Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications
Published: 2004-07-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Lives of first responders and those whom they are trying to assist can be lost when first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed. This report addresses issues of determining the status of interoperable wireless communications across the nation, and the potential roles that federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these communications.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In a November 6, 2003, testimony, GAO said that no one group or level of government could "fix" the nation's interoperable communications problems. Success would require effective, collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning. The present extent and scope nationwide of public safety wireless communication systems' ability to talk among themselves as necessary and authorized has not been determined. Data on current conditions compared to needs are necessary to develop plans for improvement and measure progress over time. However, the nationwide data needed to do this are not currently available. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to obtain this information by the year 2005 by means of a nationwide survey. However, at the time of our review, DHS had not yet developed its detailed plans for conducting this survey and reporting its results. The federal government can take a leadership role in support of efforts to improve interoperability by developing national requirements and a national architecture, developing nationwide databases, and providing technical and financial support for state and local efforts to improve interoperability. In 2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established the federal government's Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program, SAFECOM, to unify efforts to achieve national wireless communications interoperability. However, SAFECOM's authority and ability to oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts has been limited by its dependence upon other agencies for funding and their willingness to cooperate. OMB is currently examining alternative methods to implement SAFECOM's mission. In addition, DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to the problems of interoperability in several functions, including wireless communications. The exact structure and funding for this office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being developed. State and local governments can play a large role in developing and implementing plans to improve public safety agencies' interoperable communications. State and local governments own most of the physical infrastructure of public safety communications systems, and states play a central role in managing emergency communications. The Federal Communications Commission recognized the central role of states in concluding that states should manage the public safety interoperability channels in the 700 MHz communications spectrum. States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice to serve as a foundation for interoperability planning because incidents of any level of severity originate at the local level with states as the primary source of support. However, states are not required to develop interoperability plans, and there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The inability of first responders—police officers, fire fighters, emergency  medical service personnel, public health officials, and others—to  communicate effectively over wireless systems with one another as  needed during an emergency is a long-standing and widely recognized  problem in many areas across the country. Reports have shown that when  first responders cannot communicate effectively as needed, it can literally  cost lives of both emergency responders and those they are trying to  assist. Thus, effective communications between and among wireless  communications systems used by federal, state, and local public safety  agencies is generally accepted as not only desirable but essential for the  protection of life and property. Public safety officials generally recognize  that effective “interoperable” communications is the ability to talk with  whom they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to  talk with everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of wireless  systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an emergency  incident, whether that incident is a “routine” spill from an overturned  tanker truck or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.
Various reports have documented a number of barriers to achieving  interoperable public safety wireless communications, including  incompatible and aging equipment, limited and fragmented funding,  fragmented planning and collaboration, and limited equipment standards.  The federal government has been addressing these issues for over 15 years  through the attempts of a variety of federal agencies to define the extent of  the problem and to identify potential solutions. The September 11 attacks  have resulted in greater public and governmental focus on the role of first  responders and their capabilities to respond to emergencies, including  terrorist incidents. In our November 6, 2003, testimony before  subcommittees of the House Committee on Government Reform we  identified three principal challenges to improving interoperable  communications for first responders: (1) clearly identifying and defining  the problem; (2) establishing national interoperability performance goals  and standards that balance nationwide standards with the flexibility to  address differences in state, regional, and local needs and conditions; and   (3) defining the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other  entities in addressing interoperability needs. We noted that perhaps the  fundamental barrier to addressing all of the long-standing problems in  interoperable communications is the lack of effective, collaborative,  interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning and that no one first  responder group or governmental agency can successfully “fix” the  interoperability problems that face our nation.
In this report, we examine (1) issues in determining the current  interoperable communications capabilities of first responders nationwide,  including the scope and severity of interoperable wireless  communications problems across the nation; (2) the potential roles that  federal, state, and local governments can play in improving these  communications, and (3) how the variety of federal grants for state and  local first responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of  interoperable problems and the development of comprehensive plans to  address those problems.
To address these issues, we met with officials of the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the  Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Commerce (DOC), the  Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of  Defense (DOD), and obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation.  We also met with officials from the states of California, Florida, Georgia,  and Washington and local governments within those states. We chose  these four states because we had information that they were active in  addressing interoperability issues and because California and Washington  provided an opportunity to examine specific interoperability issues that  might be presented by national borders with Mexico and Canada. We  obtained and reviewed documentation from federal, state, and local  officials regarding interoperability issues, plans and activities. In addition,  we attended several meetings of public safety communications officials  and met with staff of the National Governors Association. See appendix I  for more details on our objectives, scope, and methodology. In addition,  information on cross-border communications issues we obtained during  field visits to the states of California and Washington is included in  appendix II. We conducted our work from July 2003 through June 2004 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a  necessary means for achieving an important goal—the ability to respond  effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions of  first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural disasters, or  terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed out that needed  interoperable communications capabilities are based on whether  communications are needed for (1) “mutual-aid responses” or routine day- to-day coordination between two local agencies; (2) extended task force  operations involving members of different agencies coming together to  work on a common problem, such as the 2002 sniper attacks in the  Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; or (3) a major event that requires  response from a variety of local, state, and federal agencies, such as major  wildfires, hurricanes, or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. A  California State official with long experience in public safety  communications breaks the major event category into three separate types  of events: (1) planned events, such as the Olympics, for which plans can be  made in advance; (2) recurring events, such as major wildfires and other  weather events, that can be expected every year and for which  contingency plans can be prepared based on past experience; and   (3) unplanned events, such as the September 11th attacks, that can rapidly  overwhelm the ability of local forces to handle the problem.
Interoperable communications are but one component, although a key  one, of an effective incident command planning and operations structure.  As shown in figure 1, determining the most appropriate means of  achieving interoperable communications must flow from an  comprehensive incident command and operations plan that includes  developing an operational definition of who is in charge for different types  of events and what types of information would need to be communicated  (voice, data, or both) to whom under what circumstances. Other steps  include:    defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities needed  for specific types of events;    assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications needs;  identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined requirements;   assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable    developing a comprehensive plan—including, for example, mutual aid  agreements, technology and equipment specifications, and training—for  closing the gap between current capabilities and identified requirements.
Interoperable communications requirements are not static, but change  over time with changing circumstances (e.g., new threats) and technology  (e.g., new equipment), and additional spectrum as it becomes available.  Consequently, both a short- and long-term “feedback loop” that  incorporates regular assessments of current capabilities and needed  changes is important.
subsections: section_title: Many Agencies and Groups Have Examined and Reported on Interoperability Issues
paragraphs: The first responder community is extensive and extremely diverse in size  and the types of equipment in their communications systems. According to  SAFECOM officials, there are over 2.5 million public safety- first  responders within more than 50,000 public safety organizations in the  United States. Local and state agencies own over 90 percent of the existing  public safety communications infrastructure. This intricate public safety  communications infrastructure incorporates a wide variety of  technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands. In addition to the  difficulty that this complex environment poses for federal, state, and local  coordination, 85 percent of fire personnel, and nearly as many emergency  management technicians, are volunteers with elected leadership. Many of  these agencies are small and do not have technical expertise; only the  largest of the agencies have engineers and technicians.
In the past, a stovepiped, single jurisdiction, or agency-specific  communication systems development approach prevailed—resulting in  none or less than desired interoperable communications systems. Public  safety agencies have historically planned and acquired communications  systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for interoperability.  This meant that each state and local agency developed communications  systems to meet their own requirements, without regard to interoperability  requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For example, a Public Safety  Wireless Network (PSWN) analysis of Fire and Emergency Management  Services (EMS) communications interoperability found a significant need  for coordinated approaches, relationship building, and information  sharing. However, the PSWN program office found that public safety  agencies have traditionally developed or updated their radio systems  independently to meet specific mission needs.
According to a study conducted by the National Task Force on  Interoperability, public safety officials have unique and demanding  communications requirements. According to the study, however, when the  issue of interoperability is raised, officials respond that they are unable to  even talk to their own personnel, much less expand their communications  to include reliable and interoperable local and regional communications,  and, ultimately reliable and interoperable local, state, and federal  communications. The events of September 11, 2001, which called for an  integrated response of federal, state, and local first responders, highlighted  the need for interoperable first responder communication across  disciplines and throughout levels of government.
The attacks on New York City and the Pentagon have resulted in greater  public and governmental focus on the role of first responders and their  capabilities to respond to emergencies, including those resulting from  terrorist incidents. One result has been significantly increased federal  funding for state and local first responders, including funding to improve  interoperable communications among federal, state, and local first  responders. In fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated at least $154 million  targeted specifically for interoperability through a variety of grants  administered by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of  Justice, and other agencies. Other available grants, such as the Homeland  Security Grant, could be used for a variety of purposes, including  interoperable communications.
For over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with public  safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.  A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in  efforts to define the problem and to identify potential solutions, such as  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice  (DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National  Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) within the  Department of Commerce (DOC), among others. Today, a combination of  federal agencies, programs, and associations are involved in coordinating  emergency communications.
DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first  responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM  program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the  Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov  initiatives, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created  SAFECOM to unify the federal government’s efforts to help coordinate the  work at the federal, state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable  public safety communications and achieve national wireless  communications interoperability. The SAFECOM program was brought  into DHS in early 2003. In June 2003, SAFECOM partnered with the  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National  Institute of Justice (NIJ) to hold a summit that brought together over 60  entities involved with communications interoperability policy setting or  programs. According to NIST, the summit familiarized key interoperability  players with work being done by others and provided insight into where  additional federal resources may be needed.
In addition to the many federal agencies and programs involved with  shaping first responder interoperable communication policies, a range of  public safety associations play a significant role in defining the problems  and solutions to emergency communications interoperability. For example  the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) is a  federation representing public safety telecommunications. The purpose of  NPSTC is to follow up on the recommendations made by the Public Safety  Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) to FCC and the National  Telecommunications and Information Agency on public safety  communication needs. In addition, NPSTC acts as a resource and  advocate for public safety telecommunications issues and is working with  SAFECOM to develop requirements for first responder communications.
FCC established the Public Safety National Coordination Committee  (NCC) to advise them on spectrum policy decisions for public safety  interoperable communications. In July 2003, NCC made several  recommendations to FCC for improving communications interoperability.  The NCC’s charter expired on July 25, 2003 and it has since been  dissolved.
In 2002, the National Governors Association released a report that  recommended that governors and their state homeland security directors  (1) develop a statewide vision for interoperable communications,   (2) ensure adequate wireless spectrum to accommodate all users,   (3) invest in new communications infrastructure, (4) develop standards for  technology and equipment, and (5) partner with government and private  industry.
These associations and task forces are just a small representation of the  many organizations identified by DHS and NIST as contributors to public  safety interoperable communications efforts.
Several technical factors specifically limit interoperability of public safety  wireless communications systems. First, public safety agencies have been  assigned frequencies in new bands over time as available frequencies  become congested and as new technology made other frequencies  available for use. As a result, public safety agencies now operate over  multiple frequency bands—operating on these different bands required  different radios because technology was not available to include all bands  in one radio. Thus, the new bands provided additional capabilities but  fragmented the public safety radio frequency spectrum, making  communications among different jurisdictions difficult. Another technical  factor inhibiting interoperability is the different technologies or different  applications of the same technology by manufacturers of public safety  radio equipment. One manufacture may design equipment with proprietary  technology that will not work with equipment produced by another  manufacturer.
section_title: Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued
paragraphs: The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the  nation—including current interoperable communications capability and  the scope and severity of any problems—has not been determined.  Although various reports have documented the lack of interoperability of  first responders’ wireless communications in specific locations, complete  and current data do not exist documenting current interoperable  communications capabilities and the scope and severity of any problems  at the local, state, interstate, or federal level across the nation.
SAFECOM plans to conduct a nationwide survey to assess current  capabilities of public safety agency wireless communications.
Accumulating these data may be difficult, however, because several  problems inhibit efforts to identify and define current interoperable  communications capabilities and future requirements. Improving the  interoperability of first responder wireless communications requires a  clear assessment of the current state of public safety wireless  communications interoperability, using a set of defined requirements; an  operational definition of any problems; and a planning framework to guide  the resolution of those problems. However, defining interoperability  problems is difficult because interoperability requirements and problems  are situation specific and evolve over time.
subsections: section_title: Federal Plans to Obtain Data on the Scope and Nature of Interoperable Communications Problems
paragraphs: By 2008, SAFECOM expects all public safety agencies in the United States  to have a minimum level of interoperability, as defined by a national  interoperability baseline. However, SAFECOM officials said they lack  current nationwide information on the interoperable communications  problems of first responders. Two key studies in the late 1990s sponsored  by DOJ and PSWN program provide a nationwide picture of wireless  interoperability issues among federal, state, and local police, fire, and  emergency medical service agencies at that time. Both studies describe  most local public safety agencies as interacting with other local agencies  on a daily or weekly basis. As a result, most local agencies had more  confidence in establishing radio links with one another than with state  agencies, with whom they less frequently interact. Local public safety  agencies interact with federal agencies least of all, with a smaller  percentage of local agencies expressing confidence in their ability to  establish radio links with federal agencies.
However, the events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in a  reexamination of the circumstances in which interoperable  communications should extend across political jurisdictions and levels of  government. To obtain a current national picture, SAFECOM established  as a key objective to assess by July 2005 the current state of  interoperability across the nation and create a nationwide baseline  describing public safety communications and interoperability. The  baseline will be the basis for measuring future improvements made  through local, state, and federal public safety communications initiatives.  SAFECOM officials said their study will be designed to measure actual  interoperability capabilities in a sample of locations selected to represent  the national condition. According to these officials, SAFECOM will  conduct a gap analysis, which will compare the actual levels of  interoperability within a state to the various scenarios used in a  nationwide statement of requirements and determine the minimum level of  interoperability that needs to be obtained.
Establishing a national baseline for public safety wireless communications  interoperability will be difficult because the definition of who to include as  a first responder is evolving, and interoperability problems and solutions  are situation specific and change over time to reflect new technologies and  operational requirements. In a joint SAFECOM/AGILE program planning  meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a national baseline is  necessary to know what the nations’ interoperability status really is, to set  goals, and to measure progress. However, at the meeting, participants said  they did not know how they were going to define interoperability, how  they could measure interoperability, or how to select their sample of  representative jurisdictions; this was all to be determined at a later date.  At the time of our review, SAFECOM officials acknowledged that  establishing a baseline will be difficult and said they are working out the  details of their baseline study but still expect to complete it by July 2005.
DHS also has other work under way that may provide a tool for such self- assessments by public safety officials. An ODP official in the Border and  Transportation Security Directorate of DHS said ODP is supporting the  development of a communications and interoperability needs assessment  for 118 jurisdictions that make up the Kansas City region. The official said  the assessment will provide an inventory of communications equipment  and identify how the equipment is used. He also said the results of this  prototype effort will be placed on a CD-Rom and distributed to states and  localities to provide a tool to conduct their own self assessments.  SAFECOM officials said they will review ODP’s assessment tool as part of  a coordinated effort and use this tool if it meets the interoperability  requirements of first responders.
section_title: Interoperability Issues Change as the Definition of First Responders Expands and Technology Evolves
paragraphs: Public safety officials generally recognize that interoperable  communications is the ability to talk with whom they want, when they  want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk with everyone all of the  time. However, there is no standard definition of communications  interoperability. Nor is there a “one size fits all” requirement for who  needs to talk to whom. Traditionally, first responders have been  considered to be fire, police, and emergency medical service personnel.  However, in a description of public safety challenges, a federal official  noted that the attacks of September 11, 2001, have blurred the lines  between public safety and national security. According to the Gilmore  Commission, effective preparedness for combating terrorism at the local  level requires a network that includes public health departments, hospitals  and other medical providers, and offices of emergency management, in  addition to the traditional police, fire, and emergency medical services  first responders. Furthermore, Congress provided an expanded definition  of first responders in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which defined  “emergency response providers” as including “Federal, State, and local  emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency response,  emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and related  personnel, agencies, and authorities.”
Technological changes also present new problems and opportunities for  achieving and maintaining effective interoperable communications.  According to one official, in the 1980s a method of voice transmission  called “trunking” became available that allowed more efficient use of  spectrum. However, three different and incompatible trunking  technologies developed, and these systems were not interoperable. This  official noted that as mobile data communications becomes more  prevalent and new digital technologies are introduced, standards become  more important.
In addition, technical standards for interoperable communications are still  under development. Beginning in 1989, a partnership between industry and  the public safety user community developed what is known as Project 25  (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office, Project 25  standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the United  States for public safety communications. DHS purchased radios that  incorporate the P-25 standards for each of the nation’s 28 urban search  and rescue teams. PSWN believes P-25 is an important step toward  achieving interoperability, but the standards do not mandate  interoperability among all manufacturers’ systems. Standards development  continues today as new technologies emerge that meet changing user  needs and new policy requirements.
Finally, new public safety mission requirements for video, imaging, and  high-speed data transfers, new and highly complex digital communications  systems, and the use of commercial wireless systems are potential sources  of new interoperability problems. Availability of new spectrum can also  encourage the development of new technologies and require further  development of technical standards. For example, the FCC recently  designated a new band of spectrum, the 4.9 Gigahertz (GHz) band, for use  and support of public safety. The FCC provided this additional spectrum  to public safety users to support new broadband applications such as high- speed digital technologies and wireless local area networks for incident  scene management. The FCC requested in particular comments on the  implementation of technical standards for fixed and mobile operations on  the band. NPSTC has established a task force that includes work on  interoperability standards for the 4.9 GHz band.
section_title: Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve
paragraphs: The federal government has a long history in addressing federal, state, and  local government public safety issues—in particular interoperability  issues. Congress has also recently contributed to the development of  policies. In October 2002 the House Committee on Government Reform  issued a report entitled How Can the Federal Government Better Assist  State and local Governments in Preparing for a Biological, Chemical, or  Nuclear Attack? The Committee’s first finding was that incompatible  communication systems impede intergovernmental coordination efforts.  The Committee recommended that the federal government take a  leadership role in resolving the communications interoperability problem.
In December 2003, the SAFECOM and the AGILE program within DOJ  issued a joint report in which they established a series of initiatives and  goals extending over the next 20 years. The report concludes that a  continuous and participatory effort is required to improve public safety  communications and interoperability. OMB created the SAFECOM  program as a short-term (18-24 months) E-Gov initiative. It had no  designated long-term mission. However, OMB has identified SAFECOM as  the primary program responsible for coordinating federal efforts to  improve interoperability. How to institutionalize that role is still an  evolving process. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the various  federal agencies—the FCC, DOJ, and others—involved in communications  interoperability have not been fully defined and SAFECOM’s authority to  oversee and coordinate federal and state efforts is limited. DHS, where  SAFECOM now resides, has recently announced it is establishing an Office  for Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response  to the problems of interoperability and compatibility. The exact structure  and funding for the office, which will include SAFECOM, are still being  developed.
There are areas in which the federal government can provide leadership,  such as developing national requirements and a national architecture for  public safety interoperable communications, national databases, and  common, nationwide terminology for communications. Moreover, the  federal government alone can allocate communications spectrum for  public safety use.
subsections: section_title: Establishing National Requirements and a National Architecture
paragraphs: One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy  has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for  public safety—what set of communications capabilities should be built or  acquired—and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM  program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public  Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement is to provide functional  requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners  communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first  comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication  requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these  requirements. According to DHS, the statement provides a shared vision  and an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety  communications.
DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that  will define future communications services as they change or become new  requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.  SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will  incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs but did not provide  specific details. One example of potential future development is expanded  coverage to include public safety support functions. The current statement  is incomplete because it only addresses the functional requirements for  traditional public safety first responders—Emergency Medical Services  personnel, firefighters, and law enforcement officers. The statement  recognizes the existence of but does not include in this version those  elements of the public safety community—such as transportation or public  utility workers—whose primary mission provides vital support to public  safety officials.
A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation of  interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and  agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to effectively and  efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO has promoted  the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial means to a  challenging goal: agency operational structures that are optimally defined  in both business and technological environments. Office of Management  and Budget officials told us that OMB charged SAFECOM with developing  a national architecture, which will include local, state, and federal  government architectures. According to these officials, SAFECOM is to  work closely with state and local governments to establish a basic  understanding of what infrastructure currently exists, and to identify  public safety communication requirements. SAFECOM officials said  development of a national architecture will take time because SAFECOM  must first assist state and local governments to establish their  communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will then collect the  state and local architectures, and fit them into a national architecture that  links federal communications into the state and local infrastructure.
section_title: Standard Databases to Support Interoperable Communications Not Established
paragraphs: State and local officials consider a standard database to be essential to  frequency planning and coordination for interoperability frequencies and  for general public safety purposes. The Public Safety National  Communications Council (NCC), appointed by the FCC to make  recommendations for public safety use of the 700 MHz communications  spectrum, recommended that the FCC mandate Regional Planning  Committee use of a standard database to coordinate frequencies during  license applications. In January 2001, the FCC rejected this  recommendation noting that while the NCC believed that use of this  database would ensure avoidance of channel interference between  spectrum users, mandating use of the database was premature because it  had not been fully developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to  revisit the issue of mandating the database once the database is developed  and has begun operation.
In its final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC noted that on July 18, 2003 the  National Public Safety Telecommunications Council demonstrated to FCC  staff what it represented was an operational version of the database, now  named the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and Database  System (CAPRAD). The NCC urged the FCC to reevaluate its position in  light of the demonstration of CAPRAD, and, if appropriate, to adopt a rule  requiring its use by Regional Planning Committees in their planning  process.
Officials at the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology  Center (NLECTC)—Rocky Mountain Center said they are developing and  administering the CAPRAD database. Center officials told us CAPRAD is a  frequency pre-coordination database that is evolving as the user  community defines its requirements. For example, they said CAPRAD was  used to develop a draft nationwide 700 MHz frequency allocation plan that  included interoperability frequencies, frequencies allocated to states for  general state purposes, and frequencies allocated to the general public  safety community. FCC designated Regional Planning Committees and  frequency coordinators can then use this plan as a starting point to  develop detailed plans for their regions. Center officials said that several  RPCs have also loaded their 700 and 800 MHz regional plans into CAPRAD  for review by adjacent RPCs or officials needing information on a regional  plan. Center officials also told us that they are working on a comparable  SIEC model to include interoperability channels across all bands.
State and local officials we visited were familiar with the database and  generally favored its use. For example, a California state official wrote us  that some California state and local officials participated in the drafting of  this NCC recommendation and believe its use will assist in preventing  interstate interference. State and local officials in the State of Washington  said that the use of the CAPRAD database should be mandatory. The  officials said CAPRAD would facilitate new spectrum allocation and pre- coordination of spectrum. In addition, they said CAPRAD holds the  potential of eliminating interference between users, and is the first  universally accepted frequency coordination database. It holds the  promise of a one-stop frequency coordination database, according to a  Washington State Department of Information Services official.
section_title: Common Terminology for Interoperable Channels Not Established
paragraphs: Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address  communication interoperability problems in a given local government,  state, or multi-state region. For example, the regional communications  chairs of the Florida Regional Domestic Security Task Forces have noted  that non-technical barriers are the most important and difficult to solve.  Police and fire departments often have different concepts and doctrines  on how to operate an incident command post and use interoperable  communications. Similarly, first responders, such as police and fire  departments, may use different terminology to describe the same thing.  Differences in terminology and operating procedures can lead to  communications problems even where the participating public safety  agencies share common communications equipment and spectrum.
State and local officials have drawn specific attention to problems caused  by the lack of common terminology in naming the same interoperability  frequency. In January 2001 the FCC rejected an NCC recommendation that  the FCC mandate through its rules that specific names be designated for  each interoperability channel on all public safety bands. The Commission  said it would have to change its rules each time the public safety  community wished to revise a channel label and that this procedure would  be too cumbersome.
In its final report on July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed its earlier  recommendation and added a recommendation that all radios that include  a channel-selection display be required to use the standard names. The  NCC said standard names are essential to achieve interoperability because  all responders to an incident must know what channel to which they must  tune their radios. The NCC said adoption of such standard names will  avoid confusion resulting from use of different names for the same  frequency by different jurisdictions. In an earlier May 29, 2003 report, the  NCC noted multiple examples where lack of common channel names had  disrupted coordination of effective response to incidents. The NCC noted  that the problem could endanger life and property in a very large-scale  incident. In addition, the NCC noted that its recommendation could be  implemented in a short time at virtually no cost and that the  recommendation was consistent with previous FCC actions. For example,  the NCC noted that the FCC had designated channels specified for medical  communications use for the specific purpose of uniform usage.
section_title: Converting SAFECOM’s Functions to a Long-Term Program
paragraphs: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created SAFECOM in 2001  to unify the federal governments’ efforts to coordinate work at the federal,  state, local and tribal levels on improving interoperable communications.  According to OMB, SAFECOM is the umbrella program for all Federal  interoperability efforts and will work with state and local interoperability  initiatives. DHS is the managing partner of the SAFECOM project with six  additional agencies as partner agencies. The partner agencies include the  Departments of Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice, Health and Human  Services, and Agriculture. According to OMB, all of these agencies have  significant roles to play in public safety communications,  emergency/incident response and management, and law enforcement.
Our April 2004 report on Project SAFECOM compared SAFECOM’s  progress against its overall objective of achieving national wireless  communications interoperability among first responders and public safety  systems at all levels of government. This broad objective could not be fully  realized within the target of 18 to 24 months. However, we also noted that  two major factors have contributed to the project’s limited progress  toward this objective: (1) a lack of consistent executive commitment and  support and (2) an inadequate level of interagency collaboration. We  concluded that until these shortcomings are addressed, the ability of  SAFECOM to deliver on its promise of improved interoperability and  better response to emergencies will remain in doubt. We recommended  that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for  Science and Technology to complete written agreements with other  federal agencies and organizations representing state, local, and tribal  governments that define the responsibilities and resource commitments  that each of those organizations will assume. These agreements should  include specific provisions for funding the project and measuring its  performance.
In addition, key program structure and funding issues seriously limit the  ability of SAFECOM to affect the future long-term development of the  interoperability function and mission. SAFECOM’s program and funding  structure were established to address the public safety wireless  communications problems as a short-term, 18-24 month project. However,  DHS recognizes that a long-term, intergovernmental effort will be needed  to achieve the program’s overall goal of improving emergency response  through broadly interoperable first responder communications systems.  As a result, DHS set a SAFECOM goal to establish a “system of systems”  by 2023 that will provide the necessary interoperability for public safety  users. The program funding structure as established does not support a  long-term program. Because SAFECOM is an E-Gov project, each year  OMB instructs federal agencies designated as a partner with SAFECOM to  provide specified amounts of funding to SAFECOM. SAFECOM negotiates  an annual Memorandum of Agreement on funding or program  participation with each of these agencies; however, in our Project  SAFECOM report, we said that by the end of our field work in 2004  SAFECOM had signed an agreement with only one agency in fiscal year  2004.
Representatives of federal, state, and local public safety users identified as  a high priority the development of a business case with long term  sustainable funding for a national office for public safety communications  and interoperability and recommended that this office should become a  part of the annual President’s budget request process. SAFECOM officials  said establishment of a budget funding line for SAFECOM was discussed  for fiscal year 2005 budget, but the budget does not contain a funding line  for SAFECOM in fiscal year 2005 or beyond.
section_title: Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles and Responsibilities for Interoperability
paragraphs: DHS has not defined how it will convert the current short-term program  and funding structures to a permanent program office structure. When it  does, DHS must carefully define the SAFECOM mission and roles in  relation to other agencies within DHS and in other federal agencies that  have missions that may be related to the OMB assigned mission for  SAFECOM. SAFECOM must coordinate with multiple federal agencies,  including ODP within DHS, AGILE in DOJ; DOD; the FCC; the NTIA within  DOC, and other agencies. For example, the Homeland Security Act assigns  ODP primary responsibility within the executive branch for preparing the  United States for acts of terrorism, including coordinating or, as  appropriate, consolidating communications and systems of  communications relating to homeland security at all levels of government.
An ODP official said the Homeland Security Act granted authority to ODP  to serve as the primary agency for preparedness against acts of terrorism,  to specifically include communications issues. He said ODP is working  with states and local jurisdictions to institutionalize a strategic planning  process that assesses and funds their requirements. As indicated earlier,  ODP also plans to develop tools to link these assessments to detailed  interoperable communications plans. According to this official,  SAFECOM, as part of the Science and Technology Directorate, is  responsible for (1) developing standards; (2) research, development,  testing, and evaluation of public safety communications; and (3) advising  ODP about available technologies and standards.
In addition, although OMB states that SAFECOM is the umbrella program  to coordinate actions of the federal government, it does not include all  major federal efforts aimed at promoting wireless interoperability for first  responders. Specifically, the Justice Department continues to play a strong  role in interoperability after establishment of DHS. Key Justice  programs—the Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law  Enforcement (AGILE) and the Interoperable Communication Technology  Program administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing  Services (COPS)—did not transition to the SAFECOM program in the new  Department of Homeland Security.
AGILE is the Department of Justice program to assist state and local law  enforcement agencies to effectively and efficiently communicate with one  another across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. It is dedicated to  studying interoperability options and advising state and local law  enforcement agencies. The SAFECOM program director also said most of  the federal research and development on prototypes is being conducted  within the AGILE program.
SAFECOM and AGILE officials told us they have a close working  relationship. The SAFECOM and AGILE programs also held a joint  planning meeting in early December 2003 and developed an action plan  that SAFECOM and AGILE said they were committed to implement, given  available resources.
DHS must also coordinate with the Department of Defense (DOD) to  address chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive  events. A November 2003 Defense Science Board (DSB) report said DOD’s  role includes, when directed, military support to civil authorities, and that  DOD assistance could be required to assist in incident response. But the  Board concluded that DOD must improve communication interoperability  between first responders and federal, state, and local agencies involved in  emergency preparedness and incident response.
SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address  public safety spectrum management and coordination. The National  Governors’ Guide to Emergency Management noted that extensive  coordination will be required between the FCC and the NTIA to provide  adequate spectrum and to enhance shared local, state, and federal  communications. However, the current legal framework for domestic  spectrum management is divided between the NTIA within the  Department of Commerce, responsible for federal government spectrum  use and the FCC, responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal  spectrum use. In a September 2002 report on spectrum management and  coordination, we found that FCC and NTIA’s efforts to manage their  respective areas of responsibility are not guided by a national spectrum  strategy. The FCC and the NTIA have conducted independent spectrum  planning efforts and have recently taken steps to improve coordination,  but have not yet implemented long-standing congressional directives to  conduct joint, national spectrum planning. We recommended that the FCC  and the NTIA develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national  spectrum plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional  committees. The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with this  recommendation. In a separate report, we also discussed several barriers  to reforming spectrum management in the United States.
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of  Commerce said it had issued two spectrum policy reports on June 24,  2004, in response to the President’s initiative, entitled Spectrum Policy for  the 21st Century. The Department said the second report recommends an  interagency effort to study the spectrum use and needs of the public safety  community, a public safety demonstration program, and a comprehensive  plan to address the spectrum shortage, interference, technology, and  security issues of the public safety community. The Department also said  that the DHS would be an integral partner in fulfilling its  recommendations.
section_title: SAFECOM’s Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited
paragraphs: SAFECOM is involved in several federal coordination initiatives, including  efforts to coordinate federal funding, but according to its officials, it does  not have the oversight authority or pertinent information to fully  accomplish this objective.
The SAFECOM program is attempting to coordinate federal grant funding  to maximize the prospects for communication interoperability grants  across federal agencies by means of interagency guidance. We selected  several grant programs to determine how this guidance was used. We  found that COPS (with DOJ) and FEMA (within DHS) used this guidance,  at least in part, in their coordinated 2003 Interoperable Communications  Equipment grants, and ODP used the guidance in its 2004 Homeland  Security and Urban Areas Security Initiative grant programs. However,  COPS and FEMA officials said that it was difficult to incorporate  SAFECOM’s recommended criteria for planning public safety  communications systems into their joint guidance because statutory  language for their grant programs focuses on the purchase of equipment  without specifically addressing planning.
SAFECOM also does not have authority to require federal agencies to  coordinate their grant award information. SAFECOM is currently engaged  in an effort with DOJ to create a “collaborative clearinghouse” that could  facilitate federal oversight of interoperable communications funding to  jurisdictions and allow states access to this information for planning  purposes. The database is intended to decrease duplication of funding and  evaluation efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize efficiency  of limited federal funding, and serve as a data collection tool for lessons  learned that would be accessible to state and locals. However, SAFECOM  officials said that the challenge to implementing the coordinated project is  getting federal agency collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004,  the database only contains award information from the 2003 COPS and  FEMA Interoperability Communications Equipment Grants. The database  does not contain grant award information from the Office for Domestic  Preparedness on its Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants or its  Homeland Security grants (HSG), nor from FEMA’s Emergency  Management Preparedness Grant or any other federal agency grant funds.
SAFECOM’s oversight authority and responsibilities are dependant upon  its overall mission. OMB officials told us that they are currently in the  process of refocusing the mission of the SAFECOM program into three  specific parts: (1) coordination of federal activities through several  initiatives, including participation in the Federal Interagency Coordination  Council (FICC) and establishment of a process for federal agencies to  report and coordinate with SAFECOM on federal activities and  investments in interoperability; (2) developing standards; and (3)  developing a national architecture for addressing communications  interoperability problems. OMB officials said identification of all current  and planned federal agency communications programs affecting federal,  state, and local wireless interoperability is difficult. According to these  officials, OMB is developing a strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM  program and examining options to enforce the new coordination and  reporting process. SAFECOM officials said they are working to formalize  the new reporting and coordination process by developing written  agreements with other federal agencies and by obtaining concurrence of  major state and local associations to the SAFECOM governance structure.
SAFECOM officials noted that this newly refocused SAFECOM role does  not include providing technical assistance or conducting operational  testing of equipment. They said that their authority to conduct such  activities will come from DHS enabling directives. SAFECOM officials also  said that they have no enforcement authority to require other agencies to  use the SAFECOM grant guidance in their funding decisions or to require  agencies to provide grant program information to them for use in their  database.
section_title: A New DHS Office of Interoperability and Compatibility
paragraphs: The Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T) within DHS has been  tasked to lead the planning and implementation of the Office of  Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC). The new office is responsible for  coordinating DHS efforts to address interoperability and compatibility of  first responder equipment, to include both communications equipment and  equipment such as personal protective equipment used by police and fire  from multiple jurisdictions. The plan as approved by the Secretary states  that by November 2004 the new office will be fully established and that  action plans and a strategy will be prepared for each portfolio (type or  class of equipment). The plan presents a budget estimate for the creation  of the office through November 2004 but does not include costs to  implement each portfolio’s strategy.
In addition, plans for the new office do not clarify the roles of various  federal agencies or specify what oversight authority the new office will  have over federal agency communications programs. The Science and  Technology Directorate is the manager of the new office, which is  expected to establish partnerships with all relevant offices and agencies to  effectively coordinate similar activities. These partners include  representatives from national associations of emergency response  providers, DHS and other government agencies, standards development  organizations, and industry. The DHS plan for the new office includes a  tool for relevant offices to identify areas in which they have current  interoperability-related projects and thus identify program overlap inside  and outside DHS and gaps in coverage. As of June 2004, the exact  structure and funding for the office, including SAFECOM’s role within the  office, were still being developed.
section_title: State and Local Governments’ Roles in Statewide Interoperability Planning and Communications
paragraphs: In our November 6, 2003,testimony, we identified three barriers to  improving public safety wireless interoperable communications: problem  definition, establishing interoperability goals and standards, and defining  the roles of federal, state, and local governments and other entities. Of all  these barriers, perhaps the most fundamental has been limited and  fragmented planning and cooperation. No one first responder group,  jurisdiction, or level of government can successfully address the  challenges posed by the current state of interoperable communications.  Effectively addressing these challenges requires the partnership and  collaboration of first responder disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of  government—local, state, federal, and tribal. In the absence of that  partnership and collaboration, we risk spending funds ineffectively— especially for immediate, quick response solutions—and creating new  problems in our attempt to resolve existing ones. An integrated planning  process that is recognized by federal, state, and local officials as  representing their interests is necessary to achieve that partnership and  collaboration.
Although no one level of government can successfully address  interoperability communications challenges, the federal government can  play a leadership role developing requirements and providing support for  state efforts to assess their interoperable communications capability and  develop statewide plans for transitioning from today’s capability to  identified required capability.
States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies  and to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 notes  that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of federal  preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local officials also  believe that states, with broad local and regional participation, have a key  role to play in coordinating interoperable communications supporting  these missions. The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report  on the role of the state in providing interoperable communications,  agreed. According to the PSWN report, state leadership in public safety  communications is key to outreach efforts that emphasize development of  common approaches to regional and statewide interoperability. The report  said that state officials have a vested interest in establishing and  protecting statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety  communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional  boundary.
However, states are not required to establish a statewide capability to   (1) integrate statewide and regional interoperability planning and   (2) prepare statewide interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum  to meet interoperability requirements of day-to-day operations, joint task  force operations, and operations in major events. Federal, state, and local  officials are not required to coordinate federal, state, and local  interoperability spectrum resources that, if successfully addressed, have  significant potential to improve public safety wireless communications  interoperability. As a result, states may not prepare comprehensive and  integrated statewide plans that address the specific interoperability issues  present in each state across first responder disciplines and levels of  government.
subsections: section_title: State and Local Governments Well Positioned to Play Key Roles
paragraphs: Planning requires a structure to develop and implement plans over time.  States, with broad input from local governments, are a logical choice to  serve as a foundation for interoperability planning. As recognized by the  Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in  managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are  usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency  incidents. In addition, the FCC noted that states are usually in the best  position to coordinate with federal government emergency agencies.  Furthermore, according to DHS officials, state and local governments own  over 90 percent of the physical infrastructure for public safety  communications. Recent DHS policies have also recognized states as being  in a key position to coordinate state and local emergency response  planning. The Office for Domestic Preparedness has designated states as  the appropriate source to develop state homeland security strategies that  are inclusive of local needs, including communication needs.
According to PSWN, state leaders can also, through memorandum of  understandings (MOU), help to define interagency relationships, reach  procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of statewide or regional  interoperability committees, and encourage joint efforts to deploy  communications technology. State and local officials we talked with  generally agreed that states can coordinate communications planning and  funding support for state communications systems and coordinate  interoperability efforts of local governments. For example, several officials  said the state can facilitate the planning process by including key  stakeholder input in the decision making process and ensuring that  communications interoperability issues are addressed. These officials also  see state roles in providing common infrastructure and developing routine  training exercises.
Several state and local agencies that we talked with emphasized that they  are taking steps to address the need for statewide communications  planning. State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not  enough because incidents first responders face could cross state  boundaries. Thus, some states are also taking actions to address interstate  interoperability problems. For example, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,  Michigan, and Ohio officials said that their states have combined efforts to  form the Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to promote  interstate interoperability. According to these officials, they also have  taken actions to form an interstate committee to develop interoperability  plans and solicit support from key players, such as local public safety  agencies.
section_title: Statewide Interoperable Communications Committees Offer Potential for Coordinated Statewide Planning
paragraphs: FCC recognized a strong state interest in planning and administering  interoperability channels for public safety wireless communications when  it adopted various technical and operational rules and polices for the 700  MHz band. In these rules and policies, FCC concluded that administration  of the 2.6 MHz of interoperability channels in that band (approximately   10 percent) should occur at the state-level in a State Interoperability  Executive Committee (SIEC). FCC said that states play a central role in  managing emergency communications and that state-level organizations  are usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multi-agency  incidents. FCC also found that states are usually in the best position to  coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. FCC said that  SIEC administrative activities could include holding licenses, resolving  licensing issues, and developing a statewide interoperability plan for the  700 MHz band. Other SIEC responsibilities could include the creation and  oversight of incident response protocols and the creation of chains of  command for incident response and reporting.
State and local officials recognize that the interoperability responsibilities  that FCC identified for SIECs in the 700 MHz band are also applicable to  interoperability channels in other frequency bands. However, FCC did not  retroactively apply the SIEC concept to interoperability channels in the  800 MHz band or in the below 512 MHz band nor did it apply the SIEC  concept to the new 4.9 GHz band. The Commission also did not require  states to establish a SIEC because it found that some states already have a  mechanism in place that could administer the interoperability channel,  and requiring a SIEC would be duplicative. The Commission did provide  that the administration of the 700 MHz interoperability channels defaults  to Regional Planning Committees (RPC) should a state decide not to  establish or maintain a SIEC for this purpose. Available data conflict on  how many states have established SIECs or similar bodies, but do indicate  that from 12 to 15 states did not implement a SIEC.
The Public Safety National Coordination Committee, an FCC advisory  body for the 700 MHz band, noted that SIECs are optional—there is no  requirement that the states implement such committees. NCC  recommended that FCC require all states to establish a SIEC or equivalent  to provide each state with an identified central point of contact for  information on that state’s interoperability capability. NCC, however, also  expressed concerns about the extent of state control and the lack of a  broad representation of local membership in the SIECs. NCC  recommended to FCC that the name SIEC be changed to the Statewide  Interoperability Executive Committee to be more inclusive of all agencies  in the state.
We found general support in the states that we visited for NCC’s  recommendation to establish a Statewide Interoperability Executive  Committee as the central point of contact for information on a state’s  interoperability capability. A state official from California told us that  California’s long history of collaboration in mutual aid communications  activities was in part the basis for this NCC recommendation. According to  officials of the Florida State Technology Office and local public safety  officials, they support a central point of contact for statewide  interoperability efforts. State of Washington officials said the  recommendation appeared consistent with what they are doing in  Washington. Local officials in the state of Washington told us that the term  “statewide” is inclusive—it represents both the state and local  governments interests.
The states we visited or contacted were in the early stages of formulating  their SIECs, and their roles and responsibilities are still under  development.
Recently the state of California established the California Statewide  Interoperability Executive Committee. The Office of Emergency Services  sponsors the Committee, which is responsible for setting technical and  operational standards for all existing and planned public safety  interoperability frequencies in California. Committee membership is  designed to recognize the broad diversity of local communications needs  because California has long recognized that responsibility for and  command of an incident lies with the jurisdiction where the emergency or  disaster occurs, which in the vast majority of incidents is the local  government. Thus, a majority of the Committee’s 35 members are  representatives of local government, followed by the state agencies that  support local government, and the federal agencies that support state and  local government. Additionally, two California RPCs and the Association  of Public-Safety Communications Officials have representation on the  Committee. The Committee is supported by 9 to 10 working groups  addressing various aspects of interoperability governance. California has  several state communications systems and the coordination of these  systems will be addressed by a Committee working group.
In March 2003, the state of Florida established the Florida Executive  Interoperable Technologies Committee. The Committee’s membership  includes state and local government officials from each of the seven  Domestic Security regions in Florida and is chaired by the State  Technology Office. The Committee’s role is still evolving. The Committee  and State Technology Office are responsible for the oversight and  management of all interoperable communications issues (voice and data).  The State Technology Office manages the interoperable radio frequency  resources for the state. Furthermore, the state has identified the need for a  single, comprehensive mutual aid plan and assigned the task of developing  the plan to the Committee. However, the Committee’s role in reviewing all  state and local communications plans is still not determined.
The Washington State Interoperability Executive Committee, formed by  state legislation enacted on July 1, 2003, is a permanent subcommittee of  the Information Services Board. The legislation specified membership for  state agencies and associations representing city government, county  government, local government fire departments, Sheriffs and Police  Chiefs, and emergency managers. Federal agencies were not included as  voting members of the Committee, which issued an interim public safety  communications plan on March 30, 2004. The interim plan, developed  using a recent inventory of state communications systems, outlines  various potential solutions and the implementation timeline. These are  interim solutions and did not reflect local governments’ concerns.  However, the plan will be updated to incorporate local government survey  responses. A final plan is due by December 31, 2004. The Committee  intends to incorporate the existing mutual aid plans into the new statewide  interoperability plan.
In Georgia, the state did not opt to form a State Interoperability Executive  Committee. Instead, the 700 MHz RPC Interoperability Committee is  responsible for managing all radio frequency bands on behalf of the state  of Georgia.
section_title: Content and Scope of Statewide Interoperability Plans Not Established
paragraphs: A comprehensive statewide interoperable plan can provide the guiding  framework for achieving defined goals for interoperability within a state  and for regions within and across states (such as Kansas City, Mo. and  Kansas City, Kans.). NCC recommended that all SIECs prepare an  interoperability plan that is filed with FCC and updated when substantive  changes are made or at least every three years. NCC also recommended to  FCC that SIECs, for Homeland Security reasons, should administer all  interoperability channels in a state, not merely those in the 700 MHz band.  According to NCC, each state should have a central point identified for  information on a state’s interoperability capability.
None of the four states we visited had finished preparation and funding of  their state interoperability plans. Washington and Florida were preparing  statewide interoperability plans at the time we visited. Georgia officials  said they have a state interoperability plan but that it is not funded.  However, one other state we contacted, Missouri, has extended SIEC  responsibility for interoperability channels beyond the 700 MHz band.  The Missouri SIEC has also designated standard operational and technical  guidelines as conditions for the use of these bands. SIEC requires  applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to these conditions in order to use these  channels in the state of Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said the  state developed its operational and technical guidelines because FCC had  not established its own guidelines for these interoperability channels in  the VHF and UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight  other states and expressed concern that these states will develop different  guidelines that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines. He said FCC  was notified of Missouri’s actions but has not taken action to date. In  another example, California intends to prepare a statewide interoperability  plan. California’s SIEC is re-examining California’s previous stove piped  programs of communications interoperability (separate systems for law  enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need to maintain tactical channels  within disciplines while promoting cross-discipline interoperability.
FCC-designated frequency coordinators expressed support for a  comprehensive interoperability plan in July 2002. The Commission had  suggested that the frequency coordinators for the VHF and UHF bands  develop an interoperability plan for these bands. FCC said it envisioned  that the coordinators would jointly develop an interoperability plan for the  management and nationwide use of these interoperability channels. The  frequency coordinators in a joint response rejected FCC’s overture, stating  that the actual management and operational guidelines for the VHF and  UHF frequencies should be integrated with other interoperability  frequencies in the 700 and 800 MHz bands, and with other interoperability  channels in spectrum identified by NTIA for interoperability with the  federal government. The frequency coordinators said operational and  management planning should include all of these channels to better  coordinate future assignment and use and that NCC and SIECs were better  vehicles for developing the guidelines requested by FCC.
section_title: Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in Statewide Plans
paragraphs: In some cases, for example, responding to such major events as tornadoes  or wildfires, state and local government first responders also require  interoperable communications with federal agencies. According to OMB,  seven federal agencies have significant roles to play in public safety  communications, emergency/incident response and management, and law  enforcement. These agencies are the Departments of Homeland Security,  Defense, Energy, the Interior, Justice, Health and Human Services, and  Agriculture.
As mentioned previously, FCC designated frequency coordinators told  FCC that planning for interoperability channels should include federal  spectrum designated for interoperability with state and local governments.  We found several examples in our field work that support inclusion of  federal agencies in future state and local planning for interoperable  communications. For example, a Washington State official told us that  regional systems within the state do not have links to federal  communications systems and assets. In another example, according to an  emergency preparedness official in Seattle, a study of radio interoperable  communications in a medical center also found that federal agencies such  as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) are not integrated into  hospital or health communications systems, and other federal agencies  have no radio infrastructure to support and participate in a health  emergency such as a bio-terrorism event. He told us that he has no idea  what the federal communications plan is in the event of a disaster; and he  said he does not know how to talk to federal health officials responding to  an incident or what the federal government needs when they arrive.
Local officials in Washington State also told us that communications and  coordination between civil and military emergency communication  organizations need improvement. These officials expressed concern that  the Department of Defense has not fully coordinated with local officials to  ensure that local jurisdictions can communicate with Defense. According  to the Washington National Guard Civil Support Team and emergency  management officials, the Guard Civil Support Team first responders can  exchange radios with other first responders in order to communicate. In  addition, the Civil Support Team can communicate on all frequency bands  using a Navy Unified Command Communications Suite. Georgia National  Guard officials said that they do not participate in the All Hazards Council  planning process to coordinate interoperable communications.
The federal government is developing a system that could improve  interoperable communications on a limited basis between state and  federal government agencies. The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) is a  radio system that is intended to replace the existing radio systems for the  DOJ, Treasury, and DHS. IWN is an exclusive federal law enforcement  communications system that is intended to interact and interface with  state and local systems as needed but will not replace these systems.  According to DOJ officials, IWN is intended to improve federal to state/  local interoperability but will not address interoperability of state and  local systems.
However, federal interoperability with state and local wireless  communications systems is hindered because NTIA and FCC control  different frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands. To enhance  interoperability, NTIA has identified 40 federal government frequencies  that can be used by state and local public safety agencies for joint law  enforcement and incident response purposes. FCC, however, designated  different frequencies for interoperability in the VHF band and in the UHF  band from spectrum it controls for use by state and local public safety  agencies.
In addition, complicated FCC licensing and coordination requirements  may further limit effective use of federal frequencies by state and local  agencies. FCC officials told us in response to our draft report that FCC  rules are consistent with what NTIA and FCC agreed to regarding use of  federal spectrum by non-federal agencies generally. However, as a  condition for their use of the federal VHF and UHF frequencies, FCC  requires individual state and local public safety applicants to develop a  written agreement between each nonfederal agency and a federal sponsor  and to use this agreement to obtain an FCC license. FCC regulations  permit federal agencies to use 700 MHz band public safety frequencies  under its control if the Commission finds such use necessary, and the  state/local government licensee approves the sharing arrangement.
PSWN suggested using SIECs to perform the necessary planning and  coordination between FCC and NTIA for joint use of their separately  controlled frequencies. PSWN noted that the federal government  maintains a significant presence in many states, and that interoperable  communications must cut across all levels of government. Thus, PSWN  said it is essential that NTIA and federal entities and federal spectrum be  involved in the SIEC planning process from the beginning. NCC  recommended that FCC require the use of standard MOUs and sharing  agreements where licensee authorizes federal agencies and other  authorized users to use its frequencies. FCC noted that respondents to its  notice seeking comments on NCC proposals were divided and that  requiring a formal rule could only serve to increase administrative burden  on the states, many of whom may be poised to implement the MOUs and  sharing agreements or similar documents voluntarily. Thus, FCC decided  not to require the use of MOUs but strongly recommended that states have  the relevant SIEC or other entity responsible for the administration of the  interoperability channels use MOUs.
section_title: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning
paragraphs: Total one-time replacement of the nation’s communications systems is  very unlikely, due to the costs involved. A 1998 study cited the  replacement value of the existing public safety communication  infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion. DHS officials said this estimate  is much higher when infrastructure and training costs are taken into  account. Furthermore, DHS recently estimated that reaching an  accelerated goal of communications interoperability will require a major  investment of several billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. As a  result of these extraordinary costs, federal funding is but one of several  resources state and local agencies must use in order to address these  costs. Given these high costs, the development of an interoperable  communications plan is vital to useful, non-duplicative spending.  However, the federal funding assistance programs to state and local  governments do not fully support regional planning for communications  interoperability. Federal grants that support interoperability have  inconsistent requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications  plans. In addition, uncoordinated federal and state level grant reviews  limit the government’s ability to ensure that federal funds are used to  effectively support improved regional and statewide communications  systems. Additional barriers to supporting regional planning, such as  fragmented funding structures, limitations on time frames to develop and  implement plans, and limited support for long-term planning are discussed  in appendix V.
subsections: section_title: Federal Grants Encouraged a “Regional” Approach to Planning, but Lacked Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans
paragraphs: Local, state and federal officials agree that regional communications plans  should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds for  interoperable communications; however, the current funding requirements  do not support this planning process. Although recent grant requirements  have encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning,  current federal first responder grants are inconsistent in their  requirements to tie funding to interoperable communications plans. States  and locals are not required to provide an interoperable communications  plan as a prerequisite to receiving some federal grant funds. As a result,  there is no assurance that federal funds are being used to support a well- developed strategy for improving interoperability. For example, the fiscal  year 2004 HSG or UASI grants require states or selected jurisdictions to  conduct a needs assessment and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to  ODP. However, the required strategies are high-level and broad in nature.  They do not require that project narratives or a detailed communications  plan be submitted by grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
In another example, fiscal year 2003 funding provided by the Office of  Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) and FEMA for  Interoperable Communications Equipment did not require that a  communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds.  However, grantees were required to provide documentation that they were  actively engaged in a planning process and a multijurisdictional and  multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to variations  in requirements to create communications interoperability plans, federal  grants also lack consistency in defining what “regional” body should  conduct planning.
section_title: Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges to Short- and Long-Term Planning
paragraphs: State and local officials also said that the short grant application deadlines  for recent first responder grants limited their ability to develop cohesive  communications plans or perform a coordinated review of local requests.  Federal officials acknowledged that the limited submission timeframes  presents barriers to first responders for developing plans prior to receiving  funds. For example, guidance in several federal grant programs—the  Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, COPs and FEMA communication  equipment grants, and Assistance to Firefighters Grant—allow states only   30 or 60 days from the date of grant announcement to submit a grant  proposal. These time frames are sometimes driven by appropriations  language or by the timing of the appropriations enactment.
Furthermore, many grants have been awarded to state and locals for  communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance  periods, and according to state and local officials, do not support long- term solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters Grants, COPS and  FEMA’s Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants, and National  Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance periods.
UASI, HSG program, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have   2-year performance periods.
section_title: No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability
paragraphs: The federal and state governments lack a coordinated grant review  process to ensure that funds allocated to local governments are used for  communication projects that complement each other and add to overall  statewide and national interoperability. Federal and state officials said that  each agency reviews its own set of applications and projects, without  coordination with other agencies. As a result, grants could be given to  bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting interoperability solutions.  In fiscal year 2003, federal officials from COPS and FEMA attempted to  eliminate awarding funds to conflicting communication systems within  bordering jurisdictions by coordinating their review of interoperable  communications equipment grant proposals. However, COPS and FEMA  are only two of several federal sources of funds for communications  interoperability.
In an attempt to address this challenge, in 2003 SAFECOM coordinated  with other agencies to create the document Recommended Federal Grant  Guidance, Public Safety Communications and Interoperability Grants,  which lays out standard grant requirements for planning, building, and  training for interoperable communications systems. The guidance is  designed to advise federal agencies on who is eligible for the first  responder interoperable communications grants, the purposes for which  grant funds can be used, and eligibility specifications for applicants. The  guidance recommends standard minimum requirements, such as  requirements to “…define the objectives of what the applicant is ultimately  trying to accomplish and how the proposed project would fit into an  overall effort to increase interoperability, as well as identify potential  partnerships for agreements.” Additionally, the guidance recommends, but  does not require, that applicants establish a governance group consisting  of local, tribal, state, and federal entities from relevant public safety  disciplines and purchase interoperable equipment that is compliant with  phase one of Project-25 standards. SAFECOM has also recently sponsored  the formation of the Federal Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC),  which consists of a federal grant coordination working-group. Federal  officials said that the council will assist in shaping the common grant  guidance for Federal initiatives involving public safety communications.
Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants, various  agencies have statutory language which make it difficult to coordinate  their use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said that  certain statutory provisions underlying the grant programs presented  barriers to the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and SAFECOM to  consolidate the grant application process for the 2003 Interoperable  Communications Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA coordinated their  application process for the grants and used sections of the SAFECOM  grant guidance to guide their application requirements. COPS and FEMA  officials said that the combined COPS and FEMA application process was  intended to maximize the use of funds and reduce duplication and  competition between the two agencies’ Interoperability grants. Both COPS  and SAFECOM officials explained that COPS and FEMA encountered  difficulty in creating a combined grant application process because the  COPS grant required a twenty-five percent match while the FEMA grant  did not have such a requirement. However, COPS officials said FEMA  added a twenty-five percent match of “in-kind” resources to its grant  requirements in order to reduce competition between the COPS and  FEMA grant programs.
The House Committee on Appropriations report for DHS’s fiscal year 2004  appropriation states that the Committee is aware of numerous federal  programs addressing communications interoperability through planning,  building, upgrading, and maintaining public safety communication  systems, among other purposes. The Committee directed that all DHS  grant programs issuing grants for the above purposes incorporate the  SAFECOM guidance and coordinate with the SAFECOM program when  awarding funding. To better coordinate the government’s efforts, the  Committee also encouraged all other federal programs issuing grants for  the above purposes to use the guidelines outlined by SAFECOM in their  grant programs. However, SAFECOM officials said that they have no  enforcement authority to require other agencies to use this guidance in  their funding decision or to require agencies to provide grant program  information to them for use in their database.
States are also initiating actions to address the lack of a centralized state- level grant review process. For example, the state of Washington is  developing a centralized grant structure to review local requests for  communications funds against a statewide interoperable communications  plan that is being developed by their SIEC. The funding process is shown  in figure 2.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: A fundamental barrier to successfully addressing interoperable  communications problems for public safety has been the lack of effective,  collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning.  Jurisdictional boundaries, unique public safety agency missions, and  cultural differences among first responder organizations have often  fostered barriers that hinder cooperation and collaboration. No one first  responder agency, jurisdiction, or level of government can “fix” the  nation’s interoperability problems, which vary across the nation and often  cross first responder agency and jurisdictional boundaries. Changes in  spectrum available to federal, state, and local public safety agencies— primarily a federal responsibility conducted through the FCC and the  NTIA—changes in technology, and the evolving missions and  responsibilities of public safety agencies in an age of terrorism all highlight  the ever-changing environment in which interoperable communications  needs and solutions must be addressed. Interdisciplinary,  intergovernmental, and multijurisdictional partnership and collaboration  are essential for effectively addressing interoperability shortcomings.
The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the  nation—including current capabilities and the scope and severity of  problems that may exist—has not been determined. Long-term prospects  for achieving functional interoperable communications are hindered by  the lack of an institutionalized process—at the federal, state, regional, or  local levels—to systematically identify and address current shortcomings.
The federal government can offer leadership and support for state efforts  to develop and implement statewide interoperability plans for achieving  specific interoperability goals. The federal government is best positioned  to address nationwide issues, such as setting national requirements,  developing a national architecture, establishing national performance  standards, and the development of national databases and common  nationwide nomenclature for interoperability channels. Moreover, acting  through the FCC and the NTIA, the federal government alone has the  authority to address public safety spectrum allocation, including  expanding or altering current spectrum allocations. The federal  government can also play a major role through such means as technical  assistance and grant guidance in supporting state efforts to prepare  comprehensive statewide interoperability plans for developing federal,  state, and local communications systems that can communicate with one  another as needed and as authorized. However, developing and  implementing effective statewide plans that draw on the perspectives and  expertise of the federal government and local public safety agencies and  jurisdictions is not a task that can be completed in a matter of weeks.
The federal government’s ability to provide consistent, focused, long-term  attention to interoperable communications needs has been hampered by  the lack of a designated agency with the authority and ability to coordinate  the wide-variety of federal efforts that exist. OMB has described  SAFECOM as the umbrella program to unify and coordinate the federal  government’s interoperable communications efforts. Although SAFECOM  has made progress in developing grant guidance, issuing interoperable  communications requirements, beginning the process of assessing current  interoperable communications capability, and otherwise coordinating  federal efforts, it is dependent upon other federal agencies for funding and  their willingness to cooperate. The Department of Homeland Security has  recently announced the establishment of the Office of Interoperability and  Compatibility—of which SAFECOM would be a part—as the focal point  for coordinating federal efforts for wireless and other functional  interoperability. However, the exact nature of its roles and responsibilities  are still being determined. Moreover, this office would still face many of  the challenges that SAFECOM has faced in coordinating the  interoperability efforts of a variety of federal agencies outside of DHS,  such as the FCC and the Departments of Justice and Commerce.
With federal leadership and support and local participation and support,  states can serve as a key focus for efforts to assess and improve  interoperable communications by developing and implementing statewide  bodies to assess interoperability issues and guide efforts to remedy  identified problems through statewide interoperability plans.
Federal assistance grants to state and local governments do not fully  support statewide planning for wireless communications interoperability.  Specifically, federal grants do not fully support regional planning and lack  requirements to tie federal assistance to an approved statewide  interoperability plan. Interoperability plans for public safety  communications systems, once prepared, should guide federal funding  assistance programs to state and local governments.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve interoperable wireless communications for first responders,  we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland  Security ensure that the following actions are taken:  In coordination with the FCC and the NTIA, continue development of a  nationwide database of all interoperable public safety communications  frequencies, establish a common nomenclature for those frequencies, and  establish clear timeframes to complete both efforts; In consultation with state and local governments, determine the current  status of wireless public safety interoperable telecommunications across  the nation by assessing interoperability in specific locations against  interoperability requirements that can be measured, and assist states in  assessing interoperability in their states against those requirements;   Through DHS grant guidance encourage states to establish a single  statewide body responsible for interoperable communications and that  this body shall prepare a single comprehensive statewide interoperability  plan for federal, state, and local communication systems in all frequency  bands. The statewide interoperability plan shall be based upon the  nationwide standard frequency database and use the standard nationwide  nomenclature for interoperability channels, once they are developed; and    At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that federal  grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved only upon  certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable  communications that such grant applications are in conformance with  statewide interoperability plans. DHS should give states adequate time to  develop these focal points and plans and to provide guidance on  development of such plans.
We further recommend that the Director, OMB, in conjunction with DHS,  review the interoperability mission and functions now performed by  SAFECOM and establish these functions as a long term program with  adequate coordination authority and funding.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We sent a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce, Defense,  Homeland Security, and Justice, the Federal Communications  Commission, and the Office of Management and Budget. We did not  receive comments from OMB or the Department of Defense. The other  agencies provided technical comments that we have incorporated into the  final report as appropriate. In addition, we received written comments  from the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland  Security. The Department of Commerce said in a letter dated July 12, 2004  that it issued two reports on spectrum policy in June, 2004 (See appendix  VI.) We added this information to the report text as appropriate.
The Department of Homeland Security provided written comments on a  draft of this report in a July 8, 2004 letter, which is reprinted in Appendix  VII. With respect to our first recommendation, DHS said it is developing a  nationwide database of interoperable public safety communications  frequencies in its fiscal year 2004 program as part of its support to the  Computer Assisted Pre-coordination Resource and Database System  (CAPRAD). DHS also said it plans to work with the National Public Safety  Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) on a common nomenclature across  public safety disciplines and jurisdictions. DHS did not mention  coordination with the FCC and the NTIA on these matters; the FCC  regulates state and local public safety wireless communications, and the  NTIA regulates federal public safety spectrum. Either or both the FCC and  the NTIA may also take action on the development of national databases  and common nomenclature. DHS also only refers to the use of this  database in the 700 MHz and 4.9 GHz bands: we believe it should be used  for interoperable frequencies in all federal, state, and local public safety  bands. We have amended our conclusions and recommendation to note  the importance that DHS coordinate with the FCC and the NTIA on these  matters across all interoperable public safety communications  frequencies.
With respect to our second recommendation, DHS said it is developing a  methodology to establish a national baseline of public safety  communication and interoperability capabilities with input from the public  safety community. We believe that DHS should also consult directly with  state and local governments in developing requirements and assessing  interoperability in the individual states against those requirements. We  have amended our recommendation to include appropriate language.
With respect to our third recommendation, DHS noted that it had created  coordinated grant guidance that encourages grant applicants to consider  systems requirements to ensure interoperability with systems used by  other disciplines and at other levels of government. DHS also discusses a  methodology it developed in conjunction with the state of Virginia for  development of a statewide communications system that ensures input  from local levels, and states that this methodology will be available  through the SAFECOM grant guidance for states interested in  implementing a statewide system. However, the DHS letter did not directly  address our recommendation about encouraging states to create statewide  bodies for interoperable communications that would establish statewide  interoperability plans for federal, state, and local communications systems  in all frequency bands.
With respect to our fourth recommendation, DHS discusses a “bottoms- up” approach to development of a meaningful governance structure and a  strategic plan for statewide communications and interoperability  developed with its partner, the state of Virginia. However, DHS ‘ comments   do not directly address our recommendations that DHS grant guidance  require at the appropriate time that federal grant funds for  communications equipment be approved on condition that such grants are  in accordance with statewide interoperability plans.
We plan to send copies of this report to relevant congressional committees  and subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of  the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the Federal  Communications Commission and other interested parties. In addition, the  report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it further,  please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Thomas James, Assistant Director  at (202) 512-2996. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix  VIII.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To examine the availability of data on interoperable wireless  communications across the nation, we reviewed our November 6, 2003,  testimony where we said that the first challenge to addressing first  responder wireless communications interoperability issues was to clearly  identify and define the problem and where we identified the absence of  effective coordinated planning and collaboration as the fundamental  barrier in addressing interoperability issues. We held further discussions  on these problems with state and local officials about these issues during  our field work in California , Florida, Georgia, and Washington. We also  discussed these issues with state and local officials from Illinois, Indiana,  Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and during various public safety conferences  and follow-up meetings. On the basis of these discussions, we developed a  framework to analyze these issues. (See fig. 1.) We also held discussions  with relevant federal officials about identifying and defining interoperable  communications of first responders and about the applicability of this  framework in a proposed federal nationwide survey of public safety  wireless interoperability capabilities and requirements.
To examine potential roles that the federal government can play in  improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, we  met with officials of key federal agencies about their roles in setting and  implementing policy on interoperable communications for first  responders. These agencies were the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of  Defense (DOD), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Commerce,  and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We obtained and  reviewed relevant documentation about federal programs and projects  addressing interoperable communications. We also interviewed state and  local officials to obtain their views about the role the federal government  should play in addressing interoperability issues.
To examine potential roles that local and state governments can play in  improving interoperability of first responder wireless communications, we  interviewed state and local officials in California, Florida, Georgia, and  Washington and staff of the National Governors Association. We chose  these four states because we had information that they were active in  addressing interoperability issues and because California and Washington  provided an opportunity to examine specific interoperability issues that  might be presented by national borders with Mexico and Canada. We also  met with public safety officials at meetings of (1) the National Public  Safety Telecommunications Council; (2) the Public Safety Wireless  Network program office; and (3) the Public Safety National Coordination  Council, an FCC committee that advised the Commission on spectrum  policy decisions for public safety interoperable communications. We  obtained and reviewed reports, testimonies, and other documents relating  to public safety wireless communications and identified examples of state  and local government roles in organizing and providing for first responder  communications. We evaluated these examples of state and local  government roles for potential application to other state and local  governments. We also interviewed relevant federal officials about  potential state and local government roles in improving first responder  wireless communications interoperability issues.
To examine how the variety of federal grants for state and local first  responders may encourage or inhibit the assessment of interoperable  problems and the development of comprehensive plans to address these  problems, we selected key federal grant programs that fund projects  supporting state and local government first responder communications  systems and reviewed program documentation and appropriations  language for policies affecting interoperable communications. We also  obtained relevant legislation and interviewed federal, state, and local  officials to obtain their views on these issues.
To obtain information on cross-border communications issues, we visited  San Diego, California, and Olympia, Washington, and talked to appropriate  state and local officials. We also discussed these issues with federal  officials at the Department of Commerce and FCC. We obtained and  reviewed relevant documentation from the local, state, and federal  officials.
section_title: Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning
paragraphs: Two issues related to radio spectrum allocation affect public safety  communications across the United States borders with Canada and  Mexico  (1) the lack of coordinated cross border spectrum planning and  (2) radio interference to users of the allocated spectrum. The United  States, Canada, and Mexico are addressing these issues through various  negotiations.
subsections: section_title: Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure
paragraphs: Radio frequency spectrum allocation has not kept pace with technology  and demand. The process used to allocate spectrum over the years has  resulted in a problem that is still unresolved, according to the Association  of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO). One official said past  decisions in United States spectrum policy were based on the overall  demands for spectrum and the limitations of technology at the time.  According to this official, these decisions made sense individually, but  collectively those decisions have a negative impact on the current ability  of public safety agencies to interoperate. (See fig. 3.)
The radio frequency spectrum within the United States extends from   9 KHz to 300 GHz and is allocated to more than 450 frequency bands. The  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the use of  frequencies for state and local governments and has allocated certain  portions of the spectrum for public safety agencies. Initially, almost all  public safety communications were confined to the low end of the  frequency range, but as technology advanced, higher frequencies became  possible, offering a temporary solution for congestion and crowding. The  result—public safety operates in 10 separate bands, which has added  capabilities, but which has also caused the fragmentation that  characterizes the public safety spectrum today and make it difficult for  different agencies and jurisdictions to communicate.
section_title: Cross Border Planning
paragraphs: According to National Telecommunications and Information  Administration (NTIA), Canada and Mexico have developed spectrum use  and rules independent of that of the United States. In particular, Canada  uses the fixed and mobile bands contained in the band 138-174 MHz for all  users, including military, civilian, and government. Canada also uses a  different channeling structure than the United States and is in the process  of narrow banding portions on a different schedule than the United States.  Moreover, the majority of the Canadian population resides in the United  States/Canadian border area. Therefore, it is very difficult for the United  States to identify and coordinate frequencies for new uses in the border  area. The United States/Mexican border presents different problems in  that neither country is aware of the operations authorized by the other  country in the border area because there is no formal agreement to  exchange data or coordinate use.
According to FCC, frequency band plans are also not consistent along the  United States borders with Canada and Mexico. For example, the  Canadian band plan for 800 MHz is different than the Mexican band plan  primarily because of demographic differences in the border regions.  According to FCC, some degree of harmonized spectrum has been  achieved in the 800 MHz and 700 MHz public safety bands, but  interoperability in the VHF and UHF bands is difficult to achieve because  these bands are highly encumbered and have been operating for many  years under different channel plans and different uses. State and local  officials in Washington state also said they expect that the 700 MHz band  will not be available for the foreseeable future along the Canadian border  because Canada currently restricts use of the 700 MHz band for television  broadcast purposes only. According to these officials, Canadian  authorities have not initiated a process to relocate the television  broadcasters out of the 700 MHz band. In addition, local Washington  officials said that communication barriers result from border counties  using different frequencies and equipment than one another.
section_title: Cross Border Radio Interference
paragraphs: Interference among users of radio frequency spectrum has been a driving  force in the management of spectrum at the national and international  levels for many years. Interference among these users can occur when two  or more radio signals interact in a manner that disrupts or degrades the  transmission and reception of messages. Our work in California and  Washington state highlighted interference issues with United  States/Mexico and United States/Canada. For example:    Unlicensed radio users in Mexico cause interference to United States  public safety agencies. For example, some Mexico radio users interfere  with United States public safety communication frequencies because  Mexico does not have complementary regulations governing its frequency  use, according to local California public safety officials. Furthermore, in  the 162-174 MHz band, there is also a problem with interference to federal  government operations. Many of these interference cases involve  unauthorized stations in Mexico.
According to local public safety officials in California, Mexico does not  limit the frequency power that radios can emit. Mexican taxi radio users  can emit enough power to force public safety radio repeaters in California  to open up, and taxis can use them to make their radio calls. For example,  San Diego County was forced to switch from their UHF and VHF radio  systems to a more expensive 800 MHZ system, in order to operate without  interference. In addition, Imperial County has 30 VHF frequencies  potentially available for use but can only use two of them because of  interference from Mexico.
Interference is also an issue along the Canadian border because spectrum  policies in the United States and Canada are not aligned. United States- devised solutions will not be able to be used in the shared Canadian area,  according to local Washington State officials.
section_title: Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues
paragraphs: Efforts are underway by the United States to address cross border  problems with Canada and Mexico. According to an NTIA official, NTIA  expects in the long term that agreements will be made with both Canada  and Mexico that will provide equal segments in specified frequency bands  that will be available for exclusive use by each administration. This type of  arrangement will mitigate the problems associated with different uses,  different channeling plans, and different plans for future use. The official  said NTIA is now involved in negotiations with both countries to develop  this type of arrangement and that both Canada and Mexico are in  agreement with this approach. He said that the time to accomplish the  migration of existing use from the segments designated to the other  administration is the main factor that must be addressed for successful  completion of these efforts.
In the short-term, NTIA plans to hold meetings with the Canadian  government about four times a year to complete the negotiation of  segmenting certain bands, to improve coordination procedures, to identify  channels for shared use, and to identify common interference prediction  techniques. With Mexico, NTIA plans in the near term to meet with a  Mexican delegation to negotiate protocols involving the segmentation of  certain land-mobile bands. NTIA also plans to participate in meetings of  the Joint Commission, which meets twice a year to address interference  problems between stations of both countries.
FCC is also in the initial stages of forming an agreement with Canada on  the use of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band, which will include  a channel(s) to be used for mutual aid and interoperability. At this time,  Mexico has not allocated the 700 MHz band for public safety. In other  bands where public safety spectrum is not harmonized, agreements  typically define shared use of spectrum, including power limitations to  prevent interference across the border.
section_title: Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band
paragraphs: One question of interest to the Congress is whether a single nationwide  frequency should be designated for public safety in the United States and  as it relates to the United States borders with Canada and Mexico. Both  FCC and NTIA told us that sufficient bands exist for state and local public  safety. FCC said that currently five mutual aid frequencies in the 800 MHz  band are included in agreements with Canada and Mexico, with the   possibility of additional channel(s) in a future agreement with Canada in  the 700 MHz band. Similarly, an NTIA official told us there are several  interoperable frequencies in the 162 MHz to 174 MHz band and the 406-420  MHz band for state and local public safety.
section_title: Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of Public Safety Wireless Communications
paragraphs: The SAFECOM program has established goals and objectives for the years  2005, 2008, and 2023 in its current work program. This program was  developed in December 2003 at a joint SAFECOM and AGILE planning  meeting with input from federal, state, and local representatives. The  SAFECOM Program Manager said that the SAFECOM Executive  Committee approved the program as developed in the December meeting.  Key objectives for the year 2005 include: the completion of a statement of  requirements for public safety interoperable communications;  establishment of a research, development, test, and evaluation program for  existing and emerging public safety communications and interoperability;  establishment of a technical assistance program for public safety  communications and interoperability; and development of a process to  advance standards necessary to improve public safety communications  and interoperability.
We provide descriptive material on these objectives, including why  SAFECOM believes they are needed, major benefits anticipated if  successfully completed, and key responsibilities of various parties to their  accomplishment.
subsections: section_title: Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements
paragraphs: One key barrier to the development of a national interoperability strategy  has been the lack of a statement of national mission requirements for  public safety—what set of communications capabilities should be built or  acquired—and a strategy to get there. A key initiative in the SAFECOM  program plan for the year 2005 is to complete a comprehensive Public  Safety Statement of Requirements. The statement is to provide functional  requirements that define how, when, and where public safety practitioners  communicate. On April 26, 2004, DHS announced the release of the first  comprehensive Statement of Requirements defining future communication  requirements and outlining future technology needed to meet these  requirements. According to DHS, the statement provides a shared vision  and an architectural framework for future interoperable public safety  communications.
DHS describes the Statement of Requirements as a living document that  will define future communications services as they change or become new  requirements for public safety agencies in carrying out their missions.  SAFECOM officials said additional versions of the statement will  incorporate whatever is needed to meet future needs, but did not provide  specific details. One example of potential future development is expanded  coverage to include public safety support functions. The current statement  is incomplete because it only addresses the functional requirements for  traditional public safety first responders – Emergency Medical Services  personnel, firefighters, and law enforcement officers. The statement  recognizes the existence of but does not include in this version those  elements of the public safety community—such as transportation or public  utility workers—whose primary mission provides vital support to public  safety officials.
In addition, the frequent changes in SAFECOM management teams and  changing implementation strategies has resulted in major changes in how  SAFECOM intends to achieve its ultimate goals. As originally conceived  while SAFECOM was in the Treasury Department, the program would  build upon Public Safety Wireless Network’s (PSWN) efforts to achieve  interoperability among state and local agencies by building an  interoperable federal communications network. The SAFECOM program  implementation strategy changed when the program was transferred to  FEMA to focus on helping first responders make short-term improvements  in interoperability using vehicles such as demonstration projects and  research. At that time, the development of an interoperable federal system  was seen as a long-term goal. “There is an integrated system-of-systems, in regular use, that allows public safety  personnel to communicate (voice, data, and video) with whom they need on demand, in  real time, as authorized:  Public safety can respond anywhere, bring their own equipment, and can work on any  network immediately when authorized.
Public safety will have the networking and spectrum resources it needs to function  properly.”
SAFECOM officials said under this concept each major region of the  country—for example, New York City, Chicago, and Saint Louis and their  adjacent suburban jurisdictions—will have their own “system” which is  made up of multiple subsystems, such as police agencies, that have  established relationships. Part of the SAFECOM concept is that a centrally  dispatched Urban Search and Rescue team can respond to any of these  cities/regions and operate with the equipment that they bring with them.
However, a national architecture has not been prepared yet to guide the  creation of interoperable communications. An explicit and commonly  understood and agreed-to blueprint, or architecture, is required to  effectively and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, we  have promoted the use of architectures, recognizing them as a crucial  means to a challenging goal: agency operational structures that are  optimally defined in both business and technological environments. Office  of Management and Budget officials told us that OMB charged SAFECOM  with developing a national architecture, which will include local, state, and  federal government architectures. According to these officials, SAFECOM  is to work closely with state and local governments to establish a basic  understanding of what infrastructure currently exists and to identify  public safety communication requirements. SAFECOM officials said the  development of a national architecture will take time because SAFECOM  must first assist state and local governments to establish their  communications architectures. They said SAFECOM will then collect the  state and local architectures, and fit them into a national architecture that  links federal communications into the state and local infrastructure.
section_title: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and Emerging Public Safety Communications and Interoperability
paragraphs: The SAFECOM Program Plan includes an objective for 2005 to establish a  research, development and testing, and evaluation program that identifies  and develops a long-term, sustainable technical foundation. The  SAFECOM program plans provide funding and promote coordination  across the federal government to test and evaluate existing  communications and bridging technologies and to create a research and  development program addressing emerging technologies, such as software  defined radio.
Public safety agencies have been addressing communications  interoperability for many years under the name “mutual aid.” Under  mutual aid agreements public safety agencies have been monitoring each  other’s activities and radio communications through the use of scanners or  exchanging radios. The agencies have built cross-patches into dispatcher  consoles to interconnect radio systems. They also have agreed on the  shared use of specific frequencies for first responders, such as police  forces and fire departments. For example, the state of California  sponsored the California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio System that  provides a common set of channels statewide for mutual aid.
Other technology options are also becoming available to public safety  agencies from government agencies and commercial vendors. For  example, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has developed and fielded  a high technology system that includes both civilian and military  communications equipment that is capable of satellite communications  and traditional public safety VHF, UHF, and 800 MHz spectrum bands.  According to NRL, all bands can be linked to every other band and to  normal telephone lines, private cellular networks, and satellite links.  According to NRL, its system comes in various sizes and configurations  that have been used at the 2002 Olympic Games and Superbowl XXXVII  and can meet other Homeland Security incidents.
New commercial technologies and systems are also becoming available.  According to some state and local officials, they have to rely upon vendors  for information on these new products because they do not have a single  independent source of comprehensive information and the federal  government can play a valuable role in testing and evaluating these  technologies. For example, officials representing the Midwest Consortium  told us that the federal government could create a clearinghouse of  technical support for the state and local agencies. Therefore, rather than  using the equipment vendors for technical advice on what to purchase and  what type of systems to build, the state and local agencies could look to  the federal government for technical assistance.
But federal officials said there is no single source of data on new vendor  equipment and that their first task is to identify what equipment is  available. For example, federal laboratory officials in Boulder, Colorado,  said they recently conducted a literature search in which they identified   11 vendors that make 24 models of Project 25 portable/mobile radio  equipment, 7 vendors that make 9 models of conventional Project 25  repeater/base stations equipment, and only 1 vendor that makes Project 25  base stations using trunking technology. However, they said another  center had prepared a list of entirely different equipment.
Federal laboratory officials said that many of these technologies have not  been tested and that there is no coordinated program today to test and  evaluate vendor equipment and technologies. These officials said that  various federal agencies conduct testing – for example, the Office of Law  Enforcement Standards in the National Institute of Standards and  Technology, the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service. They  said these agencies may also have different test objectives, for example,  the NTIA/ITS laboratory conducts data analysis evaluation, while the  National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in Rome,  New York, concentrates primarily on operational testing.
SAFECOM officials said that their role is to coordinate research,  development, test, and evaluation activities for the federal government as  part of their contribution to communications interoperability. They  acknowledged that the federal government has multiple initiatives under  way and that no cohesive plan to coordinate these initiatives exists today.  These officials said SAFECOM plans to create standardized procedures for  uniform testing procedures by the federal government. However, they said  that because the SAFECOM program has not been authorized, they cannot  create a unified research, development, test, and evaluation program  without statutory authority.
subsections: section_title: Technical Assistance for Interoperable Public Safety Communications
paragraphs: First responders must have the necessary technical support and training  needed to properly communicate with each other using wireless  communications on a day-to-day basis as well as in emergency situations.  First responders will be challenged to perform at their best ability,  especially during a major incident such as a terrorist attack or natural  disaster. Therefore, ongoing technical assistance and training is needed.
The SAFECOM Program Plan states that the public safety community  expressed their need for technical assistance, including support for  planning, development, implementation, and assessment of public safety  communications systems. In response, SAFECOM is developing a plan to  provide technical assistance and training to the public safety community.  The plan or work package includes (1) creating a one-stop shop, which  will consist of a Web portal and call in center and (2) providing training  and technical assistance, which will consist of a practitioner resource  group, training and assistance, national calling channels, and technical  assistance publications for the public safety community. According to  SAFECOM officials, the technical assistance work package has been  approved for funding in fiscal year 2005.
State and local government officials told us what a national technical  assistance and outreach program for the public safety community should  include. A Georgia official said that training should also be provided by the  federal government to improve wireless communications among public  safety officials. According to SAFECOM training should consist of tools  and templates to train multiple public safety agencies and personnel on  how to use interoperable communications equipment and processes. For  example, officials from the state of Georgia told us the federal government  should provide programs and assistance to coordinate the design and  implementation of communications systems. Local officials in the state of  Washington agreed that the federal government could offer staff  assistance or technical support to the state and local public safety  officials.
According to local officials in Florida, the federal government should  require that public safety officials have communications training. These  local officials told us that the police are required to train and pass  qualifications for using their gun at least once a year; however, they use  their guns less than their communications equipment. There are no  requirements to train on using the communications equipment. Local  officials in San Diego County told us that the federal government could  use other federal entities, such as the National Accreditation for Law  Enforcement, as a model to educate and train public safety agencies. The  National Accreditation for Law Enforcement could use state agencies as  consultants to provide technical and operation advice to small localities.
First responders must plan for and train on new technologies or the  technology could have a negative impact on the effectiveness of  emergency responders. The states we visited or contacted are using  gateway technology as a short-term solution to achieving communications  interoperability. However, this technology only patches different systems  together and has to be used properly to be effective. For example, an  official in California told us some public safety officials caused an entire  system to crash at the most critical point of communications when they  used it for the first time during an emergency because they had not been  properly trained on the system. In addition, use of gateway systems may  result in too many people trying to talk, in turn, taxing the communication  systems.
section_title: Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications
paragraphs: State and local public safety officials we talked with told us they needed  national guidance on standards. For example, members of the Midwest  Consortium we spoke with said they needed more national guidance on  standards and technical issues and the establishment of a national entity  made up of federal, state, and local entities that set standards. However,  consortium officials emphasized that federal communications standards  and initiatives must be reasonable, balanced, and consistent with state and  local jurisdictions’ funding capabilities and their communication needs  and objectives.
OMB has established the development of standards for first responder  interoperability at all levels of government as a SAFECOM objective.  SAFECOM is to develop these standards by working in partnership with  federal, state, local, and tribal public safety organizations. SAFECOM is  working on a plan to address the development of national standards to  improve public safety communications and interoperability. A key  initiative in the SAFECOM program plan for the year 2005 is development  of a process to advance standards needed to improve public safety  communications. This initiative will identify, test, and where necessary,  develop standards in coordination with the public safety community and  ongoing standards activities.
In our November 2003 testimony, we noted that a partnership between  industry and the public safety user community developed what is known  as Project 25 (P-25) standards. According to the PSWN program office,   P-25 standards remain the only user-defined set of standards in the United  States for public safety communications. PSWN believes P-25 is an  important step toward achieving interoperability, but the standards do not  mandate interoperability among all manufacturers’ systems. Federal  officials also told us significant work remains to complete the  development of the Project 25 standards and to test vendor equipment  against these standards. The SAFECOM work plan states that SAFECOM  will devote resources to accelerate the completion of the Project 25 suite  of standards and create a common radio nomenclature for first  responders.
section_title: Technological Near- Term Actions: Bridging Equipment
paragraphs: One problem that occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001, was  that incompatible radio systems prevented police and fire department  personnel from talking to one another. The DHS Secretary recently  announced that DHS has identified technical specifications for a baseline  interoperable communications system as the short-term solution to allow  first responders to communicate by voice—no matter what frequency on  which they are operating. SAFECOM officials said that the specifications  the Secretary referred to are for generic bridging technologies that  interconnect first responders’ different land mobile radios. According to  these officials, the Secretary has also determined that local emergency- based communications interoperability capabilities should be in locations  of critical concern by December 2004. These officials said that this date is  the deadline for putting an interim solution in place for interoperable radio  communications for police, fire, and emergency first responders.
Some states are already using the bridging equipment or audio switches  identified as a short-term solution by DHS and have identified several  nontechnical barriers to successful use of the equipment. A state official in  California told us that first responders need to plan their use of these  technologies and become trained on using the technology, or it could have  a negative impact on emergency response to an incident. This official said,  for example, that some public safety officials had not been properly  trained on using one vendor’s system, causing the system to fail at a  critical point the first time they used the system in an emergency.  According to this official, this technology must be used properly to be  effective. Local officials in the State of Washington also told us that  multiple units of these systems could overload communications because  too many officials are trying to talk at the same time. A federal laboratory  official said the bridging or audio switches provide the benefits of  interoperability of disparate radio systems but have several shortfalls.  These shortfalls include a requirement that users be within coverage of  their home radio systems and that the use of bridging equipment may  require pre-incident coordination. He said there are 4 major vendors, and  about 30 vendors in total that make bridging equipment. He said testing  has been conducted on only 2 of the major vendors’ equipment.
section_title: Technological Near- Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent Assessments of Alternative Technologies
paragraphs: State and local officials said they want an independent source of  information on new products and that the federal government can play a  valuable role in providing that information. SAFECOM officials said they  intend to include their bridging specifications in federal grant guidance as  a condition for using federal funds to purchase bridging equipment.  However, they said that the specifications for such equipment may be  released and in use before their testing program for switches and bridging  technologies is complete. They said public safety agencies must rely on  vendor data to determine whether the untested systems meet DHS’s  requirements. SAFECOM officials also recognize that significant training  on such equipment must accompany the delivery of the equipment to first  responders. The officials said COPS and ODP have developed a template  for providing technical assistance training for bridging equipment.
section_title: Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve
paragraphs: State and local governments play a large, perhaps defining, role in  resolving the communications interoperability problem. As recognized by  the Federal Communications Commission, states play a central role in  managing emergency communications, and state level organizations are  usually in control at large-scale events and disasters or multiagency  incidents. FCC also said that states are usually in the best position to  coordinate with federal government emergency agencies. According to the  National Strategy for Homeland Security, local officials stress that they  are the first to respond to any incident and the last to leave the scene of an  incident. According to the SAFECOM program, state and local  governments also own 90 percent of the public safety communications  infrastructure.
In our November 2003 testimony, we identified fragmented planning and  cooperation as the key barrier to improving interoperability of public  safety wireless communications systems. In the past, a stovepiped, single  jurisdiction or agency-specific systems development approach prevailed— resulting in none or less than desired interoperable communications  systems. Public safety agencies have historically planned and acquired  communications systems for their own jurisdictions without concern for  interoperability. This meant that each state and local agency developed  communications systems to meet their own requirements, without regard  to interoperability requirements to talk to adjacent jurisdictions. For  example, a PSWN analysis of Fire and EMS communications  interoperability found a significant need for coordinated approaches,  relationship building, and information sharing. However, the PSWN  program office found that public safety agencies have traditionally  developed or updated their radio systems independently to meet specific  mission needs.
The PSWN program also concluded that state leaders can, through  memorandums of understanding (MOU), help to define interagency  relationships, reach procedural agreements, promote regular meetings of  statewide or regional interoperability committees, and encourage joint  efforts to deploy communications technology. State and local officials that  we talked with generally agree that states can coordinate communications  planning and funding support for state communications systems and  coordinate local governments’ interoperability efforts. For example,  several officials said the state can facilitate the planning process by  including key stakeholder input in the decision making process and ensure  that communications interoperability issues are addressed. However,  officials also see state roles in providing common infrastructure and  developing routine training exercises.
Several states have or are taking executive and legislative actions that  coordinate and facilitate efforts to address problems of interoperable  communications within their states. For example, as we indicated  previously, states we visited have or are in the process of establishing  SIECs to enhance communications interoperability planning, including the  development of interoperability plans and administration of  interoperability spectrum. California in 2003 also established the Public  Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee (PSRSPC) to develop and  implement a statewide integrated public safety communications system  for state government agencies that facilitates interoperability and other  shared uses of public safety spectrum with local and federal agencies. In  Florida, the governor issued an executive order in 2001 to establish seven  Regional Domestic Security Task Forces that make up the entire state.  Each of the regional task forces has a committee on interoperable  communications under Florida’s State Working Group. The Florida  legislature supported that effort by establishing the task forces in law and  formally designating the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the  Division of Emergency Management as the lead agencies. The Task Forces  consist of agencies from Fire/Rescue, Emergency Management, and public  health and hospitals, as well as law enforcement. In addition, it includes  partnerships with education/schools, business, and private industry.
In addition, planning on a regional basis is key to interoperable  communications systems development. The Public Safety Wireless  Network report also notes that although in the past public safety agencies  have addressed interoperability on an individual basis, more recently,  local, state, and federal agencies have come to realize that they cannot do  it alone. The report also notes that officials at all levels of government are  now taking action to improve coordination and facilitate  multijurisdictional interoperability. We talked with officials from several  state and local agencies about their efforts to address interoperability  issues on a regional basis. For example:  In Georgia and Washington, state and local emergency consequence  planning continues to be structured around the all-hazards planning model  and are broken down into regions. The regions are made up of one or  more counties that include cities, towns, and tribal nations within the  regional geographical boundaries. This regional configuration was  implemented to develop regional interoperability plans, distribute federal  grant funds, develop emergency responder equipment priority lists, plan  and execute training exercises, create regionally based mutual aid plans,  and develop volunteer infrastructure to support citizens’ involvement in  homeland security initiatives.
The King County Regional Communications Board system in Washington  State is a multijurisdictional coordination body. Communication decisions  are made by the group and not made by individual jurisdictions. This  regional cooperation is informal and not legislated or mandated.
The San Diego County Regional Communications System was established  in 1994 to provide an interoperable wireless network available to all public  safety agencies.
State officials also told us that statewide interoperability is not enough  because incident first responders face could cross boundaries. Thus, some  states are also taking actions to address interstate interoperability  problems. For example, state officials from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,  Michigan, and Ohio said their states have combined efforts to form the  Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium to promote interstate  interoperability. These officials told us that the governors of their five  member states plan to sign an MOU with each other to signify that each  state is willing to be interoperable with the other states and provide  communication assistance and resources to the other states, to the extent  that it does not harm their own state. According to these officials, they  also have taken actions to form an interstate committee to develop  interoperability plans and solicit support from key players such as local  public safety agencies. The benefits of the consortium are increased  interoperability on a larger regional basis, an exchange of technical  information, greater power over vendor manipulation because of  increased purchasing power, an exchange of pricing and technical  information, and lessons learned from their collective experiences.
subsections: section_title: Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability
paragraphs: Although efforts are underway to address communications interoperability  issues, state and local public safety officials face challenges in addressing  communications interoperability. According to state and local public  safety officials, some of the key challenges they are confronted with today  include (1) multiple statewide communication systems, (2) turf or control  issues, and (3) lack of communications training for public safety officials.
Federal officials told us that states have multiple state communications  systems that make communications interoperability planning more  difficult. The states we visited have multiple statewide communications  systems. For example, in the state of Washington, the departments of  Transportation, Corrections, and Health use communication systems  operating in the 800 MHz frequency band, while the National Guard and  Emergency Management Division operate communications systems with  the spectrum reserved for federal agencies. The remainder of the state  agencies operates in the 150 MHz frequency band. Similarly, Florida has  several statewide systems such as State Law Enforcement Radio System  (SLERS) and Forestry systems that are not compatible. Because the  forestry system operates on a different frequency band than SLERS, it  does not allow users to communicate with law enforcement except  through console patches. The SLERS was originally designed primarily for  8 state law enforcement entities. Membership now includes 17 law  enforcement entities in 15 state agencies.
Some local jurisdictions also have multiple communications systems. For  example, San Diego and Imperial Counties have developed and  implemented a radio system referred to as the Regional Communications  System (RCS). RCS’s primary mission is to provide an interoperable  wireless network available to all public safety and public service agencies  within the counties, regardless of jurisdiction or level of government.  However, according to local public safety officials in California, political,  funding, and technology limitations such as incompatible communications  equipment have prevented full participation in the system by the city of  San Diego and other jurisdictions in the counties. According to a local  government official in California, however, RCS and the city have  collaborated on planning the transition from their current systems to a   P-25 compatible system, which he said will provide seamless  interoperability for all public safety agencies operating in the Southern  California region.
According to PSWN, efforts to develop and implement regional or shared  systems are hindered by perceptions that management control of radio  system development and operations will be lost. As a result, coordination  and partnership efforts do not evolve, and “stop gap” measures are  implemented to address specific interoperability requirements.  Interoperable communications is meaningless unless first responders  overcome turf issues and learn to cooperate in any given incident,  according to Midwest Public Safety Communications Consortium  members. The Consortium members said that the technical part of  building interoperability is easy, compared with the political and  operational issues. As a result, the planning process for addressing  political and operational issues is vital.
In the state of Washington, a potential obstacle to effective coordination  may lie in the historical relationship between state and local governments.  The state has 39 counties and 268 towns and counties. According to a  Century Foundation report, local and regional governments in Washington  have a long tradition of home rule and independent action, which makes it  difficult for state officials to coordinate the activities of the units of local  government. Washington state and local officials said that the political  power in the state is decentralized, and the local city and county  governments may resist state-driven mandates. Things get done on a  consensus basis at the local level.
According to local officials in Washington, that type of relationship does  not exist between the state and local jurisdictions or the federal agencies  and local jurisdictions. Regionally based planning is problematic due to  resistance by locally elected officials, lack of trust between officials in  different jurisdictions or disciplines, and competition over resources,  according to a Century Foundation report. For example, one of the  concerns of the Washington SIEC planning group was that the state could  not force locals to participate or adhere to the development of a statewide  communications plan, they could only invite locals to participate.
section_title: Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Interoperability Planning
paragraphs: Federal grant funds can be used to facilitate and encourage coordinated  regional planning. However, there are currently several challenges to the  ability to use these funds to support the long-term coordinated regional  planning that we have identified as being essential to improving  interoperable communications. First, federal funds are structured to  address short-term needs for the development of interoperability projects  rather than long-term planning needs for communications interoperability.  Second, federal grants have inconsistent requirements to plan regionally.  Third, the first responders grant structure is fragmented, which can  complicate coordination and integration of services and planning at the  state and local levels, and has presented additional barriers to federal  efforts to coordinate communications funds. Fourth, uncoordinated  federal and state level grant reviews limit the government’s ability to  ensure that funds are used to improve regional and statewide  communications interoperability.
subsections: section_title: First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs
paragraphs: A study conducted in 1998 estimated the current replacement value of the  existing public safety LMR infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion.  According to a PSWN report, DHS officials have said that this estimate is  much higher when infrastructure and training costs are taken into  account. In addition, reaching an accelerated goal for improving  communications interoperability will require a major investment of several  billion dollars within the next 5 to 10 years. The estimated cost of an LMR  system for a state or local jurisdiction can range from tens of thousands to  hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the size and type of system  being implemented. According to PSWN, these cost estimates account  only for the procurement of the equipment and infrastructure and do not  include ongoing operation and maintenance costs. According to another  Public Safety Wireless network (PSWN) funding report, the extraordinary  investment in LMR systems makes obtaining the necessary funding to  finance the replacement or upgrade of LMR systems one of the greatest  challenges facing public safety agencies. This is especially true because  public safety communications systems typically reach the end of their  useful life cycle in 8 to 10 years. In addition, the National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and Federal  Communications Commission (FCC) have established a new migration  plan that will require that all federal and state and local public safety  agencies replace current LMR equipment with narrowband (12.5 kHz)  equipment by 2008 and 2018, respectively. Federal funding is but one of  several resources state and local agencies must utilize in order to address  these financial challenges.
State and local public safety officials say that they do not have reliable  federal funding support for the planning costs associated with the long- term development of interoperable communications. State and locals  officials from states that we visited identified the lack of a sustained  funding source for communications as a major barrier. Local officials  emphasized that public safety agencies need a re-occurring source of  funds for communications because interoperability barriers cannot be  fixed with a one-time grant. For example, local public safety officials from  Washington state asserted that, once the granted project is complete,  locals still have intense fiscal pressures to face in the support and  operation of the communication systems. As a result, state and local  agencies need to provide assurances that they can sustain the projects that  the grants have developed. However, they emphasized that further federal  support is needed to help with these costs. Officials from Georgia and  California also expressed the need for federal support in addressing on- going costs and suggested creating a dedicated source of funds similar to  the interstate highway program or 911 tax to assist states with  implementing the long-term solutions.
We have identified several federal grants that can be used to address first  responder communications (See table 1.) Among these grants, in fiscal  year 2003, Congress appropriated funds for two programs specifically  dedicated to improving first responder interoperable communications.  However, since 2003, the funding for these grant programs has changed  significantly. In fiscal year 2003, the Office of Community Oriented  Policing Services (COPS) and Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA) received approximately $154 million to provide grants for  interoperable communications equipment. In fiscal year 2004 FEMA’s line- item budget for this program was cut and was not explicitly picked up  anywhere else in DHS. The COPS program was awarded only $85 million  as the sole source for the interoperable communications equipment grant  for fiscal year 2004. In addition, the President’s fiscal year 2005 budget  proposal allocates no funds for the Interoperable Communications  Equipment grant program to the DHS and suggests reductions in other  funding sources that state and locals are eligible to use for  communications interoperability. For more details on changes to these  funding sources, see table 1.
Local, state, and federal officials agree that regional communications plans  should be developed to guide decisions on how to use federal funds for  interoperable communications. However, the officials emphasize that  federal grant conditions and requirements do not support this planning  process. While there are several grants to assist first responders in  preparing for emergency response, state and local public safety officials  from the states that we visited said that these grants do not provide  adequate support for dedicated staff resources for communications  planning or allow adequate time for state and locals to plan. Officials  emphasized that most public safety organizations that are tasked with  addressing the planning functions for the operational, technical, and  coordination needs of communications systems, such as Regional  Planning Committees, State Interoperability Executive Committees, and  system managers rely on volunteer efforts of first responders, who also  have full-time duties in their regular jobs. “The success of the regional planning approach can no longer be left to the volunteer  efforts of the engaged public entities, particularly for something as complicated and intense  as the re-banding proposed in the Supplemental Filing. All local governments are stretched  to the maximum in our combined situation of economic challenges and security  uncertainty. This has a limiting effect on the ability of the skilled personnel who normally  engage in the regional planning efforts to continue engagement at the high levels that  would be necessary to deal with a re-banding effort. This is even more the case in the  complex border areas where numerous technical, procedural and perhaps political issues  need to be resolved to make the effort a success. Region 43 strongly supports the need for  a national pool of experts and funding to work with the RPCs as they undertake the re- banding in their Regions. These need to be people and resources that can do the hard work  of inventorying systems, understanding spectrum relationships, evaluating the unique  terrain and topography of the area and helping establish technically and operationally  competent migration strategies that work for the unique situations of each Region… But  Committees on their own can’t do this work effectively, and left to their own resources, we  will see staggered and inconsistent results across the country.”
section_title: Federal Grants Encouraged a “Regional” Approach to Planning, but Lacked Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans
paragraphs: As we mentioned previously, creating communications interoperability  requires a coordinated regional approach. Recent grant requirements have  encouraged jurisdictions to take a regional approach to planning, which  has resulted in more local efforts to plan using a multidisciplinary and  multi-jurisdictional approach rather than the stove-piped planning that  formerly existed. For example, grant criteria used in the fiscal year 2003  COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment grants  encouraged multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary approaches, which  resulted in grants being given to applicants that developed regional and  multidisciplinary partnerships. For example, officials from Florida that  received the COPS grant award for $6 million told us that as a result of this  encouraged regional approach, they applied for the grant using a  consortium of nine counties that formed a plan for interoperability and  will use the funds on a multiregional basis to increase interoperability  within and among their jurisdictions. State and local officials that we  spoke with said that the federal government needs to do more to  encourage regional communications planning and that this requirement  should be made a condition of receiving grants.
In our November 6 testimony, we also identified coordinated planning for  communications interoperability as a pre-requisite to effectively  addressing communication issues. However, current federal first  responder grants are inconsistent in their requirements to tie funding to  interoperable communications plans. States and locals are not required to  provide an interoperable communications plan as a pre-requisite to  receiving some federal grant funds. As a result, there is no assurance that  federal funds are being used to support a well-developed strategy for  improving interoperability. For example:    The fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) requires  states to conduct a needs assessment and submit a State Homeland  Security Strategy to Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP); however,  the required strategy is high-level and broad in nature. It does not require  that project narratives or a detailed communications plan be submitted by  grantees prior to receiving grant funds.
The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant requires a Needs  Assessment and Urban Area Strategy to be developed by grantees, but also  does not require project narratives or detailed plans.
The COPS and FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment grants  did not require that a communications plan be completed prior to  receiving grant funds. However, grantees were required to provide  documentation that they were actively engaged in a planning process and  a multijurisdictional and multidisciplinary project narrative was required  for submission. If applicants intended to use the funds to support a project  that was previously developed, they were required to submit the plan for  review.
An ODP program official acknowledged that requirements to develop a  detailed communications needs assessment are missing and that ODP is  currently developing an assessment tool. The official said that grantees  could use this tool to assess their specific communication needs and  conduct a gap analysis. The analysis would be used by the jurisdictions to  develop an interoperable communications plan that would support the  State and Urban Area Homeland Security strategies.
State and local public safety officials that we spoke with reported that  because of the lack of federal requirements to submit plans for  interoperable communications; some federal grant funds are being spent  on individual projects without a plan to guide these expenditures. States  that we visited received federal funds that could be used for  communications, but did not have statewide communications plans to  guide decisions on local requests for federal funds. To combat this  concern, the state of Washington Emergency Management Division said  that it is holding back on allocating its obligated funds until its State  Executive Interoperability Committee has developed a statewide  communications plan that can be used to guide decisions on local request  for communication funds.
In addition to variations in requirements to create communications  interoperability plans, federal grants lack consistency in defining what  “regional” body should conduct planning. Regions are defined differently  by different federal agencies. The COPS office, which provided grant funds  for interoperable communications equipment, defined eligible regions as  Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s). The Office for Domestic  Preparedness’ (ODP) Urban Areas Security Initiative’s provided grants to  “urban area” regions, which were defined—in some cases—as a subset of  a MSA. On the other hand, FEMA awarded its grants for interoperable  communications equipment based upon a jurisdictional nomination from  the state governor. Furthermore, FCC has defined regions for  communications planning based upon other characteristics. However, all  four of the agencies encourage state and locals to conduct “regional”  planning for communications.
section_title: Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges to Short- and Long-Term Planning
paragraphs: In addition to resources for planning, first responders emphasized that the  limited time provided to first responders to conduct planning for  communications interoperability before submission of grants presents a  barrier. State and local officials from the Office of Emergency  Management Services expressed concern about their inability to develop  effective plans within the current grant timeframes. State officials from  California’s Office of Emergency Management said that the short turn  around timeframe on the ODP Homeland Security and UASI grants limited  their ability to perform a high-level grant review or assist with local  planning. ODP required that grantees submit a proposal within 30 days of  the announcement. As a result, state officials said that they were allowed  only enough time to review whether local grant proposals matched an  itemized equipment list provided by ODP and could not perform an  evaluation of local grant proposals or provide assistance to the locals in  planning for and writing their grants. A representative from a county  Office of Emergency Services in California expressed the same sentiment.  He said that grants are coming with such short timeframes that localities  are operating with a total lack of information before submitting the grants.  He stressed that states and localities need time to study what they need in  order to get something worthwhile. Officials from the other three states  that we visited—Florida, Georgia, and Washington—also articulated  similar concerns.
Similar to state and local officials, federal officials expressed concerns  about first responders’ ability to plan for long-term regional  communication systems within the current 30 or 60 day submission time  frames allotted for the grants. Officials from SAFECOM said that in order  to alleviate the previous stove pipe communications planning of agencies,  regional planning should be a pre-requisite to receiving federal funds.  However, they emphasized that if planning were required as a condition  for receiving grants, states would have to be given enough lead time to  prepare a successful plan. The officials said that the current time frames  placed on grants does not allow states or jurisdictions enough time to  effectively create a communications plan that would make the most  efficient use of federal funds. Adequate lead time may be a 1 or 2 year  planning period. In addition, states should be given a planning model to  demonstrate how to successfully plan for communications—including  creating a governance structure as the first step. SAFECOM officials said  that they are trying to develop this type of model in the Commonwealth of  Virginia. ODP is also developing a similar model in Kansas City, Missouri.
COPS officials administering the fiscal year 2003 Interoperable  Communications Technology grant also said that requiring that a  communications plan be developed prior to receiving grants would be a  positive thing, if the grantees were given an appropriate amount of time to  develop a plan before submission—perhaps several months. They noted  that they did not require that grantees have a communications plan  developed prior to receiving federal funds because the grantees only had  30 days from the grant announcement to submit their proposals. The  Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, Assistance to Firefighters grants  also allow states only 30 or 60 days to submit a grant proposal.  Demonstration grants also have been awarded to state and locals for  communications interoperability that have 1 or 2 year performance  periods and do not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance  to Firefighters Grant, COPS and FEMA’s Interoperable Communications  Equipment grants, and National Urban Search and Rescue Response  System grants all have 1-year performance periods. UASI, HSGP, and  Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.
section_title: Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels
paragraphs: In our 2003 testimony, we pointed out that the federal first responder  grant programs’ structure was fragmented, which can complicate  coordination and integration of services and planning at the state and local  levels. We also highlighted the variation in grant requirements for first  responders grants. For example, DHS’s Assistance to Firefighters grant  had a maintenance of effort requirement while the Fire Training Systems  grant had no similar requirement.
In this report, we find that fragmentation exists within Communications  Interoperability grants that presents challenges to federal efforts to  coordinate and streamline the funding process. Multiple agencies provide  communication interoperability funding and have different guidelines and  appropriations language that define how the funds can be used. A list of  interoperable communications grant sources from 2003 through 2004  within DHS and DOJ and their eligible uses are listed in table 2.
Despite federal efforts within DHS to synthesize federal grants, various  agencies have statutory language that make it difficult to coordinate their  use. For example, both SAFECOM and COPS officials said that certain  statutory provisions underlying the grant programs presented barriers to  the coordination efforts of COPS, FEMA, and SAFECOM to consolidate  the grant application process for the 2003 Interoperable Communications  Equipment grants. COPS and FEMA coordinated their application process  for the grants and used sections of the SAFECOM grant guidance to guide  their application requirements. According to COPS and FEMA officials, the  combined COPS and FEMA application process was intended to maximize  the use of funds and reduce duplication and competition between the two  agencies’ Interoperability grants. Both COPS and SAFECOM officials  explained that COPS and FEMA encountered difficulty in creating a  combined grant application process because the COPS grant required a  twenty-five percent match while the FEMA grant did not have such a  requirement. However, COPS officials said FEMA added a twenty-five  percent match of “in-kind” resources to its grant requirements in order to  reduce competition between the COPS and FEMA grant programs.
In addition to matching requirements, the underlying statutory language  for COPS and FEMA interoperable communications grants made it  difficult to incorporate some of the SAFECOM grant guidance  recommendations. For example, SAFECOM grant guidance recommended  that applicants conduct planning for developing public safety  communications and specified eligible planning activities. However, the  underlying statutory language for the COPS and FEMA grants focuses on  the purchase of equipment without specifically addressing planning. COPS  and FEMA officials said that they were able to justify allowing certain  planning activities directly related to the purchase of equipment, but could  not require that funds be used to develop a communications system.  SAFECOM grant guidance also recommended addressing maintenance and  other life-cycle costs of communications equipment; however, the  statutory language underlying COPS and FEMA interoperable  communications equipment grants focuses on funding the purchase of  equipment rather than maintenance and other related costs.
section_title: No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are Used to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability
paragraphs: Federal officials that we spoke with agreed that, generally, there is no  high-level review of communications interoperability across the federal  government to ensure that the full range of granted projects compliment  each other and add to overall statewide and national interoperability. Each  agency reviews its own set of applications and projects. As a result, grants  can be given to bordering jurisdictions that propose conflicting  interoperability solutions. For fiscal year 2003, federal officials from COPS  and FEMA attempted to eliminate awarding funds to conflicting  communication systems within bordering jurisdictions by selecting  different applicant pools and coordinating their review of grant proposals.  The COPS office selected the largest MSAs from each state and territory as  well as the 50 largest MSA’s regardless of state, to apply for COPS funds.  FEMA requested that the governor of each state nominate one lead  jurisdiction to submit a grant proposal, taking into account the state’s  demographics and the location of critical infrastructure. In addition to  selecting applicants from different jurisdictions, COPS and FEMA engaged  in a process to ensure that projects from neighboring jurisdictions did not  conflict with or duplicate each other. The collaboration that occurred  between COPS and FEMA to review the 2003 Interoperable  Communications Equipment grant proposals was a step forward, however,  these agencies constitute only two of several federal agencies that provide  funds for communications interoperability.
A coordinated high-level review of key federal grant programs that award  funds for communication purposes does not exist. In response to this  challenge, SAFECOM has recently sponsored the formation of the Federal  Interagency Coordination Committee (FICC), which includes a federal  grant coordination working group. The FICC is an informal council  consisting of federal agencies, whose mission is to help local, tribal, state  and federal public safety agencies improve public safety response through  more effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications by  reducing duplication in programs and activities, identifying and promoting  best practices and coordinating federal grants, technical assistance,  training, and standards. Federal officials said that FICC will assist in  shaping the common grant guidance for federal initiatives involving public  safety communications. As of April 23, 2004, officials said that FICC has  held two meetings.
State governments that we visited also did not have a coordinated or  centralized grant review process to ensure that communications grant  funds in the programs that we reviewed were being used to support  projects that were complimentary and not duplicative. Florida State  Technology Office (STO) officials, who are members of Florida’s Domestic  Security Oversight Board (DSOB), said that the DSOB was concerned that  there was no overall centralized review of grant applications for federal  funding and no central review of federal funds passing through the state to  local governments. For example, STO has the statutory authority to  review plans for new or expanded communication systems. However, STO  officials said that some local communications plans are not reviewed by  the state because there is no requirement that locals must submit their  plan to STO for review before grant approval. Florida is now developing a  funding working group under the DSOB to review funding requests for  communication interoperability.
Officials that we spoke with in California also acknowledged that there  has been no centralized grant review process for funds that can be used  for communications interoperability. Officials from the grants  administration division within the Office of Emergency Services said that  they do not have a centralized review of grant funds in California because  several state and local agencies receive funds directly to their agencies or  jurisdictions from the federal government.
Local officials were concerned that this lack of a coordinated review of  grants used across the state for communications interoperability can  result in grants being awarded to bordering jurisdictions or localities that  propose conflicting interoperability solutions and, therefore, compound  existing barriers to regional or statewide interoperability. As a result, the  state of Washington has set up a structure to facilitate centralized grant  review of federal and state funding to ensure that they promote regional  interoperability. Officials intend to use a statewide communications plan  being developed by their State Interoperability Executive Committee  (SIEC) to review local funding proposals.
section_title: No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions
paragraphs: Currently, there is no database that can be used as a tool for coordinating  federal or state oversight of funding for interoperable communications  systems. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with DOJ to create a  “collaborative clearinghouse” that could facilitate federal oversight of  interoperable communications funding to neighboring jurisdictions and  allow states access to this information for planning purposes. The  database is intended to decrease duplication of funding and evaluation  efforts, de-conflict the application process, maximize efficiency of limited  federal funding, and serve as a data collection tool for lessons learned that  would be accessible to state and locals. According to federal officials, this  database is operational; however, its use is limited in its ability to  coordinate federal oversight of grant funds for several reasons. First, the  database does not contain information from the majority of relevant  federal agencies and SAFECOM has no enforcement authority to require  that all federal agencies provide information to the database or use it  guide decisions in their grant approval process.
In addition, SAFECOM officials said that it is unclear how to obtain the  needed information from formula grants on the use of federal funds for  communications. The State Homeland Security grant issued by ODP is a  large grant provided to states that can be used for communications  interoperability, among other things. However, federal officials said that  once these funds enter the states, there is no reporting obligation on the  use of the funds by jurisdiction—this information is lost. According to  these officials, formula grants that go directly to the jurisdictions, like the  ODP UASI grants, have the potential to be tracked and used within the  database if ODP provides application and award information for the  database. The officials said that, as a result of limitations that may exist in  obtaining the relevant information from formula grants, the database  would likely only include information from discretionary grants, earmarks,  or grants provided directly to the local jurisdictions.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above, Leo Barbour, Karen Burke, Katherine Davis, Sally  Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary Malavenda, and Shirley Perry  made contributions to this report.
section_title: GAO Related Products
paragraphs: Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and  Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing. GAO-04-798T.  Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004.
Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications  Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration. GAO-04-494. Washington, D.C.:  April 16, 2004.
Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable  Communications for First Responders. GAO 04-231T. Washington, D.C.:  November 6, 2003.
Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs.   GAO-03-1146T. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.
Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum  Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed.   GAO-03-277. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2003.
Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability  Needed to Improve Spectrum Management. GAO-02-906. Washington,  D.C.: September 26, 2002.
section_title: Bibliography
paragraphs: Congressional Research Service. FY 2005 Budget Request for First  Responder Preparedness: Issues and Analysis. By Shawn Reese.  Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2004.
Congressional Research Service. DHS: First Responder Grants: A  Summary. Washington, D.C.: October 2003.
Congressional Research Service. First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues  and Options. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated August 28, 2003.
Congressional Research Service. FY2003: Appropriations for First  Responder Awareness. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.: Updated June 2,  2003.
Congressional Research Service. Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of  Selected Federal Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada. Washington, D.C.:  April 2003.
Congressional Research Service. Analysis of Selected Aspects of  Terrorism Preparedness Assistance Programs. By Ben Canada.  Washington, D.C.: Updated March, 13, 2003.
Gilmore Commission. Third Annual Report to the President and the  Congress of the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response  Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Washington, D.C.: 2001.
National Governors Association. A Governor’s Guide to Emergency  Management. Volume Two: Homeland Security. Washington, D.C.: 2002.
National Task Force on Interoperability. Why Can’t We Talk? Working  Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to Save Lives. Washington,  D.C.: 2003.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Information Material—‘How To’ Guide  for Funding State and Local Public Safety Wireless Networks. Fairfax,  Virginia: 2003.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Federal Interoperability Assistance  Support—Funding Strategy Best Practices Report. Fairfax, Virginia: 2002.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Report Card on Funding  Mechanisms for Public Safety Radio Communications. Fairfax, Virginia:  2001.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Fire and Emergency Management  Services (EMS) Communications Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia:  1999.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost  Study. Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Strategies for Public  Safety Radio Communications. As prepared by Booz⋅Allen & Hamilton.  Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Mechanisms for  Public Safety Radio Communications. Prepared by Booz ⋅Allen &  Hamilton. Fairfax, Virginia: 1997.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Final Report of the Public Safety  Wireless Advisory Committee. Fairfax, Virginia: 1996.
Public Safety Wireless Network. Public Safety Coordination and  Preparedness Guide. Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Federal Government in  Public Safety Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the Local Public Safety  Community Government in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability.  Fairfax, Virginia.
Public Safety Wireless Network. The Role of the States in Public Safety  Wireless Interoperability. Fairfax, Virginia.
U.S. Department of Justice. Wireless Communications and  Interoperability Among State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies.  Washington, D.C.: 1998.