Order Code RL32594
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Public Safety Communications: Policy,
Proposals, Legislation and Progress
Updated June 23, 2005
Linda K. Moore
Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Public Safety Communications: Policy, Proposals,
Legislation and Progress
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/ll Commission, in its report of July
2004, and by others in recent years, regarding public safety communications.
Nonetheless, there is much still to be done to bring the United States to the threshold
of adequate communications capabilities in emergencies. Congress can expect that
the many advocates for public safety, in all its forms, will continue to push for
improvements in public safety communications and interoperability.

Against a background of ongoing debate over how to free spectrum for public
safety radio communications and to facilitate the transition to digital television that
must occur for the spectrum to be available, a bill (H.R. 1646) addressing
encumbered spectrum designated for public safety has been reintroduced by
Representative Jane Harman. Covering both spectrum availability and the transition
to digital TV, Senator John McCain has introduced the SAVE LIVES Act (S. 1268),
a bill that also includes a grant program for public safety communications potentially
funded by spectrum sales. A bill introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, referred
to as the ICOM Act (S. 1274), would increase the amount of federal funding
specifically available for interoperable communications programs and amends the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act by adding new federal
responsibilities to improve interoperability. The Public Safety Interoperability
Implementation Act (H.R. 1323, Representative Stupak) would place some spectrum
auction proceeds in a trust fund to provide grants to improve public safety
communications. Citing the continued lack of communications capabilities within the
New York City Fire Department, H.R. 1795 (Representative Maloney) would fund
a new system for the city’s firefighters that would provide a network and radios
incorporating many leading edge technologies and networking concepts. Many
policy discussions regarding federal funding for public safety communications
revolve around identifying risk-based formulas to distribute grants among states.
Examples of legislation introduced to modify the way funds are distributed are S. 21
(Senator Collins) and H.R. 1544 (Representative Cox).
This report provides an analysis of major policy questions regarding public
safety communications. The 9/11 Commission recommendations for action to
improve communications and the testimony and comments of experts is used as the
framework to review issues such as spectrum availability, technology for
interoperability, funding, and longer term goals and concerns. The 108th Congress
required a number of studies and pilots, the results of which could shape policy
decisions in the 109th. In particular, both Congress and the Administration have
required the Department of Homeland Security to develop a strategy for spectrum use
and to evaluate its role in public safety communications.
This report will be updated.

Contents
I. PROGRESS AND GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Spectrum Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Public Safety Spectrum Needs and Television Broadcasting . . . . . . . . 2
Improving Spectrum Capacity for Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Cost of Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Communications Support and Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Interoperability: SAFECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Interoperability: ICOM Act Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Interoperability: Integrated Wireless Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Interoperability: First Responders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Proposed New Legislation on Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
High-Risk Urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Proposed New Legislation for Urban Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
II. POLICY IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Policy and Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Federal Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
State Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Policy and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Convergence and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Policy and Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Some Recommendations from the Public Safety Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act . . . . . 21
Some Key Requirements in Presidential Memorandum on Spectrum Use . 22
What’s Been Accomplished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Issues for the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix I - Federal Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
National Telecommunications and Information Administration . . . . . . . . . 25
Federal Communications Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Spectrum and Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Interoperability and
Compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
SAFECOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Regional Technology Integration Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
National Incident Management System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Integrated Wireless Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Other Coordinating Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Public Safety Communications: Policy,
Proposals, Legislation and Progress
Public safety agencies include the nation’s first responders (such as firefighters,
police officers, and ambulance services) 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 these different systems to readily contact
each other. Facilitating interoperability has been a policy concern of public safety
officials for a number of years.1 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.
I. PROGRESS AND GOALS
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 by Congress.2
The Commission, in this paragraph, recognized the important link between
access to spectrum and the effectiveness of communications technology. Briefly, the
recommendation says:
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.
2 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
the United States
, (Washington: GPO, 2004), p. 397.

CRS-2
! 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
! fund these communications operations for high-risk urban areas.
The 9/11 Commission recommendations for public safety are a pithy summation
of issues raised in the last decade or so. Provisions in the act that respond to the
recommendations of the Commission and of the public safety community, among
others, are discussed below. The discussion also includes legislation introduced in
the 109th Congress that responds to or modifies provisions of the act.
Spectrum Allocation
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum at 700 MHz3 to public safety,
without providing a hard deadline for the transfer.4 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 report regarding spectrum availability speaks directly to the issue of the
700 MHz spectrum that has been assigned to public safety but is not yet available.
It recommended that Congress pass proposed legislation (the HERO Act, see below)
that would free those channels. Although the task of freeing spectrum for public
safety could be addressed as a separate issue, many recent actions have focused on
the steps to be taken for releasing all the encumbered spectrum while assuring access
to broadcast television programs.5
Public Safety Spectrum Needs and Television Broadcasting.
Beginning with the 107th Congress, Representative Jane Harman has introduced in
each Congress legislation that would assure the timely release of radio channels at
700 MHZ for public safety use. The Homeland Emergency Response Operations
Act, or HERO Act (H.R. 1646), reintroduced in April 2005, requires the FCC to
“take all actions necessary to complete assignments” for these channels so that
operations could begin no later than January 1, 2007, adhering to the deadline
3 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. Bandwidth refers generally to the capacity of
channels to carry voice and data, a function of technology and the amount of spectrum
assigned. Most frequency assignments for first responders are narrowband and most
channels currently in use are located below 512 MHz.
4 47 U.S.C. § 309 (j) (14).
5 For example Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, “The Role of
Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition,” February 17, 2005.

CRS-3
originally envisioned for the completion of the transition to DTV for all affected
channels.
New Legislative Proposals. More comprehensive bills covering the release
of spectrum and the transition to DTV have been introduced or planned. The
Spectrum Availability for Emergency-response and Law-enforcement to Improve
Vital Emergency Services, or SAVE LIVES Act (S. 1268, Senator McCain) would
set a deadline of December 31, 20086 for the release of spectrum held by
broadcasters and address issues of the transition from analog to digital broadcast
technology. Among the provisions of the bill are several that address public safety
and communications needs. The bill would allow spectrum auction proceeds from
the sale of cleared analog spectrum to be allocated directly to a grant program to
improve communications interoperability for first responders.7 Allowance is made
for the possibility that Congress will ask the FCC to allocate additional spectrum for
public safety after it has considered an FCC report on spectrum needs.8 (See below.)
To ensure that the FCC has the authority to conduct the auction of the designated
radio frequencies, the bill extends the auction authority of the FCC until September
30, 2009;9 it is currently set to expire in September 2007. The bill covers many
aspects of concern in carrying out the transition to digital TV. The bill, for example,
establishes criteria for distributing set-top converter boxes10 and authorizes funds for
the program.11 These funds will be paid out from revenue generated by the auction
of designated spectrum.12 Other provisions cover rules for notifying consumers of
the pending transition;13 provision of digital signals over cable;14 and requirements
for the FCC to complete certain pending proceedings that impact the DTV
transition.15 Senator McCain reportedly plans to work with Senator Ted Stevens
(Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senate) who is
preparing a bill covering the release of spectrum and the transition to DTV.16 In the
House, discussions of a draft bill have reportedly stalled over disagreement about
subsidies for tuners, among other issues.17
6 S. 1268, Sec. 2 (a) (1).
7 S. 1268, Sec. 5 (f).
8 S. 1268, Sec. 3 (a) (2) “(II) (cc).”
9 S. 1268, Sec. 3 (b).
10 S. 1268, Sec. 4.
11 S. 1268, Sec. 4 (f).
12 S. 1268, Sec. 4 (f) (1).
13 S. 1268, Sec. 6.
14 S. 1268, Sec. 7.
15 S. 12689 Sec. 9.
16 “NAB Thwarting Return of Spectrum, McCain Says,” Communications Daily, June 15,
2005.
17 “House Leadership Concern over Subsidy Slows Barton DTV Bill,” Communications
Daily, June 16, 2005.

CRS-4
Improving Spectrum Capacity for Public Safety. The act requires the
FCC, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),18 to conduct a study
on the spectrum needs for public safety, including the possibility of increasing the
amount of spectrum at 700 MHz.19 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.20 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 has circulated proposed legislation that would
allocate additional spectrum at 700 MHz for use by state and local first responders,
critical infrastructure industries, and federal public safety agencies.21
Although, cumulatively, radio frequencies designated for non-federal public
safety total over 90 MHz,22 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 interoperability in
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. The immediate barrier to achieving radio communications
interoperability is — simply put — that UHF and VHF frequencies23 cannot
18 The NTIA, Department of Commerce, administers federal use of spectrum.
19 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (a).
20 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).
21 Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety at [http://www.spectrumcoalition.org].
22 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. The
NTIA has apparently not supplied a similar estimate of frequencies assigned to federal
agencies that are or can be accessed for public safety purposes.
23 Very High Frequency (VHF) and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) are transmitted in three
(continued...)

CRS-5
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 for key communications capabilities, including interoperable connections,
is viewed by many as the optimal solution for overcoming problems caused by
incompatible radio frequencies and technologies.
Responding to Congress’s requirement for a study, the FCC has begun the
process with a request for comment on the future spectrum needs of emergency
response providers.24 A statement, by Commissioner Michael J. Copps,
accompanying the request for comment sums up the sentiments of many of those
involved in public safety.
A useful report to Congress will: (1) include a survey of what spectrum is
currently being used by which entities across the country; (2) understand that not
all frequencies are the same and therefore assess whether we are matching
spectrum with appropriate physical characteristics to current and future public
safety needs; (3) indicate whether some bands are being underutilized because
public safety needs have changed since initial allocation; (4) assess the current
interference situation in public safety bands; (5) identify various approaches to
interoperability and their success or failure; (6) identify the current availability
of interoperable channels and whether or not they are widely used and why; and
(7) determine how a nationwide interoperable network can connect not only local
police and fire entities, but also the FBI, DHS, FEMA, and other critical Federal
agencies. I also believe that we must begin to understand that emergency rooms
and the medical community are integral parts of emergency response and
homeland security. If we build a system that excludes the medical community it
will be dangerously incomplete.
The need for greater spectral capacity will grow with the number of participants
in interoperable systems and the amounts of information being shared on these
systems. Bottlenecks in communications are a problem that is already manifest
among federal computer networks and landline transmissions, and many believe it
will worsen as more information is pushed through. As emergency response units
become more mobile, demand for time-critical, wireless communications capacity
will also increase. New technologies that improve communications capacity are
being introduced almost continuously, but the need to provide suitable spectrum for
a full range of voice and data communications will persist.
The Cost of Fragmentation. The number of radio frequencies available for
interoperable communications capability can significantly impact first responder
23 (...continued)
bands in the United States — low VHF, high VHF and UHF.
24 “Federal Communications Commission Requests Comments on Spectrum Needs of
Emergency Response Providers,” FCC News, March 29, 2005, WT Docket No. 05-157 at
[http://www.fcc.gov].

CRS-6
communications, and the range of these frequencies can significantly impact the cost
of equipment. Manufacturers cite short production runs for wireless handsets as one
of the causes for higher costs associated with public safety communications
equipment. An analog walkie-talkie might cost $300, a recent “typical” price. A
radio with limited interoperability that meets Project 25 standards25 might cost as
much as $3,000 in a limited production run. The greater the number of
communications devices using compatible frequencies, the greater are the
opportunities for economies of scale in production, which in turn typically lowers the
cost and final price on equipment. Purchasing “cross-talk” equipment — to provide
interoperability by linking radio frequencies through a black box — can run into the
millions of dollars. Beyond issues such as risk-assessment, prioritizing, and equity
in funding programs, many within Congress and without are concerned about the
long-term implications of funding short-term communications solutions, such as
cross-talk equipment.26 Many believe that the unavailability of spectrum at 700 MHz
is stalling advances in technology and planning for new networks, thus adding to the
short-term costs of maintaining public safety communications. Therefore, many
argue that creating common, interoperable channels at 700 MHz is cost-effective as
well as organizationally and technologically desirable.27
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.”28
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
25 Project 25 refers to the suite of standards for public safety communications under
development by the Telecommunications Industry Association, a standards-setting body
authorized for this program. [http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/project_25/]. Viewed June
22, 2005
26 For example, statements at Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on
Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology,
“The Need for Grant Reform and The Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act
of 2005,” April 13, 2005.
27 Speakers at a CRS-sponsored seminar provided equipment cost estimates and were among
those who have confirmed the need for access to spectrum at 700 MHz as part of the
solution for achieving interoperability. Public Safety Communications: Interoperability
Technology Workshop
, November 17, 2003.
28 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.

CRS-7
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 network
that supports knowledge dominance for Army, joint and coalition operations.29
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
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.
A discussion of key federal programs to support communications and foster
interoperability is included in the Appendix of this report. At the end of the 108th
Congress, the goals and accomplishments of these programs could be viewed by
many as less ambitious than the signal corps template provided by the 9/11
Commission. Congress responded to recommendations for improvements 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. Among the program goals the act sets for the Department of Homeland
Security and the Federal Communications Commission 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.
29 From [http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/signal/signal.html]. Viewed June 22,
2005

CRS-8
! 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.30
The act also instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to lead a study to
“assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunications
needs.”31 The strategies study is to address the need for nationwide interoperable
communications networks, the capacity of public safety to use wireless broadband
applications, and the communications capabilities of “all emergency response
providers. . . .” The use of “commercial wireless technologies to the greatest extent
possible” is to be considered.
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. This
role has been supported by the Administration32 and confirmed by Congress with
language in the National Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act.33 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 network overlay that can encompass the
many useful, but mostly not connected, networks that already play vital roles in
public safety communications.
Interoperability: ICOM Act Proposal. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has
introduced a bill — the Improve Interoperable Communications for First Responders
Act of 2005 or ICOM Act (S. 1274) — to improve interoperable communications
with additional programs and new funding. ICOM would expand the scope of
30 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (1).
31 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (b).
32 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?,” November 6, 2003.
33 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2).

CRS-9
interoperability efforts required in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act (P.L. 108-458) with specific new requirements, some of which are included in
programs established or under consideration by DHS. The Office of Interoperability
and Compatibility (OIC), which has been created by DHS and was recognized in P.L.
108-458, would be required by the ICOM bill.34 Some of the new responsibilities for
the OIC, specified in the bill, deal with creating and supporting state and regional
task forces; with increasing outreach programs, technical assistance, and education;
and with conducting pilot programs.35 Pilot programs would test new technology and
spectrum efficiency among other purposes.36 The bill provides new detail about the
scope of research and development and makes several references to R&D for new
technology.37 ICOM also recommends creating a Center of Excellence to study
information and communications systems for first responders.38 Dedicated funding
for interoperability would be provided through a new grants program (see below).
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.39 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.”40 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 — 41 and use of VHF frequencies already
assigned to federal users.42 Currently, the program has selected five companies as
34 S. 1274, Sec 3. (a) “(2) “(A).
35 S. 1274, Sec 3. (a) “(2) “(C).
36 S. 1274, Sec 3, (a) “(2) “(C) “(VIII)..
37 S. 1274, “Sec 315, “(a).
38 S. 1274, “Sec 315, “(a) (2).
39 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 23, 2005.
40 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 23, 2005.
41 Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.1 (d),
page 8 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
42 Presentation by Michael Duffy, Deputy Chief Information Officer, E-Gov, Department
of Justice, at Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) Industry Day, April 27, 2004.

CRS-10
semi-finalists.43 These companies have been asked to submit a detailed system
design and an implementation plan44 and are encouraged to provide “innovative, big-
picture, solution sets.”45 The departmental objectives for coverage are: major
metropolitan areas; major highways; U.S. land and sea border areas; and ports of
entry.46 The reported estimated cost for IWN is $10 billion.47 Funding is provided
jointly from budgeted sums designated for the upgrading of communications
equipment to meet NTIA requirements for narrowbanding and interoperability.48
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.49
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.
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?
43 They are: AT&T, Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Motorola. From
Results of the IWN Phase I Downselect at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html].
Viewed June 23, 2005.
44 Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, A.4 (a),
page 3 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
45 Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.1(c),
page 7 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
46 Request for Comment, Draft Phase 2 Request for Proposals, October 13, 2004, C.2.1. (c),
page 7 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
47 “Massive Federal Wireless Project Delayed,” by Wilson P. Dizard III, GCN, March 30,
2005.
48 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.
49 “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), page 10 at [http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/iwn/schedule.html].
Viewed June 23, 2005.

CRS-11
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? 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 that IWN is to use are the same frequencies that were
generally not available to those responding to terrorist attacks on September 11,
2001.
Funding
Grants that have helped to pay for new 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-going.50
According to an undated fact sheet from DHS, since September 11, 2001 the
Administration has allocated $200 million specifically for improving interoperability
and $5.4 billion has been provided to states for emergency preparedness that could
include interoperable communications.51 An internal assessment within DHS of 2004
grant funds spent for interoperability indicates that states and territories spent nearly
a billion dollars on interoperable communications equipment in that budget year.52
The amount of dollars available, although significant, represents a small portion of
the “several billions” that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports as
the estimated sum needed to achieve interoperability.53 The GAO concludes that
“federal funding assistance programs to state and local governments do not fully
50 For full details, please refer to CRS Report RS21677, Office for Domestic Preparedness
Grants for 2004: State Allocation Fact Sheet
; 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
, all 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.
51 Department of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet:RapidCom 9/30 and Interoperability
Progress” [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0470.xml].
Viewed June 22, 2005.
52 “Interoperable Communications Funding Report - United States - FY2004,” Department
of Homeland Security, Office of Domestic Preparedness, for planned expenditures for grants
under State Homeland Security Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program,
Citizens Corp Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, and Transit Security Program.
Preliminary report does not include all data.
53 Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate Interoperable Communications Between First
Responders
, Government Accountability Office, GAO-04-1057T, September 8, 2004, p. 16.

CRS-12
support regional planning for communications interoperability.”54 One cause cited
was the restraint on planning and budgeting imposed by limiting federal funding to
annual grants only.
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.55 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.
Proposed New Legislation on Funding. Although the need for more
funding appears to be at the top of almost any list regarding interoperable
communications policy, many have expressed concern that there is no strategy that
prioritizes what needs to be funded though federal programs, leading to waste and
inequities. Two key bills deal with changing the formulas for appropriations for first
responder and homeland security grants, with one objective the improvement of the
effectiveness of grant dollars. The Senate bill (S. 21, Senator Collins) makes changes
in the grants formula and also authorizes funds for first responders. The major House
bill (H.R. 1544, Representative Cox) offers new formulas and guidelines but does not
authorize specific dollar amounts.
The ICOM Act (S. 1274, Senator Lieberman) would provide additional funding
for certain programs currently authorized by the last Congress as part of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act and specifically authorize funds
for interoperable communications through a new grants program. The ICOM Act
would add roughly a million dollars to the sums authorized by the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act to pay for programs related to interoperability
in the Office of Interoperability and Compatibility and by SAFECOM.56 A new
grants program for interoperability would authorize $3.3 billion over five years for
“initiatives to achieve short-term or long-term solutions to interoperability within the
State or region and to assist with any aspect of the communication life cycle . . .” 57
The funding formulae for grants is that proposed in S. 21. Each state would receive
a minimum baseline of 0.55 % of total funds appropriated, with a higher baseline for
states with high populations or densely populated areas. The balance of grant money
would be distributed based on risk factors. A review panel would be established to
assist in evaluating grants applications.58
Taking a different approach to funding, the Public Safety Interoperability
Implementation Act (H.R. 1323, Representative Stupak) would establish in the U.S.
54 Ibid, Highlights.
55 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (e).
56 S. 1274, “Sec 315, “(b).
57 S. 1274, “Title XVIII, “Sec. 1801, “(b).
58 S. 1274, “Title XVIII, “Sec. 1801, “(f) “(2).

CRS-13
Treasury a Public Safety Communications Trust Fund59 to be funded in part with
annual appropriations of $500 million for each of three fiscal years,60 and in part with
a percentage of certain spectrum auction proceeds.61 The fund is to be administered
by the NTIA, in consultation with a board of five directors appointed by the Secretary
of Commerce. The board is to consult with the Department of Homeland Security,
which may also be represented by one or more members on the board.62 The NTIA
Administrator is to make grants from the fund “to implement interoperability and
modernization . . . for the communications needs” of public safety organizations and
related agencies or entities.63 Preference for grants is to be given to those proposing
inter-agency or regional and multi-jurisdictional interoperability programs.64

High-Risk Urban Areas
The 9/11 Commission recommendation urged immediate funding of signal
corps in high-risk urban areas to assure connectivity “among civilian authorities,
local first responders, and the National Guard.” The act responded by amending the
Homeland Security Act to specify that DHS is to give priority to the rapid
establishment of interoperable capacity in urban and other areas determined to be at
high risk from terrorist attack. The Secretary of Homeland Security is required to
work with the FCC, the Secretary of Defense, and appropriate state and local
authorities to provide technical guidance, training, and other assistance as
appropriate.65 Minimum capabilities for “all levels of government agencies,” first
responders, and others include the ability to communicate with each other and to
have “appropriate and timely access” to the Information Sharing Environment, an
initiative treated elsewhere in the act.66
The act further requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish at least
two pilot programs in high threat areas. The process of development for these
programs is to contribute to the creation and implementation of a national model
strategic plan.67 The purpose of this plan is to foster interagency communications
at all levels of the response effort.68 Building on the 9/11 Commission
recommendation to use the resources of the Army Signal Corps, the Secretary is to
consult with the Secretary of Defense in the development of the pilot projects,
59 H.R. 1323, Sec. 3, ‘Sec. 106 ‘(a) ‘(1).
60 H.R. 1323, Sec. 3, ‘Sec. 106 ‘(f).
61 H.R. 1323, Sec. 3, ‘Sec. 106 ‘(a) ‘(2).
62 H.R. 1323, Sec. 3, ‘Sec. 106 ‘(b) ‘(1).
63 H.R. 1323, Sec. 3, ‘Sec. 106 ‘(c) ‘(1).
64 H.R. 1323, Sec. 3, ‘Sec. 106 ‘(c) ‘(2).
65 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (d), ‘Sec. 510 ‘(a).
66 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (d), ‘Sec. 510 ‘(b).
67 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (a).
68 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (b).

CRS-14
including review of standards, equipment, and protocols.69 DHS was to have
established at least two pilot projects in high threat or urban areas for interagency
communications by March 2005;70 as of the date of this report, this program is in
review.
Proposed New Legislation for Urban Areas. Underscoring the need to
aid first responders in urban areas, H.R. 1795 (Representative Maloney) would
require DHS to provide a communications system for the New York City Fire
Department, including radios for the entire department and upgrades to its dispatch
system. The bill specifies that such a network should be “seamless from the receipt
of a 911 call to the dispatch of the firefighter,”71 and interoperable with other public
safety offices within the city.72 Other systems requirements include being able to
transmit a firefighter’s identity and location;73 sufficient capacity to send, in real time,
data about buildings and property;74 performance tested for operation in “all locations
and under all conditions in which firefighters can reasonably be expected to work .
. .”.75
69 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (d).
70 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (a).
71 H.R. 1795, Sec. 2 (11) (A).
72 H.R. 1795, Sec. 2 (11) (B).
73 H.R. 1795, Sec. 3 (b) (2) (B).
74 H.R. 1795, Sec. 3 (b) (3) (C).
75 H.R. 1795, Sec. 3 (c).

CRS-15
II. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Policy and Planning
At a number of hearings throughout the 108th Congress,76 and in reports by the
Government Accountability Office,77 the need for better governance and planning for
interoperability was raised repeatedly. While not embracing the 9/11 Commission
recommendation for a Signal Corps, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act does include requirements for planning and for studies and reports
that might lead to future changes in governance and national policy for
interoperability and planning. The Administration also has asked for detailed studies
and plans regarding spectrum use and communications for public safety.
Federal Planning
On November 30, 2004, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum to
the heads of Executive Departments and agencies regarding steps to be taken to
improve the management of spectrum assigned for federal use.78 Most of these steps
are to implement recommendations made by the Federal Government Spectrum Task
Force in its report to the President in June 2004.79 Among the deadlines provided in
the memorandum are two requirements related specifically to public safety. One
requirement is for the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify public safety
spectrum needs by June 2005. The Secretary is to work with the Secretary of
Commerce and, as needed, with the Chairman of the Federal Communications
76 Hearing of the House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, “Protecting Homeland Security: A
Status Report on Interoperability Between Public Safety Communications Systems,” June
23, 2004; 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; Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census, “More Time, More Money, More Communication?” September
8, 2004; Hearing of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
“Spectrum for Public Safety Users,” September 8, 2004.
77 For example, Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications for First
Responders,
Government Accountability Office, GAO-04-231T, November 6, 2003; Federal
Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder
Interoperable Communications
, GAO-04-720, July 2004; Federal Leadership and
Intergovernmental Cooperation Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable
Communications
, GAO-04-963T, July 20, 2004; Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate
Interoperable Communications Between First Responders
, GAO-04-1057T, September 8,
2004; and Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has
Improved, but Challenges Remain
, GAO-05-121, February 2005.
78 “Presidential Determination: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies,” November 30, 2004, Office of the Press Secretary, News & Policies, at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041130-8.html]. Viewed June 23,
2005.
79 Spectrum Policy for the 21st Century: The President’s Spectrum Policy Initiative.

CRS-16
Commission; representatives from the public safety community; state, local, regional
and tribal governments; and the private sector. Also, by year-end 2005, the Secretary
of Homeland Security is to lead the preparation of a Spectrum Needs Plan, “to
address issues related to communication spectrum used by the public safety
community, as well as the continuity of Government operations.” Concurrently, the
Secretary of Commerce is to develop a Federal Strategic Spectrum Plan.
State Planning
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act links grant-making
with planning efforts in its provisions.80 Requirements for planning for spectrum and
interoperability in order to qualify for funding assistance include 1) description of
available radio frequency uses and planned uses;81 2) description of how plans for
spectrum use and interoperability are compatible with plans for “Federal, State and
local governmental entities, military installations, foreign governments, critical
infrastructure, and other relevant entities;”82 and 3) inclusion of a five-year plan
showing how resources will be used.83 The language provides criteria for non-federal
planners that could be expected to mesh with federal planning efforts required by the
Administration and in other sections of the act.84 Furthermore, additional provisions
of the act require the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish at least two pilots
to develop a “regional strategic plan to foster interagency communications,”
consistent with the national strategic plan to be developed at the request of Congress
by the Secretary of Homeland Security.85
The strategic planning efforts required by Congress and by the Administration
have similar goals. Although requirements for federal planning are more extensive
than what has been asked of states and other non-federal entities, a possible synergy
among the various programs could lead to the crafting of a nationwide plan with
clearly defined links to state and local planning and to the private sector. A template
for interoperability planning has been developed within DHS that could be used as
a first step toward meeting the planning requirements set forth in the act.86
80 Funding programs are covered in several CRS reports, including CRS Report RL32696,
Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
, by Shawn Reese.
81 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f) (2).
82 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f) (3).
83 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (f) (4).
84 Notably, P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502.
85 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7304 (b).
86 Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology, SAFECOM
Program, Directorate of Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security at
[http://www.safecomprogram.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9628BE4B-E7A5-4F1B-9179-2CFCF26
53CA9/0/SCIPMethodology.pdf]. Viewed June 23, 2005.

CRS-17
Policy and Technology
The act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FCC, and the NTIA
to conduct a study to assess strategies for public safety communications. The study
is to include
! The need and efficacy of deploying nationwide interoperable
communications networks.
! The capacity of public safety entities to use wireless broadband
applications.
! The communications capabilities of all emergency response
providers, including hospitals and health care workers, and current
efforts to promote communications coordination and training among
emergency response providers.87
Conclusions from this assessment might lead to recommendations for the
development of a nationwide network for public safety, as many have advocated.88
As has been noted by public safety communications experts, the federal government
is but one operator of networks, in use or planned. There are also important networks
operated or planned by states, and some private networks — such as those owned
by utilities — that are accessible for public safety use. These networks could be
linked through common interfaces to provide local, regional, or national coverage,
as needed. The 9/11 Commission proposed a signal corps approach to public safety
communications for high-risk urban areas. Such a capability would seem to include
a system architecture to provide a backbone for wide area and local area networks
and to support interoperability system-wide, as needed.
In addition to local gateways, communities — and the military — are testing
leading edge technologies that can overcome problems of limited capacity of
assigned frequencies, incompatible standards and other technical problems. The
technologies being tested to improve interoperability include software-driven radios
and smart antennae, mesh networks, and cognitive radio.
Software defined networks (radios, base stations, antennae) move wireless
communications away from hard-wired equipment, where functionality is built into
the components at the factory, by allowing changes in parameters to be downloaded
remotely. Parameters that can be changed include standards and frequency
assignments. Cognitive radio has the potential to eliminate entirely the need for
frequency assignments. Cognitive radio is able to seek out and use any available
frequency through miniaturized software programs contained within radio equipment.
87 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle E, Sec. 7502 (b).
88 For example, testimony of Gary Grube, Chief Technology Officer, Motorola, Inc. at
Hearing of Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, “Spectrum for
Public Safety Users,” September 8, 2004.

CRS-18
Advanced versions of software-defined radio (SDR) being tested today are the
building blocks for commercial applications of cognitive radio.
The Department of Defense, its agencies, and military departments have been
leaders in research and development for software-programmable radios and base
centers. These new technologies are expected to provide seamless interoperability
in tactical operations and decrease the cost of infrastructure. A key program is the
Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), designed to help the military migrate from its
current wireless technology to SDR.89 DOD is promoting the use of JTRS and its
software communications architecture for homeland security and public safety
communications and interoperability.90

Mesh networking is another promising technology that can facilitate public
safety communications and interoperability. Mesh networks use radios that also Act
as mobile antennae, eliminating dependency on fixed antenna. Cities that are trying
mesh networks for public safety include Medford, Oregon; San Mateo, California;
North Miami Beach, Florida; and Garland, Texas.91 The mesh network systems
being installed for public safety in some communities and cities use proprietary
standards and are not interoperable, echoing the proprietary, incompatible cellular
radio networks that were developed in the last century to be the mainstay of today’s
mostly non-interoperable systems for public safety.
Other communities are using unlicenced spectrum to use Wi-Fi networks (fixed
antennae) for public safety communications.92 Using commercial, third-generation
(3G) wireless technologies is also an option for first responders. New 3G phones
offer high-speed Internet access and image transmissions as well as voice
communications. Off-the-shelf camera phones can relay photos from an incident site
to a command center, or vice versa. Advanced mobile phones are being prepared to
receive multi-channel TV broadcasts in test markets. Interoperability for commercial
wireless is supported by network backbones.
Convergence and Coordination
The concept of public safety communications is expanding as new technology
makes it possible to include many whose role in preventing or responding to disaster
lies outside the conventional definition of first responder. A more inclusive
89 See [http://jtrs.army.mil/]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
90 Overview at [http://jtrs.army.mil/sections/overview/fset_overview_domestic.html].
Viewed June 23, 2005.
91 For more about mesh networks and public safety, see Government Computer News,
“Oregon City Builds Mesh Network,” May 24, 2004 and “Wireless Mesh Network Good as
Gold,” June 7, 2004, both by William Jackson.
92 Wi-Fi, for wireless fidelity, operates on unlicensed frequencies. An example of how Wi-
Fi can support public safety is the plan of Cook County, Illinois to implement Wi-Fi for
public and private sector use. See “Metro Wi-Fi Finding Friends,” by Ed Sutherland,
N e t w o r k C o m p u t i n g ’ s M o b i l e p i p e l i n e , J u l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 4 a t
[http://nwc.mobilepipeline.com/26100806]. Viewed June 23, 2005.

CRS-19
description of public safety responders might include utility workers (often among
the first on the scene, to shut down power sources), health care workers other than
those in emergency medical services, operators in 911 call centers, and bystanders
at the scene of an accident or disaster. A Focus Group for the National Reliability
and Interoperability Council (NRIC VII) suggests the term “emergency agency” and
provides a suggested list of “agents” that might be part of an expanded “emergency
response internetwork;” technology would provide the capability to link all parties
and policy would determine the circumstances for, and type of, communication.93
A broader policy for public safety communications would include more types
of communications capabilities as well as more participants and recipients. Although
not included in its list of recommendations, the 9/11 Commission commented on the
often inadequate response of the 911 call centers serving New York City,94 and
suggested “In planning for future disasters, it is important to integrate those taking
911 calls into the emergency response team and to involve them in providing up-to-
date information and assistance to the public.”95 The absence of advance warning
to communities inundated by the tsunami on December 26, 2004 provided a harsh
reminder of the role of emergency alert systems — another form of public safety
communications — in saving lives. The convergence of communications
technology, typified by the near-ubiquity of the Internet and the wide availability of
advanced wireless telephony, presages a world of end-to-end communications for
public safety. These communications capabilities could incorporate a wide variety
of systems and networks and be able to support almost any type of emergency
response, emergency alert, or public safety information.
Another law passed in the 108th Congress, enacted in the same time frame as the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, created an E-911 Implementation
Coordination Office to foster improvements in 911 call centers.96 Although no
funding has been provided specifically for 911 programs, the existence of such an
office at the federal level is a step toward coordinating 911 programs with emergency
alert systems and other public safety programs. Separately, the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act contains two provisions for collecting information on
emergency alert systems. One requires a study about the use of telecommunications
networks as part of an all-hazards warning system, specifying that technologies to
93 NRIC VII, Focus Group 1D, Communications Issues for Emergency Communications
Beyond 911; Report #1 - Properties and network architectures that communications between
PSAPs and emergency services personnel must meet in the near future ,” December 6, 2004,
pp. 12; 26-27. PSAPs are Public Safety Answering Points, also known as 911 Call Centers.
NRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee chartered by the FCC, see Appendix. See
[http://nric.org/meetings/docs/meeting_20041206/FG1D%20Final%20Report.pdf]. Viewed
June 23, 2005.
94 Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,
Official Government Edition, 2004, pp. 286-287; 295; 306.
95 Op cit., p. 318.
96 P.L. 108-494, Title I.

CRS-20
consider would be “telephone, wireless communications, and other existing
communications networks . . .”.97 The act also requires a pilot study using
technology now being used for an Amber Alert network,98 to improve public warning
systems regarding threats to homeland security. This study and pilot, along with
other pilots underway for public safety and emergency communications,99 will add
to the body of information and experience being created by the federal government
and others.
Policy and Progress
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).100
Some Recommendations from the Public Safety Sector
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.
97 Requirement for Study Regarding Nationwide Emergency Notification System,
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Title VII, Sec. 7403.
98 An Amber Alert is used to locate missing children. It is named after Amber Hagerman,
kidnaped and murdered in 1996; also referred to as the AMBER Plan, for America’s
Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response. websites with additional information include
[http://www.amberalertnow.org], [http://www.amberalert911.org] and the site of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children [http://www.ncmec.org]. All sites
viewed June 23, 2005. See also CRS Report RS21453, Amber Alert Program Technology,
by Linda K. Moore. The program and policy issues are discussed in CRS Report RL31655,
Missing and Exploited Children: Overview and Policy Concerns, by Edith Cooper.
99 Some key programs are discussed in the Appendix. See also CRS Report RL32527,
Emergency Communications: The Emergency Alert System (EAS) and All-Hazards
Warnings
.
100 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.

CRS-21
! 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.
! 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.
Provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act

Congress has responded with provisions in the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act that provide specific instructions to federal departments
and agencies to take actions to meet many of the goals outlined above, as well as
respond to other concerns articulated by the public safety community. Key tasks that
the act requires for public safety communications include
! Sense of Congress that it must pass legislation that resolves
spectrum release as part of the transition to digital television; first
session. Sec. 7501.
! Requirement for a study on spectrum for public safety and homeland
security; December 2005. Sec. 7502 (a).
! Requirement for a study on strategies to meet interoperable
communications needs; December 2005. Sec. 7502 (b).
! Report on plan to accelerate development of national interoperable
standards, including milestones and achievements; April 2005. Sec.
7303 (b).101
101 Responding to a CRS inquiry on status, DHS has indicated that the report has been
completed and is in review.

CRS-22
! Establishment by the President of a mechanism for coordinating
cross-border interoperability issues with Canada and Mexico; June
2006. Sec. 7303 (c).
! Requirement to establish at least two pilot projects in high threat or
urban areas for interagency communications; March 2005. Sec.
7304 (a).102
! Reports on interagency communications pilots; interim, June 2005;
final June 2006. Sec. 7304 (e).
! Authorization of funds for interoperable communications projects
within DHS (not grant funds); fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Sec.
7303 (a) (3).
! Requirement for a study on the use of telephone, wireless and other
existing communications networks as a means of providing a
nationwide emergency notification system; September 2005. Sec.
7403.
! Requirement for a pilot study using a warning system similar to the
Amber Alert communications network ( using funds made available
for improving the national warning system regarding terrorist
attacks) with a report on findings and recommendations; September
2005. Sec.7404.
Some Key Requirements in Presidential Memorandum on
Spectrum Use

Partly concurrent with requirements from Congress regarding improved
communications and spectrum use are a number of federal programs and deadlines
set by the President.103 Requirements with near-term deadlines that have a bearing
on public safety are
! Requirement for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
provide guidance for federal agencies regarding the identification of
spectrum requirements and the costs of investments in spectrum-
related programs; May 2005.
! Requirement for agencies to implement methods recommended by
OMB, including steps to ensure greater consideration of more
efficient and cost-effective spectrum use; November 2005.
102 Responding to a CRS inquiry on status, DHS has indicated that the pilot project program
is being reviewed.
103 “Presidential Determination: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies,” November 30, 2004, Office of the Press Secretary, News & Policies, at
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041130-8.html]. Viewed June 23,
2005.

CRS-23
! Requirement for the Secretary of Commerce to provide agency-
specific strategic spectrum plans; November 2005.
! Requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify
public safety spectrum needs; May 2005.
! Requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a
comprehensive plan — the Spectrum Needs Plan — to address
issues that include spectrum use by the public safety community;
November 2005.
What’s Been Accomplished
A survey of recent, key federal actions in areas concerning interoperability
might be summarized as follows
! Participation in a number of demonstration projects (e.g., Homeland
Security Urban Area Security Initiative).
! Planning for rationalization and improvement of federal
communications networks (e.g., Integrated Wireless Network).
! Conducting pilot, part of the Integrated Public Alert and Warning
System (IPAWS), to test an all-digital emergency alert network.
This project may be expanded to include the Congressional
requirement for a pilot using Amber Alert technology.
! Provision of planning tools and consultative services to state and
local first responders (e.g., SAFECOM programs).104
! Assistance in improving standards (for example, requirements for
compatibility with Project 25 standards) and identifying needs for
standards (e.g., SAFECOM’s requirements documents).
! Improvements in spectrum management for public safety (e.g., FCC
creation of the National Coordinating Committee and plans for
rebanding to reduce interference on public safety radio channels).
! Increased funding to grants programs for first responders (e.g.,
funding from the Office of Domestic Preparedness).
! Planned studies and pilots required by Congress and the
Administration (noted above).
104 Testimony of Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency
Preparedness and Response, “Federal Emergency Management Agency,” House of
Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
March 9, 2005.

CRS-24
Issues for the 109th Congress
By its requirements for studies on interoperability strategies, use of technology,
spectrum use, and more, Congress has assigned itself a number of specific tasks of
oversight. 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. Many steps have been taken, particularly within
DHS, and Congress has demanded further advances. 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 are crucial to the advancement of policy for
public safety.
The achievement of a comprehensive set of solutions for interoperability outside
the federal government appears to remain elusive. Participation of the federal
government in a national solution for interoperability does not necessarily require
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 to include incremental progress reports on programs such as those
noted above, in advance of the deadlines it has set for required studies.

CRS-25
Appendix I - Federal Administration
The key federal agencies for spectrum management and 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. The lead federal program for fostering
interoperability is administered by the Wireless Public SAFEty Interoperable
COMmunications Program, dubbed Project SAFECOM,105 part of the Department
of Homeland Security.106 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 Presidential
Directive (HSPD-5).107 A NIMS Integration Center is planned to deal with
compatibility and will 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)108 — 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
.109 Two forums on public safety and spectrum use
have been sponsored by the NTIA, one in June 2002 and another in February 2004.110
105 Additional information is at [http://www.safecomprogram.gov/].
106 DHS is the managing partner for the SAFECOM program. Contributing partners include
these Departments: Justice, Treasury, Transportation, Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Health
and Human Services, and Interior.
107 Full document at [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NIMS-90-web.pdf]. Viewed
June 23, 2005.
108 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 23, 2005.
109 Additional information at [http://ntiacsd.ntia.doc.gov/pubsafe/]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
110 Agenda and reports of the 2004 Public Safety Forum are available at
(continued...)

CRS-26
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 (RPCs) 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.111 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. Among actions by the FCC specifically in support of
homeland security were the chartering of the Media Security and Reliability Council
(MSRC)112 and the renewal of the charter for the Network Reliability and
Interoperability Council (NRIC).113 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 efficient
communications technologies and services.”114
110 (...continued)
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/specinit/forum2/]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
111 See [http://wireless.fcc.gov/publicsafety/700MHz]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
112 See [http://www.fcc.gov/MSRC/Welcome.html]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
113 See [http://www.nric.org].
114 See [http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/#goals]. Viewed June 23, 2005.

CRS-27
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.”115 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.”116
Department of Homeland Security, 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.117 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.118 The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act affirmed
this decision by giving DHS the authority to create an office for interoperability
115 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.
116 Ibid.
117 Testimony of Dr. David G. Boyd, Program Manager, SAFECOM, 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.
118 “Homeland Security Starting Over With SAFECOM,” Government Computer News, June
9, 2003.

CRS-28
within the Science and Technology Directorate and to manage SAFECOM as part of
that effort.119 SAFECOM recently released a template for interoperability planning
that can be used by states to establish a strategy for interoperability120 and is
preparing a methodology to establish a baseline for interoperability achievements as
an evaluation tool to measure the success of future interoperability programs.
Reportedly, SAFECOM will release initial findings on the baseline measurement
some time in 2005.121
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 huge
dividends in the future.122
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.123 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
119 P.L. 108-458, Title VII, Subtitle C, Sec. 7303 (a) (2).
120 Statewide Communication Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology, SAFECOM
Program, Directorate of Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security at
[http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestudies/1223_s
tatewidecommunications.htm]. Viewed April 26, 2005.
121 “Safecom SCIPs Across States,” by Dibya Sarkar, FCW.com, January 7, 2005.
122 Boyd, Hearing, July 20, 2004.
123 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/interapp/press_release/press_release_0430.xml]. Viewed June 23, 2005.

CRS-29
Cincinnati, Ohio and Anaheim, California.124 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.125
National Incident Management System
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, 2004.126 The objective for communications
facilitation is summarized as “development and use of a common communications
plan and interoperable communications processes and architectures.”127 NIMS
envisions mandatory compliance with “national interoperable communications
standards, once such standards are developed.”128 These standards will include
interoperable wireless communications for “Federal, State, local and tribal public
safety organizations.”129
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.130 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.”131
124 “Department of Homeland Security funding initiative aims to spur interoperability among
locals,” by Jim McKay, Government Technology, September 2004, p. 1.
125 Ibid.
126 “National Incident Management System,” Department of Homeland Security, March 1,
2004, at [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NIMS-90-web.pdf]. Viewed June 23,
2005
127 Ibid, p. 11.
128 Ibid, p. 50.
129 Ibid., p. 52.
130 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 23, 2005.
131 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 23, 2005.

CRS-30
Other Coordinating Bodies
SAFECOM has created a Federal Interoperability Coordination Council (FICC),
made up of “all the federal agencies with programs that address interoperability.”132
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).133 Part of the National Coordination Committee’s mission was to
encourage the creation of Statewide Interoperability Executive Committees (SIEC),134
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.135 It has been supported by the
AGILE Program, created by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).136 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 is being
restructured, to be 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,137 both SAFECOM and the FCC have described their roles primarily as
facilitators also. SAFECOM and DHS, in its plans for the Office of Interoperability
and Compatibility, 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
132 Testimony of Dr. David G. Boyd, Program Manager, SAFECOM, Department of
Homeland Security, 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.
133 See [http://www.apcointl.org/].
134 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.
135 Information at [http://npstc.org].
136 AGILE stands for Advanced Generation of Interoperability for Law Enforcement. See
[http://www.agileprogram.org/justnet.html]. Viewed June 23, 2005.
137 Boyd and Muleta, Hearing, July 20, 2004.

CRS-31
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.