    Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental
    Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable
    Communications (20-JUL-04, GAO-04-740).

    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.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-740
        ACCNO:   A10997
      TITLE:     Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and
    Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
    Interoperable Communications
         DATE:   07/20/2004
      SUBJECT:   Communication
    	     Data collection
    	     Emergency medical services
    	     Emergency preparedness
    	     Federal aid to states
    	     Federal grants
    	     Information technology
    	     Intergovernmental relations
    	     National preparedness
    	     Planning
    	     Safety
    	     Standards and standardization
    	     First responders
    	     Homeland security
    	     Interoperability
    	     Program coordination
    	     Public safety
    	     DOJ Advanced Generation of
    	     Interoperability for Law Enforcement
    	     Program

    	     DOJ Community Oriented Policing Service
    	     Program

    	     NPSTC Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination
    	     Resource and Database System

    	     SAFECOM
    	     DHS Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
    	     Communications Program

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-04-740

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Requesters

    July 2004

    HOMELAND SECURITY

     Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
                         Responder Interoperable Communications

    GAO-04-740

    Highlights of GAO-04-740, a report to congressional requesters

    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.

    GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a
    nationwide database and common terminology for public safety
    interoperability communications channels; (2) assess interoperability in
    specific locations against defined requirements; (3) through federal grant
    awards, encourage state action to establish and support a statewide body
    to develop and implement detailed improvement plans; and (4) encourage
    that grant applications be in compliance with statewide interoperability
    plans, once they are developed. GAO also recommends that the Director of
    OMB work with DHS to review SAFECOM's functions and establish a long-term
    program with appropriate authority and funding to coordinate
    interoperability efforts across the federal government.

    DHS generally agreed with our first two recommendations but did not
    specifically address the other recommendations to DHS. OMB had no
    comments.

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-740.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    the link above. For more information, contact William Jenkins at (202)
    512-8777 or jenkinsw@gao.gov.

    July 2004

    HOMELAND SECURITY

    Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First
    Responder Interoperable Communications

    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.

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief
    Background
    Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems

    Nationwide Are Unknown and Not Easily Identified and

    Catalogued
    Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve
    State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability

    Planning and Communications
    Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide

    Planning
    Conclusions
    Recommendations for Executive Action
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

                                           1

                                          3 6

                                         12 16

    28

    37 41 43 44

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

      Appendix II Cross Border Spectrum Planning 49

    Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure 49
    Cross Border Planning 50
    Cross Border Radio Interference 50
    Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues 51
    Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide

    Frequency Band 52

      Appendix III	Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve
      Interoperability of Public Safety Wireless
      Communications 53

    Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications
    Requirements 53

    Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing
    and Emerging Public Safety Communications and
    Interoperability 55

    Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications 58
    Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment 59
    Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and

    Independent Assessments of Alternative Technologies 60

    Appendix IV	Role of States Continues to Evolve 61
    Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability 63

      Appendix V	Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
      Interoperability Planning 66

    First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-
    Term Rather Than Long-Term Communication Needs 66

    Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but
    Lacked Requirements for Interoperability Communications
    Plans 71

    Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also
    Present Challenges to Short-and Long-Term Planning 73
    Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and
    Limits Coordination at the Federal, State, and Local Levels 75

    No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure
    Funds Are Used to Improve Regional or Statewide
    Communications Interoperability 78

    No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to
    Facilitate Federal Oversight and Coordination of Funding to
    Jurisdictions 80

    Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Commerce

    Appendix VII	Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 90

    GAO Contacts 90
    Staff Acknowledgments 90

    GAO Related Products 91

                                    Bibliography 92

      Tables

    Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications
    Interoperability Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and
    2004 69

    Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding
    Sources and Their Eligible Uses 76

      Figures

    Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications 8
    Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests
    for Communications Funds 41
    Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations 49

    Abbreviations

    AGILE Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement CAPRAD
    Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination Resource and

    Database System COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing Service DHS
    Department of Homeland Security DOC Department of Commerce DOJ Department
    of Justice EMS Emergency Management Services FCC Federal Communications
    Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency IWN Integrated
    Wireless Network NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Agency
    NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology NIJ National Institute
    of Justice NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council PSWAC
    Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee NCC Public Safety National
    Coordination Committee NLECTC National Law Enforcement and Corrections
    Technology

    Center NTIA National Telecommunications and Information

    Administration ODP Office for Domestic Preparedness OMB Office of
    Management and Budget PSWN Public Safety Wireless Network SAFECOM Wireless
    Public Safety Interoperable Communications

    Program

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

    July 20, 2004

    The Honorable Tom Davis, Chairman Committee on Government Reform House of
    Representatives

    The Honorable Christopher Shays, Chairman

    Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
    Relations Committee on Government Reform House of Representatives

                         The Honorable Adam H. Putnam, Chairman

    Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
    Relations and the Census Committee on Government Reform House of
    Representatives

    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.1 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

    1Our work addressed issues of public safety wireless communications
    interoperability- communications that use radio frequency waves, such as
    cellular telephones and other types of wireless radios-instead of
    telephone wires for transmitting voice and data. We did not address
    interoperability problems that may be found in other homeland security
    functions, such as fire equipment, chem-bio equipment, and information
    technology.

    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, testimony2 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.

    2See U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Challenges in
    Achieving Interoperable Communications for First Responders, GAO 04-231T
    (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).

    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.

    The current status of wireless interoperable communications across the
    nation-including the current interoperable communications capabilities of
    first responders and the scope and severity of the problems that may
    exist-has not been determined. Although various reports have documented
    the lack of interoperability of public safety first responders wireless
    communications in specific locations, complete and current data do not
    exist documenting the scope and severity of the problem at the local,
    state, interstate, or federal levels across the nation. Accumulating these
    data may be difficult, however, because several problems inhibit efforts
    to identify and define current interoperable communications capabilities
    and future requirements. Current capabilities must be measured against a
    set of requirements for interoperable communications, and these
    requirements vary according to the characteristics of specific incidents
    at specific locations. Who needs to talk to whom, when they need to talk,
    and what set of communications capabilities should be built or acquired to
    satisfy these requirements depends upon whether interoperable
    communications are needed for day-to-day mutual aid, task force operations
    that occur when members of different agencies come together to work on a
    common problem such as the National Capitol Region sniper investigation,
    or major events such as a terrorist attack. Requirements for interoperable
    communications also may change with the

      Results in Brief

    expanding definition of first responders-from the traditional police,
    fire, and emergency medical providers to include such professions as
    health care providers and other professions-and the evolution of new
    technology. A federal program, the Wireless Public Safety Interoperable
    Communications Program, also known as SAFECOM, has embarked on an effort
    to establish a national baseline of interoperable communications
    capabilities by July 2005, but SAFECOM is still working out the details of
    the study that would be used to develop the baseline.

    The federal government, states, and local governments have important roles
    to play in assessing interoperability needs, gaps in meeting those needs,
    and developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps. The federal
    government can provide the leadership, long-term commitment, and focus to
    assist state and local governments to meet these goals. For example,
    currently national requirements for interoperable communications are
    incomplete and no national architecture exists, there is no single
    nationwide database of the frequency channels used by public safety
    agencies to coordinate frequencies, and no common nomenclature exists for
    interoperability channels. States alone cannot develop the requirements or
    a national architecture, compile the nationwide frequency database, or
    develop a common nationwide nomenclature. In 2001, the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) established SAFECOM to unify the federal
    government's efforts to help coordinate work at the federal, state, local,
    and tribal levels in order to provide reliable public safety
    communications and achieve national wireless communications
    interoperability. However, SAFECOM was established as an OMB E-Gov
    initiative with a goal of improving interoperable communications within
    18-24 months-a timeline too short for addressing the complex, long-term
    nature of the interoperability problem. In addition, the roles and
    responsibilities of various federal agencies within and outside DHS
    involved in communications interoperability have not been fully defined,
    and SAFECOM's authority to oversee and coordinate federal and state
    efforts has been limited in part because it has been dependent upon other
    federal agencies for funding and has operated without signed memorandums
    of understanding negotiated with various agencies. DHS, where SAFECOM now
    resides, announced in May 2004 that it is establishing an Office for
    Interoperability and Compatibility to coordinate the federal response to
    the problems of wireless and other functional interoperability and
    compatibility. The office will include SAFECOM, but, as of June 2004, its
    exact structure and funding were still being developed.

    States, with broad input from local governments, can serve as focal points
    for statewide planning to improve interoperable communications. The

    FCC has recognized the important role of states. In its rules and
    procedures the FCC concluded that because states play a central role in
    managing emergency communications and are usually in control at large
    scale-events and disasters, states should administer the interoperability
    channels within the 700 MHz band of communications spectrum. States can
    play a key role in improving interoperable communications by establishing
    a management structure that includes local participation and input to
    analyze and identify interoperability gaps between "what is" and "what
    should be," developing comprehensive local, state, and regional plans to
    address such gaps, and funding these plans. The states we visited or
    contacted-California, Florida, Georgia, Washington, Missouri and a five
    state Midwest consortium-were in various stages of formulating these
    management structures. However, states are not required to establish a
    statewide management structure or to develop interoperability plans, and
    there is no clear guidance on what should be included in such plans. In
    addition, no requirement exists that interoperability of federal
    communications systems be coordinated with state and local government
    communications systems. The use of a standard database on communications
    frequencies by public safety agencies within the state and common
    terminology for these frequencies in preparation and implementation of
    these statewide interoperable plans are essential but are also not
    required. Without planning, coordination, and applicable standards-in
    other words, without a commonly understood and accepted blueprint or
    national architecture-the communications systems developed between and
    among locations and levels of government may not be interoperable.

    The federal grant structure does not fully support statewide planning for
    communications interoperability because, among other things, grant
    guidance is inconsistent and does not include interoperability planning
    requirements. 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. In an effort to address the issue of inconsistent guidance, in
    2003 SAFECOM coordinated with other agencies to develop standard grant
    guidance and requirements for planning, building, and training for
    interoperable communication. DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing
    Services (COPS) Program and DHS's Federal Emergency

    Management Agency (FEMA), used portions of the guidance in their grant
    application requirements.3

    We are making recommendations to DHS and OMB to improve the assessment and
    coordination of interoperable communications efforts. We recommend that
    the Secretary of DHS (1) develop a nationwide database of interoperable
    public safety frequency channels and a standard nationwide nomenclature
    for these channels, (2) establish requirements for interoperable
    communications and assist states in assessing interoperability in their
    states against those requirements; (3) through DHS grant guidance,
    encourage states to establish a single statewide body to assess
    interoperability and develop a single comprehensive statewide
    interoperability plan for federal, state, and local communications systems
    in all frequency bands, and (4) at the appropriate time, require through
    DHS grant guidance that any purchase of interoperable communications
    equipment with federal funds must be certified as being in conformance
    with statewide interoperability plans. We also recommend that the Director
    of OMB in conjunction with DHS review SAFECOM's functions and establish
    those functions as a long-term program with adequate authority and
    funding.

    In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Homeland
    Security discusses actions the department is taking that are generally
    consistent with the intent of our recommendations but do not directly
    address specific steps detailed in our recommendations with respect to
    establishment of statewide bodies responsible for interoperable
    communications within the state, the development of comprehensive
    statewide interoperability plans and tying federal funds for
    communications equipment directly to those statewide interoperable plans.
    The Department's comments are discussed later in this report. The
    Department letter is reprinted in appendix VII.

    Background 	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

    3Congress authorized the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
    (COPS) within the Department of Justice to administer the Interoperable
    Communications Technology Program. The program awarded 14 grants totaling
    more than $66 million to first responders for interoperable communications
    in 2003 and provides technical assistance to grantees.

    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
    dayto-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:

    o  	defining the range of interoperable communications capabilities needed
    for specific types of events;

    o  assessing the current capabilities to meet these communications needs;

    o  identifying the gap between current capabilities and defined
    requirements;

    o  	assessing alternative means of achieving defined interoperable
    communications requirements; and

    o  	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.

    Figure 1: A Planning Process for Interoperable Communications

    Many Agencies and Groups The first responder community is extensive and
    extremely diverse in size Have Examined and and the types of equipment in
    their communications systems. According to Reported on SAFECOM officials,
    there are over 2.5 million public safety- first

    responders within more than 50,000 public safety organizations in the

    Interoperability Issues 	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.4 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.5 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,6 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

    4The spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the
    electromagnetic distribution. Specific frequencies have been allotted for
    the public safety community.

    5Fire and EMS Communications Interoperability, April, 1999. The Department
    of Justice and the Department of the Treasury formed PSWN to promote
    effective public safety communications and to foster interoperability
    among local, state, federal, and tribal communications systems. PSWN was
    incorporated into DHS as part of the SAFECOM project in 2003.

    6Why Can't We Talk? Working Together to Bridge the Communications Gap to
    Save Lives: Feb. 2003). The Task Force was formed and funded by the
    National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, and included
    representatives from associations across the public safety community, such
    as fire and police chiefs, emergency managers, mayors, cities, and states.

    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.7
    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

    7The radiofrequency spectrum is the medium that enables wireless
    communications of all kinds. Although the radio spectrum spans the range
    from 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz, 90 percent of its use is concentrated
    in the 1 percent of frequencies that lie below 3.1 gigahertz, because
    these frequencies have properties that make this portion of the spectrum
    well suited for many important wireless technologies. Radio waves are a
    form of electromagnetic radiation that propagate in space as the result of
    particle oscillations. The number of oscillations per second is called
    "frequency," which is measured in units of hertz. The term "kilohertz"
    refers to thousands of hertz and "gigahertz" to billions of hertz.

    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.8 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

    8Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee: Sept.
    1996. The FCC and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications
    and Information Administration formed the Advisory Committee in June 1995
    to provide advice on the specific wireless communications requirements of
    public safety agencies through the year 2010 and to make recommendations
    for meeting those needs. Members were drawn from private industry, federal
    agencies, and state and local public safety agencies. The FCC regulates
    state and local government use of radio frequency spectrum and the NTIA
    regulates federal government use of radio frequency spectrum.

    (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.9

    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.

      Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communications Problems Nationwide Are
      Unknown and Not Easily Identified and Catalogued

    9A Governor's Guide to Emergency Management. Volume Two: Homeland Security
    (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

    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.

        Federal Plans to Obtain Data on the Scope and Nature of Interoperable
        Communications Problems

    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.10 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

    10Wireless Communications and Interoperability Among State and Local Law
    Enforcement Agencies, January, 1998 by DOJ, and "Fire and EMS
    Communications Interoperability, April, 1999" by PSWN. DOJ's study
    concentrated on wireless interoperability issues within the state and
    local law enforcement community, while PSWN's study assessed
    communications interoperability issues within the fire and emergency
    medical services communities.

    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/AGILE11
    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
    selfassessments 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.

    11The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE)
    is a key DOJ program promoting wireless interoperability for first
    responders.

        Interoperability Issues Change as the Definition of First Responders Expands
        and Technology Evolves

    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.12 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."13

    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

    12Third Annual Report to the President and the Congress of the Advisory
    Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
    Weapons of Mass Destruction, December 15, 2001. The panel is generally
    referred to as the Gilmore Commission, after its Chairman James S.
    Gilmore, III.

    13Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, S: 2 (6), 116 Stat.
    2135, 2140.

    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
    highspeed 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.

    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

      Federal Role in Interoperability Problems Continues to Evolve

    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.

        Establishing National Requirements and a National Architecture

    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.14 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.

        Standard Databases to Support Interoperable Communications Not Established

    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

    14An enterprise architecture can be viewed as a link between an
    organization's strategic plan and the program and supporting systems
    implementation investments it intends to pursue to systematically achieve
    its strategic goals and outcomes. As such the architecture is basically a
    blueprint, defined largely by interrelated models, that describes (in both
    business and technology terms) an entity's "as is" or current environment,
    its "to be" future environment, and its investment plan for transitioning
    from the current to the future environment. See Information Technology:
    The Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies Enterprise Architectures
    Are Still Maturing GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).

    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 Center15 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 Committees16 and

    15The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) Support
    Office operates as part of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
    Technology Center- Rocky Mountain Center (NLECTC-RM). NLECTC is a program
    of the National Institute of Justice, the research and development arm of
    the U.S. Department of Justice. The NLECTC is hosted by the University of
    Denver. The NPSTC Support Office and its work on CAPRAD is funded by the
    Department of Justice AGILE program. AGILE funding also supports the FCC
    designated Regional Planning Committees.

    16In 1987, the FCC developed a National Plan for Public Safety Radio
    Services that set national guidelines for use of the 800 MHz spectrum
    while allowing regional public safety planning committees to develop
    regional plans tailored to their areas own particular communications
    needs. A large portion of the 700 MHz public safety spectrum,
    approximately 53 percent (12.5 MHz), is designated for general use by
    local, regional and state users. A regional planning process was adopted
    to govern management of this public safety spectrum. It is a similar
    process to that used in the 821-824 MHz and 866-869 MHz bands. Regional
    Planning Committees (RPCs) are allowed maximum flexibility to meet state
    and local needs, encourage innovative use of the spectrum, and accommodate
    new and as yet unanticipated developments in technology equipment. They
    are responsible for creating and managing regional plans.

    frequency coordinators17 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 precoordination 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.

        Common Terminology for Interoperable Channels Not Established

    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

    17FCC has certified specific associations to perform the coordination
    process used to choose appropriate frequencies for public safety mobile
    radio systems. This coordination is essential to ensure that the numerous
    systems across the country have clear and interference free operation on
    these critical radio systems.

    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.

        Converting SAFECOM's Functions to a Long-Term Program

    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 SAFECOM18 compared SAFECOM's progress
    against its overall objective of achieving national wireless

    18Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications Effort
    Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April
    2004).

    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.

        Multiple Federal Agencies Have Roles and Responsibilities for
        Interoperability

    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.19 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

    19Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
    Needed to Improve Spectrum Management, GAO-02-906 (Washington, D.C.:
    September, 2002).

    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.20

    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.21

        SAFECOM's Authority to Coordinate Federal and State Efforts Is Limited

    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

    20Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review Of U.S. Spectrum Management
    With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed, GAO-03-277 (Washington,
    D.C.: January 2003).

    21We did not evaluate these studies for purposes of this report.

    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)22 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.

    22FICC 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. Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within DOJ, DHS,
    Defense, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Commerce.

    SAFECOM officials noted that this newly refocused SAFECOM role does not
    include providing technical assistance or conducting operational testing
    of equipment.23 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.

        A New DHS Office of Interoperability and Compatibility

    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.

    23See appendix III for a discussion of SAFECOM's objectives to establish
    by 2005 (1) a research, development testing, and evaluation program that
    identifies and develops a longterm, sustainable technical foundation for
    interoperability improvements; and (2) a program to provide technical
    assistance to the public safety community.

      State and Local Governments' Roles in Statewide Interoperability Planning and
      Communications

    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.24 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.25 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

    24Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications
    for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2003).

    25Appendix IV discusses the evolving role of states and the challenges
    they face in addressing communications interoperability problems.

    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.

        State and Local Governments Well Positioned to Play Key Roles

    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.

        Statewide Interoperable Communications Committees Offer Potential for
        Coordinated Statewide Planning

    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.26

    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.27 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

    26FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or
    similar bodies, and 12 states with RPCs assuming the SIEC role. However,
    PSWN data show 7 states with SIECs, 13 states with SIEC like committees,
    15 states with statewide safety communication committees that have
    responsibilities broader than SIECs, and 15 states where RPCs have assumed
    SIEC responsibilities.

    27NCC, which had recommended SIECs at the state level to administer
    interoperability channels, concluded that some state governments may be
    using their SIECs to control all aspects of interoperability channels use
    rather than the administrative purposes as intended by FCC. In addition,
    NCC found that some states have expanded the role of their SIECs to
    include other state-level functions, such as procurement, and that, in the
    absence of FCC guidance, some states had designated SIECs without an
    appropriately broad range of public safety agency members.

    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.

    o  	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.

    o  	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.

    o  	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.

    o  	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.

        Content and Scope of Statewide Interoperability Plans Not Established

    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.28
    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

    28Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC's designated interoperability
    channels (except for certain legacy mutual aid channels) in the VHF and
    UHF bands.

    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.

        Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in Statewide
        Plans

    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.29 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.

    29NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-day
    communications needs of nonfederal public safety agencies.

      Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Statewide Planning

    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.30 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.

        Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
        Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans

    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
    welldeveloped 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

    30Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless Network
    Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.

    ODP.31 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.

        Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges
        to Short-and Long-Term Planning

    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 longterm
    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.32

    31In fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
    Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program. The new
    program includes three different grant programs.

    32In their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS officials
    said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable Communications
    Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology
    Program have a 1 year time period but that no-cost extensions of time were
    available to grantees on a case-by-case basis to accommodate unavoidable
    delays.

    UASI, HSG program, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants have 2-year
    performance periods.

        No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are Used
        to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability

    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.33 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),

    33In response to a draft report, DHS said that, in addition to outlining
    the eligibility for grant dollars and the purposes for which federal
    dollars can be used, the SAFECOM grant guidance provides consensus
    guidelines for implementing a wireless communications system. DHS said
    this guidance is useful in directing all agencies towards interoperability
    goals, even if they are not specifically applying for federal funding.

    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
    statelevel 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.

    Figure 2: Washington SIEC's Structure to Review Local Requests for
    Communications Funds

           Source: Washington State Emergency Management Division Officials.

    Conclusions 	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.

    Recommendations for 	To improve interoperable wireless communications for
    first responders, we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of
    Homeland

                                    Executive Action

    Security ensure that the following actions are taken:

    o  	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;

    o  	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;

    o  	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

    o  	At the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
    federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved only
    upon

      Agency Comments
      and Our Evaluation

    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.

    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 "bottomsup"
    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.

    William O. Jenkins, Jr. Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

                           Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    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

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

    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.

    Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning

      Radio Frequency Spectrum Band Structure

    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.

    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.)

    Figure 3: Current Public Safety Spectrum Allocations

    Source: National Task Force on Interoperability, When They Can't Talk
    Lives are Lost, February 2003.

    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

                      Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning

      Cross Border Planning

    Cross Border Radio Interference

    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.

    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.

    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

                      Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning

    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:

    o  	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.

    o  	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.

    o  Interference is also an issue along the Canadian border because
    spectrum

      Efforts to Address Cross Border Issues

    policies in the United States and Canada are not aligned. United
    Statesdevised solutions will not be able to be used in the shared Canadian
    area, according to local Washington State officials.

    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.

                      Appendix II: Cross Border Spectrum Planning

    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,1 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.

    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.2

      Problems Establishing a Single Public Safety Nationwide Frequency Band

    1The U.S.-Mexico Joint Commission on Resolution of Radio Interference is
    also known as the CMERAR in Spanish, the Joint Commission, or the Mixed
    Commission. The Joint Commission's principal mission is to resolve
    interference cases between U.S./Mexican users along our common borders.
    The CMERAR typically meets twice a year, and the Co-Chair of the U.S.
    Section is the Chief of FCCs Enforcement Bureau. Working groups meet on an
    as-needed basis and deal with interference cases on a local level.

    2The Department of Homeland Security in its written response to a draft of
    this report noted that the actual UHF band is 406.1 MHz to 420 MHz, since
    406 MHz is reserved for EPIRB signals to track downed airmen/aircraft etc.

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of Public
    Safety Wireless Communications

      Statement of Public Safety Interoperable Communications Requirements

    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.

    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

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

    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.

    DHS describes SAFECOM's current goals as a vision that by the year 2023

    "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

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

      Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program for Existing and Emerging
      Public Safety Communications and Interoperability

    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.

    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

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

    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.1 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

    1We did not review the NRL's system performance.

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

    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.

        Technical Assistance for Interoperable Public Safety Communications

    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

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

    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.

    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.

      Standards to Improve Interoperable Public Safety Communications

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

    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.

    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 emergencybased 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.

      Technological Near-Term Actions: Bridging Equipment

    Appendix III: Potential Near-Term Steps to Improve Interoperability of
    Public Safety Wireless Communications

    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.

    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.

      Technological Near-Term Actions: Technical Assistance and Independent
      Assessments of Alternative Technologies

    Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve

    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,1 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

    1National Strategy for Homeland Security, White House Office of Homeland
    Security.

    Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve

    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:

    o  	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

    Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve

    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.

    o  	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.

    o  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.

    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.

      Challenges in Addressing Communications Interoperability

    Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve

    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

    Appendix IV: Role of States Continues to Evolve

    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.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Interoperability
    Planning

      First Responder Federal Funding Is Structured to Support Short-Term Rather
      Than Long-Term Communication Needs

    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.

    A study conducted in 1998 estimated the current replacement value of the
    existing public safety LMR infrastructure nationwide at $18.3 billion.1
    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

    1Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, Public Safety Wireless Network
    Program, Fairfax, VA., June 1998.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    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
    longterm 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.2 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
    ongoing 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

    2SAFECOM has identified several investment areas that must be taken into
    account in the life-cycle of a public safety communication system, in
    their recent grant guidance. These include: planning for public safety
    communication systems; building communication systems; upgrading/enhancing
    communication systems and equipment; replacing communication systems and
    equipment; maintaining communication systems and equipment; training
    public safety staff on issues related to emergency response
    communications; and managing public safety communications projects.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    interoperable communications equipment3. In fiscal year 2004 FEMA's
    lineitem 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.

    3In technical comments to a draft of this report, COPS officials said of
    this $154 million, Congress directed that $5 million of COPS
    appropriations be earmarked for NIST and $3 million for NIJ/AGILE.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    Table 1: Changes to Funding Sources for Communications Interoperability
    Appropriated for Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004

                                  Dollars in millions

    Federal agency, department Grant name/ description administering the grant
    FY 2003 FY 2004

    FEMA Interoperable Communications Equipment Granta

         FEMA, DHS $80 COPS Interoperable Office of Community Oriented $75 $85

    Communications Technology Grant

    Policing Services, DOJ Homeland Security Grant Office for Domestic Preparedness,
                                     $2,066 $1,700

    Programb

    DHS Urban Areas Security Initiative Office for Domestic Preparedness, $596 $725

    Grant

             DHS Assistance to Fire-fighters Office for Domestic $750 $750

    Grant

                                   Preparedness,cDHS

    Emergency Management FEMA, DHS $165 $180 Performance Grants

      National Urban Search and Rescue Response System FEMA, DHS $60 $60 Local Law
             Enforcement Block Bureau of Justice Assistance, DOJ $400 $225

    Grants

        Edward Byrne Memorial State Bureau of Justice Assistance, DOJ $151 $159

    and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants

    Source: GAO analysis of congressional appropriations, the president's
    fiscal year 2005 budget proposal, DHS, DOJ, and Catalogue of Federal
    Domestic Assistance data.

    Notes: The fiscal year 2003 FEMA and COPS Interoperable Communications
    Equipment grants were grants specifically targeted toward improving first
    responder communication equipment to increase interoperability.

    aIn fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
    Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The new
    grant program includes three different grant programs.

    bUntil fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by FEMA.

    cThe president's fiscal year 2005 Budget Proposal funds this program under
    the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

    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

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    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.

    With new spectrum policies for narrow banding, local first responders are
    skeptical that they will have the staff resources to meet potentially
    significant additional workloads in these new challenges. For example,
    managers of a regional communication system serving multiple counties in
    Washington state documented this concern in a 2003 filing to the FCC. The
    filing stated,

    "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 rebanding 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."

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

      Federal Grants Encouraged a "Regional" Approach to Planning, but Lacked
      Requirements for Interoperability Communications Plans

    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:

    o  	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.

    o  	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.

    o  	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

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    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).4 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

    4In the application guidance, the Metropolitan Statistical Areas were
    defined as a core area containing a large population nucleus, together
    with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social
    integration with that core.

      Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support Interoperability
                                        Planning

      Grant Submissions and Performance Period Time Frames Also Present Challenges
      to Shortand Long-Term Planning

    communications planning based upon other characteristics. However, all
    four of the agencies encourage state and locals to conduct "regional"
    planning for communications.

    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

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    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.5 UASI, HSGP, and Local Law Enforcement
    Block Grants have 2-year performance periods.

    5 n their technical comments on a draft of this report, COPS officials
    said the performance period for the FY 2003 Interoperable Communications
    Technology Equipment and the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology
    Program have a one year time period but that no-cost extensions of time
    were available to grantees on a case-by-case basis to accommodate
    unavoidable delays.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

      Fragmented First Responder Grant Structure Complicates and Limits Coordination
      at the Federal, State, and Local Levels

    In our 2003 testimony,6 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.

    6See U.S. General Accounting Office, Reforming Federal Grants to Better
    Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO-03-1146T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 3, 2003).

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

     Table 2: Federal Interoperable Communications Grant Funding Sources and Their
                                     Eligible Uses

                          Federal agency,  Equipment
                            department
          Grant name/      administering  acquisition Planning Training Exercises
          description        the grant
    FEMA Interoperable                      X
         Communications      FEMA, DHS
        Equipment Granta
                             Office of
    COPS Interoperable    Community         X
         Communications      Oriented
        Technology Grant     Policing
                           Services, DOJ
                          Office for
    bHomeland Security Domestic             X         X        X         X
         Grant Program    Preparedness,
                                DHS
          Urban Areas     Office for
            Security      Domestic             X         X        X         X
        Initiative Grant  Preparedness,
                                DHS

        Assistance to Fire- fighters Grant      cOffice for Domestic      X   X
                                                    Preparedness,
                                                         DHS
         Emergency Management Performance             FEMA, DHS           X X X X
                      Grants
         National Urban Search and Rescue             FEMA, DHS           X   X X
                 Response System
        Local Law Enforcement Block Grants  Bureau of Justice Assistance, X X X
                                                         DOJ
         Edward Byrne Memorial State and    Bureau of Justice Assistance, X   X
                      Local                              DOJ
            Law Enforcement Assistance
               Discretionary Grants

    Source: GAO analysis of DHS and DOJ data.

    aThe Homeland Security Grant and all other grants listed, with the
    exception of the FEMA and COPS "Interoperable Communications Equipment
    grants," provide funding for various emergency preparedness activities,
    which may include improving interoperable communications.

    bIn fiscal year 2004, this grant program's name changed from State
    Homeland Security Grant to Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The new
    grant program includes three different grant programs.

    cUntil fiscal year 2004, this program was administered by the FEMA.

    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

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    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.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

      No Coordinated Federal or State Grant Review Exists to Ensure Funds Are Used
      to Improve Regional or Statewide Communications Interoperability

    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.7 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,

    7The COPS Application Guidance states that after eliminating duplicate
    MSAs from the two categories, their methodology resulted in the
    identification of 74 candidates that could apply for the grant. A lead
    jurisdiction was designated within the MSA to promote multijurisdictional,
    interoperable partnerships with neighboring localities. In the application
    guidance a Metropolitan Statistical Areas was defined as a core area
    containing a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities
    having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

    training, and standards.8 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.9 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.10 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

    8Proposed FICC members are federal agencies within the DOJ, DHS, Defense,
    Agriculture, and Commerce.

    9The Domestic Security Oversight Board prepares Domestic Security Funding
    Recommendations-including recommendations for funding interoperable
    communications-to the governor and state and legislature. Decisions on the
    used of federal and state homeland security funds are based upon the
    recommendations of the oversight board.

    10STO officials said that the one exception to this rule is their review
    of Emergency Medical Services grants, which requires a state-level review
    before approval for federal or state funds.

    Appendix V: Federal Grant Structure Does Not Fully Support
    Interoperability Planning

      No Comprehensive Grant Database Exists that Can Be Used to Facilitate Federal
      Oversight and Coordination of Funding to Jurisdictions

    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.

    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.

    Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce

    Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce

                            Appendix VII: Comments from the
                            Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

    Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contacts 	William O. Jenkins (202) 512-8777 Thomas James (202)
    512-2996

    Staff In addition to the above, Leo Barbour, Karen Burke, Katherine Davis,
    Sally Gilley, Robert Hadley, Latesha Love, Gary Malavenda, and Shirley
    PerryAcknowledgments made contributions to this report.

    GAO Related Products

    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.

    Bibliography

    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.

    Bibliography

    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.PAllen & Hamilton.
    Fairfax, Virginia: 1998.

    Public Safety Wireless Network. Report on Funding Mechanisms for Public
    Safety Radio Communications. Prepared by Booz .PAllen & 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.

    GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
    and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
    its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
    and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
    documents at no cost

    is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
    Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
    Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
    every afternoon, go to

    www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

      To Report Fraud, Contact:
      Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

    E-mail: fraudnet@gao.govFederal Programs Automated answering system: (800)
    424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
    512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

    Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202)
    512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***