for items 

such as respirators, protective body suits, footwear, gloves, personal alarm 

 

4 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, “National Preparedness,” December 17, 2003. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 4 

detectors, personal decontamination kits, spill containment devices, and 

portable and mobile radios. 

PPR is composed of 13 suborganizations called portfolios, one of which is the 

Standards Portfolio.5

 The Standards Portfolio coordinates the development 

and adoption of equipment standards and appropriate evaluation methods to 

meet DHS and first responder needs. The Standards Portfolio Manager is 

responsible for setting priorities and timeframes for the research and adoption 

of first responder equipment standards. 

The Standards Portfolio is divided into four “thrust areas,” which are further 

divided into 19 Standards Subject Area Working Groups (SSAWGs). The 

SSAWGs are comprised of teams of experts and stakeholders that review and 

deliberate over standards in specific technical areas. Ten SSAWGs are 

relevant to emergency responder equipment and communication 

interoperability standards. The following organizational diagram outlines 

S&T’s pertinent elements, including the ten SSAWGs under the two relevant 

thrust areas, which are involved in adopting equipment standards. 

Diagram 1: S&T Organizational Structure for Adopting Equipment Standards 

 

5

 S&T restructured the directorate on July 11, 2005, including the formation of the 13 PPR Portfolios. 

Science & Technology Directorate (S&T)

Programs, Plans & Requirements (PPR)

Standards Portfolio -

1 of 13 PPR Portfolios

Standards Executive –

Standards Portfolio Manager

Threats

Thrust Area (and 4

Relevant SSAW Gs)

Emergency Preparedness 

And Response Thrust Area 

(and 6 relevant SSAW Gs)

Borders &

Transportation

Thrust Area

Information Analysis 

And Infrastructure 

Protection Thrust Area

Chemical Countermeasures

SSAW G

Biological Countermeasures

SSAW G

Radiological & Nuclear

Countermeasures SSAW G

High Explosives 

Countermeasures SSAW G

Incident Management

SSAW G

Communications SSAW G

Personal Protective 

Equipment SSAW G

Training SSAW G

Urban Search and Rescue

Robots SSAWG

Geospatial Information

Standards SSAWG
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 5 

The Standards Portfolio Manager and the SSAWGs identify homeland 

security needs for federal, state, and local government agencies, examine 

proposed standards, and make recommendations with respect to the adoption 

of standards by S&T.6

 The manager oversees the SSAWGs and all standardsrelated activities internal to S&T. The manager also serves as DHS’ 

Standards Executive and is primarily responsible for promoting the 

development of appropriate DHS positions on standards; ensuring that DHS 

participation is consistent with the agency’s mission, authority, goals, and 

budget; assuring that internal policies are established for managing the 

adoption of standards by DHS; developing processes for ongoing review and 

update of standards; and, instituting processes to ensure that organizational 

participation is properly reviewed for compliance with applicable law.7

 

Communication Interoperability

SED oversees the review and research, but not adoption, of standards for 

communication interoperability that apply to first responders. SED provides 

strategic advice to first responders in acquiring communications equipment 

that allows numerous jurisdictions and disciplines to maintain contact with 

one another when responding to terrorist attacks or other incidents. 

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires that 

certain agencies, including DHS, accelerate the development of voluntary 

consensus standards for public safety interoperable communications.8

 In an 

effort to achieve this goal, the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility 

was established in SED to strengthen federal, state, and local partnerships to 

achieve interoperability for emergency preparedness and response. Launched 

on October 1, 2004, it provides a single resource for information about

interoperability issues for first responders, including communications, 

equipment, and training. 

Specifically, the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility is (1) 

establishing a comprehensive research, development, testing, and evaluation 

program for improving public safety interoperability; (2) identifying DHS 

programs that entail interoperability; (3) integrating grant guidance across all 

DHS grantmaking agencies that involve public safety interoperability; (4) 

facilitating the development and implementation of technical assistance for 

 

6

 Each SSAWG consists of a working group chair; S&T principals; DHS components with direct interest, such as ODP; 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology; other federal, state, and local entities; and, private sector, university, 

and trade association representatives. 

7

 The heads of federal agencies that have a significant interest in the use of standards are to designate a senior level 

official to oversee the agencies’ use of voluntary consensus standards, which is discussed later in this section. (“Federal 

Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” 

Circular No. A-119, Office of Management and Budget, February 10, 1998.) 

8

 P.L. 108-458. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 6 

public safety interoperability; (5) creating an interagency interoperability 

coordination council; and, (6) coordinating with DHS’ National Incident 

Management System Integration Center. 

In early 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the 

Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, commonly 

referred to as SAFECOM.9

 SAFECOM is a federal program that assists 

federal, state, and local public safety agencies in identifying wireless 

interoperable communications requirements and ensures those entities can 

communicate and share information to effectively respond to emergency 

incidents. The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility oversees 

SAFECOM. In March 2004, SAFECOM issued the first national Statement 

of Requirements, which broadly defined communication requirements 

necessary to achieve nationwide interoperability for first responders. The 

Statement of Requirements will assist in the identification and development of 

industry standards, such as those developed by SDOs, against which product 

capabilities could be compared. 

Standards Development Organizations

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 199510 directs 

government agencies to achieve greater reliance on voluntary consensus 

standards developed by SDOs.11 SDOs are public and private organizations 

that develop standards and test protocols for equipment that is used in a 

variety of capacities, including by first responders. This Act further directs 

federal agencies, such as DHS, to participate in the activities of SDOs so that 

these organizations are consistently aware of DHS’ position on standards and 

to consider that position in developing standards. This provision is intended 

to ensure that standards developed by SDOs are appropriate for use by federal 

agencies.12 

OMB Circular A-119 promulgated policies on federal use and development of 

voluntary consensus standards and requires the activities of federal agencies 

that relate to the use of SDO standards be reported annually to the National 

 

9

 SAFECOM was originally an office within the Department of Justice but was transferred to DHS in 2003. 

10 P.L. 104-113. 

11 “Voluntary consensus standards" are standards developed by SDOs that seek to eliminate the cost to the U.S. 

government of developing its own standards and to serve national needs. The standards are the result of general 

agreement within SDOs and include a process for attempting to resolve objections by interested parties. Voluntary 

consensus standards are distinct from "Government-unique standards," which are developed by the U.S. government for 

its own uses. 

12 The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and OMB Circular A-119 authorize agencies to use 

standards, other than voluntary consensus standards, when such standards are “inconsistent with applicable law” or 

“otherwise impractical.” 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 7 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).13 In Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, 

DHS reported that ten employees participated in SDO standards activities and 

that it was involved in the standards development activities of the following 

SDOs: 

• American Society for Testing and Materials 

• Association of Analytical Chemists International 

• International Committee for Information Technology Standards 

• Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

• International Organization for Standardization/International 

Electrotechnical Commission 

• National Fire Protection Association 

• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Overview of S&T Standards Adoption

Between August and December 2004, S&T implemented three management 

directives to formalize its standards adoption process.14 The directives 

enumerate the process by which S&T reviews and adopts standards; the 

organizational framework for the SSAWGs; the method for coordinating with 

other DHS components that had standards programs; and, the procedures for 

working with other federal, state, and local governments, and the private 

sector, to facilitate broad participation in standards development and adoption. 

The directives promote DHS-wide and interagency cooperation and consensus 

in the adoption of first responder equipment and communication 

interoperability standards. 

The standards adoption process initially involves a review of the proposed 

standard by the Standards Coordinator for PPR to determine its suitability for 

adoption as a DHS national standard.15 If accepted by the coordinator, the 

proposed standard is forwarded to the Standards Subject Area Expert, who 

determines whether it can be adopted without submission to the SSAWGs.16 

If it is decided that the proposed standard should be adopted but requires 

evaluation by the SSAWGs, it is submitted to the relevant SSAWGs. After 

 

13 NIST facilitates the development of national standards that establish minimum performance requirements for essential 

equipment designed to protect first responders against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive hazards. 14 “Adoption of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Standards,” Management Directive 10600.1, August 

3, 2004; “Adoption of DHS Directorate Standards As Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Standards,” 

Management Directive 10601, September 23, 2004; and, “Homeland Security Standards Subject Area Working Groups 

(SSAWGs),” Management Directive 10602, December 20, 2004. 15 “DHS national standards” are defined as standards adopted by DHS to assist federal, state, and local officials, and 

manufacturers in making procurement and regulatory decisions regarding equipment and processes related to homeland 

security, especially equipment for the nation’s first responders. 

16 Should the Standards Coordinator reject the proposed standard, the decision and reason for rejection are noted and 

transmitted back to the submitting entity. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 8 

the SSAWGs reach consensus on the adoption of the proposed standard, a 

Standards Acceptance Package is forwarded to the Standards Portfolio 

Manager, who forwards the completed package to S&T’s Director of PPR for 

approval. 

S&T officials said that S&T is able to adopt standards applicable to first 

responders, but cannot develop standards on its own because it has no 

authority to regulate the first responder community. The process can include 

the specification of performance requirements or designs, and methods for 

measuring product quality. A federal agency has to have explicit statutory 

authority to develop standards. However, S&T is not precluded from working 

with SDOs to develop, adopt, and publicize equipment standards. 

There are various provisions of the HSA that discuss standard setting 

activities, but those authorities are narrow and do not apply to S&T.17 DHS, 

through S&T, may issue regulations with respect to “research, development, 

demonstration, testing, and evaluation activities.”18 Nevertheless, S&T only 

has the authority to adopt equipment standards for first responders that were 

developed by external organizations, including SDOs. 

DHS Grants for First Responder Equipment

ODP distributes federal grants to protect against threats posed by terrorism 

involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive agents.19

ODP distributes these grants to states, select metropolitan areas, firefighters, 

ports, and transit authorities first responders. In October 2004, Congress 

appropriated $3.7 billion to ODP, of which $3.3 billion (or 89%) was 

earmarked for the purchase of first responder equipment.20 

In the first responder grant process, the governor of each state is to designate a 

State Administrative Agency, which is the only agency eligible to apply for 

ODP’s HSGP funds.21 The State Administrative Agency is responsible for 

obligating those funds to the state’s local units of government and other 

designated recipients. ODP officials said the State Administrative Agencies 

receive DHS funds and are responsible for dispersing those funds to state 

 

17 Section 313 of the HSA states that: “Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary or the 

technical assistance team established under subsection (b)(3) to set standards for technology to be used by the 

Department, any other executive agency, any State or local government entity, or any private sector entity.” (6 U.S.C. § 

313(c)(1).) 

18 6 U.S.C. § 186(c). 

19 SLGCP was transferred to the Preparedness directorate and was renamed the Office of Grants and Training in 

November 2005. 

20 P.L. 108-334, Title III. 

21 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program, Department of Homeland Security, Office of State and Local 

Government Coordination and Preparedness, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Version 2.0, December 22, 2004, p. 1. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 9 

agencies and localities, including first responders. These agencies are also 

responsible for disseminating applicable equipment standards to first 

responders within their jurisdiction and for ensuring that their first responders 

only purchase equipment from the AEL using applicable grant funds. 

In FY 2005, ODP consolidated the administration and application process for 

six of its grant programs, for which first responders were eligible, into one 

streamlined grant process.22 The new Homeland Security Grant Program 

(HSGP) combined the following programs: 

• State Homeland Security Grant Program 

• Urban Area Security Initiative 

• Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 

• Citizen Corps Program 

• Emergency Management Performance Grants 

• Metropolitan Medical Response System 

In FY 2005, ODP awarded $2.5 billion to states and urban areas under this 

consolidated program. 

In addition to the HSGP, ODP also administers the Assistance to Firefighters 

Grant Program, which provides direct funding to local fire departments and is 

another grant program that distributes funds for first responder equipment, 

such as firefighting equipment and protective gear. In FY 2005, $715 million 

was appropriated for the program and ODP awarded 3,245 grants to fire 

departments and eligible private and public nonprofit organizations that 

totaled approximately $337 million.23 

Authorized Equipment List

ODP publishes, manages, and maintains the Authorized Equipment List 

(AEL) to assist federal, state, and local public safety organizations identify 

and procure appropriate personal protective and communications equipment.24 

The AEL offers information to first responders on topics such as available 

equipment and technologies, the standards to which the equipment was 

 

22 In a June 2004 report submitted through the Homeland Security Advisory Council, the DHS Task Force on State and 

Local Homeland Security Funding recommended that the grant application process be streamlined by consolidating the 

six grant programs to form the FY 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program to, in part, “strengthen the coordination 

across the various programs and encourage[s] regional preparedness efforts.” 23 Data provided by the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Department of Homeland Security, September 9, 2005. 

24 Allowable equipment is equipment that is appropriate for purchase under the mandates of applicable grant programs. 

Fiscal Year 2005 Authorized Equipment List, Responder Knowledge Base, Office for Domestic Preparedness and 

National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, July 18, 2005. We discuss the applicable grant programs 

and their relationship to the AEL later. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 10 

certified, and agencies that use the equipment. The list is electronically 

accessible via the Responder Knowledge Base, which is a free internet 

resource jointly operated by ODP and the National Memorial Institute for the 

Prevention of Terrorism. 

A cross-section of officials representing DHS, the Departments of Justice, 

Health and Human Services (Public Health Service), Energy, and state and 

local chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response 

experts assist ODP in maintaining the AEL and in identifying unallowable 

items that first responders should not purchase. 

The AEL is composed of 21 sections that list different types of homeland 

security-related equipment that can be purchased by first responders, such as 

personal protective equipment. Four sections or equipment categories of the 

AEL, personal protective, interoperable communications, detection, and 

decontamination, correspond to those categories for which S&T is responsible 

for adopting equipment standards. The AEL specifies each item’s unique 

identifier number; the permissibility of purchasing the item using funds from 

any DHS grant program; the name and a brief description of the item; and, a 

corresponding reference number to the item as listed on the companion 

Standardized Equipment List (SEL), where applicable. The SEL is a general 

list of first responder equipment developed by the InterAgency Board for 

Equipment Standardization and Inter Operability (IAB).25 The list is also 

electronically accessible via the Responder Knowledge Base. 

Unlike the AEL, the SEL is more advisory and its use by first responders is 

voluntary. The SEL’s 11 equipment sections are equivalent to the first 11 

sections of the AEL. While the SEL provides similar information on 

individual equipment items, it contains more items within each section and 

items that do not have to conform to S&T-adopted standards. Therefore, 

buying first responder equipment listed on the SEL does not guarantee that the 

items comply with S&T standards. 

Results of Review 

S&T has made limited progress in adopting standards for equipment and 

communication interoperability and its standards apply to a small percentage 

of the equipment items listed by DHS as eligible for purchase by first 

 

25 The IAB working group is a quasi-governmental organization supported by voluntary participation from various 

federal, state, and local government entities, as well as private organizations. IAB’s mission is to coordinate 

standardization, interoperability, and responder safety to address any incident by identifying requirements for chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive “incident response equipment.” The IAB coordinates these entities by 

identifying and standardizing requirements for incident response equipment. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 11 

responders. It also has no regulatory authority to enforce first responder 

adherence to S&T standards and must rely on ODP to ensure that first 

responders procure equipment that conforms to S&T-adopted standards. 

S&T Has Made Limited Progress in Adopting Standards for 

Equipment and Communication Interoperability 

Equipment priorities for the first responder community vary, from items such 

as protective suits, radiation and nuclear personal detectors, and interoperable 

communications, to lesser priority items, such as hose couplings. DHS 

standards reflect these priorities. However, S&T has only adopted 12 

standards for personal protective and detection equipment, and has not 

adopted any standards for communication interoperability or decontamination 

equipment. SDOs have developed many equipment standards that are eligible 

for adoption, but no new equipment standards have been adopted by S&T 

since February 2004.

 

S&T’s limited progress is attributed to a variety of factors. For example, the 

12 standards adopted by S&T reflect the priorities expressed by first 

responders for personal protective and detection equipment. An S&T official 

stated that it initially wanted to adopt national standards for this area because 

standards for equipment responsive to weapons of mass destruction were not 

prioritized by DHS’ legacy agencies. In addition, law and policy dictate that 

S&T must rely on external organizations to conduct scientific research in 

developing standards.26 Voluntary consensus standards require that affected 

stakeholders review the standards under consideration for adoption, which can 

be time-consuming. In addition, S&T does not adopt standards that are 

undergoing revision by SDOs or relating to equipment already covered by 

certain grant programs. 

Adopting Equipment Standards

Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 directs DHS to establish and 

implement procedures for developing and adopting first responder equipment 

standards that support a national preparedness capability. To achieve this 

objective, S&T coordinates with various federal partners, such as NIST, and 

external organizations such as SDOs, to facilitate and manage standards 

development activities that must occur outside of DHS. 

 

26 Various legislation and regulations govern this responsibility, including the HSA, the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, and OMB Circular A-119. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 12 

S&T’s three management directives prescribe DHS’ formal process for 

adopting standards. These processes include the establishment of the 

SSAWGs; intra-agency coordination among DHS components; and, DHS’ 

partnerships with other federal, state, and local governments, as well as with 

SDOs. The directives also refer to the DHS National Standards Database, 

which “will be used to track standards through the development process, [and] 

maintain information on active standards...” 

The SSAWGs must review the SDO-developed standards and then request 

modifications by the SDO, if necessary, so that the standards conform to 

current needs and requirements of first responders. Despite the availability of 

standards already developed by SDOs, S&T cannot unilaterally approve 

standards developed by SDOs because each standard must be reviewed for 

applicability and relevancy to DHS-specific needs. 

In February 2004, DHS contracted with the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI) to develop the Homeland Security Standards Database 

(HSSD). The database allows users, such as S&T and SDOs, to search for 

and retrieve all published U.S. and international standards, as well as draft 

standards under development by SDOs that are relevant to first responder 

equipment. According to an ANSI official, the database was completed and 

operational on June 1, 2005. 

As indicated in Table 1, S&T has only adopted 12 of 81 (or 15%)27 of the 

universe of relevant equipment standards that were developed by SDOs.28 

This is a small percentage compared to the universe of existing and relevant 

equipment standards that can be considered by S&T for adoption. 

 

27 See Appendix D for a list of the 12 standards adopted by S&T, as of March 2006. 

28 Standards in the HSSD that were already developed by ANSI-accredited SDOs, and have an American National 

Standards designation, were incorporated into this universe of standards. The exception is the inclusion of the three 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health standards adopted by DHS, which did not have the American 

National Standards designation. International standards, standards already developed by non-ANSI-accredited SDOs, or 

standards currently under development, were not clearly identified in the HSSD and therefore were not included in this 

analysis. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 13 

Table 1: Universe of First Responder Equipment Standards in the Homeland 

Security Standards Database29

 

Personal 

Protective 

Equipment

Detection Decontamination Communications Total

Universe of American 

National Standards 

47 25 0 9 81 

DHS Adopted 

Standards 8 4 0 0 12 

Percentage of 

Standards Adopted 

from American 

National Standards 

Universe 

17% 16% 0% 0% 15%

Standards Data is Not Consistently Captured

The HSSD does not consistently capture information about the status of 

standards, such as whether they are active, pending, or rejected, or when the 

SDO approved the standard. In addition, it may not report the status of the 

standard if it is an international standard or is under development by an SDO. 

An S&T official noted this database is a “work in progress” and indicated that 

S&T intends to assign the SSAWGs responsibility for the quality and validity 

of standards information in the database. 

A universe of 81 standards developed by various SDOs is contained within the 

HSSD. These standards pertain to personal protective equipment, detection, 

and communications. For example, the database lists 47 personal protective 

equipment standards developed by six different SDOs.30 The National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) developed 27 of these standards, five of which 

were adopted by S&T. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) developed three of the personal protective equipment 

standards, all of which were adopted by S&T. For detection standards, the 

database lists 25 standards developed by three SDOs. Of that number, the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed the four 

 

29 Personal protective equipment standards include the following categories: personal protective equipment and urban 

search and rescue robots. Detection standards include the following categories: biological threats - detection and 

prevention; chemical threats - detection and prevention; and, radiological and nuclear - detection and prevention. 

Decontamination standards are represented by the chemical threats – decontamination category. All standards included 

in this analysis of the HSSD, with the exception of the three National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

standards, have an American National Standards designation. In addition, Communications standards do not include 

standards currently under consideration by SAFECOM. 

30 Five are ANSI-accredited SDOs, including the National Fire Protection Association. The other organization, the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which is a federal agency that is a component of the Department 

of Health and Human Services, is not ANSI-accredited.
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 14 

standards that were adopted by S&T. This highlights the existence of 

standards developed by various SDOs that are available for adoption by S&T. 

In August 2005, S&T developed a separate database for its internal use to 

compensate for the deficiencies in the HSSD. An S&T official said its 

database is also the primary means by which S&T tracks equipment standards 

that have been submitted, are pending, or adopted. It contains standards that 

were adopted by S&T, already developed by SDOs, and under development 

by SDOs. It also contains fields that indicate the status of the standards as 

either draft (submitted for approval) or final, but provides minimal 

information about the status of standards currently in development. For 

example, it only lists the date the standards project was initiated; no further 

information, such as dates the SSAWGs completed their review, is provided. 

The database lists 65 standards that were already developed or under 

development by SDOs, of which 39 are relevant to personal protective, 

detection, and decontamination equipment.31 Of the 39 standards, 26 are 

already developed standards and 13 are under development. The 26 

developed standards consist of 24 personal protective and 2 detection 

equipment standards. Although the 26 developed standards are in S&T’s 

internal database, it has not formally considered them for adoption.32 In 

addition, the database does not list communications equipment standards 

under consideration by SAFECOM. This database is an important 

recordkeeping resource to track S&T’s process for adopting standards and for 

assigning proposed standards to the SSAWGs. However, it is incomplete, 

which diminishes its utility in facilitating S&T’s progress in adopting 

standards. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

1. Ensure that S&T’s internal standards database accurately captures data 

necessary to track the status of standards being considered for adoption. 

S&T Standards Apply to a Small Percentage of Items on DHS’ Authorized 

Equipment List 

S&T standards apply to a small percentage of the equipment items listed in 

DHS’ AEL. Of the 178 equipment items on the list that are relevant to 

 

31 The S&T database of 65 standards includes 20 standards that are listed in the HSSD. The 65 standards do not include 

the 12 standards for first responder equipment that were adopted by S&T. 

32 In November 2005, the relevant SSAWG met to consider these 24 personal protective equipment standards, but did not 

formally vote on adopting any of these standards. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 15 

personal protective, detection, decontamination, and communications 

equipment for first responders, only 29 items (or 16%) are designated as 

complying with S&T-adopted standards. Eight items in the AEL personal 

protective equipment section were not included in the 29 S&T-compliant 

items, though they comply with a 2005 edition of an NFPA standard, which 

S&T has yet to adopt. 

In the AEL detection equipment section, four items listed refer to ANSI 

standards adopted by S&T. These four items do not comply with S&T 

standards and were also not included in the 29 compliant items because there 

is presently no commercially available equipment complying with the ANSI 

standards. As of May 2005, commercially available detection equipment had 

not passed applicable tests to comply with ANSI radiological and nuclear 

detection standards.33 Nonetheless, first responders can purchase these four 

items. 

The small percentage of items in the AEL that comply with S&T standards is 

indicative of the need for S&T to adopt more standards. First responders 

regularly access the list, which contains equipment that should conform to 

S&T standards. Attaining the goal of compatibility and interoperability 

among the first responder community is promoted by having more equipment 

items that comply with S&T-adopted standards. 

Communication Interoperability Standards Not Adopted

S&T has not adopted any standards for interoperable communications 

equipment and it appears that the SSAWGs are not formally considering the 

adoption of any communications standards. However, S&T has instituted a 

formal agreement with NIST specifying procedures for collaboration on 

wireless communication technologies. In addition, SAFECOM has 

established cooperative agreements with other federal agencies and offices, 

such as NIST and ODP, to continue support for existing standards 

development initiatives. 

The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility oversees the SAFECOM 

program and the communications SSAWG serves in an advisory role 

regarding policy development and adoption of interoperable communications 

standards. The program seeks to identify communication requirements for the 

first responder community and to recommend standards and solutions to meet 

those requirements. SAFECOM relies on the efforts of SDOs and other 

external organizations, such as NIST, to research and develop interoperable 

 

33 First responders procuring non-ANSI compliant equipment are advised to consider including provisions in their 

procurement contracts stating manufacturers must retrofit or replace equipment once compliant equipment becomes 

available. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 16 

communications standards. NIST oversees and provides scientific 

information for the development of standards that have the broadest effect on 

interoperability.34 SAFECOM officials meet regularly with working groups 

comprised of public safety organizations and SDOs to discuss the 

development of new standards. 

Specifically, SAFECOM is supporting the standards development activities 

for Project 25. The Project 25 system has eight “interfaces,” or areas, for 

which communications standards will be developed. Each interface defines 

the signal and messages that allows the products of one manufacturer to 

interoperate with products of other manufacturers. These interface standards 

are part of the Project 25 suite of standards that is being developed by the 

Telecommunications Industry Association. Project 25 will ultimately lead to 

an interoperable digital wireless communications system. The Project 25 

standards will allow for “backward compatibility,” meaning that new 

equipment, which is compliant with Project 25 standards, is compatible with 

existing equipment, such as digital and analog systems. Such standards will 

assist DHS in its efforts to achieve communication interoperability for first 

responders. 

 

While only one of the eight interfaces comprising Project 25 is fully 

developed and available for adoption, S&T has not adopted it. The single 

completed interface for Project 25 is the Common Air Interface. This 

interface allows portable handheld and mobile digital land mobile radios built 

by different manufacturers to be able to communicate with one another, 

assuming they operate within the same band. However, S&T has not adopted 

this standard because it is incomplete and only a single manufacturer builds 

Project 25 radio infrastructure. 

According to the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility’s Director, 

three additional Project 25 interfaces are required before multiple 

manufacturers can build compliant infrastructure.35 It would be appropriate 

for S&T to adopt Project 25 after the interfaces are completed, which the 

director anticipated will occur by the end of 2007. SAFECOM is also 

working with NIST to implement a conformity assessment program to ensure 

that future Project 25 systems comply with its parallel standards. 

 

34 In FY 2005, S&T entered into an agreement with NIST’s Office of Law Enforcement Standards and provided $6.5 

million for the development of equipment and communications system standards, as well as for testing of standardized 

equipment. These standards will be designed to allow land mobile radio systems from different manufacturers to be 

interconnected. 

35 These three Project 25 interfaces are the Inter-RF Subsystem Interface, the Console-to-Console Interface, and the 

Fixed Station Interface. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 17 

In the absence of S&T-adopted communication interoperability standards, 

S&T has recommended that Project 25 standards be the preferred standards 

for first responders seeking federal funds for interoperability grants. 

However, abiding by these standards currently is not mandatory for first 

responders. The resolution of communication interoperability issues continues 

to be a problem for the first responder community. It is imperative that S&T 

continues its progress towards adoption of communication interoperability 

standards. 

Standards Adoption Performance Measures are Needed

We reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policies, which apply to the S&T 

standards adoption process, and determined that S&T has no specific, 

quantifiable performance measures for adopting standards. One directive, 

“Adoption of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Standards,” 

contains applicable performance measures. However, they are vague, are not 

quantified, and do not prescribe performance goals for completing the S&T 

standards adoption process.36 The directive only applies to the appropriate 

S&T subject matter expert in establishing an unspecified “completion date” 

for the relevant SSAWG to finalize its review of the proposed standard. The 

directive states that the SSAWG should review the proposed standard “on a 

timely basis,” which is also not defined. An S&T official confirmed that S&T 

has not established any timeframes for reviewing equipment standards and 

reviews are conducted depending on priorities and on a case-by-case basis. 

Standards adoption performance measurement criteria would allow S&T to 

track its progress in fulfilling its organizational goals and mission, and would 

provide officials with information on which to base organizational and 

management decisions. Performance measures should create incentives for 

continuous improvement in organizational processes, identifying performance 

gaps, and setting goals for corrective action. When developing performance 

measures, the measures should be clear and provide quantifiable data with 

which to evaluate S&T’s achievement of its mission and objectives. The 

absence of established performance measures inhibits timely adoption of 

standards for use by the first responder community. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

 

36 “Adoption of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Standards,” Management Directive 10600.1, 

August 3, 2004.
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 18 

2. Establish specific, quantifiable performance measures for the S&T 

standards adoption process that will ensure more timely adoption of 

standards for use by the first responder community. 

Standards Adoption Process Hindered by Reliance On External Organizations

Nongovernmental and governmental entities must be involved in the 

development and adoption process of S&T standards. Partnerships with 

external organizations, such as SDOs, are mandated and essential to S&T’s 

adoption of standards. However, the nature of the voluntary, consensus-based 

process limits the availability and timeliness of standards for adoption by 

S&T. As a result, the efficiency by which S&T adopts standards is hindered. 

An S&T official said that SDOs routinely take five to eight years to develop 

equipment standards. Furthermore, participation in SDO working groups is 

voluntary, as members hold other positions and have primary responsibilities 

outside of the working groups. 

S&T’s standards adoption process is administrative. No scientific research or 

the development of technical or performance requirements for first responder 

equipment are conducted in the Standards Portfolio. Instead, S&T relies on 

SDOs and other external organizations to fulfill those duties. The SSAWGs 

identify homeland security vulnerabilities where standards are needed, 

coordinate with SDOs to develop the necessary standards, and propose 

existing standards for adoption. The SSAWGs are critical to managing the 

development of standards by SDOs for DHS purposes. However, after SDOs 

develop and publish standards, S&T cannot immediately adopt them because 

the published standards must be proposed by the SSAWGs and must be 

reviewed by other DHS components for relevancy and applicability. 

Current Process Is Not Effectively Addressing First Responder Needs

By December 2004, DHS had issued three management directives to 

formalize its standards adoption process. Specifically, the directives establish 

a centralized structure within S&T for receiving, reviewing, and adopting 

standards; provide guidance for adopting standards currently in use by DHS 

components; and, direct the structure, procedures, and activities of the 

SSAWGs in identifying and adopting DHS standards.37 An S&T official said 

the directives encapsulate the entire S&T standards adoption process. 

Although the directives established a centralized process for the review, 

adoption, and revision of submitted standards, the 12 adopted thus far did not 

 

37 The first formal SSAWG, for Training, became operational in April 2003 prior to the initiation of the first directive. 

Subsequent relevant working groups were formed after the first directive was issued in August 2004. The SSAWG that 

most recently became operational is the personal protective equipment SSAWG; the last relevant SSAWG for high 

explosives became operational in February 2006. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 19 

undergo the process described in the directives.38 The first directive became 

effective in August 2004, which was six months after the 12 standards were 

adopted by S&T and no new standards have been submitted for consideration 

under its centralized process. 

For example, the eight personal protective equipment standards were adopted 

based on the recommendation of the IAB. Of the eight standards, IAB 

approved the five NFPA standards and one NIOSH chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear standard, for Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing 

Apparatus, in September 2002. However, IAB did not formally announce the 

adoption of these standards until May 2003. The other two remaining 

personal protective equipment standards were issued in April 2003 and 

October 2003. Subsequently, IAB formally announced the approval of these 

remaining two standards in late 2003. It took DHS less than one year to adopt 

these eight personal protective equipment standards following IAB’s approval 

of the standards. 

The four radiation and nuclear detection standards were developed by IEEE 

working groups, comprised of ANSI and IEEE members, which were 

established in cooperation with DHS.39 In January 2004, the working groups 

published these standards and S&T adopted them one month later. According 

to an S&T official, the 12 total adopted standards were vetted through the 

issuance of a “press release,” circulated throughout DHS, which allowed DHS 

components to comment on the standards prior to their formal adoption by 

S&T in February 2004. 

In November 2005, the relevant SSAWG was established and met for the first 

time since the issuance of the directives to consider personal protective 

standards in S&T’s internal database. Although the SSAWG did not vote on 

any of the standards, it will continue to review and consider them in future 

meetings. However, this SSAWG did not meet until almost a year after the 

last directive was issued, even though effective, standardized personal 

protective equipment is imperative to protect the safety and health of first 

responders. 

An S&T official said that S&T’s standards adoption process seeks to link 

equipment standards with DHS grant programs. S&T indicated that if first 

responder equipment covered under a current grant program complies with 

existing standards, whether S&T-adopted or not, then S&T should not adopt 

standards for that equipment. However, as we discuss later, DHS grant 

programs are the primary mechanism for ensuring that first responders 

 

38 We requested information relevant to 3 of the 12 S&T adopted standards to review S&T’s evaluative process. We 

were provided data outlining the key milestones for the 12 standards but no further documentation was made available. 

39 The IEEE working groups define technical guidelines to which detection equipment must conform. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 20 

uniformly purchase equipment that complies with S&T standards. Therefore, 

S&T should adopt standards for equipment that is eligible for purchase using 

DHS grant funds. 

An IAB official said, “First responders are dependent on DHS to adopt 

standards because state and local responder efforts are fragmented.” 

However, he acknowledged that standards development is a time-consuming 

process and affirmed that producing equipment based on ineffectual standards 

is not practical. Standards promote consistency in facilitating compatibility 

between multiple pieces of equipment and S&T-adopted standards assist first 

responders in making equipment procurement decisions. However, first 

responders need immediate guidance on which equipment to purchase and 

S&T must accelerate the process by which it reviews and adopts personal 

protective, detection, decontamination, and communication interoperability 

equipment standards. The issuance of three applicable directives has not 

improved the standards adoption rate. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

3. Determine appropriate methods for amending the relevant Management 

Directives in order to identify specific timeframes for process objectives, 

monitor the progress of equipment standards adoption, and adjust the 

process, as needed, to effectively adopt equipment standards. 

DHS Needs to Ensure First Responder Compliance with S&T 

Equipment Standards 

S&T has limited authority to ensure that first responder agencies purchase 

equipment that complies with S&T-adopted standards. Further, S&T must 

rely on ODP to enforce adherence to those standards. 

DHS Grant Programs Serve as the Means for Standards Compliance 

Enforcement 

S&T officials said that it has no authority to promulgate regulations that 

mandate the purchase of specific, qualifying equipment by first responders. 

The HSA does not provide S&T with explicit authority to regulate purchases 

of equipment by first responder agencies. S&T may issue regulations with 

respect to “research, development, demonstration, testing, and evaluation 

activities;” however, this authority does not apply to S&T's activities related 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 21 

to adopting standards for first responder equipment.40 Therefore, its standards 

activities are limited to working with SDOs to develop, adopt, and publicize 

applicable equipment standards.41 

Conversely, other federal organizations, such as the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, have the statutory authority to prescribe and enforce 

standards upon governmental and private entities. The Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration promulgates regulations that affect workplace 

safety or health, such as prescribing standards on workplace conditions.42 

We did not determine the impact of delegating regulatory authority to S&T. 

This would require evaluation of the resources and operations required to 

make S&T a regulatory agency and the needed legal authorities, similar to 

other federal regulatory agencies. However, potential exercise of regulatory 

authority by S&T might provide the ability to mandate that first responders 

purchase equipment that complies with S&T standards, regardless of the type 

of funding used. 

Since first responder grant recipients are required to abide by federal grant 

purchasing laws and regulations as a condition of award, grants administered 

by ODP appear to be the only method by which compliance with S&Tadopted standards can be enforced. Since ODP manages the first responder 

grant process, it is also responsible for ensuring that equipment purchased by 

first responders with DHS funds adheres to specific equipment standards. 

Specific Grant Guidance is Essential

DHS’ ability to direct the specifications for equipment purchases depends on 

whether federal funds are used. Federal law governing ODP grantmaking 

states that it has the primary federal responsibility for “... directing and 

supervising terrorism preparedness grant programs of the Federal Government 

... for all emergency response providers."43 In addition, funds appropriated 

by the U.S. government and distributed to first responders can only be used 

for their intended purposes, in this case conforming to DHS equipment 

standards.44 

 

40 6 U.S.C. § 186(c). 

41 S&T follows the guidance set forth in OMB’s Circular A-119 and the three directives that give S&T the authority to 

direct DHS’ “overall effort of working with [SDOs] to establish voluntary consensus standards” for S&T to adopt. 

42 29 U.S.C. § 655. 

43 6 U.S.C. § 238(c)(3). 

44 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, “National Preparedness,” December 17, 2003. 

DHS appropriations for FY 2005 are in P.L. 108-334. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 22 

To promulgate this authority to first responders, the FY 2005 HSGP 

Guidelines state, “Applicants must familiarize themselves with the 

requirements and restrictions of the Program Guidance for FY05 HSGP” and 

must accept the Guidance as “binding."45 However, first responders can use 

non-federal funds to purchase equipment that does not comply with DHS 

equipment standards. This intergovernmental funding reality limits the extent 

to which DHS can ensure that first responders purchase equipment that 

complies with DHS standards and priorities.46 

First responder recipients are informed through ODP grant guidance that they 

are required to purchase qualifying equipment listed on ODP’s AEL. First 

responder equipment listed on the AEL is intended to comply with applicable 

S&T standards. According to an ODP official, the first responder community 

uses the AEL extensively. More than 180,000 registrants used the AEL 

within the first four months of its operation. 

The requirement that first responders purchase equipment listed on the AEL is 

affirmed in the HSGP grant guidance. The grant guidance, received by all 

eligible first responder applicants who apply for relevant federal funds, states 

that, “Allowable equipment categories for FY05 HSGP” are listed on the 

AEL. The grant guidance further describes the function and content of the 

AEL website and its relation to the SEL. 

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program guidance, however, does not 

contain any language mandating that first responders purchase equipment 

listed on the AEL. No reference is made to the AEL in the program’s 

guidance. An ODP official verified that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program guidance “does not require grantees to purchase from ODP's AEL.” 

Since this program’s grants are for basic equipment requests, its guidance 

does not explicitly mandate that grantees purchase equipment that complies 

with S&T-adopted equipment standards. Instead, guidance requires recipients 

to comply with standards, such as those developed by NFPA, which have not 

necessarily been adopted by S&T. 

The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program guidance provides that fire 

department first responders, who receive “Federal preparedness funding,” 

must buy equipment that is also compliant with the National Incident 

Management System “as a condition for receipt of Federal funds.”47 Adoption 

of this program by states and localities became a requirement in FY 2005. 

 

45 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program, Department of Homeland Security, Office of State and Local 

Government Coordination and Preparedness, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Version 2.0, December 22, 2004, p. 16. 46 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8, “National Preparedness,” December 17, 2003. 47 “Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program,” 2005 Program Guidance for the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant, 

Department of Homeland Security, Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 23 

Compliance with the National Incident Management System includes DHS 

activities in providing “Federal preparedness assistance through grants...”48 

However, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program guidance does not 

refer to any specific resource to assist first responders in determining which 

equipment is allowable and compliant. The guidance also states that 

applicants will be more competitive if they demonstrate the purchase of 

equipment towards “voluntary compliance with national standards.”49 

However, the guidance does not specify the standards with which applicants 

should comply. 

The SAFECOM Program developed “Recommended Federal Grant 

Guidance” to coordinate the way in which funding is allocated and to further 

interoperable communications.50 This guidance outlines eligibility 

requirements for first responders to receive grants, the purposes for which 

grant funds can be used, and guidelines for implementing an interoperable 

wireless communication system. It also requires first responder agencies to 

describe plans for achieving improved interoperability in applying for federal 

grant funding that entails communications equipment. 

However, adhering to the SAFECOM grants guidance is not mandatory for 

first responders. The guidance provides that all new systems procured by first 

responders to achieve interoperability should be Project 25 compatible.51 

However, this guidance does not preclude funding of non-Project 25 

equipment when other solutions are readily available. The SAFECOM 

Director noted that producing the grants guidance was an “interim method” to 

encourage first responders to abide by communication interoperability 

standards until they are adopted. Provisions that mandate adherence to 

communication interoperability standards are not currently included in ODP 

grants guidance. However, ODP has included SAFECOM’s grant guidance in 

its grants program guidance related to communication interoperability. 

The HSGP guidelines summarize the SAFECOM grants guidance in an 

appendix. However, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program guidance 

does not mention SAFECOM or delineate specific standards for 

interoperability compliance. However, HSGP guidance does state that 

equipment that promotes interoperability among neighboring jurisdictions 

may receive additional consideration in assessing the applicant’s eligibility for 

its funds. It is not specifically mentioned in the Assistance to Firefighters 

 

48 Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, “Management of Domestic Incidents,” February 28, 2004. 

49 “Notice of Guidance,” Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Office of State and Local Government Coordination 

and Preparedness, Office for Domestic Preparedness. 50 “Recommended Federal Grants Guidance, Public Safety Communications & Interoperability Grants,” SAFECOM, 

Department of Homeland Security, November 2004. 

51 Ibid., p. 3. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 24 

Grant Program; however, an SLGCP official said that ODP reviews all grant 

applications to assess conformity to Project 25 in the SAFECOM guidelines. 

ODP grants are the primary means for DHS to achieve compatibility and 

interoperability among first responder equipment. However, DHS has 

marginal authority to mandate adherence to S&T standards particularly if first 

responders do not use federal funds to purchase equipment. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Preparedness: 

4. Ensure that the AEL is designated as a source of allowable first responder 

equipment in all ODP grant guidance disseminated to first responder 

recipients. 

5. Mandate, through grant guidance and enforcement monitoring, that all 

equipment purchased by first responders using funds from ODP grant 

programs complies with corresponding standards adopted by S&T. 

ODP Grants Compliance Activities 

ODP monitors the expenditures of its grant funds by first responders through 

Preparedness Officers, who are stationed in Washington, DC. ODP employs 

36 officers to serve as its liaisons with the first responder community. The 

officers are assigned to geographic regions of the United States - eastern, 

central, or western. Within each geographic region, Preparedness Officers 

cover every state and eligible urban area. 

Two review methods are applied to ensure that first responders comply with 

ODP grant requirements. Each recipient is required to undergo both types of 

reviews annually. 

1. Annual Monitoring Visit: Preparedness Officers conduct annual 

monitoring visits to each state’s State Administrative Agency or eligible 

urban areas. Visits consist of assessing the recipient’s operations, 

including a review of files for grantees that received ODP funds. ODP 

analyzes the recipients’ progress in attaining the goals in the applicable 

State or Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. ODP usually 

examines a sample of purchase orders and receipts in the grant files. For 

purchases of equipment, the Preparedness Officers determine whether the 

equipment bought conforms to the grant guidance. According to an 

SLGCP official, should grantees submit plans stating they will buy 

equipment, ODP ascertains the equipment’s whereabouts and assesses its 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 25 

program value to the recipients’ security strategy. The Preparedness 

Officers then complete monitoring visit reports that have to be approved 

by ODP’s Assistant Director. 

2. Desk Review: From their Washington, DC headquarters, Preparedness 

Officers conduct an annual desk review of the relevant grant documents 

for first responder recipients. The officers review the recipient’s records, 

which include grant applications and financial status reports, and also 

determine the actual expenditures of grant funds by the recipients. 

A Preparedness Officer also said that ODP conducts a review that compares 

the equipment purchases made by recipients to what the recipients stated they 

intended to buy in their security strategy. Examining recipient’s budget detail 

worksheets often satisfies this review. 

In addition to the Preparedness Officers’ activities, ODP tracks the use of 

grant funds by requiring first responders to submit periodic grant reports such 

as an Initial Strategy Implementation Plan, which is due 60 days after the 

award date, and a Biannual Strategy Implementation Report, due at six-month 

intervals over the period covering each award. Both plans are designed to 

outline how each recipient is using ODP grants “to meet the strategic goals 

and objectives outlined in the State and Urban Area Homeland Security 

Strategies.” On January 6, 2005, ODP launched the Grants Reporting Tool; 

an internet application intended to collect submissions, which includes 

standard reporting formats for the required grant reports. All submissions 

must be transmitted through the Grants Reporting Tool. 

S&T Is Not Adequately Monitoring the Authorized Equipment List

S&T is not consistently advising ODP as to which equipment on the AEL 

conforms to S&T equipment standards and has not implemented any 

procedure to monitor and review the AEL. According to an S&T official, 

ODP is aware of adopted standards and that the AEL links those standards 

with its corresponding equipment items.52 ODP is notified that the Standards 

Portfolio has adopted a standard through the SLGCP Standards Coordinator, 

which is the formal method for S&T to notify ODP of newly adopted 

standards. While ODP is informed when S&T adopts a standard, S&T has no 

similar procedure for ensuring that equipment on the AEL corresponds to its 

standards. In addition, none of the applicable or draft agreements between 

S&T and SLGCP delineate any procedure or method for consistently 

reviewing informational resources, such as the AEL, which are common to 

both components. 

 

52 ODP participates in the S&T SSAWGs, as authorized by DHS Management Directive 10601. ODP also participates in 

the IAB. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 26 

ODP has oversight and maintenance responsibility for the AEL. The list is the 

primary means by which the first responder community accesses information 

on DHS equipment standards and allowable equipment purchases. Consistent 

monitoring and reviews of the AEL by S&T would better ensure that 

equipment designated on the list complies with its equipment standards. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

6. Mandate, through program guidance and standard operating procedures, 

that S&T systematically monitor and review the AEL to ensure that all 

listed equipment conforms to currently applicable DHS standards. 

S&T Has Established a Centralized Process to Adopt Equipment 

Standards 

Although S&T has not applied its process to any DHS equipment standards, it 

has established centralized procedures to coordinate with SDOs and other 

external organizations to fulfill its standards adoption mission. 

Coordination Within DHS

S&T coordinates the adoption of equipment standards with other DHS 

components, a process that was formalized by the issuance of the three 

directives. DHS components participate within the SSAWGs to review 

proposed equipment standards and make recommendations for adoption by 

S&T. DHS components are well represented on the SSAWGs. As of July 20, 

2005, there were 177 listed members of the 10 relevant SSAWGs, and 46 of 

the members (or 26%) were from DHS components external to S&T. 

S&T has entered into several formal agreements with DHS components to 

define specific roles and responsibilities in coordinating the adoption of 

equipment standards for first responders. One significant, formalized 

agreement specifies that SAFECOM will develop grant guidance that is 

“consistent with SAFECOM objectives.”53 ODP will provide “grants that 

facilitate the procurement of interoperable communications equipment and 

 

53 Memorandum of Agreement within the Department of Homeland Security between the Science and Technology 

Directorate and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, August 9, 2004. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 27 

that incorporate SAFECOM guidance.” Another significant agreement54

creates the understanding that SAFECOM and DHS’ Chief Financial Officer 

will provide services, personnel, equipment, and funds to support the 

development and implementation of federal, state, and local programs under 

SAFECOM’s E-Government Initiative.55 

S&T and SLGCP are also finalizing a Terms of Reference, which is 

equivalent to an agreement that seeks to establish a standing coordinating 

group to organize policy development and strategic planning. The group will 

collaborate on issues of mutual benefit such as non-communications first 

responder equipment, resolve conflicting activities, and leverage each other’s 

resources. S&T’s role will be to adopt standards that ODP can share with first 

responders through its grant programs. ODP will provide equipment 

performance information, gleaned from first responders, to S&T for use in 

adopting equipment standards. However, this agreement has not been signed 

and the coordinating group is not operational. 

In addition to the formal agreements, S&T and SLGCP have implemented 

coordinative activities on equipment standards. SLGCP has a liaison assigned 

to S&T who coordinates with the first responder community to determine 

which standards need to be adopted. The SLGCP coordinator attends weekly 

S&T standards meetings conducted by the Standards Executive and is tasked 

with notifying SLGCP when standards are adopted. 

S&T managers said that personnel from the National Incident Management 

System Integration Center and SLGCP attend weekly PPR and SED staff 

meetings. S&T assigned two employees to the center as full-time 

coordinators to ensure that the National Incident Management System was 

compliant with S&T standards. These employees also participate in SSAWGs 

and interact with SAFECOM through staff meetings, conferences, telephone 

calls, and other methods to discuss issues to ensure communication 

interoperability requirements are incorporated into the National Incident 

Management System. 

 

Inter-Agency Coordination and Support

 

54 Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM (Electronic) EGovernment Initiative Program Office and the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 

February 2005. 

55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Electronic Government: Selection and Implementation of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s 24 Initiatives, GAO-03-229, November 22, 2002. One of the five priorities in the President’s 

Management Agenda was the expansion of electronic government - the use of internet applications to enhance access to 

and delivery of government information and services. Project SAFECOM was one of the 24 initiatives sponsored by 

OMB to implement this agenda. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 28 

S&T implemented agreements with other federal agencies to facilitate the 

standards adoption process for communication interoperability. Two formal 

agreements were made with NIST. One agreement establishes coordination 

between the two agencies and allows for collaboration and cooperation on 

standards adoption.56 The second agreement specifies a procedure for 

collaboration on wireless communication technologies.57 In FY 2004, S&T 

awarded NIST $23.6 million to oversee the development of homeland 

security-related standards for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and 

explosive countermeasures, personal protective equipment, and 

communications. In FY 2005, S&T awarded NIST $26.9 million for similar 

purposes.58 

Significant personnel were detailed to S&T from key federal agencies to 

facilitate the standards adoption process. Specifically, S&T has personnel 

detailed from NIST in important decision making positions within PPR and 

SED. NIST is an important partner with S&T in the adoption process because 

it provides scientific resources and experience in facilitating the development 

of standards for equipment, protective clothing, and communications for the 

first responder community. S&T more effectively employs the scientific and 

research assets of NIST through its standards officials. 

Between February and June 2005, DHS also signed agreements with the 

Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, 

and Justice regarding the SAFECOM E-Government Initiative.59 These 

agreements have the same purpose and contain similar language as the 

agreement between SAFECOM and DHS’ Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer. 

 External Organization Coordination and Support

S&T’s standards adoption process is dependent upon SDOs and other external 

entities, most notably ANSI, IAB, IEEE, and NFPA. Each organization is 

aware that a centralized standards adoption process exists within S&T, which 

involves coordination among federal, state, and local governments, as well as 

the private sector. For example, the IAB identifies standards that are needed 

for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive equipment and 

 

56 Memorandum of Understanding, Science & Technology Directorate and National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, May 22, 2003. 

57 Interagency Agreement, Number HSHQPA-04-X-00378, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s 

Office of Law Enforcement Standards, July 27, 2005. 

58 These amounts do not incorporate agreements between NIST and SAFECOM. 59 Memoranda of Agreement between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, February 

2005; the Department of Energy, March 2005; the Department of Defense, May 2005; the Department of Agriculture, 

June 2005; and, the Department of Health and Human Services, February 2005, regarding the SAFECOM E-Government 

Initiative. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 29 

informs S&T, through the formal SSAWG process, that relevant standards 

need to be adopted. 

An IEEE representative said it aligns standards development objectives with 

S&T by participating on the Homeland Security Standards Panel.60 NFPA 

maintains regular dialogues with S&T officials to apprise them of its activities 

related to developing equipment standards. In addition, representatives from 

the SDOs and other standards organizations said they interact extensively with 

S&T through regular conferences, telephone calls, and other means. 

SAFECOM officials attend national meetings of standards-related 

organizations, such as ANSI, IAB, NFPA, and the Association of Public 

Safety Communications Officials, to review communications equipment 

standards for potential updates as technology evolves. During these meetings, 

the ongoing and future development of relevant standards by SDOs is shared. 

However, decisions reached at these meetings, which can involve actual 

standards development and approval, are not binding on S&T. 

From FY 2003 to FY 2005, S&T provided $60.2 million to SDOs and other 

external organizations to further its adoption of equipment standards. For 

example, S&T provided $1.4 million for ANSI to develop and maintain the 

HSSD in order to centralize national and international homeland security 

standards, and in FYs 2004 and 2005, for activities relating to equipment 

standards development. In conjunction with S&T, ANSI has taken the lead in 

coordinating all homeland security standards development through the 

Homeland Security Standards Panel. Panel participants include SDOs, first 

responders, and government agencies. 

The IAB provides a forum for first responders to articulate their views on 

equipment standards. In both FY 2004 and FY 2005, S&T provided the IAB 

with $250,000 for technical and program support of its equipment standards 

activities. 

The following table summarizes the funding given by S&T to various SDOs 

and private organizations to support standards development activities. 

 

60 The Homeland Security Standards Panel coordinates SDOs, private sector organizations, first responder groups, and 

other government agencies involved with homeland security. The panel assesses specific technical areas to determine 

whether standards already exist. It also reviews areas where more standards are needed and makes recommendations for 

SDOs to develop relevant standards. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 30 

Table 2: S&T Funds Provided to External Organizations, FY 2003 – FY 200561

 

National 

Institute of 

Standards and 

Technology 

American 

National 

Standards 

Institute 

Institute of 

Electrical & 

Electronics 

Engineers 

Association of 

Analytical 

Chemists 

International 

InterAgency 

Board for 

Equipment 

Standardization 

and Inter 

Operability 

Total 

FY 2003 N/A $153,623 N/A $3,223,286 N/A $3,376,909 

FY 2004 $23,562,000 $931,977 $81,000 $2,944,757 $250,000 $27,769,734

FY 2005 $26,854,000 $510,300 $79,500 $1,336,691 $250,000 $29,030,491

Total $ 50,416,000 $1,595,900 $160,500 $7,504,734 $500,000 $60,177,134

For FY 2005, the S&T Standards Portfolio budgeted $39.7 million to support 

the activities of external organizations in developing and coordinating the 

adoption of DHS standards.62 According to an S&T official, it evaluates 

which SDOs receive funds on a case-by-case basis. Currently, S&T provides 

funds to SDOs for three primary reasons: (1) to access the standards of a 

particular SDO (equivalent to a membership benefit); (2) to gain membership 

on an SDO executive committee that considers long-term strategies for 

standards development; and, (3) to coordinate with SDO subject matter 

experts on new standards projects. However, we could not identify any 

systematic criteria that S&T uses when determining the most suitable SDOs 

for standards-related funding. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

In their responses, S&T and Preparedness Directorate provided specific 

comments on each recommendation for which they were responsible, as well 

as technical comments on specific statements and facts contained within the 

report. S&T concurred with the four recommendations directed at it, and 

noted that our recommendations were sound and represented better 

operational ways to address its adoption of equipment standards for first 

responders. Preparedness did not concur with one of the two 

recommendations in its purview. We regard four recommendations resolved 

and two recommendations unresolved. All recommendations remain open. 

 

61 The amounts provided to ANSI, IEEE, and the Association of Analytical Chemists International were derived from 

contracts S&T provided on August 31, 2005. No funds were provided to NFPA or NIOSH. 

62 For FY 2006, S&T’s Standards Portfolio has a budget of $35 million to support similar activities of external 

organizations. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 31 

Concerning their technical comments on specific statements and facts in the 

report, we evaluated each comment on its merit and modified our report where 

appropriate. 

Below are management’s comments on each recommendation and our 

analysis of their comments. A copy of S&T’s and Preparedness’ responses, in 

their entirety, is recorded in Appendix B. 

Recommendation 1: Ensure that S&T’s internal standards database 

accurately captures data necessary to track the status of standards being 

considered for adoption. 

S&T Response: While S&T concurred with the recommendation, it 

emphasized that the internal S&T database needs to accurately capture the 

proposed standard’s progression through the SDO development process. S&T 

stated that the Standards Portfolio is not adequately staffed to track the status 

of standards being developed by SDOs, which represent complex, internal 

operations of non-governmental organizations. 

S&T proposed amending the three binding directives to assign the tracking of 

a standard’s development to the Standards Coordinator. S&T also noted that 

the Standards Portfolio has begun to identify single points of contact for first 

responder equipment standards in other DHS agencies. These personnel, 

embedded within other DHS components, will monitor the needs and status of 

standards that particularly affect DHS organizations. S&T again proposed 

amending the three binding directives to mandate that the relevant Standards 

Subject Area Expert would perform this liaison function, while also having an 

appropriate standards expert lead each relevant SSAWG. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider the recommendation resolved because S&T’s 

suggested amendments to the directives will help ensure that its internal 

database will accurately capture data to track the status of standards being 

considered for adoption. However, S&T needs to clearly define the standards 

process data that its internal database will capture. 

Specifically, we approve of centralizing the tracking of proposed standards to 

the Standards Coordinator. We also agree that the relevant Standards Subject 

Area Expert should perform a liaison function with other DHS components, 

for the SSAWGs. However, we underscore that the spirit of this 

recommendation involves equipment standards proposed and being 

considered for adoption in the internal S&T process. This recommendation 

does not entail tracking standards undergoing the SDOs’ more complex and 

technical development process. 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 32 

The recommendation remains open until we receive updated directives that 

contain the appropriate policy changes that assign the tracking of proposed 

standards to the Standards Coordinator and have the Standards Subject Area 

Experts perform liaison functions with other DHS components. 

Recommendation 1 – Resolved - Open 

Recommendation 2: Establish specific, quantifiable performance measures 

for the S&T standards adoption process that will ensure more timely adoption 

of standards for use by the first responder community. 

S&T Response: According to S&T, timelines can be established as 

performance measures for those actions within the control of S&T and other 

DHS components. S&T suggested a multi-phased approach for standards 

adoption performance measures: 

1. Establish performance measures for determining the validity and 

usefulness for adopting the standards listed in the HSSD and in S&T’s 

internal database. 

2. For standards to be adopted, develop a different set of performance 

measures to measure their rates of adoption. 

3. For standards that require further tailoring or development, 

performance measures do not apply since the activities of independent 

SDOs are outside of S&T’s control. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider the recommendation resolved. We concur 

with S&T’s plan to implement two types of performance measures for its 

standards adoption processes that will assess the efficiency of specific, 

incremental milestones. The timeliness measures for standards already in the 

two databases, as opposed to standards newly proposed to S&T, should be 

parallel when they coincide. 

We emphasize that S&T is not accountable for the timeliness of standards 

being developed by external SDOs, which are beyond S&T’s control. These 

performance measures are only applicable to standards already developed by 

SDOs and available for adoption by S&T. 

The recommendation remains open until we receive a copy of the applicable, 

quantifiable performance measures for those standards adoption actions within 

S&T’s purview. 

Recommendation 2 – Resolved - Open 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 33 

Recommendation 3: Determine appropriate methods for amending the 

relevant Management Directives in order to identify specific timeframes for 

process objectives, monitor the progress of equipment standards adoption, and 

adjust the process, as needed, to effectively adopt equipment standards. 

S&T Response: S&T emphasized that since proposed standards must be 

vetted through other affected DHS agencies, it controls only certain steps of 

the adoption process. S&T elaborated that the SSAWGs are the vehicle for 

monitoring and recommending the adoption of standards. SSAWGs are 

staffed with employees of the affected DHS agencies in order to obtain 

consensus from DHS agencies most directly affected by a standard. However, 

delays are inevitable because the SSAWGs are constituted using a team 

structure. This delays the process because every affected organization must 

approve each standard. These delays could be mitigated by decreasing the 

size of the SSAWGs’ membership, from covering every affected organization 

to only those that are most heavily affected. S&T even suggested a “radical 

change” of discarding the SSAWG structure in favor of assigning single 

experts for each type of equipment. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider the recommendation unresolved and open 

because S&T’s comments are not directly responsive to this recommendation. 

We agree that the SSAWGs are the most appropriate entities for monitoring 

the progress of equipment standards adoption and proposing adjustments to 

the process when necessary. However, S&T’s response did not specify the 

methods and frequency for monitoring the progress of equipment standards 

adoption, or how the SSAWGs should propose changes to the adoption 

process as enumerated in the directives. 

Recommendation 3 – Unresolved - Open 

Recommendation 4: Ensure that the AEL is explicitly designated as the 

source of first responder equipment in all ODP grant guidance disseminated to 

first responder recipients. 

Preparedness Response: Preparedness did not concur with this 

recommendation. It stated that the AEL was developed to focus on equipment 

for chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive incidents, and 

was never intended to guide equipment purchases in all Preparedness grant 

programs. Specifically, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program has a 

broad statutory mandate that allows recipients to purchase equipment and 

training, such as for wellness, fitness, and emergency medical services, which 

may not be listed on the AEL. Preparedness stated that restricting Assistance 

to Firefighters Grant recipients to the AEL would be inconsistent with the 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 34 

program’s statutory authority and would hinder the recipient’s ability to 

purchase essential equipment. 

Preparedness emphasized that it continues to coordinate with S&T on its 

standards adoption program to support the application of standards by first 

responders. Preparedness concluded that it would consider the 

appropriateness of incorporating S&T-adopted standards into its grant 

programs. 

S&T Response: S&T stated that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program predates DHS and funds other types of homeland security-related 

equipment. Therefore, resistance from state and local first responders should 

be anticipated in identifying the AEL as the primary source of information on 

first responder equipment. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider the recommendation resolved and open. We 

agree with both Preparedness and S&T’s responses that the AEL is limited in 

both identifying all available equipment for first responders and in ascribing 

equipment standards to every item. However, as we noted in our report, 

Preparedness grants are the primary means for DHS to achieve compatibility 

and interoperability among first responder equipment. In addition, the 

requirement that first responders purchase equipment listed on the AEL is 

affirmed in the HSGP grant guidance, which is Preparedness’ largest grant 

program that distributes funds to first responders. 

We recognize that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program gives first 

responders sensible latitude with their equipment purchases. Current grant 

guidance for this program offers several general options for standards, but it 

does not specify the standards to which first responders should conform their 

equipment purchases (whether mandatory or not). All Preparedness’ grant 

guidance should, at a minimum, reference the AEL as a resource to assist first 

responders in determining which equipment is allowable and compliant. 

In light of the comments on this recommendation, we amend the 

recommendation as follows: “Ensure that the AEL is designated as a source 

of allowable first responder equipment in all ODP grant guidance 

disseminated to first responder recipients.” 

Recommendation 4 – Resolved - Open 

Recommendation 5: Mandate, through grant guidance and enforcement 

monitoring, that all equipment purchased by first responders using funds from 

ODP grant programs complies with corresponding standards adopted by S&T. 

 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 35 

Preparedness Response: Preparedness concurred with this recommendation, 

emphasizing that all S&T-adopted standards were incorporated into the 

HSGP. Preparedness stated that buying equipment that complies with the 

standards is mandatory where at least one commercial product exists that 

conforms to the standard. Compliance with S&T standards is recommended 

where no products have yet passed the test requirements. 

Preparedness also explained that while some SDO standards were 

incorporated as mandatory standards in grant guidance, further S&T-adopted 

standards will be integrated into all grant guidance. 

S&T Response: According to S&T, equipment currently on the AEL should 

still be eligible for purchase, until S&T adopts a corresponding standard for 

that equipment. Once a standard is adopted by S&T, the AEL has to be 

screened to ensure that the equipment on the list, which is linked to that 

standard, also meets that standard. If it is determined that existing equipment 

on the AEL does not meet newly adopted standards, then an equitable process 

needs to be implemented to resolve this problem. New equipment should only 

be added to the AEL if it conforms to adopted standards or receives a waiver, 

on a case-by-case basis, to fulfill a pressing need. 

OIG Evaluation: We consider the recommendation unresolved and open. 

The spirit of this recommendation is for Preparedness to ensure that first 

responders buy equipment, using its grant funds, which complies with 

corresponding S&T standards. This should be done by incorporating 

appropriate provisions in the grant guidance. While applicable provisions 

were contained in the HSGP guidance, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

Program guidance does not explicitly mandate that grantees purchase 

equipment that complies with S&T-adopted equipment standards. Instead, 

this guidance requires recipients to comply with standards, such as those 

developed by NFPA, which have not necessarily been adopted by S&T. 

In its response, Preparedness also did not address any methodology for how 

its enforcement monitoring process would ensure that all equipment, 

purchased by first responders using ODP funds, complies with corresponding 

S&T standards. 

DHS needs to take advantage of these incremental opportunities to enhance 

equipment compatibility and interoperability for first responders. If S&T 

standards exist for first responder equipment, then first responders should 

have to buy equipment that complies with those standards when using 

Preparedness grant funds. 

Recommendation 5 – Unresolved - Open 
Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 36 

Recommendation 6: Mandate, through program guidance and standard 

operating procedures, that S&T systematically monitor and review the AEL to 

ensure that all listed equipment conforms to currently applicable DHS 

standards. 

S&T Response: S&T countered that no directive specifically delegates the 

responsibility for monitoring and reviewing the AEL to any particular entity 

in the standards adoption process. However, S&T stipulated that this function 

is most proper for the Standards Subject Area Expert, within the appropriate 

SSAWG. S&T stated it would add suitable statements to the directives to 

assign this duty. Additionally, the SSAWG members should be given the 

responsibility for advising the Standards Subject Area Expert if they become 

aware of an event that alters the AEL, such as the adoption of new standards. 

S&T proposed to review the AEL on a regular basis, such as quarterly. 

Since Preparedness has primary control over the AEL, S&T proposed that the 

standards point of contact at Preparedness (Office of Grants and Training) be 

given the responsibility for alerting the S&T Standards Portfolio of any 

standards-related activities that impact information on the AEL. 

OIG Evaluation: We agree that the pertinent directives do not assign 

responsibility for monitoring and reviewing the AEL to any S&T entity. 

However, the directives should be amended to satisfy this recommendation. 

We consider the recommendation resolved because the proposed changes to 

the directives are sufficient. However, the relevant provisions in the 

directives should clearly designate the specific level of Standards Subject 

Area Expert who is responsible for monitoring the AEL. S&T should also 

review the AEL at least on a semi-annual basis. 

The recommendation remains open until we receive revised copies of the 

directives that explicitly assign S&T responsibilities for monitoring and 

reviewing the AEL. 

Recommendation 6 – Resolved - Open 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 37 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The purpose of our review was to assess the Science and Technology (S&T) 

directorate’s progress in establishing equipment and communication 

interoperability standards for the first responder community. We examined 

S&T’s operations and performance in fulfilling these efforts and its 

coordination with other DHS components to ensure dissemination and 

awareness of equipment standards adopted by S&T; the number and types of 

adopted standards related to first responder equipment and communication 

interoperability; and, the extent to which S&T has the authority to ensure that 

first responders comply with DHS equipment standards 

We reviewed S&T’s organizational structure and objectives for adopting 

equipment standards and the roles and responsibilities of the Programs, Plans, 

and Requirements (PPR) and Systems Engineering and Development (SED) 

offices as they have primary responsibility for researching and adopting 

relevant standards for first responders. Our review included an analysis of the 

process by which PPR and SED receive proposed equipment standards from 

Standards Development Organizations (SDOs). 

We did not evaluate the effectiveness of the S&T technical process for 

determining which equipment and communication interoperability standards 

to adopt. We also did not assess compliance by first responders in purchasing 

equipment that complies with DHS equipment standards. 

Our fieldwork included interviewing, analyzing data, and reviewing 

documents and information. We interviewed S&T management and program 

officials at headquarters and interviewed officials of the Office of State and 

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness who are knowledgeable 

about equipment standards and DHS grant programs. We also interviewed 

officials within DHS’ Emergency Preparedness & Response directorate and 

the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and officials from organizations with 

expertise in first responder equipment standards, including the National Fire 

Protection Association, the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, the American National 

Standards Institute, and the InterAgency Board for Equipment Standardization 

and Inter Operability. 

 We analyzed S&T’s national standards tracking database that maintains data 

on DHS standards and standards submitted by SDOs. We also examined the 

time S&T requires to complete the standards adoption process. 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 38 

We reviewed statutes, such as the HSA, and regulations and we examined data 

related to contracts between S&T and SDOs and other external organizations. 

We analyzed data in the Authorized Equipment List, the Responder 

Knowledge Base, the Standardized Equipment List, and the Homeland 

Security Standards Database, and grants and funding data related to the 

Homeland Security Grant Program and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 

program. 

We conducted our review between June and October 2005. Our review was 

conducted under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to the Quality Standards for Inspections issued by the 

President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 39 

[Science & Technology Directorate’s Response to Recommendations] 

Draft Report: A Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment 

Standards for First Responders

Opening Comment: 

In Recommendation #3, the OIG Report notes that the management directives for standards adoption 

should be amended for the specific purpose of adding timelines. The discussion below references 

several other changes in the management directives, particularly Management Directive (MD) 

10601.1. 

Standards Data is Not Consistently Captured

Recommendation (pg 14 of draft report) 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

1. Ensure that S&T’s internal standards database accurately captures data necessary to track the 

status of standards being considered for adoption. 

While this recommendation is valid, its emphasis misses the point. The database needs to accurately 

capture data as a standard progresses through development. However, the Standards Portfolio is not 

adequately staffed to track the status that would be input into the database. The technology areas 

involved with personal protection, detection, decontamination, and communications is varied and 

complex. Several SDOs are in fact required to address all of the detailed issues involved in creating 

standards for the whole of these technology areas. Several committees or working groups within an 

SDO can often be engaged in the creation of a single standard. The issues within a single standard 

can often be so involved that periodic meetings last for a week. Therefore, the work required to be 

able to accurately track a standard’s status can be quite intensive. If S&T’s internal standards 

database is to have value, it is necessary to meaningfully engage the activities of the SDOs in order 

to populate the database with impartial and accurate data. It is this engagement of the SDOs which 

requires adequate staffing. 

In MD 10600.1 tracking the status of standard development is a function appropriate for the 

Standards Coordinator, Section 4.L. A statement capturing this recommendation should be added to 

• MD 10600.1 in Sections 4.E., 

• MD 10601 in Sections 4.E, and possibly in 5.B., 6.B.4., 6.C.4, 6.D.1, and/or 6.F.3., 

• MD 10602 in Section V.B. 

The Standards Portfolio has begun to identify a single point of contact (POC) for standards in the 

other DHS Departments and Agencies. These POCs are valuable assets as they are imbedded within 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 40 

the sister components of DHS and are monitoring the needs and status of standards that particularly 

affect their organization. Currently the POCs participate in the weekly staff meeting conducted by 

the Portfolio. It would be beneficial if the Portfolio had sufficient permanent staff to have closer 

contact with these POCs. Standards Subject Area Expert (SSAE), as defined in Section 4.M. of MD 

10600.1, would be candidates to perform this liaison function plus lead the Standards Subject Area 

Working Groups (SSAWG) described in MD 10600.1, Section 4.N. Statements designating this 

responsibility to the SSAE could be added to Sections 5 and 6 of MD 10601.1. 

Standards Adoption Performance Measures are Needed

Recommendation (page 17 of draft report) 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

2. Establish specific, quantifiable performance measures for the S&T standards adoption process 

that will ensure more timely adoption of standards for use by the first responder community. 

Timelines can be established as performance measures for those actions within the control of S&T 

and by extension, DHS (G&T). If candidate standards under consideration require tailoring or even 

new development by SDOs, then S&T can monitor progress but can not be held accountable for 

timelines that are beyond its control. A multi-phased approach for establishing performance 

measures and timelines may therefore make sense. Consider the following: 

 Develop performance measures for determining the validity and usefulness for adopting the 

standards listed among the 81 standards in the HSSD and the 65 in S&T’s internal database. 

 For standards to be adopted, develop another set of performance measures to measure their 

rate of adoption. 

 For standards of interest that require further tailoring or development, performance measures 

would not apply since the activities of independent SDOs are outside the control of S&T and 

therefore, timelines tied to performance measures are unenforceable by the Portfolio. 

Establishing a tracking process that records events in the lifecycle of standards development, 

such as, issuance of first draft, sending out for comments, resolution of comments, and final 

passage is appropriate, but S&T should not be held accountable for external delays. 

 Once new standards are completed and ready for adoption, timelines can be established. 

 

Current Process Is Not Effectively Addressing First Responder Needs

Recommendation (page 20 of draft report) 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 41 

3. Determine appropriate methods for amending the relevant Management Directives in order to 

identify specific timeframes for process objectives, monitor the progress of equipment standards 

adoption, and adjust the process, as needed, to effectively adopt equipment standards. 

To “effectively adopt equipment standards” a standard must be completed then vetted through the 

DHS Directorates/Agencies that are affected by it. As noted above, DHS does not control the 

development of standards to the extent that it is possible to set timeframes for their development by 

independent SDOs. Once completed S&T has the obligation to vet standards through the other 

Directorates in DHS, in particular those that will have their responsibilities affected on a daily basis 

by the standard, e.g., those using WMD detection devices at the borders. While S&T can shepherd 

the documents through the process, it would be difficult to control. This being said, it is possible to 

monitor this process for certain other parts of the adoption process. 

The Management Directives have set up the SSAWGs as the vehicle to perform the tasks of 

monitoring and recommending the adoption of standards. As the name implies a SSAWG is a team 

of experts. Both the letter and spirit of the process is to have this team be populated with employees 

of the affected Directorates and Agencies. In addition to benefiting from the expert’s talents, a 

major objective is to garner buy-in by having those most directly affected by a standard be the same 

people who recommend the adoption of that standard. The negative effect of having a group 

structure is that delays are inevitable. These delays could be mitigated by decreasing the size of the 

group from covering every affected organization to those most highly affected. A radical change 

would be to discard the group structure in favor of a single expert model. In this latter case the 

incumbent expert would likely have to have standards identification, review and adoption as a major 

task of their position. 

If the last recommendation is accepted the Directives need to engage G&T in an appropriate way. 

Additionally the Directives need to bring in the appropriate level of support from other components 

of DHS and should include some participation of state and local bodies through G&T. 

Specific Grant Guidance is Essential

Recommendation (Page 23 of draft report) 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Preparedness: 

4. Ensure that the AEL is explicitly designated as the source of first responder equipment in all ODP 

grant guidance disseminated to first responder recipients. 

The Office of Grants and Training’s fire and law enforcement grant program predates DHS. It is 

possible that by limiting the procurement of equipment to the AEL may be construed by customers 

of the AEL as too restrictive for a legacy grant program that was meant to actually do more than 

fund homeland security related equipment. The Department should anticipate resistance from the 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 42 

state and local communities and reach out to the fire and law enforcement departments and the 

Congress to determine what the level of resistance may be and attempt to assuage any problems 

before they occur. 

Regarding SAFECOM the Report contains the following comment concerning Project 25 (P25) on 

Page 16. 

“While only one of the eight interfaces comprising Project 25 is fully developed and 

available for adoption, S&T has not adopted it. .... It is imperative that S&T continues its 

progress towards development and adoption of communication interoperability standards.” 

The single completed interface for P25 is the Common Air Interface (CAI). The CAI allows 

portable handheld and mobile digital land mobile radios built by different manufacturers to be able 

to communicate with one another, assuming they operate within the same band. The reason that 

S&T has not adopted this standard yet is that it is incomplete. To date, only a single manufacturer 

builds “P25” radio infrastructure. To adopt this standard before it is complete would in effect 

mandate a sole source. 

Three additional P25 interfaces are required before multiple manufacturers will have an ability to 

actually build compliant P25 infrastructure. These interfaces are the Inter-RF Subsystem Interface 

(ISSI), the Console-to-Console Interface, and the Fixed Station Interface. Significant progress has 

been made in the past year to greatly accelerate these three interfaces. 

Once the interface issue is solved sufficient portions of the P25 standard will be complete. At that 

time it would be appropriate for S&T to adopt P25. It is anticipated that this may occur as soon as 

the end of this calendar year or early next. 

5. Mandate, through grant guidance and enforcement monitoring, that all equipment purchased by 

first responders using funds from ODP grant programs complies with corresponding standards 

adopted by S&T. 

Equipment currently on the AEL should continue to be allowed for purchase, i.e. “grandfathered”, 

until S&T adopts a corresponding standard for that piece of equipment. Once a standard is adopted 

by S&T, the AEL would need to be screened to identify that the equipment on the list “serviced” by 

that standard meets that standard. If it is determined that existing equipment on the AEL will not 

meet newly adopted standards, then an equitable process/timeline would need to be determined to 

resolve this problem. New equipment should only be added to the AEL if it meets adopted standards 

or receives a waiver on a case-by-case basis to fill a pressing need. 

S&T is not adequately monitoring the Authorized Equipment List

Recommendation (Page 25 of draft report) 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 43 

We recommend that the Under Secretary for Science and Technology: 

6. Mandate, through program guidance and standard operating procedures, that S&T systematically 

monitor and review the AEL to ensure that all listed equipment conforms to currently applicable 

DHS standards. 

Management Directive 10600.1 does not specifically delegate the responsibility of monitoring and 

reviewing the AEL to any particular team or individual in the standards adoption process. This 

function is most appropriate for either or both the SSAE or the SSAWG. It is recommended that 

primary responsibility for this be given to the SSAE by adding suitable statements to Section 5 and 6 

of MD 10600.1. Additionally the SSAWG members should also be given responsibility for 

advising the SSAE if they become aware of an event that alters the AEL, e.g., addition of new 

equipment or standards activities. The AEL should be reviewed on a regular basis, e.g., quarterly. It 

is recommended that appropriate language be added to Management Directive 10600.1 at Section 

5.C. and to Management Directive 10602 at Section V.B. 

Since primary control over the AEL rests in the domain of OGT, it is recommended that the 

standards point of contact at OGT, whether informally or formally , e.g., MOU, be given the 

responsibility of alerting the S&T Standards Portfolio of any activities that alter the AEL in a 

manner that affects standards requirements. 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 44 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 45 
Appendix B 

Management Response to Draft Report 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 46 
Appendix C 

Major Contributors 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 47 

Marcia M. Hodges, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews 

Carlton Mann, Chief Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections and Special Reviews 

Andrew B. Hoffman, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections and Special Reviews 

Jacqueline D. Simms, Senior Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews 

Kristine Odiña, Inspector, Department of Homeland Security, Office of 

Inspections and Special Reviews 
Appendix D 

Equipment Standards Adopted by S&T 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 48 

Listed below are the 12 standards for personal protective and detection equipment that were adopted 

by S&T in February 2004:63 

Standards for Personal Protective Equipment 

1. NIOSH: Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Standard for Open-Circuit SelfContained Breathing Apparatus (December 2001) 

This standard establishes performance and design requirements to certify Self-Contained 

Breathing Apparatus for use in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear exposures for use 

by emergency responders. 

2. NIOSH: Standard for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Full Facepiece Air 

Purifying Respirator 

The purpose of this standard is to specify minimum requirements to determine the effectiveness 

of full facepiece air purifying respirators, commonly referred to as gas masks, used during entry 

into chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear atmospheres not immediately dangerous to 

life or health. 

3. NIOSH: Standard for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Air-Purifying Escape 

Respirator and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Self-Contained Escape 

Respirator

The purpose of this standard is to specify minimum requirements to determine the effectiveness 

of escape respirators that address chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials 

identified as inhalation hazards from possible terrorist events for use by the general working 

population. 

4. NFPA 1951: Standard on Protective Ensemble for Urban Search and Rescue Operations 

Based on work begun in 1997, this standard answers the need for personal protective equipment 

for fire and emergency services personnel operating at technical rescue incidents involving 

building or structural collapse, vehicle accidents, confined spaces, trench cave-ins, scaffolding 

collapses, high angle climbing accidents, and similar incidents. The first edition of this standard 

was issued in July 2001. 

5. NFPA 1981: Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire and 

Emergency Services 

Based on work begun in 1975, this standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, 

performance, testing, and certification of open-circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus and 

combination open-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus and supplied air respirators for the 

respiratory protection of fire and emergency responders where unknown, immediately dangerous 

to life and health, or potentially immediately dangerous to life and health atmospheres exist. The 

first edition was issued in July 1981 and the current edition, issued in July 2002, is the fifth 

edition. 

 

63 “First Responders: Science & Technology Standards,” Science & Technology directorate, Department of Homeland 

Security. 
Appendix D 

Equipment Standards Adopted by S&T 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 49 

6. NFPA 1991: Standard on Vapor-Protective Ensembles for Hazardous Materials Emergencies

Based on work begun in 1986, this standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, 

performance, testing, and certification of vapor-protective ensembles and individual protective 

elements for chemical vapor protection for fire and emergency service personnel. Additional 

optional criteria are provided for ensembles and individual protective elements that provide 

protection for chemical flash fire escape, liquefied gas, chemical and biological warfare agents, 

and chemical and biological terrorism incidents. The first edition was issued in January 1990 

and the current edition, issued in January 2000, is the third edition. 

7. NFPA 1994: Standard on Protective Ensembles for Chemical/Biological Terrorism Incidents 

Based on work begun in 1998, this standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, 

performance, testing, and certification of protective ensembles for fire and emergency services 

personnel operating at domestic terrorism incidents involving dual-use industrial chemicals, 

chemical terrorism agents, or biological terrorism agents. The intent is that the ensembles would 

be available in quantity, easily donned and used, and designed for single exposure use. The first 

edition of this standard was issued in July 2001. 

8. NFPA 1999: Standard on Protective Clothing for Emergency Medical Operations 

Based on work begun in 1990, this standard specifies the minimum requirements for the design, 

performance, testing, and certification of new single-use and multiple-use emergency medical 

protective clothing, including garments, gloves, footwear, and face protection devices, used by 

fire and emergency services personnel performing patient care during emergency medical 

operations for protection against exposure to blood and body fluid-borne pathogens. The first 

edition was issued in July 1992 and the current edition, issued in January 2003, is the third 

edition. 

Standards for Radiation and Nuclear Detection Equipment 

1. ANSI N42.32: Performance Criteria for Alarming Personal Radiation Detectors for Homeland 

Security 

This standard describes design and performance criteria along with testing methods for 

evaluating the performance of instruments for homeland security that are pocket sized and 

carried on the body for the purpose of detecting the presence and magnitude of radiation. This 

standard specifies the performance criteria for radiation detection and measurement instruments 

that may be used in a variety of environmental conditions. The performance criteria contained in 

this standard are meant to provide a means for verifying the capability of these instruments to 

reliably detect significant changes above background levels of radiation and alert the user to 

these changes. 

2. ANSI N42.33: Radiation Detection Instrumentation for Homeland Security 

This standard establishes design and performance criteria, test and calibration requirements, and 

operating instruction requirements for portable radiation detection instruments. These 

instruments are used for detection and measurement of photon emitting radioactive substances 

for the purposes of detection and interdiction and hazard assessment. The informative annexes 

of this standard provide reference information. 
Appendix D 

Equipment Standards Adopted by S&T 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 50 

3. ANSI N42.34: Performance Criteria for Hand-Held Instruments for the Detection and 

Identification of Radionuclides 

This standard addresses instruments that can be used for homeland security applications to detect 

and identify radionuclides, for gamma dose rate measurement, and for indication of neutron 

radiation. This standard specifies general requirements and test procedures, radiation response 

requirements, and electrical, mechanical, and environmental requirements. Successful 

completion of the tests described in this standard should not be construed as an ability to 

successfully identify all isotopes in all environments. 

4. ANSI N42.35: Evaluation and Performance of Radiation Detection Portal Monitors for Use in 

Homeland Security 

This standard provides the testing and evaluation criteria for Radiation Detection Portal Monitors 

to detect radioactive materials that could be used for nuclear weapons or radiological dispersal 

devices. Portal monitors may be used in permanent installations, in temporary installations for 

short-duration detection needs, or as a transportable system. These systems are used to provide 

monitoring of people, packages and vehicles to detect illicit radioactive material transportation, 

or for emergency response to an event that releases radioactive material. 
Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

 

Review of DHS’ Progress in Adopting and Enforcing Equipment Standards for First 

Responders 

Page 51 

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Under Secretary, Science and Technology 

Under Secretary, Preparedness 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

Assistant Secretary, Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary, Policy 

Assistant Secretary, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

DHS Audit Liaison 

S&T Audit Liaison 

 Preparedness Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS’ Program Examiner 

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate 
Additional Information and Copies 

To obtain additional copies of this report, call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202) 254-4100, fax your request to (202) 254-4285, or visit the OIG 

web site at www.dhs.gov.

OIG Hotline 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind 

of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to department programs or 

operations, call the OIG Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; write to Department of 

Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, Attn: Office of Inspector 

General, Investigations Division – Hotline. The OIG seeks to protect the 

identity of each writer and caller.