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. 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. 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.