Public Safety Communications Policy

Public Safety Communications Policy
Updated January 31, 2007
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Public Safety Communications Policy
Summary
Since September 11, 2001, the effectiveness of America’s communications
capabilities in support of the information needs of first responders and other public
safety workers has been a matter of concern to Congress. The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) included sections that
responded to recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, in its report of July
2004, and by others in recent years, regarding public safety communications. Most
public safety advocates consider that the communications failures following the
onslaught of Hurricane Katrina demonstrate that there is much still to be done to
provide the United States with adequate communications capabilities in emergencies.
Senator Susan M. Collins introduced a bill (S. 3595), to reinforce the authority
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), including planning and organizational responsibilities for emergency
communications. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for
2007 (H.R. 5441, Representative Rogers) incorporated provisions from S. 3595 that
were accepted by the Senate as S.Amdt. 4560. Many of the provisions in the agreed
version of S.Amdt. 4560 were based on provisions in H.R. 5351 (Representative
Reichert). The House passed H.R. 5351, the National Emergency Reform and
Enhancement Act, on July 25, 2006. The appropriations bill was agreed in
conference and signed by the President on October 4, 2006 (P.L. 109-295). The
sections that deal with emergency communications (Title VI, Subtitle D) add
substantive language for improving emergency communications to the Homeland
Security Act, building on provisions included in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act.
Many of the proposed bills introduced in the 109^th Congress that would have
aided public safety and emergency communications were written to strengthen the
federal government’s capabilities in responding to emergencies. Bills introduced
include S. 3721 (Senator Collins); H.R. 5852 (Representative Reichert ); S. 3172
(Senator Clinton); H.R. 5759 (Representative Harris); S. 1725 (Senator Lieberman)
and S. 1703 (Senator Kerry).
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) includes provisions for up
to $1 billion for interoperable communications, as well as for improvements in 911
and emergency alert systems. H.R. 5252 as amended in committee by the Senate,
re-titled the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act, includes
detailed language on the dispersal of funds designated for interoperable
communications, including 911.
This report has been updated to cover key events through December 31, 2006.
It is a reference document, only.

Contents
Background ..................................................1
Planning: Post Katrina.........................................2^th
Issues for the 109 Congress.....................................3
Accountability and Oversight................................3
Leadership ...............................................4
Role of Military...........................................4
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund..............5
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act....................6
Spectrum Allocation...........................................7
Improving Spectrum Capacity for Public Safety..................7
Communications Support and Interoperability......................11
Interoperability: SAFECOM................................12
Interoperability: Integrated Wireless Network..................12
Interoperability: First Responders............................13
Emergency Communications: Recent Legislation....................14
New Legislation for Emergency Communications...............14
Current Funding Programs..................................16
Some Recommendations from the Public Safety Sector...............17
Spectrum Policy Initiative......................................18
Appendix: Federal Administration...................................20
National Telecommunications and Information Administration.........20
Federal Communications Commission............................21
Homeland Security........................................21
Spectrum and Interoperability...............................22
Department of Homeland Security ...............................22
National Response Plan....................................22
Office of Interoperability and Compatibility....................23
SAFECOM ..............................................23
SAFECOM Strategy as an E-Government Initiative..............26
Regional Technology Integration Initiative.........................29
National Incident Management System (NIMS).....................29
Integrated Wireless Network....................................30
National Communications System................................30
Other Coordinating Bodies.....................................31

Public Safety Communications Policy
Background
Public safety agencies include the nation’s first responders (such as firefighters,
police officers, and ambulance services), 911 call center staff, and a number of local,
state, federal — and sometimes regional — authorities. Communications, often
wireless radios, are vital to these agencies’ effectiveness and to the safety of their
members and the public. Wireless technology requires radio frequency capacity in
order to function, and existing wireless technology is designed to work within
specified frequency ranges.
Different operations, different applications, different rules and standards, and
different radio frequencies are among the problems first responders face in trying to
communicate with each other. Interoperability, also referred to as compatibility or
connectivity, refers to the capability for different systems to readily connect to each
other. Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public safety
officials for a number of years.¹ However, public safety agencies — especially at the
local level — tend to rely on vendors for technical expertise. Interoperable solutions,
therefore, are often based on proprietary systems, limiting the scope of connectivity.
One way to bypass the vendor-driven planning that characterizes, and limits, public
safety communications could be to implement a national plan that encouraged
resource-sharing and standardized interfaces, while promoting the transition to open
source architecture. At the level of national policy for emergency planning and
response, for example, goals for interoperability could include interchangeability,
assuring that equipment from any agency, state, or community could be used to
replace or supplement equipment in any area of the country, as needed.
Since September 11, 2001 — when communications failures added to the horror
of the day — achieving interoperability for public safety communications has become
an important policy concern for Congress. The damage to communications
infrastructure caused by Hurricane Katrina and subsequent flooding has revealed the
extent to which the concerns of Congress, as expressed in legislation, have yet to be
acted upon. Although many replacements for lost communications equipment were
rushed to critical sites in the Gulf Coast states, they were usually different systems
using different radio frequencies, with little or no capability for cross-
communication. Although interoperability in communications is correctly perceived
as a subset of the larger problem of providing comprehensive communications
support, it is a pivotal solution. Interoperability provides redundancy and back-up
capacity, key elements for a robust network. Some have suggested that the current

¹ Difficulties in communications after a major plane crash in the Potomac River in January

1982 is often cited as the impetus for expanding interoperability in the Capital Area.

definition widely used in discussing interoperability may be too general,² and that a
fuller articulation of planning goals should be developed to guide policy. Many
experts agree that — at this point in what can only be described as an ongoing crisis
in communications capacity — a critical missing element is planning at the national
level. In this view, national planning — whether undertaken at the federal level,
through a consortium of states, or other means — is needed to transcend proprietary
solutions and bring about consensus on common interfaces with uniform standards
that permit full interoperability and interchangeability for newer, digital equipment.
Federal policy also could guide public safety communications purchases toward a
transition to open source platforms. Standardized interfaces can link existing, non-
standard (e.g. proprietary) systems and networks; for planning purposes this could
require, for example, a federal mandate for interoperable standards for “cross talk”
systems provide by companies such as M/A Com, Motorola and Raytheon. Open
architecture standards would ensure that systems were fully interoperable, with
equipment that was fully interchangeable; an example of planning would be a
program to encourage the development and use of open source architectures.
Planning: Post Katrina
Federalization of emergency response for disasters or catastrophic events could
become inevitable unless states and communities have adequate resources to act in
a timely manner. Current disaster response plans of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) are built on the assumption that local resources will
be adequate after a disaster strikes until additional resources arrive. The destructive
chaos that followed in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita revealed many
weakness in current assumptions and plans, such as those in the National Response
Plan and the National Incident Management System. Two critical pieces of
infrastructure failed early on: electrical power and communications. A well-planned
and robust emergency communications system should be sustainable at reasonable
levels of operation even after electrical power is lost. Resources to sustain operations
include back-up generators and fuel, redundant systems, self-healing networks,
access to multiple communications channels, common radio frequencies for wireless
communications, sufficient spectrum bandwidth to support communications needs,
and the proper equipment and infrastructure to make it all work. As testimony before
Congress has regularly substantiated, industry plans for disasters, prepares to the best
of its capacity, and carries out the plans as needed;³ similar levels of planning and

² One frequently-cited definition of interoperability has been provided by the government
agency SAFECOM. “In general, interoperability refers to the ability of public safety
emergency responders to work seamlessly with other systems or products without any
special effort. Wireless communications interoperability specifically refers to the ability of
public safety officials to share information via voice and data signals on demand, in real
time, when needed, and as authorized.” [http://www.safecomprogram.gov].
³ For example, testimony from telecommunications executives at hearing of Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Communications in a Disaster,”
September 22, 2005.

capacity to respond need to be achieved for emergency communications (and other
public safety services) in communities.⁴
Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed important legislation to respond
to problems revealed after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
including problems of communications at the disaster sites. Provisions of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) instruct the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to address some of the issues concerning public safety
communications in emergency preparedness and response and in providing critical
infrastructure. Telecommunications for first responders is mentioned in several
sections, with specific emphasis on technology for interoperability.⁵ Acting on
recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States (9/11 Commission), Congress included several sections regarding
improvements in communications capacity — including clarifications to the
Homeland Security Act — in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
of 2004 (P.L. 108-458).
Issues for the 109^th Congress
By requirements it included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act — for
studies on interoperability strategies, use of technology, spectrum use, and more —
Congress has assigned itself a number of specific tasks of oversight regarding
emergency communications. Congress also has recognized the many dilemmas faced
by its constituents in supporting communications interoperability. It has in many
ways taken on the role of champion in support of programs for interoperability that
benefit local communities, states and tribes. Some steps have been taken, particularly
within DHS, and Congress has demanded further advances.⁶ Despite indications of
progress, much remains to be done. Issues that could be addressed — collectively
or singly — by Congress, the Administration, the private sector, or others include the
development of a long term strategy that coordinates both public safety spectrum
needs and interoperable communications needs, and the coordination of the various
studies requested by Congress and by the Administration. The findings and
recommendations from these studies could be valuable in the advancement of policy
for public safety.
Accountability and Oversight. The achievement of a comprehensive set
of solutions for interoperability outside the federal government’s own
communications needs appears to remain elusive. Participation of the federal
government in a national solution for interoperability does not necessarily require

⁴ For example, testimony and comments at hearing of House of Representatives, Committee
on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and
Technology, “The State of Interoperable Communications: Perspectives from the Field,”
February 15, 2006.
⁵ Notably, P.L. 107-296, Sec. 201. and Sec. 502.
⁶ See for example, comments and questions of members during hearing of the House of
Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Science and Technology, “Ensuring Operability During Catastrophic Events,”
October 26, 2005.

federal ownership. The federal government is an important component, however, of
any network that might be put in place to provide interoperable communications. In
light of the critical role of federal participation, Congress could decide to extend its
oversight role; proposed legislation also includes provisions that set higher standards
for performance from federal agencies, notably the Department of Homeland
Security. Two reports from Congressional investigations into shortcomings in
planning and response for disasters such as Hurricane Katrina have been published.⁷
The administration also has released an account of the federal response to the
disaster.⁸ All of these reports recognize the need for a national strategy for
emergency communications and data networks.
Leadership. The devastation caused by the 2005 hurricane season, especially
the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast states, brought home to many how
large the gap is between intentions and execution. As noted in another CRS report,⁹
after FEMA was absorbed by DHS it was effectively “stripped” of responsibilities
for planning for emergency communications. The leadership role for preparing a
national strategy for communications interoperability was assigned to the Office of
Interoperability and Compatibility within DHS, resting primarily with the
SAFECOM program. The decision was made at the executive level that SAFECOM
would be the lead agency for communications interoperability, a position that was
strengthened by organizational changes within DHS, and ratified by Congress with
the passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. With the^st
passage of the 21 Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295,
Title V, Subtitle D), this authority is shifted to a new Administrator for Emergency
Communications — within a newly fortified FEMA — that has authority for the
direction of most of SAFECOM’s programs as well as the Department’s¹⁰
responsibilities for the Integrated Wireless Network (see below).
Role of Military.¹¹ The 9/11 Commission has proposed using a signal corps
solution to improve communications capacity, without elaborating on how this might
be achieved. (Some information on signal corps organization and technology appears
later in this report.) Many experts familiar with the macro-level concepts of signal
corps communications support suggest that one approach for public safety could be
to upgrade the type of emergency communications equipment that can be brought to
a disaster site so that it resembles the far-reaching capabilities and capacity of the

⁷ “A Failure of Initiative: The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to
Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina,” House of
Representatives, February 12, 2006 and “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared,”
report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Senate, May 2006.
⁸ “The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina” Lessons Learned,” report to the President,
Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism, February 23, 2006.
⁹ CRS Report RL33064, Organization and Mission of the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate: Issues and Options for the 109^th Congress, by Keith Bea.
¹⁰ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(d) ‘(1) and ‘(2).
¹¹ Information on response capabilities is in CRS Report RL33095, Hurricane Katrina:
DOD Disaster Response, by Steve Bowman et al.

Army Signal Corps yet is readily accessible to local first responders and other
officials “on the ground.” In many situations, search and rescue teams in New
Orleans and other devastated communities could not communicate with each other
because their radios did not use the same frequencies. The difficulties in coordination
placed an extra burden on relief efforts. Rescue efforts improved after military forces
arrived in part because of their units’ superior communications resources. Effective
command-and-control operations depend on communications links. Just as the 9/11
Commission looked at the Army Signal Corps as a possible resource for improving
interoperable communications, many are now weighing the possibility of giving a
greater role to the military for emergency response within the United States. Bottom
line, in this view, today the military has the communications equipment to do the job
of emergency response while FEMA, the states, and first responders do not.¹² The
technology exists, but it has not been deployed at meaningful levels. Although the
stories of the failures in organization in responding to disasters on the Gulf Coast are
legion, in the area of emergency communications it was usually the inadequate
technology that failed first, not the people.
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund. The Balanced¹³
Budget Act of 1997 requires the FCC to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum at 700 MHz
to public safety, without providing a hard deadline for the transfer.¹⁴ The channels
designated for public safety are among those currently held by TV broadcasters; they
are to be cleared as part of the move from analog to digital television (DTV). The
9/11 Commission urged that Congress take prompt action to assure the release of
spectrum at 700 MHz — allocated for public safety, but not released — to support
needed interoperable network and more robust communications capacity. Provisions
in the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171) plan for the release of spectrum by¹⁵
February 18, 2009 and would create a fund to receive spectrum auction proceeds
and disburse designated sums to the Treasury and for other purposes.¹⁶ $7,363
million from these auctions would go to reduce the budget deficit as specified in
H.Con.Res. 95.¹⁷ Other disbursements from the fund include a grant program of up
to $1,000 million for public safety agencies to deploy systems on 700 MHz spectrum

¹² The military is generally perceived to have cutting-edge communications technology and
clear chains of command for the technology. A survey of perceptions of capacity at the state
and local level is being compiled in the SAFECOM Interoperability Baseline Survey.
¹³ Radio frequency spectrum is measured in hertz. Radio frequency is the portion of
electromagnetic spectrum that carries radio waves. The distance an energy wave takes to
complete one cycle is its wavelength. Frequency is the number of wavelengths measured
at a given point per unit of time, in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Typical designations
are: kHz — kilohertz or thousands of hertz; MHz — megahertz, or millions of hertz; and
GHz — gigahertz, or billions of hertz.
¹⁴ 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j) (14).
¹⁵ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3002 (a) (1) (B).
¹⁶ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004 (3) “(E) “(I) and (ii).
¹⁷ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3004 (3) “(E) “(iii).

they will receive as part of the transition.¹⁸ The fund and disbursements are to be
administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA). The act also requires the release of spectrum by February 2009. For the
funds to be used effectively, therefore, states would benefit from completed plans for
using 700 MHz. Although there are a number of provisions for funding programs for
communications and planning, none of the existing programs is designed to profit
from the new grants program.
Effective October 1, 2006, the NTIA will be able to borrow funds for
communications interoperability grants. The Congressional Budget Office has
projected that the grants program will receive $100 million in FY2007, $370 million
in 2008, $310 million in 2009 and $220 million in 2010.¹⁹ The grants are to go for
interoperability programs that use or are interoperable with communications systems
that can work at 700 MHz.²⁰ A key criteria is that at least 20% of the costs for
acquisition and deployment come from non-federal sources.²¹ H.R. 5252 as amended
in committee by the Senate (S. 2686) includes detailed language on the dispersal of
funds designated for interoperable communications and 911.²²
The 109^th Congress, in its closing hours, passed a bill with a provision requiring
that the interoperability grants program receive “no less than” $1 billion to be
provided “no later than” September 30, 2007,²³ effectively advancing the full amount
immediately.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11
Commission) analysis of communications difficulties on September 11, 2001 was
summarized in the following recommendation.
Congress should support pending legislation which provides for the expedited
and increased assignment of radio spectrum for public safety purposes.
Furthermore, high-risk urban areas such as New York City and Washington,
D.C., should establish signal corps units to ensure communications connectivity
between and among civilian authorities, local first responders, and the National
Guard. Federal funding of such units should be given high priority by²⁴

Congress.
¹⁸ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006.
¹⁹ Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
January 27, 2006, p. 21, [http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7028&sequence=0].
²⁰ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (a) (1) and (d) (3).
²¹ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3006 (c).
²² H.R. 5252, Sec. 151.
²³ P. L. 109-459, Sec. 4 (Call Home Act of 2006, Senator Stevens).
²⁴ The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11
Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
(continued...)

The Commission, in this paragraph, recognized the important link between
access to spectrum and the effectiveness of communications technology. Briefly, the
recommendation says:
^!free up and assign more spectrum for public safety use;
^!establish communications support (the role of a signal corps
typically is to provide information systems and networks for real-
time command and control);
^!with interoperable communications (connectivity); and
^!prioritize funding these communications operations for high-risk
urban areas.
Spectrum Allocation
Although, cumulatively, radio frequencies designated for non-federal public²⁵
safety total over 90 MHz, the characteristics of these frequencies are dis-similar,
requiring different technological solutions. The fragmentation of spectrum
assignments for public safety is a significant barrier to achieving needed capacity for
the future, and is presently among the technical problems that plague public safety
communications, such as out-of-date equipment, proprietary solutions, congestion,
and interference. An immediate barrier to interoperability is — simply put — that²⁶
UHF and VHF frequencies cannot connect directly with each other, and that older,
analog equipment widely used below 512 MHz cannot connect with newer digital
equipment at 800 MHz. Technology for new frequencies at 4.9 GHz is still in the
early stage of development but these frequencies appear suitable primarily for local-
area (short-range) transmission. None of the above frequency assignments can, using
current technology, support wide-area communications relying on high-speed, data-
rich transmissions. Providing new spectrum at 700 MHz for broadband
communications capabilities, including interoperable connections, is viewed by many
as the optimal solution for overcoming problems caused by incompatible radio
frequencies and technologies.
With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act, Congress achieved an important
milestone in providing a date certain for the release of spectrum at 700 MHz for
public safety use by February 2009.²⁷
Improving Spectrum Capacity for Public Safety. The Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act required the FCC, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security and the National Telecommunications and

²⁴ (...continued)
the United States, (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 397.
²⁵ Estimated at approximately 97 MHz in Testimony of Michael K. Powell, Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission, at Hearing of Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, “Spectrum for Public Safety Users,” September 8, 2004.
²⁶ Very High Frequency (VHF) operates in bands between 30 MHz to 300 MHz and Ultra
High Frequency (UHF) operates in bands between 300 MHz and 3 GHz.
²⁷ February 18, 2009. P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3002 (a) (1) (B).

Information Administration (NTIA),²⁸ to conduct a study on the spectrum needs for
public safety, including the possibility of increasing the amount of spectrum at 700
MHz.²⁹ This provision is responsive to the many public safety officials who believe
that additional spectrum should be assigned for public safety use — and not
exclusively for first responders.³⁰ In addition to providing spectrum for other types
of users, the spectrum available for public safety should be able to support high-
speed transmissions capable of quickly sending data (such as photographs, floor
plans and live video). This requires providing frequencies with greater bandwidth
to enable wireless broadband and new-generation technologies. Although radio
frequencies have been designated for state and local public safety use in the 700 MHz
range, there are no allocations specifically for federal use at 700 MHz and the
bandwidth assignments are judged by most experts to be too narrow for full
broadband. Many have advocated that additional spectrum be allocated at 700 MHz
to accommodate federal users and to support newer, broadband wireless technologies
as part of a nationwide network for public safety communications. The Spectrum
Coalition for Public Safety, for example, has circulated proposals that would allocate
additional spectrum at 700 MHz for use by state and local first responders, critical
infrastructure industries, and federal public safety agencies.³¹
In the study requested by Congress, the FCC sought comment on whether
additional spectrum should be made available for public safety, possibly from the 700
MHz band. Comments received from the public safety community overwhelmingly
supported the need for additional spectrum, although other bands besides 700 MHz
were also mentioned. The FCC did not make a specific recommendation for
additional spectrum allocations in the short-term although it stated that it agreed that
public safety “could make use of such an allocation in the long-term to provide
broadband services.”³² It qualified this statement by observing that spectrum is only
one factor in assuring access to mobile broadband services for emergency response.
It further announced that it would move expeditiously to see whether the current band
plan for the 24 MHz at 700 MHz currently designated for public safety could be

²⁸ The NTIA, Department of Commerce, administers federal use of spectrum.
²⁹ P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (a).
³⁰ In 1997 amendments to the Communications Act of 1934 , Congress defined public safety
services as “services — (A) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety
of life, health or property; (B) that are provided (i) by State or local government entities; or
(ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity whose
primary mission is the provision of such services ; and (C) that are not made commercially
available to the public by the provider.” [47 U.S.C. § 337 (f)(1)]. The Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act uses the more restrictive definition of first responders as
provided in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. § 101).
³¹ Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety at [http://www.spectrumcoalition.dc.gov/]. Report
at [http://www.spectrumcoalition.dc.gov/img/PS_Whitepaper_10-25-05.pdf] on public
safety spectrum needs. Viewed January 29, 2007.
³² Report to Congress on the Study to Assess Short-term and Long-term Needs for
Allocations of Additional Portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Federal, State and
Lxcal Emergency Response Providers, Federal Communications Commission, December

19, 2005, at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262865A1.pdf].

(Paragraph 99). Viewed July 17, 2006.

modified to accommodate broadband applications.³³ On March 17, 2006, the FCC
issued a request for comment on a new band plan that would allocate spectrum for
broadband use by first responders within the 24 MHz currently assigned for public
safety. The same proposed rulemaking also asked for additional comment on the
possible adaptation of a wireless broadband standard for interoperability.³⁴
The FCC received over 1,000 responses by December 2006, with many
comments from the public safety community and commercial wireless interests. One
petition, from a company called Cyren Call Communications Corporation, received
widespread publicity in the press and through lobbying to Congress. The petition
requested the reallocation of 30 MHz (half of the 60MHz currently designated for
auction for commercial use by the Deficit Reduction Act)³⁵ to a “Public Safety
Broadband Trust.”³⁶ According to the proposal, the trust would lease capacity not
used by public safety to commercial operators that would provide the network
infrastructure. The FCC denied Cyren Call’s petition, citing, among other reasons,
the Congressional mandate to auction the spectrum Cyren Call proposed to use.³⁷
Other proposals for joint operations were also submitted. One proposal, developed
by Access Spectrum and Pegasus Communications Corporation, suggested
accommodating broadband wireless by rebanding the 24 MHz allocated to public
safety and adding 3 MHz from existing guardband allocations, with some of the
spectrum shared with commercial operators.³⁸ Verizon Wireless reportedly proposed
to build a broadband network for public safety use on half of the 24 MHz of spectrum
assigned to public safety, using the other 12 MHz for mixed use, with the cost of
building the infrastructure recovered through leasing arrangements and fees.³⁹
In December 2006, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
proposed to turn over management of the 24MHz of spectrum designated for public
safety to a not-for-profit group that would, among other responsibilities, hold a
national license that would support public safety with a broadband wireless
backbone.⁴⁰ In the NPRM, the FCC states that it is responding to “an opportunity
to put in place a regulatory framework that would ensure the availability of effective

³³ Ibid., paragraph 100.
³⁴ FCC, Eighth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket 96-86, released March 17,

2006.

³⁵ P.L. 109-171, Sec. 3003.
³⁶ For a summary of the proposal and a copy of the filing, see [http://www.cyrencall.com]
Viewed January 9, 2007.
³⁷ FCC, Order, RM No. 11348 released November 3, 2006.
³⁸ One description of the proposal is provided in jopint comments filed with the FCC at
[http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/r e t r i e ve .cgi ?nat i ve_or _pdf =pdf &i d_document= 65183

59019]. Viewed January 11, 2007.

³⁹ “Verizon Wireless Pitches Plan to Build Public-safety Network using 700 MHz Band,”
by Heather Forsgren Weaver, RCR Wireless News, September 6, 2006.
⁴⁰ FCC, Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. WT 96-86, released December
20, 2006 at [http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2278A1.pdf]; see
paragraph 4 for summary.

spectrum in the 700 MHz band for interoperable, public safety use.”⁴¹ To achieve
this, the FCC is presenting a “plan that we believe may best promote the rapid
deployment of a nationwide, interoperable broadband public safety network . . .[with]
a centralized and national approach to maximize public safety access....”⁴²
The NPRM outlines seven points.
^!Allocate 12 MHz from the 700 MHz band assigned to public safety
for broadband use by state and local public safety members.
^!Assign this 12 MHz of spectrum to a single licensee, nationwide.
^!Permit this licensee to operate commercially on the remaining 12
MHz allotted to public safety with public safety having priority
access when needed.
^! Permit the licensee to provide public safety broadband access on a
fee for service basis.
^!Permit the licensee to provide unconditionally preemptible access to
commercial operators.
^!Facilitate the shared use of commercial mobile infrastructure.
^!Establish “performance requirements for interoperability, build out,
preemptibility of commercial access, and system robustness.”⁴³
In the NPRM, the FCC states its case for how the proposal meets objectives for
“public safety communications in the twenty-first century”⁴⁴ and provides some
information about the selection of a national licensee and the license-holder’s
obligations. The FCC proposes that the licensee should meet criteria such as not-for-
profit status, experience with public safety frequency coordination, and the ability to
directly represent all public safety interests. Responsibilities would include the
design and implementation, build-out, and maintenance of a national network, the
coordination of eligibility for access for public safety, and the leasing of capacity to
commercial users.⁴⁵ The licensee would be able to charge fees for the use of its
services, such as access to the network, to both public safety and commercial users.⁴⁶
The NPRM also seeks comments on secondary operations by commercial users
on the remaining 12 MHz of spectrum assigned by Congress for public safety use.
Currently the FCC permits public safety licensees to lease spectrum assigned to them
only for use by other public safety entities. The FCC uses the NPRM to propose
exempting the new, national public safety licensee from limitations it imposes on
existing public safety entities.⁴⁷

⁴¹ Ibid., paragraph 2.
⁴² Ibid., paragraph 3.
⁴³ Ibid., paragraph 4.
⁴⁴ Ibid., paragraph 11.
⁴⁵ Ibid., paragraph 27.
⁴⁶ Ibid., paragraphs 28 - 30.
⁴⁷ Ibid., paragraph 45.

Public safety’s demand for spectrum fluctuates from modest during routine
operations to high during times of crisis. Many would agree that sharing frequencies
and access to networks with commercial operations makes sense. The FCC is
proposing to share spectrum by halving public safety’s allotment of exclusive
spectrum from 24MHz to 12MHz in the 700 MHz band. Alternative solutions for
spectrum sharing could be achieved through relocation in other bands or by
designating other 700 MHz frequencies for shared use.⁴⁸
Communications Support and Interoperability
The 9/11 Commission recommendation to use signal corps to assure
connectivity in high-risk areas is apparently a reference to the Army Signal Corps.
In testimony before Congress, Commissioner John F. Lehman commented on the
lack of connectivity for first responders and referred to the “tremendous expertise”
of the Department of Defense (DOD) and its capabilities in procurement, technology,
and research and development. Referring specifically to the Army Signal Corps, Mr.
Lehman suggested that the DOD should have responsibility to provide “that kind of
support to the first responders in the high-target, high risk cities like New York.”⁴⁹
The role of a signal corps typically is to provide information systems and
networks for real-time command and control. The Army maintains mobile units to
provide capacity and specialized support to military operations, worldwide.
According to the U.S. Army Info Site on the Internet
The mission of the Signal Corps is to provide and manage communications and
information systems support for the command and control of combined arms
forces. Signal support includes Network Operations (information assurance,
information dissemination management, and network management) and
management of the electromagnetic spectrum. Signal support encompasses all
aspects of designing, installing, maintaining, and managing information networks
to include communications links, computers, and other components of local and
wide area networks. Signal forces plan, install, operate, and maintain voice and
data communications networks that employ single and multi-channel satellite,
tropospheric scatter, terrestrial microwave, switching, messaging,
video-teleconferencing, visual information, and other related systems. They
integrate tactical, strategic and sustaining base communications, information
processing and management systems into a seamless global information network⁵⁰
that supports knowledge dominance for Army, joint and coalition operations.
The Army Signal Corps is intended to provide a communications backbone, a
core network, with important elements such as spectrum management, the operation
of communications centers, and support of communications networks that include

⁴⁸ For a current discussion of the FCC proposal, see CRS Report RL33838, Emergency
Communications: Policy Options at a Crossroads, by Linda K. Moore.
⁴⁹ Testimony of Commissioner John F. Lehman, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States, Hearing, House of Representatives, Committee on Government
Reform, “Moving from ‘Need to Know’ to ‘Need to Share,’” August 3, 2004.
⁵⁰ From [http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/signal/signal.html]. Viewed June 12,

2006.

both large area regional communications and radio coverage for local wireless
interoperability. The Corps’ communication backbone delivers connectivity on site
among combined forces and connectivity to command centers. These operations are
scalable and can be deployed when and where needed.
Interoperability: SAFECOM. Responsibility to coordinate and rationalize
federal networks, and to support interoperability, has been assigned to SAFECOM
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an e-government initiative. This⁵¹
role has been supported by the Administration and confirmed by Congress with
language in the National Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act.⁵² Programs at
SAFECOM, now placed within the DHS Office for Interoperability and
Compatibility, are primarily consultative in nature and focused on administrative
issues. While it makes important contributions to testing equipment and working on
technical and operational standards for interoperable equipment, SAFECOM does not
appear to be planning for a standardized approach that can encompass state networks
for public safety communications.
Interoperability: Integrated Wireless Network. Separately, an Integrated
Wireless Network (IWN) for law enforcement is being planned as a joint program by
the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland Security. DHS is
represented in the IWN Joint Program Office through the Wireless Management
Office of the Chief Information Officer.⁵³ IWN, from its description, will have
limited interoperability at the state and local level. The described objective of IWN
is network integration for “the nation’s law enforcement wireless communication,
and data exchange capability through the use of a secure integrated wireless
network.”⁵⁴ Most of the parameters of the IWN program — equipment, technologies,
standards, use of spectrum, etc. — will be established through the final choice of
vendor or vendors and the network solutions proposed. There are some specific
requirements, such as for open standards or standards that are readily available to all
— such as Project 25 — ⁵⁵ and use of VHF frequencies already assigned to federal
users.⁵⁶ For Phase I, five companies were asked to submit a detailed system design

⁵¹ Testimony of Karen S. Evans, E-Gov/IT Director, Office of Management and Budget,
Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Joint Hearing,
Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations and
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census, “Public Safety Interoperability: Can You Hear Me Now?,” Nov. 6, 2003.
⁵² P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2).
⁵³ Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury Regarding a Joint Tactical
Wireless Communications System, at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html].
Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁵⁴ Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.3 (a),
p. 8 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁵⁵ Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.1 (d),
p. 8 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁵⁶ Presentation by Michael Duffy, Deputy Chief Information Officer, E-Gov, Department
(continued...)

and an implementation plan⁵⁷ and encouraged to provide “innovative, big-picture,
solution sets.”⁵⁸ Two of the competitors have been selected to advance to Phase II,
announced June 9, 2006. General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin have been
awarded contracts to participate in an open-market competition in which they will
submit non-proprietary designs and implementation plans for designated geographic
areas. It is expected that the government will select one of these companies to act as
systems integrator for the wireless communications services network.⁵⁹ The
departmental objectives for coverage are: major metropolitan areas; major highways;
U.S. land and sea border areas; and ports of entry.⁶⁰ The reported estimated cost for
IWN is $10 billion.⁶¹ Funding is provided jointly from budgeted sums designated
for the upgrading of communications equipment to meet NTIA requirements for
narrowbanding and interoperability.⁶² Although the network being sought is
intended to serve law enforcement users within the three sponsoring departments,
descriptions of the program invoke the possibility that IWN will provide the template
for national interoperability.⁶³
Interoperability: First Responders. In terms of achieving interoperability
for the nation’s first responders, the deployment of IWN could be viewed by some
as a glass that is either half empty or half full. Among the positive contributions that
IWN will provide to public safety communications are: the eventual adoption, on a
massive scale, of a network architecture that can be emulated by all — presumedly
with standardized interfaces; coordination of communications and interoperability
among important components of homeland security; and significant improvements
in communications technology and the efficient use of spectrum.

⁵⁶ (...continued)
of Justice, at Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) Industry Day, April 27, 2004.
⁵⁷ Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, A.4 (a),
p. 3 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁵⁸ Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.1(c),
p. 7 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁵⁹ Department of Justice press release, “General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin Awarded
Phase Two Contracts for Integrated Wireless Network (IWN),” June 9, 2006.
⁶⁰ Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, A.4 (a),
p. 3 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁶¹ “Slow Going for DHS’ Interoperability Effort,” by Alice Lipowicz, Government
Computer News, January 26, 2006.
⁶² Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury Regarding a Joint Tactical
Wireless Communications System, and Presentation by Michael Duffy, Deputy Chief
Information Officer, E-Gov, Department of Justice, at Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)
Industry Day, April 27, 2004.
⁶³ “The successful deployment and operation of IWN will be a key enabler for national
coordination capability,” in Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals,
October 13, 2004, C.2.5 (b) (1), p. 10 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html].
Viewed October June 12, 2006.

There could be questions as to how this project, running parallel with plans from
the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility, will impact the goal that Congress
has set for nationwide interoperability. Will it, for example, delay work on standards
development until the process of vendor selection is complete and the standards for
IWN have been fully established? Will the proposed interface between federal law
enforcement personnel and selected state and local officials be extendable to, say,
interoperability between those officials and local firefighters or EMS personnel?
Should other federal networks be built along functional lines and then linked with
IWN, possibly providing the connectivity needed at the state and local level among
different types of responders? Will there be a link to emergency alert and warning
systems? Could IWN serve as a connecting link between state and local first
responder networks and the military? The specification to use federal frequencies
apparently solves the problem of spectrum access for IWN but does not appear to
move toward the solution to the vexing problem of providing suitable radio
frequencies for interoperability for first responders. The frequencies currently
designated for IWN to use are the same frequencies that were generally not available
to those responding to terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
Emergency Communications: Recent Legislation
Congress responded to recommendations for improvements in programs to
support communications and foster interoperability with language in the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that raises the bar for performance and
accountability, as well as easing some of the obstacles to performance.⁶⁴ Among the
program goals the act sets for the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) are the following.
^!Develop a comprehensive, national approach for achieving
interoperability.
^!Coordinate with other federal agencies.
^!Establish appropriate minimum capabilities for interoperability.
^!Accelerate development of voluntary standards.
^!Encourage open architecture and commercial products.
^!Assist other agencies with research and development.
^!Prioritize within DHS for research, development, testing and related
programs.
^!Establish coordinated guidance for federal grant programs.
^!Provide technical assistance.
^!Develop and disseminate best practices.
^!Establish performance measurements and milestones for systematic
measurement of progress.⁶⁵
New Legislation for Emergency Communications. The Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2007 (H.R. 5441, Representative
Rogers) included provisions from S. 3595 (Senator Collins) that were accepted by the

⁶⁴ A discussion of federal programs is included in the Appendix of this report.
⁶⁵ P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (1).

Senate as S.Amdt. 4560, with final language agreed though compromise. Many of
the provisions incorporated in S.Amdt. 4560 are based on provisions in H.R. 5351
(Representative Reichert). The House passed H.R. 5351, the National Emergency
Reform and Enhancement Act, on July 25, 2006. The appropriations bill was agreed
in conference and signed by the President on October 4, 2006 (P.L. 109-295). The
sections that deal with emergency communications (Title VI, Subtitle D) add
substantive language for improving emergency communications to the Homeland
Security Act, building on provisions included in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458).
The provisions of P.L. 109-295 that deal with emergency communications place
responsibility for developing a national program and plan with a new Administrator,
appointed by the Secretary for Homeland Security, reporting to the Assistant
Secretary for Cyber Security and Telecommunications.⁶⁶
Other responsibilities of the Director include conducting outreach programs,
providing technical assistance, coordinating regional working groups, promoting the
development of standard operating procedures and best practices, establishing non-
proprietary standards for interoperability, working with the National Communication
System to establish a national response capability, developing a National
Communications Plan, working to assure operability and interoperability of
communications systems for emergency response, and reviewing grants.⁶⁷ The
amendment specifies required elements of the National Emergency Communications
Plan,⁶⁸ establishes requirements for assessments and reports,⁶⁹ and, in particular,
requires an evaluation of the feasibility of developing a mobile communications
capability modeled on the Army Signal Corps.⁷⁰ General rules are provided for
coordination of emergency communication grants,⁷¹ and for a Regional Emergency
Communications Coordination (RECC) Working Group.⁷² An Emergency
Communications Preparedness Center would be established.⁷³ Specific provisions
are included covering urban and other high risk communications capabilities.⁷⁴ The
responsibilities of the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility are clarified
regarding standards development, research, developing and assessing new
technology, coordination with the private sector, and other duties.⁷⁵ The

⁶⁶ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1801 ‘(a) and ‘(b).
⁶⁷ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1801.
⁶⁸ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1802.
⁶⁹ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1803.
⁷⁰ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1803 ‘(d) ‘(4) ‘(A).
⁷¹ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1804.
⁷² P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1805.
⁷³ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1806.
⁷⁴ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 1807.
⁷⁵ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 672.

development of a comprehensive research and development program is required.⁷⁶
The viability of 911 networks is also addressed, with a requirement for the FCC to
report to Congress on plans for rerouting 911 calls when 911 capabilities are
impaired after a disaster.⁷⁷
Current Funding Programs. Grants that have helped to pay for programs
for interoperability have come from a number of federal sources, notably from
Department of Justice programs and, within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate) and the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP) in the Border and Transportation Security Directorate. Grant programs such
as those at ODP for Urban Area Security and High-Threat Urban Areas are on-⁷⁸
going.
Provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act permit
federal funding programs to make multi-year commitments for interoperable
communications for up to three years, with a ceiling of $150 million for future
obligations.⁷⁹ The act authorizes annual sums for a period of five years to be used for
programs to improve interoperability and to assist interoperable capability in high-
risk urban areas; the 2005 authorization is $22,105,000; the amount rises each year
to $24,879,000 in 2009.
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund. To facilitate the
clearing of spectrum for revenue-generating auctions, Congress included measures
in the budget reconciliation process to create special funds to hold part of spectrum
auction proceeds for special purposes; the balance would go to reduce the budget
deficit. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) creates a single fund, the
Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund, to hold all auction proceeds
and make disbursements to several programs. $7,363 million from any auction(s) of
spectrum at 700 MHz, is slated go to reduce the budget deficit as specified in
H.Con.Res. 95. Other disbursements from the fund include a program that would
expend up to $1,500 million on coupons for households toward the purchase of TV
set top boxes that can convert digital broadcast signals for display on analog sets; a
grant program of up to $1,000 million for public safety agencies to deploy systems
on 700 MHz spectrum they will receive as part of the transition; payments of up to
$30 million toward the cost of temporary digital transmission equipment for
broadcasters serving the Metropolitan New York area; payments of up to $10 million

⁷⁶ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 673.
⁷⁷ P.L. 109-295, Sec. 671, ‘Sec. 674.
⁷⁸ For full details, please refer to CRS Report RL32696, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland
Security Grant Program: State Allocations and Issues for Congressional Oversight; and
CRS Report RS22050, FY2006 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland Security, both
by Shawn Reese. A report from the Government Accountability Office provides many
details about funding for first responders, especially grants from ODP: Management of First
Responder Grant Programs and Efforts to Improve Accountability Continue to Evolve, April

12, 2005, GAO-05-530T.

⁷⁹ P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (e).

to help low-power television stations purchase equipment that will convert full-
power broadcast signals from digital to analog (Sec. 3008); a program funded up to
$65 million to reimburse low-power television stations in rural areas for upgrading
equipment from analog to digital technology; up to $106 million to implement a
unified national alert system and $50 million for a tsunami warning and coastal
vulnerability program; contributions totaling no more than $43.5 million for a
national 911 improvement program established by the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004;
and up to $30 million in support of the Essential Air Service Program. The fund and
disbursements are to be administered by the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration. Effective October 1, 2006, the NTIA will be able to
borrow some of the authorized funds from the Treasury, secured by the expected
proceeds of the auction required by the bill. These funds can be used to implement
transition programs for digital television and for some public safety projects.
The Advanced Telecommunications And Opportunity Reform Act, (H.R. 5252
as amended in committee by the Senate) would impose guidelines for expenditures
of the $ 1 billion designated for interoperable communications — and would include
interoperability for 911 operations.⁸⁰ Authority for the grants program would be
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.⁸¹
Some Recommendations from the Public Safety Sector
The debate about public safety communications and the role of federal policy
is long running. The framework for current discussions — which accommodate
recent advances in technology — most likely dates to a report in 1996 by the Public
Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC).⁸²
Listed below are some key components of a desirable public safety
communications policy for first responders described in the PSWAC study and in
more recent reports, testimony, and other comments cited in this report. According
to these sources, a national policy for public safety communications needs to address
and correlate a myriad of complex goals, such as
^!Coordinated assignment and use of spectrum at various frequencies.
^!Muscular and sustained efforts to complete the development and
application of technical and operational standards.
^!Public sector adaptation of new technologies already available in the
private sector such as for high-speed, data rich, and video or image
transmissions.
^!Long-term support of research and development for new technology.

⁸⁰ H.R. 5252, Sec. 151.
⁸¹ H.R. 5252, Sec. 152.
⁸² The Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (PSWAC) was chartered in 1995, at the
request of Congress, to study public safety spectrum and make recommendations for
meeting spectrum needs through the year 2010. The following year, PSWAC submitted a
report containing recommendations for the improvement of public safety communications
over wireless networks. Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee,
September 11, 1996.

^!Coherent goals that encourage private investment in technology
development.
^!Nationwide network of communications operations centers (regional
signal corps) that can serve as back-up facilities to each other and to
state and interstate centers and networks.
^!Interoperability of communications among first responders and
public safety agencies.
^!Managerial structure that can successfully coordinate not only
disparate federal, state, and local agencies but also the different
cultural and technical needs of independent first responder units.
^!Framework to match policy goals with implementation needs to
assure the effectiveness of federal funding for programs and grants.
Spectrum Policy Initiative
Beginning in 2003, President George W. Bush has issued several memoranda
to establish and guide a national Spectrum Policy Initiative, lead by the Secretary of
the Department of Commerce. As required by the President, the Secretary submitted
a plan to implement recommendations previously provided by the Federal
Government Spectrum Task Force. The planning process is being guided by the
NTIA, which has established seven projects dealing with aspects of spectrum
policy.⁸³ These projects are:
^!A. Improve Stakeholder Participation and Maintain High
Qualifications of Spectrum Managers
^!B. Reduce International Barriers to U.S. Innovations in Technologies
and Services
^!C. Modernize Federal Spectrum Management Processes with
Advanced Information Technology
^!D. Satisfy Public Safety Communications Needs and Ensure
Interoperability
^!E. Enhance Spectrum Engineering and Analytical Tools
^!F. Promote Efficient and Effective Use of Spectrum
^!G. Improve Long-term Planning and Promote Use of Market-based
Economic Mechanisms in Spectrum.
Project D, dealing with public safety needs, has two components. As part of
Project D, DHS, as directed by the President,⁸⁴ will conduct an inventory of the
spectrum requirements of the public safety community, identify the major public
safety requirements for spectrum-dependent services at local, regional and state

⁸³ Spectrum Management for the 21^st Century; plan to implement recommendations of the
President’s policy initiative, U.S. Department of Commerce, posted March 14, 2006, at
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/ImplementationPlan2006.pdf]. Viewed
November 16, 2006.
⁸⁴ Presidential Determination: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, November 30, 2004, available
at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041130-8.html]. Viewed
November 16, 2006.

government agencies, and analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of the spectrum
used by the public safety community.⁸⁵ The NTIA, in coordination primarily with the
FCC, will examine the feasibility of sharing spectrum among commercial, federal
and local public safety, and critical infrastructure applications. The FCC is seeking
comment on goals for the test-bed, which will designate radio frequencies for shared
use between federal and non-federal users.⁸⁶

⁸⁵ Spectrum Management for the 21^st Century, op. cit., page 19.
⁸⁶ FCC, “Federal Communications Commission Seeks Public Comment on Creation of a
Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed,” ET Docket 06-89, released June 8, 2006.

Appendix: Federal Administration
The lead federal program for fostering interoperability is administered by the
Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable COMmunications Program, dubbed Project
SAFECOM,⁸⁷ part of the Department of Homeland Security. The key federal
agencies for spectrum management in first responder communications are the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). Among other responsibilities, the FCC
supervises spectrum for non-federal public safety agency communications. The
NTIA — part of the Department of Commerce — administers spectrum used by
federal entities. SAFECOM has not to date played a major role in spectrum policy.
DHS has created an Office of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) of which
SAFECOM is a part. In June 2004 DHS announced the creation of a Regional
Technology Integration Initiative. DHS has also announced the organization of a
National Incident Management System (NIMS) in response to a Presidential⁸⁸
Directive (HSPD-5). A NIMS Integration Center is planned to deal with
compatibility and could be responsible for at least some interoperable
communications.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
To address the need for interoperability spectrum, in June 1999 the NTIA
designated certain federally-allocated radio frequencies for use by federal, state, and
local law enforcement and incident response entities. The frequencies are from
exclusive federal spectrum, and are adjacent to spectrum used by state and local
governments. NTIA’s “interoperability plan,” — developed in coordination with the
Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC)⁸⁹ — is used to improve
communications in response to emergencies and threats to public safety. In 1996, the
NTIA created a public safety program to coordinate federal government activities for
spectrum and telecommunications related to public safety. Today, its successor, the
Public Safety Division of the Office of Spectrum Management, participates in
various initiatives to improve and coordinate public safety communications. The
Division is preparing a Spectrum Efficiency Study and an Interoperable
Communications Summary Guide.⁹⁰ Two forums on public safety and spectrum use
have been sponsored by the NTIA, one in June 2002 and another in February 2004.⁹¹
Additionally, evaluating spectrum for public safety use has been included in the

⁸⁷ Additional information is at [http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/].
⁸⁸ Full document at [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NIMS-90-web.pdf]. Viewed
June 12, 2006.
⁸⁹ IRAC, with representation from 20 major federal agencies, develops policies for federal
spectrum use, and represents the United States at International Telecommunications Union
conferences. See [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/irac.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁹⁰ Additional information at [http://ntiacsd.ntia.doc.gov/pubsafe/]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁹¹ Agenda and reports of the 2004 Public Safety Forum are available at
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/specinit/forum2/]. Viewed June 12, 2006.

NTIA’s ongoing work in support of President George W. Bush’s Spectrum Initiative
Policy.⁹²
Federal Communications Commission
Over roughly the last 20 years, the FCC has initiated several programs that
involve state, local, tribal and — usually — private sector representatives. In 1986,
it formed the National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee to advise it on
management of spectrum in the 800 MHZ band, newly designated for public safety.
The following year, the FCC adopted a Public Safety National Plan that, among other
things, established Regional Planning Committees (RPC) to develop plans that met
specific needs. The FCC encourages the formation of RPCs with a broad base of
participation. The RPCs have flexibility in determining how best to meet state and
local needs, including spectrum use and technology.
The regional planning approach is also being applied to spectrum in the Upper
700 MHz band.⁹³ Technical and operational standards, including interoperability
standards, were developed and recommended to the FCC through the Public Safety
National Coordination Committee (NCC). Standards for narrowband radio
applications, for example, were recommended to the FCC and adopted in early
2001. Established by the FCC in 1999 and ended in 2003, the NCC had a Steering
Committee from government, the public safety community, and the
telecommunications industry.
Homeland Security. After Hurricane Katrina, the FCC established a panel
to examine the impact of Hurricane Katrina and make recommendations to the FCC
regarding actions it might take to improve public safety operations, disaster⁹⁴
preparation, and network reliability. The independent panel has issued a report with
recommendations for changes in communications preparedness and response that
might be considered by the FCC or others. The FCC has solicited comments on the
panel’s recommendations.⁹⁵ In September 2006, the FCC established a Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau within the agency. The new bureau brings
together public-safety and communications functions previously dispersed
throughout the agency. The announced goal of the bureau is to promote “robust,
reliable and resilient communications in times of emergency.”⁹⁶

⁹² See Spectrum Management for the 21^st Century; plan to implement recommendations of
the President’s policy initiative, U.S. Department of Commerce, posted March 14, 2006, at
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/ImplementationPlan2006.pdf]. Viewed July

3, 2006.

⁹³ See [http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz/]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁹⁴ FCC News, “Chairman Kevin J. Martin Names Nancy J. Victory as Chair of the Federal
Communications Commission’s Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane
Katrina on Communications Networks,” November 28, 2005 at [http://www.fcc.gov].
⁹⁵ FCC, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, EB Docket No. O6-119, released June 19, 2006.
⁹⁶ FCC News, “FCC Announces Launch of the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau,” September 26, 2006 at [http://www.fcc.gov].

Among past actions by the FCC specifically in support of homeland security
were the chartering of the Media Security and Reliability Council (MSRC)⁹⁷ and the
renewal of the charter for the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council
(NRIC).⁹⁸ Both of these are Federal Advisory Committees. MSRC has been active
in evaluating the effectiveness of the Emergency Alert System. The primary role of
NRIC is to develop recommendations for best practices for private sector
telecommunications to insure optimal reliability, interoperability, and connectivity
of networks. The current NRIC focus groups are: Near Term Issues, E911; Long
Term Issues, E911; Best Practices, E911 and Public Safety; Emergency
Communications Beyond E911; Best Practices, Homeland Security - Infrastructure;
Best Practices, Homeland Security - CyberSecurity; Best Practices, Wireless
Industry; Best Practices, Public Data Networks; and Broadband.
Spectrum and Interoperability. The FCC’s strategic goal for spectrum is
to “Encourage the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally
in order to encourage the growth and rapid deployment of innovative and efficient⁹⁹
communications technologies and services.”
Regarding interoperability, the FCC describes its role as “directing efforts
toward allocating additional spectrum for public safety systems, nurturing
technological developments that enhance interoperability and providing its expertise
and input for interagency efforts such as SAFECOM.”¹⁰⁰ However, the FCC asserts
that there are limitations on what it can do. “The Commission is only one
stakeholder in the process and many of the challenges facing interoperability are a
result of the disparate governmental interests . . . making it difficult to develop and
deploy interoperable strategies uniformly.”¹⁰¹
Department of Homeland Security
National Response Plan. The National Response Plan lays out organization
charts for authority and responsibility in Incidents of National Significance and after
the declaration of a disaster or an emergency. One of the key players for emergency
communications is the National Communications System (NCS). The primary role
of NCS is to assure federal communications and the integrity of certain vital
networks, such as for banking. It also is prepared to assist in recovery and restoration
of service for commercial and emergency services. The NCS has no significant role
in providing emergency communications support for first responders. The job of
coordinating communications is assigned by the National Response Plan to the

⁹⁷ See [http://www.fcc.gov/MSRC/Welcome.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
⁹⁸ See [http://www.nric.org].
⁹⁹ See [http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/#goals]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
¹⁰⁰ Testimony of John B. Muleta, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission at Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census, “More Time, More Money, More Communication?,” September

8, 2004.

¹⁰¹ Ibid.

Federal Emergency Communications Coordinator. As described in the plan, the
power of this position to command and deliver needed communications support is
limited, and in any event, it occurs after the fact.
Office of Interoperability and Compatibility. The function of the Office
of Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) is to address the larger issues of
interoperability. Among the goals of the OIC is the “leveraging” of “the vast range
of interoperability programs and related efforts spread across the Federal
Government” to “reduce unnecessary duplication” and “ensure consistency” in
“research and development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E), standards, technical
assistance, training, and grant funding related to interoperability.” To achieve this,
DHS will create within OIC “a series of portfolios to address critical issues.” The
OIC’s initial priorities are for communications (SAFECOM), equipment, training and
“others as required.” To fulfill the portfolios, OIC will use a “systems engineering
or lifestyle approach” to create “action plans.” These will be “developed through a
collaborative process that brings together the relevant stakeholders to provide clear
direction on a path forward.” This “end-user” input is expected to produce “a
strategy and action plan” for each portfolio.¹⁰² No time line for accomplishing these
planned steps has of yet been provided,
SAFECOM. With the support of the Administration, Project SAFECOM was
designated the umbrella organization for federal support of interoperable
communications. It was agreed within DHS that SAFECOM would be part of the
Science and Technology Directorate, in line with a policy for placing technology
prototype projects under a single directorate; this decision was reportedly based on
the research-oriented nature of the programs envisioned for SAFECOM by its
administrators.¹⁰³ The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act affirmed
this decision by giving DHS the authority to create an office for interoperability
within the Science and Technology Directorate and to manage SAFECOM as part of
that effort.¹⁰⁴ SAFECOM has released a template for interoperability planning that
can be used by states to establish a strategy for interoperability.¹⁰⁵ It prepared a
methodology to establish a baseline for interoperability achievements as an
evaluation tool to measure the success of future interoperability programs. The
methodology was applied in a study with voluntary participation. The study sent
surveys to fire response/emergency services and law enforcement in all 50 statesand

¹⁰² Testimony of Dr. David G. Boyd, Program Manager, SAFECOM and Deputy Director,
Office of Systems Engineering & Development, Science and Technology Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security, Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations, “Public Safety Interoperability: Look Who’s Talking Now,” July

20, 2004.

¹⁰³ “Homeland Security Starting Over With SAFECOM,” Government Computer News, June

9, 2003.

¹⁰⁴ P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2).
¹⁰⁵ Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology, SAFECOM
Program, Directorate of Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security at
[ h t t p : //www.safecomprogr am.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestud i e s / 1223_s
tatewidecommunications.htm]. Viewed February 2, 2006.

the District of Columbia. The agencies were asked to rate the level of
interoperability within their jurisdictions, not including federal authorities. The
findings from this survey were published in December 2006.¹⁰⁶
SAFECOM absorbed the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Program,
previously operated jointly by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury. PSWN
was created to respond to recommendations made by the Public Safety Wireless
Advisory Committee regarding the improvement of public safety communications
over wireless networks. PSWN operated as an advocate for spectrum management
policies that would improve wireless network capacity and capability for public
safety. SAFECOM, however, has no authority over spectrum management decisions.
The following quote is a summary of SAFECOM’s position on spectrum policy.
Spectrum policy is an essential issue in the public safety communication arena.
Unfortunately, State and local public safety representatives are frequently not
included in spectrum policy decisions, despite their majority ownership of the
communications infrastructure and their importance as providers of public and
homeland security. SAFECOM will hence play a role in representing the views
of State and local stakeholders on spectrum issues within the Federal
Government. Last year, SAFECOM was appointed to an interagency Spectrum
Task Force to contribute such views, and the ongoing working relationship that
has developed between SAFECOM and the FCC will, we believe, pay huge¹⁰⁷
dividends in the future.
SAFECOM was chosen in October 2001 as one of 24 e-government initiatives.
It was categorized as a government-to-government initiative in the original
strategizing for e-government programs.¹⁰⁸ When SAFECOM was created in 2001,
the managing partner for SAFECOM was the Department of the Treasury.
Subsequently, the program was assigned to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), following FEMA when it moved to the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Once at
DHS, SAFECOM was assigned to the Directorate of Science and Technology. As
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted in testimony and reports,¹⁰⁹
the change in leadership has delayed progress at SAFECOM. The GAO has also
expressed concern over a lack of leadership and focus and raised questions of

¹⁰⁶ SAFECOM, 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey, December 2006 at
[ h t t p : / / www.saf e comp r o gr am. g o v / N R / r d o n l yr e s/ 40E2381C-5 D30-4C9C-AB81-9CBC2A

478028/0/2006NationalInteroperabilityBaselineSurvey.pdf]. Viewed January 31, 2007.

¹⁰⁷ Boyd, Hearing, July 20, 2004.
¹⁰⁸ Office of Management and Budget, Implementing the President’s Management Agenda
for E-Government: E Government Strategy, February 27, 2002, p.13.
¹⁰⁹ For example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Leadership and
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable
Communications, GAO Report GAO-04-963T (Washington: July 20, 2004); and U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable
Communications Between First Responders, GAO Report GAO-04-1057T (Washington:
September 8, 2004).

governance. Testimony by David Boyd¹¹⁰ has stressed the importance to SAFECOM
of more authority in certain funding decisions and in its interactions with other
federal agencies, and the need for an in-depth gap analysis — the assessment of
current levels of interoperable communications capability compared to requirements.
The GAO has recommended that the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget 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.¹¹¹
Other notable observations from the GAO include:
^!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.
^!The federal government can provide the leadership, long-term
commitment, and focus to help state and local governments meet
interoperability goals. For example, the federal government can
provide the leadership and support for developing (1) a national
database of interoperable communications frequencies, (2) a
common nomenclature for those frequencies, (3) a national
architecture that identifies communications requirements and
technical standards, and (4) statewide interoperable communications
plans.¹¹²
SAFECOM, however, articulated a different approach in testimony and its 2003
Strategy Planning Session. In its strategy summary, it reported that it intends, over
the course of 10 to 20 years, to “Adopt a national strategy from the bottom up to
incorporate effective public safety communications.”¹¹³ Boyd also reaffirmed his
belief that “any effort to improve communications interoperability must be driven

¹¹⁰ Testimony of Dr. David G. Boyd, Program Manager, SAFECOM and Deputy Director,
Office of Systems Engineering & Development, Science and Technology Directorate,
Department of Homeland Security, Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations, “Public Safety Interoperability: Look Who’s Talking Now,” July

20, 2004 and Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform,

Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the
Census, “More Time, More Money, More Communication?,” September 8, 2004.
¹¹¹ U.S. General Accountability Office, Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate
Interoperable Communications Between First Responders, GAO Report GAO-04-1057T
(Washington: September 8, 2004).
¹¹² Ibid.
¹¹³ SAFECOM Strategy Planning Session,” Executive Summary, May 2003 Findings, p. 4.

from the bottom up.”¹¹⁴ This approach necessitates a focus on communications at
the incident level. At this level, SAFECOM appears to be giving the greatest
attention to improving radio interoperability, particularly through the deployment of
cross-talk hardware. This decision in turn leads to an emphasis on increasing the
amount of equipment standardization, improving operating standards and protocols,
and consulting on how to install and use new equipment. According to Boyd’s
testimony, the focus for SAFECOM is on three areas: creation of an architectural
framework, the development of standards, and the coordination of federal
activities.¹¹⁵ The architectural framework is intended to aid SAFECOM in
determining priorities for the development of standards. The framework “will reflect
a system-of-systems approach to develop interface standards to help improve the
problem of communications interoperability.”¹¹⁶ It appears that it will be modeled
along the lines of a pyramid, with decision-making starting at the base and building
up. The organic nature of the SAFECOM model for infrastructure development
apparently requires a long time-line (usually extending, in testimony, to 20 years) and
resists description in terms of long-term goals and deadlines. By describing its
achievements and plans within the framework of short-term milestones, many of
which involve the preparation of studies by outside consultants, SAFECOM appears
to have avoided addressing many of the strategic goals originally envisioned for its
mission, without an official explanation for the shift in emphasis.
SAFECOM Strategy as an E-Government Initiative. In 2002 and 2003,
OMB sequentially described SAFECOM’s mission, milestones and goals. It appears
that many of these goals have not been met, or have been modified. The 2002 E-
Government Strategy document described SAFECOM’s mission as follows:
For public safety officials to be effective in their daily responsibilities, as well
as before, during and after an emergency event, public safety agencies
throughout all levels of government, i.e. federal, state and local, must be able to
communicate with each other. This initiative would address the Nation’s critical
shortcomings in efforts by public safety agencies to achieve interoperability and
eliminate redundant wireless communications infrastructures. At the same time,
it would assist state and local interoperability and interoperability between
federal public safety networks.
Value to Citizen: Coordinated public safety/law enforcement communication will
result in saved lives, as well as better-managed disaster response. Consolidated
networks will yield cost savings through reduction in communication devices,
management overhead of multiple networks, maintenance and training.
Value to the Government: Billions of dollars could be saved through a right-sized
set of consolidated, interoperable federal networks, linked to state wireless
networks, resulting in a reduction in communications infrastructure, overhead,¹¹⁷

maintenance and training.
¹¹⁴ Boyd testimony, September 8, 2004.
¹¹⁵ Ibid.
¹¹⁶ Ibid.
¹¹⁷ Office of Management and Budget, Implementing the President’s Management Agenda
for E-Government: E Government Strategy, February 27, 2002, p. 30.

Milestones - 2002. In February 2002, SAFECOM milestones, all planned for
completion by the end of that year, included the following:
^!Define the communications concept of operations for interaction that
identifies the communications requirements to address the two
highest probable threat scenarios: Bio terrorism and natural
disasters.
^!Develop an integrated public safety response solution that addresses
the top two threat scenarios by using existing infrastructure
augmented by available commercial capability.
^!Complete a gap analysis of existing inventories of public safety
wireless communications at federal, state and local level.¹¹⁸
Goals - 2003. In the April 2003 E-Government Strategy Report, the
immediate (2003) goals for SAFECOM were restated, as follows:
^!Define the requirements for first responder interoperability at state,
local, tribal, and federal levels to develop a long-term architecture.
^!Identify gaps between existing wireless systems and interoperability
requirements.
^!Develop national architecture
^!Develop concept of operations for interoperability.¹¹⁹
Many Goals Not Met. Comparing the stated goals of SAFECOM as an e-
government program, with its current progress and programs, it appears that the
emphasis has been on short-term goals. There is virtually no indication, in testimony,
of long-term planning for national interoperability. Among its accomplishments,
SAFECOM has partly met the goal of developing a requirements statement with the
qualitative assessment of communications needs at the incident level, as provided in
the March 2004 “Requirements” document. A gap analysis is reportedly underway,
a delivery date of late 2005¹²⁰ has been extended to mid-2006.¹²¹ The “concept of
operations” for “interaction” (2002) or “interoperability” (2003) could be equated
with the pyramid structure advocated by SAFECOM, discussed below, and this may
provide the framework for an “integrated public safety response solution.” An

¹¹⁸ Ibid., p. 15.
¹¹⁹ Office of Management and Budget, Implementing the President’s Management Agenda
for E-Government: E Government Strategy, April 2003, p. 30.
¹²⁰ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fact Sheet: Achieving First Responder
Communications Interoperability — a Local, State and Federal Partnership, at
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/].
¹²¹ Oral testimony of Dr. David G. Boyd, Program Manager, SAFECOM and Deputy
Director, Office of Systems Engineering & Development, Science and Technology
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Hearing of the House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Public Safety Communications from 9/11 to
Katrina: Critical public Policy Lessons,” September 29, 2005.

integrated response solution and a national architecture are promised for the future.¹²²
The 2002 milestone of providing a plan to use “existing infrastructure augmented by
available commercial capability” is being addressed if infrastructure is defined as
local radio communications equipment bolstered by cross-patch hardware. It is not
being met, and seems to have been rejected by SAFECOM, if infrastructure is meant
to include wide-area networks, Internet communications backbones and other
regional or national communications capacity that would provide broad-based
communications the support.
In testimony,¹²³ OMB described SAFECOM goals as including the provision of
“interoperable wireless solutions for Federal, state, and local public safety
organizations,” that would include “coordination of all Federal interoperability
efforts.” In OMB’s description of long-term strategic goals, as outlined in the 2003
e-gov plan, there appears to be an implicit assumption that there are redundant
wireless communications infrastructures that can be identified and eliminated. This
planning document describes the SAFECOM initiative as addressing “critical
shortcomings,” including two significant points where communications
interoperability is lacking; interoperability between state and local authorities, as
well as interoperability between federal public safety networks. The plan indicates
that some (unidentified) networks would be consolidated to yield costs savings.
Further “Billions of dollars” in savings are presumed by creating a right-sized set of
consolidated, interoperable federal networks, linked to state wireless networks. To
date, there appears to be no information on SAFECOM plans for improving wireless
communications networks at the national or regional level; the focus of the program
on hardware solutions at the incident level would seem to preclude plans for network
interoperability or the establishment of standards for new interoperable technologies
such as mesh networks or cognitive radios. Work at the incident level is primarily
local, focused on short-range interoperability solutions. Wide area networks and
nationwide, end-to-end communications rely on technologies not being tested or
evaluated by SAFECOM at the incident level.
In particular, the build-from-the-bottom-up approach for interoperability,
advocated by SAFECOM, would appear to be at odds with the e-government goal of
achieving efficiencies at the communications network level. Modern networks, with
their incorporation of software programs on chips, other software-programmable
technologies, nanotechnology, and meshed communications systems, to cite some
examples, are generally built out from a common design, requiring some degree of
centralization. In that respect, the goals of the IWN appear to be more aligned to the
original goals of the e-government strategy. Its intentions include the construction
of a national network, the identification and prioritization of end-user functional
requirements, and the use of open standards that would be adapted by other public
safety agencies.

¹²² Boyd testimony, September 8, 2004.
¹²³ November 6, 2003 Statement of Karen Evans, Testimony before a subcommittee of the
House Committee on Government Reform, 108^th Cong., 1^st sess. (Hereafter cited as
November 6, 2003 Evans Statement.)

Evolution of SAFECOM’s Goals. The explanation of SAFECOM provided
in 2002 by OMB,¹²⁴ would suggest that the original mission was much broader than
the milestones that have been used to chart progress. It is possible, therefore, that
SAFECOM has not merely suffered delays because of changes in the managing¹²⁵
partner, as the GAO has observed, but also because it has changed course,
redefining its purpose.
Regional Technology Integration Initiative
In June 2004, the Directorate of Science and Technology introduced a new
initiative to facilitate the transition of innovative technologies and organizational
concepts to regional, state, and local authorities.¹²⁶ The initiative has selected four
urban areas from among those currently part of the Homeland Security Urban Area
Security Initiative. Two of the areas that have been reported as choices are
Cincinnati, Ohio and Anaheim, California.¹²⁷ Each area will reportedly receive $10
million to expand new systems that test more advanced technologies for public safety
communications, including interoperability. Anaheim, for example, reportedly has
created a virtual operations center (instead of a building), relying on network
technology to connect police, fire, medical services and public utilities in case of an
emergency. The announced goal is to get all who respond to disasters and other
emergencies to work from a common base.¹²⁸
National Incident Management System (NIMS)
NIMS also has announced plans to address questions of interoperability and
communications, although no mention of spectrum policy is mentioned in the DHS
report on NIMS issued March 1, 2004.¹²⁹ The objective for communications
facilitation is summarized as “development and use of a common communications

¹²⁴ Office of Management and Budget, Implementing the President’s Management Agenda
for E-Government: E Government Strategy, February 27, 2002, p.30.
¹²⁵ U.S. General Accountability Office, Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental
Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications, GAO
Report GAO-04-740 (Washington: July 2004).
¹²⁶ DHS Press Releases, including “Homeland Security Launches Regional Technology
Integration Initiative in Seattle,” February 18, 2005 [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
display?content=4362] and “Fact Sheet: Regional Technology Initiative” at
[http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=3704]. Viewed September 13,
2005
¹²⁷ “Department of Homeland Security funding initiative aims to spur interoperability among
locals,” by Jim McKay, Government Technology, September 2004, p. 1.
¹²⁸ Ibid.
¹²⁹ “National Incident Management System,” Department of Homeland Security, March 1,

2004, at [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NIMS-90-web.pdf]. Viewed June 12,

2006.

plan and interoperable communications processes and architectures.”¹³⁰ NIMS
envisions mandatory compliance with “national interoperable communications
standards, once such standards are developed.”¹³¹ These standards will include
interoperable wireless communications for “Federal, State, local and tribal public
safety organizations.”¹³²
Integrated Wireless Network
The Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) for law enforcement is being planned
as a joint program by the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland
Security. DHS is represented in the IWN Joint Program Office through the Wireless
Management Office of the Chief Information Officer.¹³³ IWN, from its description,
will have limited interoperability at the state and local level. The described objective
of IWN is network integration for “the nation’s law enforcement wireless
communication, and data exchange capability through the use of a secure integrated
wireless network.”¹³⁴
National Communications System
The National Communications System is assigned responsibility for
telecommunications under the Secretariat of Information Analysis and Infrastructure¹³⁵
Protection within DHS. It was originally within the Department of Defense,
established by Executive Order in 1984 “to assist the President ... in 1) the exercise
of the telecommunications functions and responsibilities, and (2) the coordination
of the planning for and provision of national security and emergency preparedness
communications...” It consults with the National Security Telecommunications
Advisory Committee (NSTAC), among others, on issues related to national security
and emergency preparedness telecommunications. It is closely linked to the White
House through NSTAC, which advises the President on national security¹³⁶
telecommunications matters, and the National Security Council.
Its primary functions for National Security and Emergency Preparedness are to
assure critical telecommunications access for selected federal and state agencies, to
coordinate restoration of service with the private sector, and to establish priorities in
the restoration of service. Among its services in time of disaster, NCS operates the

¹³⁰ Ibid., p. 11.
¹³¹ Ibid., p. 50.
¹³² Ibid., p. 52.
¹³³ Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Justice, and the Department of the Treasury Regarding a Joint Tactical
Wireless Communications System, at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html].
Viewed June 12, 2006.
¹³⁴ Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.3 (a),
page 8 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 12, 2006.
¹³⁵ Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296, Sec. 201 (e) (19) (g) (2).
¹³⁶ See [http://www.ncs.gov].

National Coordinating Center (NCC) for Telecommunications — which coordinates
public and private sector efforts to restore telecommunications — and manages an
Individual Mobilization Augmentee program to in bring civilian and military
reservists to assist recovery efforts.¹³⁷
Other Coordinating Bodies
SAFECOM has created a Federal Interoperability Coordination Council (FICC),
made up of “all the federal agencies with programs that address interoperability.”¹³⁸
Previously, as part of its e-government mandate to rationalize federal programs for
interoperability, SAFECOM met with representatives from 60 different programs
operated by the federal government or funded by or partnered with a federal agency.
Many of these programs include state committees and national associations such as
the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials - International
(APCO).¹³⁹ Part of the National Coordination Committee’s mission was to
encourage the creation of Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees (SIEC),¹⁴⁰
to take part in coordination efforts. The National Public Safety Telecommunications
Council (NPSTC) is another important coordinating body. NPSTC unites public
safety associations to work with federal agencies, the NCC, SIECs and other groups
to address public safety communications issues.¹⁴¹ It has been supported by the
AGILE Program, created by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).¹⁴² AGILE has
addressed interim and long-term interoperability solutions in part by testing standards
for wireless telecommunications and information technology applications. The
AGILE Program also has provided funding to Regional Planning Committees for
start-up costs and the preparation and distribution of regional plans. AGILE has been
restructured, replaced by a more limited function in Communications Technology,
CommTech. CommTech is not designed to play a primary role in coordinating
interoperability policy within the public safety community.
The SIECs, NPSTC, Regional Planning Committees and other federally-
supported but not federally-directed organizations play key roles as facilitators in
advancing programs for public safety communications. In recent testimony quoted
above,¹⁴³ both SAFECOM and the FCC have described their roles primarily as
facilitators also. SAFECOM and DHS, in its plans for the Office of Interoperability

¹³⁷ See [http://www.ncs.gov/services.html].
¹³⁸ Boyd testimony, September 8, 2004.
¹³⁹ See [http://www.apcointl.org/].
¹⁴⁰ A discussion of the role of SIECs, and a recommendation to mandate their use, is
contained in testimony by Stephen T. Devine, Missouri SIEC Chairperson, Missouri State
Highway Patrol, at Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on Government
Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations,
“Public Safety Interoperability: Look Who’s Talking Now,” July 20, 2004.
¹⁴¹ Information at [http://npstc.org].
¹⁴² AGILE stands for Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement. See
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/commtech/]. Viewed January 4, 2006.
¹⁴³ Boyd and Muleta, Hearing, July 20, 2004.

and Cpatibility, seem to place a high priority on consultative functions. It appears
that OIC policy will focus on portfolios of recommendations for achieving
interoperability at an incident site and not on establishing the higher levels of
interoperability provided by network support and back-up from regional
communications command centers. In its discussions of Emergency Operations
Centers and Incident Command Systems, however, NIMS seems to indicate the need
for a national network architecture and fixed as well as mobile operations centers for
communications network support. The Regional Technology Integration Initiative
has been established to Act as a catalyst between existing technology used by first
responders and the innovative technology needed in the future. It seeks to work at
the local, state and regional levels but appears to favor solutions that can be applied
on a regional basis.