Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental	 
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable	 
Communications (20-JUL-04, GAO-04-963T).			 
                                                                 
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,	 
local governments can play in improving these communications.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-963T					        
    ACCNO:   A11024						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and		      
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications					 
     DATE:   07/20/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Emergency preparedness				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Local governments					 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Safety standards					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Telecommunication					 
	     Interoperability					 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-963T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO	Testimony Before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats, and

International Relations
Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST HOMELAND SECURITY

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

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

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

GAO-04-963T

Highlights of GAO-04-963T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on National
Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives

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, local governments can play in improving these
communications.

GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS (1) continue to develop a
nationwide database of 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-04-963T.

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 [email protected].

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.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the critical
issue of wireless interoperable communications for first responders.1 In
testimony last November before this subcommittee, we pointed out that 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.2 Reports have shown that when first
responders cannot communicate effectively as needed, it can literally cost
lives of both emergency responders and those they are trying to assist.
Thus, effective communications between and among wireless communications
systems used by federal, state, and local public safety agencies is
generally accepted as not only desirable but essential for the protection
of life and property. Public safety officials generally recognize that
effective "interoperable" communications is the ability to talk with whom
they want, when they want, when authorized, but not the ability to talk
with everyone all of the time. The effective interoperability of wireless
systems permits a rapid and coordinated response to an emergency incident,
whether that incident is a "routine" spill from an overturned tanker truck
or railcar, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack.

In this statement and in the report we are releasing today,3 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

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.

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

3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Federal Leadership
and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications, GAO-04-740 (Washington, D.C.: July 2004).

the assessment of interoperable problems and the development of
comprehensive plans to address those problems.

In doing our work, we met with federal, state, and local officials,
obtained and reviewed appropriate documentation, attended several meetings
of public safety communications officials, and met with staff of the
National Governors Association. We conducted our work from July 2003
through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

o  	The fundamental barrier to effectively addressing wireless
interoperability problems for public safety has been the lack of
effective, collaborative,

                                    Summary

       interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental cooperation and planning.

Defining the Problem: Assessing Current Capabilities

o  	Interoperable communications needs are a function of effective
incident command planning and operations structure that defines, for
different circumstances and types of events, who is in charge and what
types of information-voice, data, or both-would need to be communicated to
whom under what circumstances.

o  	The current wireless interoperable communications capabilities of
first responders nationwide has not been determined. To assess these
capabilities a set of requirements is needed that can be used to assess
"what is" compared to "what should be." The Office of Management and
Budget has designated SAFECOM, within the Department of Homeland Security,
as the focal point for coordinating federal efforts to improve
interoperable communications. In April 2004, SAFECOM issued a document
designed to serve as a set of baseline requirements and is working to
develop a baseline of current capabilities by July 2005. This is a
difficult task, and the details of SAFECOM's baseline study are still
being worked out.

Federal Leadership and  o  The federal, state, and local governments all
have important roles in Intergovernmental assessing interoperability
needs, identifying gaps in meeting those needs, Cooperation Is Needed and
developing comprehensive plans for closing those gaps.

o  	The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term
commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet these
goals. For example, the federal government can provide the leadership and
support for developing (1) a national architecture that identifies
communications requirements and technical standards, (2) a national
database of interoperable communications frequencies, (3) a common
nomenclature for those frequencies, and (4) statewide interoperable
communications plans.

o  	SAFECOM's ability to provide federal leadership and coordination is
hampered by its dependence upon other federal agencies for funding and
cooperation. SAFECOM is to negotiate an annual memorandum of understanding
on funding or program participation with each federal agency that OMB has
designated as a partner with SAFECOM.

o  	DHS has recently created the Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility, which it expects to be fully established by November 2004.
As of June 2004, the exact structure and funding for the office, including
SAFECOM's role within the office, were still being developed.

o  	With broad input from local governments and first responders, states
can serve as focal points for statewide planning to improve interoperable
communications. The Federal Communications Commission has recognized the
important role of states by providing them authority to administer the
interoperability channels within the 700 MHz band of communications
spectrum.

o  	Some states are working to develop statewide plans. However, states
are not required to establish a statewide capability to (1) integrate
statewide and regional interoperability planning or (2) prepare statewide
interoperability plans that maximize use of spectrum to meet the range of
interoperability needs within the state. Nor is there is any guidance for
states on what such plans should include.

Federal Grant Structure Does Not Support Statewide Planning

o  	The fragmented federal grant structure for first responders does not
support statewide interoperability planning. SAFECOM has developed grant
guidance for interoperability, but cannot require that consistent guidance
be incorporated in all federal first responder grants.

o  	The structure of some federal grants does not support long-term
planning efforts because, for example, they did not require a
communications plan prior to receiving grant funds and required a 1-or
2-year performance period.

o  	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 capacity.

Recommendations

o

o

o

o

  Background

We recommend that the Secretary of DHS:

in coordination with the FCC and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, set target dates for completing the
development of a nationwide interoperable frequency database and common
nomenclature for those frequencies; establish national interoperable
communications requirements and assist states in assessing current
capacities against those requirements;

use DHS grant guidance to encourage states to establish a single statewide
body to assess and develop statewide plans for improving interoperable
communications; and

at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that all state
or local grant applications for equipment purchases conform with statewide
interoperable communications plans.

We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to SAFECOM
and establish those functions as a long-term program with adequate
coordination authority and funding.

DHS generally agreed with the first two recommendations, but did not
directly address the third and fourth recommendations. OMB had no comments
on our draft report or recommendations.

Interoperable communications is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a
necessary means for achieving an important goal-the ability to respond
effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions
of first responders, such as multi-vehicle accidents, natural disasters,
or terrorist attacks. Public safety officials have pointed out that needed
interoperable communications capabilities are based on whether
communications are needed for (1) "mutual-aid responses" or routine
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 available broadcast spectrum. 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

In addition, the first responder community is extensive and extremely
diverse in size and the types of equipment in their communications
systems. According to SAFECOM officials,4 there are over 2.5 million
public safety first responders within more than 50,000 public safety
organizations in the United States. Local and state agencies own over 90
percent of the existing public safety communications infrastructure. This
intricate public safety communications infrastructure incorporates a wide
variety of technologies, equipment types, and spectrum bands.5 In

4The Wireless Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (SAFECOM)
was established in 2001 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
focus on communications interoperability issues.

5Spectrum bands are the useable radio frequencies in the electromagnetic
distribution. Specific frequencies have been allocated to the public
safety community.

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 over 15 years, the federal government has been concerned with public
safety spectrum issues, including communications interoperability issues.6
A variety of federal departments and agencies have been involved in
efforts to define the problem and to identify potential solutions, such as
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the National
Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) within the Department of
Commerce (DOC), among others. Today, a combination of federal agencies,
programs, and associations are involved in coordinating emergency
communications.

DHS has several agencies and programs involved with addressing first
responder interoperable communication barriers, including the SAFECOM
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Office
for Domestic Preparedness (ODP). As one of its 24 E-Gov initiatives, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2001 created SAFECOM to unify the
federal government's efforts to help coordinate the work at the federal,
state, local, and tribal levels to establish reliable public safety
communications and achieve national wireless

6The 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.

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.

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 manufacturer 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 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 this
data may be difficult, however, because several problems inhibit efforts
to identify and define current interoperable communications capabilities
and future requirements.

First, 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 dayto-day
mutual aid, task force operations that occur when members of

  Nature and Scope of Interoperable Communication Problems Nationwide Are
  Unknown

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 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.

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/AGILE7
program planning meeting in December 2003, participants agreed that a
national baseline is necessary to know what the nation's 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. 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. 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.

7The Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement (AGILE)
is a key DOJ program promoting wireless interoperability for first
responders.

Second, 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 Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN)8
program office, Project 25 standards remain the only userdefined 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.

Third, 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.

8The 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.

  Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Is Needed

The federal government, states, and local governments have important roles
to play in assessing interoperability needs, identifying 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 help state and local governments meet these goals. For
example, currently national requirements for interoperable communications
are incomplete and no national architecture exists, there is no standard
database to coordinate frequencies, and no common nomenclature or
terminology 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. Moreover, the federal government alone can allocate
communications spectrum for public safety use.

Need to Establish 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.

A national architecture has not yet been prepared to guide the creation of
interoperable communications. An explicit, commonly understood, and
agreed-to blueprint, or enterprise architecture, is required to
effectively and efficiently guide modernization efforts. For a decade, GAO
has promoted the use of enterprise architectures, recognizing them as a
crucial means to a challenging goal-agency operational structures that

are optimally defined in both business and technological environments.9
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 and Common Nomenclature Not Yet Established

Technology solutions by themselves are not sufficient to fully address
communication interoperability problems in a given local government,
state, or multi-state region. State and local officials consider a
standard database of interoperable communications frequencies to be
essential to frequency planning and coordination for interoperability
frequencies and for general public safety purposes. 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.

The Public Safety National Communications Council (NCC), appointed by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was to make recommendations for
public safety use of the 700 MHz communications spectrum. The NCC
recommended that the FCC mandate (1) Regional

9An 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 U.S. General Accounting
Office, Information Technology: The Federal Enterprise Architecture and
Agencies Enterprise Architectures Are Still Maturing, GAO-04-798T
(Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).

Planning Committee10 use of a standard database to coordinate frequencies
during license applications and (2) specific names be designated for each
interoperability channel on all pubic safety bands. The NCC said that both
were essential to achieve interoperability because public safety officials
needed to know what interoperability channels were available and what they
were called. In January 2001, the FCC rejected both recommendations. It
said that the first recommendation was premature because the database had
not been fully developed and tested. The FCC directed the NCC to revisit
the issue of mandating the database once the database was developed and
had begun operation. The FCC rejected the common nomenclature
recommendation because it said that it would have to change the rules each
time the public safety community wished to revise a channel label. In its
final report of July 25, 2003, the NCC renewed both recommendations. It
noted that the FCC had received a demonstration of a newly developed and
purportedly operational database, the Computer Assisted Pre-Coordination
Resource and Database System (CAPRAD), and that its recommendations were
consistent with previous FCC actions, such as the FCC's designating
medical communications channels for the specifc purpose of uniform useage.

Converting SAFECOM's Functions To A Long-Term Program

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.11 In

10In 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 process
similar 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.

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency
Emergency Communications Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration,
GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2004).

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 cooperation and funding and has
operated without signed memorandums of understanding negotiated with
various agencies.

DHS, where SAFECOM now resides, announced in May 2004 that it had created
an Office for Interoperability and Compatibility within the Science and
Technology Directorate, to coordinate the federal response to the problems
of wireless and other functional interoperability and compatibility. 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 of DHS 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 creation of the office through
November 2004 but does not include costs to implement each portfolio's
strategy. The 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. As of June 2004, the
exact structure and funding for the office, including SAFECOM's role
within the office, were still being developed.

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
and the Office for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)12 in DOJ,
the Department of Defense, the FCC, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration within

12Congress authorized COPS within DOJ to administer the Interoperable
Communications Technology Program in 2003. The program awarded 14 grants
totaling more than $66 million to first responders for interoperable
communications and provides technical assistance to grantees.

the Department of Commerce, and other agencies. For example, AGILE is the
DOJ program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies to
effectively and efficiently communicate with one another across agency and
jurisdictional boundaries. The Homeland Security Act assigns the DHS
Office for Domestic Preparedness (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. ODP
also plans to develop tools to link these assessments to detailed
interoperable communications plans.

SAFECOM officials also will face a complex issue when they address public
safety spectrum management and coordination. The National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the
Department of Commerce is responsible for federal government spectrum use
and the FCC is responsible for state, local, and other nonfederal spectrum
use. 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. In September 2002, GAO reported that FCC and NTIA's
efforts to manage their respective areas of responsibility were not guided
by a national spectrum strategy and had not implemented longstanding
congressional directives to conduct joint, national spectrum planning.13
The FCC and the NTIA generally agreed with our recommendation that they
develop a strategy for establishing a clearly defined national spectrum
plan and submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees. In a
separate report, we also discussed several barriers to reforming spectrum
management in the United States.14 On June 24, 2004, the Department of
Commerce released two reports entitled

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Better Coordination
and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve Spectrum Management,
GAO-02-906 (Washington, D.C.: Sept., 2002).

14U.S. General Accounting Office, Telecommunications: Comprehensive Review
Of U.S. Spectrum Management With Broad Stakeholder Involvement Is Needed,
GAO-03-277 (Washington,D.C.: Jan., 2003).

Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century, the second of which contained
recommendations for assessing and managing public safety spectrum.

SAFECOM's Authority To Coordinate Federal And State Efforts Is Limited

SAFECOM has limited authority to coordinate federal efforts to assess and
improve interoperable communications. Although SAFECOM has developed
guidance for use in federal first responder grants, SAFECOM does not have
authority to require federal agencies to coordinate their grant award
information. SAFECOM is currently engaged in an effort with DOJ to create
a "collaborative clearinghouse" that could facilitate federal oversight of
interoperable communications funding to jurisdictions and allow states
access to this information for planning purposes. The database is intended
to decrease duplication of funding and evaluation efforts, de-conflict the
application process, maximize efficiency of limited federal funding, and
serve as a data collection tool for lessons learned that would be
accessible to state and locals. However, SAFECOM officials said that the
challenge to implementing the coordinated project is getting federal
agency collaboration and compliance. As of February 2004, the database
contained award information from the 2003 COPS and FEMA interoperability
communications equipment grants, but no others within or outside DHS.

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 Council15 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. They 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

15FICC 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.

a strategy to best utilize the SAFECOM program and examining options to
enforce the new coordination and reporting process. SAFECOM officials said
they are working to formalize the new reporting and coordination process
by developing written agreements with other federal agencies and by
obtaining concurrence of major state and local associations to the SAFECOM
governance structure. SAFECOM officials noted that this newly refocused
SAFECOM role does not include providing technical assistance or conducting
operational testing of equipment. They said that their authority to
conduct such activities will come from DHS enabling directives. SAFECOM
officials also said that they have no enforcement authority to require
other agencies to use the SAFECOM grant guidance in their funding
decisions or to require agencies to provide grant program information to
them for use in their database.

State and Local Governments Can Play a Central Role

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, Missouri, Washington 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.

States are key players in responding to normal all-hazards emergencies and
to terrorist threats. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 notes
that awards to states are the primary mechanism for delivery of federal
preparedness assistance for these missions. State and local officials also
believe that states, with broad local and regional participation, have a
key role to play in coordinating interoperable communications supporting
these missions. The Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN), in its report
on the role of the state in providing interoperable communications,
agreed. According to the PSWN report, state leadership in public safety
communications is key to outreach efforts that emphasize development of
common approaches to regional and statewide interoperability. The report
said that state officials have a vested interest in establishing and
protecting statewide wireless infrastructures because public safety
communications often must cross more than one local jurisdictional
boundary.16

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.

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

16See The Role of The States in Public Safety Wireless Interoperability,
PSWN (2002).

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. Available data indicate that
12 to 15 states did not create SIECs17 but have relied on Regional
Planning Committees or similar planning bodies.

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.

17FCC data show 38 states and the District of Columbia with SIECs or
similar bodies and 12 states with Regional Planning Committees (RPC)
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.

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.18
The Missouri SIEC has also designated standard operational and technical
guidelines as conditions for the use of these bands. SIEC requires
applicants to sign a MOU agreeing to these conditions in order to use
these channels in the state of Missouri. The Missouri SIEC Chairman said
the state developed its operational and technical guidelines because FCC
had not established its own guidelines for these interoperability channels
in the VHF and UHF bands. The chairman said Missouri borders on eight
other states and expressed concern that these states will develop
different guidelines that are incompatible with the Missouri guidelines.
He said FCC was notified of Missouri's actions but has not taken action to
date. In another example, California intends to prepare a statewide
interoperability plan. California's SIEC is re-examining California's
previous stove piped programs of communications interoperability (separate
systems for law enforcement, fire, etc.) in light of the need to maintain
tactical channels within disciplines while promoting cross-discipline
interoperability.

Coordination of Federal and State Interoperable Frequencies in Statewide
Plans

FCC designated frequency coordinators19 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 FBI are not integrated into
hospital or health communications systems, and other federal agencies

18Missouri SIEC responsibility includes FCC's designated interoperability
channels (except for certain legacy mutual aid channels) in the VHF and
UHF bands.

19FCC 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.

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; 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.

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.20 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.

  Federal Grant Structure Does Not 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.21 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

20NTIA states that these frequencies may not be used to meet day-to-day
communications needs of non-federal public safety agencies.

21Land Mobile Radio Replacement Cost Study, PSWN (June 1998).

resources state and local agencies must use in order to address these
costs. Furthermore, given the 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.

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 Homeland Security Grant (HSG) and Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI) grants require states or selected jurisdictions to
conduct a needs assessment and submit a Homeland Security Strategy to
ODP.22 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 COPS and FEMA for
the Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants did not require that a
communications plan be completed prior to receiving grant funds. However,
grantees were required to provide documentation that they were actively
engaged in a planning process and a multi-jurisdictional and
multidisciplinary project narrative was required. In addition to
variations in requirements to create communications interoperability
plans, federal

22In 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.

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, several federal grant programs-the
Homeland Security Grant, UASI grant, COPs and FEMA communication equipment
grants, Assistance to Firefighters Grant-allow states only 30 or 60 days
from the date of grant announcement to submit a grant proposal. These time
frames are sometimes driven by appropriations language or by the timing of
the appropriations enactment. Furthermore, many grants have been awarded
to state and locals for communications interoperability that have 1- or
2-year performance periods, and according to state and local officials, do
not support long-term solutions. For example, Assistance to Fire Fighters
Grants, COPS/ FEMA's Interoperable Communications Equipment Grants, and
National Urban Search and Rescue grants all have 1-year performance
periods.23 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

23In 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.

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.24 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.

The House Committee on Appropriations report for the DHS FY 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 decisions or to require
agencies to provide grant program information to them for use in their
database.

24DHS officials 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.

  Conclusions

Recommendations

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 and unique public safety agency missions 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 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.

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:

o  	in coordination with the FCC and National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, continue to develop a nationwide database of
public safety frequency channels and a standard nationwide nomenclature
for these channels, with clear target dates for completing both efforts;

o  	establish requirements for interoperable communications 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 to assess interoperability and develop a comprehensive
statewide interoperability plan for federal, state, and local
communications systems in all frequency bands; and

o  	at the appropriate time, require through DHS grant guidance that
federal grant funding for communications equipment shall be approved only
upon certification by the statewide body responsible for interoperable
communications that grant applications for equipment purchases conform
with statewide interoperability plans.

We also recommend that the Director of OMB, in conjunction with DHS,
review the interoperability mission and functions now assigned to

SAFECOM 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.
OMB did not provide written comments on the draft report.

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee my have
at this time.

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.

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: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (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, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***