1

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

National Emergency

Communications Plan

PRELIMINARY DRAFT v1.02

National Emergency

Communications Plan

PRELIMINARY DRAFT v1.02

National Emergency

Communications Plan

July 2008

Rev. Aug 7, 2008

National Emergency Communications Plan

July

2008

Message from the Secretary

Numerous after-action reports from major incidents throughout the history of emergency

management in our Nation have cited communication difficulties among the many

responding agencies as a major failing and challenge to policymakers. Congress and the

Administration have recognized that successful response to a future major

incident-

either a terrorist attack or natural disaster-would require a coordinated, "interoperable"

response by the Nation's public safety, public health, and emergency management

community, both public and private, at the Federal, State, tribal, Territorial, regional, and

local levels.

Recognizing the need for an overarching strategy to help coordinate and guide such

efforts, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop the first

National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP).

The purpose of the NECP is to

promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant government officials to

continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other

man-made disasters and to ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency

communications nationwide.

Natural disasters and acts of terrorism have shown that there is no simple solution-or

"silver bullet"-to solve the communications problems that still plague law enforcement,

firefighting, rescue, and emergency medical personnel.

To strengthen emergency communications capabilities nationwide, the Plan focuses on

technology, coordination, governance, planning, usage, training and exercises at all levels

of government. This approach recognizes that communications operability is a critical

building block for interoperability; emergency response officials first must be able to

establish communications within their own agency before they can interoperate with

neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies.

The NECP seeks to build on the substantial progress that has been made over the last

several years. Among the key developments at the Federal, State, regional, and local

levels are:

Most Federal programs that support emergency communications have been

consolidated within a single agency-the

Department of Homeland Security-to

improve the alignment, integration, and coordination of the Federal mission.

All

States and U.S. Territories have developed

Statewide Communication

Interoperability Plans

(SCIP) that identify near- and long-term initiatives for

improving communications interoperability.

The Nation's

largest urban and metropolitan areas

maintain policies for

interoperable communications.

National Emernencv Communications Plan

Julv

2008

The

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

is widely accepted and used by the

emergency response community to address critical elements for planning and

implementing interoperability solutions. These elements include governance,

standard operating procedures, technology, training and exercises, and usage of

interoperable communications.

The DHS Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA)

is establishing

Regional Emergency Communications Coordination

(RECC) Working Groups

in each of the

FEMA regions to coordinate multi-state efforts and measure

progress on improving the survivability, sustainability, and interoperability of

communications at the regional level.

developing the NECP, DHS worked closely with stakeholders from all levels of

government to ensure that their priorities and activities were addressed. The Department

will continue to coordinate with Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, and the

private sector, to ensure that the NECP is implemented successfully.

Ultimately, the NECP's goals cannot be achieved without the support and dedication of

the emergency response community that was instrumental in crafting it.

ask everyone

within the emergency response community to take ownership of the

NECP's initiatives

and actions and to dedicate themselves to meeting the key benchmarks. Working

together, we can achieve our vision:

Emergency responders can communicate-

needed, on demand, and

authorized;

at all levels of government; and

across all disciplines.

Michael Chertoff

P+

Secretary of Homeland Security

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................ES-1

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................

1.1 Purpose of the National Emergency Communications Plan............................. 1

1.2 Scope of the National Emergency Communications Plan................................. 2

1.3 Organization of the NECP................................................................................... 5

2. Defining the Future State of Emergency Communications.................................... 6

2.1 Vision...................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Goals....................................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Capabilities Needed .............................................................................................. 7

3. Achieving the Future State of Emergency Communications.................................. 9

Objective 1: Formal Governance Structures and Clear Leadership Roles.. 11

Objective 2: Coordinated Federal Activities.................................................... 16

Objective 3: Common Planning and Operational Protocols ......................... 20

Objective 4: Standards and Emerging Communication Technologies......... 24

Objective 5: Emergency Responder Skills and Capabilities.......................... 28

Objective 6: System Life-Cycle Planning ........................................................ 31

Objective 7: Disaster Communications Capabilities...................................... 34

4. Implementing and Measuring Achievement of the NECP..................................... 39

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 41

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Executive Summary

Every day in cities and towns across the Nation, emergency response personnel respond

to incidents of varying scope and magnitude. Their ability to communicate in real time is

critical to establishing command and control at the scene of an emergency, to maintaining

event situational awareness, and to operating overall within a broad range of incidents.

However, as numerous after-action reports and national assessments have revealed, there

are still communications deficiencies that affect the ability of responders to manage

routine incidents and support responses to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other

incidents.

Recognizing the need for an overarching emergency communications strategy to address

these shortfalls, Congress directed the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office

of Emergency Communications (OEC) to develop the first National Emergency

Communications Plan (NECP). Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002

(6 United States Code 101 et seq.), as amended, calls for the NECP to be developed in

coordination with stakeholders from all levels of government and from the private sector.

In response, DHS worked with stakeholders from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies

to develop the NECP—a strategic plan that establishes a national vision for the future

state of emergency communications. The desired future state is that emergency

responders can communicate:

As needed, on demand, and as authorized

At all levels of government

Across all disciplines

To measure progress toward this vision, three strategic goals were established:

Goal 1—By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban

Areas Security Initiative (UASI)

are able to demonstrate response-level

emergency communications

within one hour for routine events involving

multiple jurisdictions and agencies.

Goal 2—By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate

response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine

events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.

Goal 3—By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-

level emergency communications within three hours, in the event of a

significant incident as outlined in national planning scenarios.

Examples include The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006; The 9-11

Commission Report, July 2004; and The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the

Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, February 2006.

As identified in FY08 Homeland Security Grant Program or on the FEMA Grants website:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/uasi/fy08_uasi_guidance.pdf.

Response-level emergency communication refers to the capacity of individuals with primary operational leadership

responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions during an incident involving multiple agencies,

without technical or procedural communications impediments.



ES-1

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

To realize this national vision and meet these goals, the NECP established the following

seven objectives for improving emergency communications for the Nation’s Federal,

State, local, and tribal emergency responders:

1. Formal decision-making structures and clearly defined leadership roles

coordinate emergency communications capabilities.

2. Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative

across agencies and aligned to achieve national goals.

3. Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to

effectively use their resources and personnel.

4. Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications

capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and

testing and evaluation.

5. Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises,

improved technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilities.

6. All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency

communications through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate

resource allocations, and public-private partnerships.

7. The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery

capabilities to communicate during significant events.

The NECP also provides recommended initiatives and milestones to guide emergency

response providers and relevant government officials in making measurable

improvements in emergency communications capabilities. The NECP recommendations

help to guide, but do not dictate, the distribution of homeland security funds to improve

emergency communications at the Federal, State, and local levels, and to support the

NECP implementation.

Communications investments are among the most significant, substantial, and long-

lasting capital investments that agencies make; in addition, technological innovations for

emergency communications are constantly evolving at a rapid pace. With these realities

in mind, DHS recognizes that the emergency response community will realize this

national vision in stages, as agencies invest in new communications systems and as new

technologies emerge.

There is no simple solution, or “silver bullet,” for solving emergency communications

challenges, and consequently DHS’ approach to the NECP involves making

improvements at all levels of government, in technology, coordination and governance,

planning, usage, and training and exercises. This approach also recognizes that

communications operability is a critical building block for interoperability; emergency

response officials must first establish reliable communications within their own agency

before they can interoperate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies.

Finally, DHS acknowledges that the Nation does not have unlimited resources to address

deficiencies in emergency communications. Consequently, the NECP will be used to

identify and prioritize investments to move the Nation toward this vision. As required by

Congress, the NECP will be a living document subject to periodic review and updates by

DHS in coordination with stakeholders. Future iterations will be revised based on

progress made toward achieving the NECP’s goals, on variations in national priorities,

and on lessons learned from after-action reports.

ES-2

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

1. Introduction

The ability of emergency responders to effectively communicate is paramount to the

safety and security of our Nation. During the last three decades, the Nation has witnessed

how inadequate emergency communications capabilities can adversely affect response

and recovery efforts. Locally, agencies developed ad hoc solutions to overcome these

challenges. The issue of inadequate coordination of emergency communications received

national attention in the aftermath of the January 1982 passenger jet crash into the

Street Bridge (and, subsequently, the Potomac River) near downtown Washington,

DC. The inability of multiple jurisdictions to coordinate a response to the Air Florida

crash began to drive regional collaboration. More recently, the terrorist attacks of

September 11, Hurricane Katrina, and other natural and man-made disasters have

demonstrated how emergency communications capabilities—in particular the lack of

those capabilities—impact emergency responders, public health, national and economic

security, and the ability of government leaders to maintain order and perform essential

functions.

During each of these events, the lack of coordinated emergency communications

solutions and protocols among the responding agencies hindered response and recovery

efforts. These events raised awareness of the issue among public policymakers and

highlighted the critical role emergency communications plays in incident response.

These events also prompted numerous national studies and assessments on the state of

emergency communications, which in turn has helped DHS to formulate a unified

approach for addressing emergency communications.

1.1 Purpose of the National Emergency Communications Plan

The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as

amended in 2006, mandated the creation of an

overarching strategy to address emergency

communications shortfalls. In addition, the

emergency response community has sought

national guidance to support a more integrated

coordination of emergency communications

priorities and investments.

• Set national goals and priorities

for addressing deficiencies in the

Nation’s emergency

communications posture

• Provide recommendations and

milestones for emergency

response providers, relevant

government officials, and

Congress to improve emergency

communications capabilities

“Hurricane Katrina was the most destructive natural disaster in U.S. history. The storm crippled thirty-eight 911-call

centers, disrupting local emergency services, and knocked out more than 3 million customer phone lines in

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Broadcast communications were likewise severely affected, as 50 percent of

area radio stations and 44 percent of area television stations went off the air.” White House Report, The Federal

Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006.



Such as the Final Report of the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, December 2001;

the White House Report, The Federal Response to Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006; and the Independent

Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks—Report and Recommendations to

the Federal Communications Commission, June 12, 2006, all of which documented the numerous failures in

emergency communications among emergency responders, which affected their ability to effectively respond to

these incidents

.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

As a result, Congress directed the DHS’ Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)

to develop a plan to:

• Identify the capabilities needed by emergency responders to ensure the availability

and interoperability of communications during emergencies, and identify obstacles

to the deployment of interoperable communications systems;

• Recommend both short- and long-term solutions for ensuring interoperability and

continuity of communications for emergency responders, including

recommendations for improving coordination among Federal, State, local, and tribal

governments;

• Set goals and timeframes for the deployment of interoperable emergency

communications systems, and recommend measures that emergency response

providers should employ to ensure the continued operation of communications

infrastructure;

• Set dates by which Federal agencies and State, local, and tribal governments expect

to achieve a baseline level of national interoperable communications, and establish

benchmarks to measure progress; and

• Guide the coordination of existing Federal emergency communications programs.

1.2 Scope of the National Emergency Communications Plan

The National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) focuses on the emergency

communications needs of response personnel in every discipline, at every level of

government, and for the private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGO).

Emergency communications is defined as the ability of emergency responders to

exchange information via data, voice, and video as authorized, to complete their

missions. Emergency response agencies at all levels of government must have

interoperable and seamless communications to manage emergency response, establish

command and control, maintain situational awareness, and function under a common

operating picture, for a broad scale of incidents.

Emergency communications consists of three primary elements:

1. Operability—The ability of emergency responders to establish and sustain

communications in support of mission operations.

2. Interoperability—The ability of emergency responders to communicate among

jurisdictions, disciplines, and levels of government, using a variety of frequency

bands, as needed and as authorized. System operability is required for system

interoperability.

3. Continuity of Communications—The ability of emergency response agencies to

maintain communications in the event of damage to or destruction of the primary

infrastructure.

The OEC supports the Secretary of Homeland Security in developing, implementing, and coordinating interoperable

and operable communications for the emergency response community at all levels of government. The OEC was

directed by Title XVIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended, to lead the development of a National

Emergency Communications Plan.

Appendix 4 provides more detailed information on DHS programs supporting emergency communications.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

1.2.1 Approach to Developing the NECP

The majority of emergency incidents occur at the local level. Therefore, improving

emergency communications—specifically, operability, interoperability, and continuity of

communications—cannot be accomplished by the Federal Government alone. For this

reason, working through OEC, DHS used a stakeholder-driven approach to develop the

NECP, one that included representatives from the Federal, State, and local responder

communities as well as from the private sector.

Exhibit 1 lists the partnerships and

groups that provided input to the NECP.

Exhibit 1: Key Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Partnerships

Entity Roles and Responsibilities

SAFECOM

Executive Committee

(EC) and Emergency

Response Council

(ERC)

The SAFECOM EC serves as the leadership group of the ERC and as the

SAFECOM program’s primary resource to access public safety practitioners and

policymakers. The EC provides strategic leadership and guidance to the

SAFECOM program on emergency-responder user needs and builds

relationships with the ERC to leverage the ERC subject matter expertise. The

SAFECOM ERC is a vehicle to provide a broad base of input from the public

safety community on its user needs to the SAFECOM program. The ERC

provides a forum for individuals with specialized skills and common interests to

share best practices and lessons learned so that interested parties at all levels of

government can gain from one another’s experience. Emergency responders

and policymakers from Federal, State, local, and tribal governments compose

the SAFECOM EC and ERC.

Emergency

Communications

Preparedness Center

(ECPC)

The ECPC was created under the authority of Title XVIII of the Homeland

Security Act of 2002, as amended in 2006, to serve as the focal point and

clearinghouse for intergovernmental information on interoperable emergency

communications. The ECPC is an interdepartmental organization, currently

composed of 12 Federal departments and agencies, that assesses and

coordinates Federal emergency communications operability and interoperability

assurance efforts. The ECPC is the focal point for interagency emergency

communications efforts and seeks to minimize the duplication of similar activities

within the Federal Government. It also acts as an information clearinghouse to

promote operable and interoperable communications in an all-hazards

environment.

Federal Partnership

for Interoperable

Communications

(FPIC)

The FPIC is a coordinating body that focuses on technical and operational

matters within the Federal wireless communications community. Its mission is to

address Federal wireless communications interoperability by fostering

intergovernmental cooperation and by identifying and leveraging common

synergies. The FPIC represents more than 40 Federal entities; its membership

includes program managers of wireless systems, radio communications

managers, Information Technology (IT) and Land Mobile Radio (LMR)

specialists, and telecommunications engineers. State and local emergency

responders participate as advisory members.

Project 25 Interface

Committee (APIC)

As part of the Project 25 (P25) standards development process, the

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) developed the APIC to

resolve issues that arose during that process. The APIC is composed of private

sector representatives and emergency response officials and serves as a liaison

to facilitate user community and private sector relationships regarding the

evolution and use of P25 standards.

National Public

Safety

Telecommunications

Council (NPSTC)

The NPSTC is a federation of national public safety leadership organizations

dedicated to improving emergency response communications and

interoperability through collaborative leadership. The NPSTC is composed of

State and local public safety representatives. In addition, Federal, Canadian,

and other emergency communications partner organizations serve as liaisons to

the NPSTC.

Appendix 6 details the three-phased approach to develop the NECP that relied on stakeholder involvement.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Entity Roles and Responsibilities

National Security

Telecommunications

Advisory

Committee (NSTAC)

The NSTAC is composed of up to 30 private sector executives who represent

major communications and network service providers as well as IT, finance, and

aerospace companies. Through the National Communications System

(NCS), the NSTAC provides private sector-based analyses and

recommendations to the President and the Executive Branch on policy and

enhancements to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP)

communications.

Critical Infrastructure

Partnership Advisory

Council (CIPAC)

The CIPAC is a DHS program established to facilitate effective coordination

between government infrastructure protection programs and the infrastructure

protection activities of the owners and operators of critical infrastructure and key

resources. The CIPAC enables public and private sector representatives to

engage in candid, substantive discussions regarding the protection of the

Nation’s critical infrastructure.

The NECP has been designed to complement and support overarching homeland security

and emergency communications legislation, strategies, and initiatives. The NECP applies

guidance from these authorities, including key principles and priorities, to establish the

first national strategic plan that is focused exclusively on improving emergency

communications for emergency response providers nationwide. As demonstrated in

Exhibit 2 below, the NECP provides a critical link between national communications

priorities and strategic and tactical planning at the regional, State, and local levels.

Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive listing and explanation of these documents.

Exhibit 2: Key Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Authorities

NATIONAL

LEGISLATION &

STRATEGIES

PREPAREDNESS/

INCIDENT

MANAGEMENT

POLICY & PLANNING

INITIATIVES

DIRECTIVES &

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL

HSPDs(e.g., 5, 7, 8)

EOs

(e.g., 12406,3,

12472, 12656)

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

HOMELAND SECURITY

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/K

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/KA

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

NRF, SUPPORT

FUNCTION

OPERATIONAL

NIPP

NATIONAL

PREPAREDNESS

GUIDELINES

NATIONAL

PREPAREDNESS

GUIDELINES

TICPS

TICPs

SCIPS

SCIPs

Regional Strategic

Planning

Regional Strategic

Planning

STRATEGIC

PREPAREDNESS/

COMMUNICATIONS

PLANNING

INITIATIVES

Hazard Mitigation

Emergenc

Operations Plans

Emergenc

Operations Plans

NIMS

HSPDs

(e.g., 5, 7, 8)

(e.g., 12046,

12472, 12656)

EOs

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

HOMELAND SECURITY

NECP

Communications-specific

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

1.3 Organization of the NECP

The NECP establishes a national vision for the desired future state of emergency

communications. It sets strategic goals, national objectives, and supporting initiatives to

drive the Nation toward that future state. The NECP also provides recommended

milestones to guide emergency response providers and relevant government officials as

they make measurable improvements to their emergency communications capabilities.

As illustrated in Exhibit 3, the NECP approach is based on three logical steps that inform

the organization of this document: 1) defining the future state of emergency

communications; 2) developing a strategy to achieve the future state; and 3)

implementing the future state and measuring how well it is being implemented.

Exhibit 3: NECP Approach and Organization

NECP Approach and Organization

Future State

Vision

Goals

Capabilities

Strategy

Objectives

Initiatives

Milestones

Implementation

Coordination

Measurement

Evaluation Framework

1.3.1 Defining the Future State of Emergency Communications

In this first step, DHS worked with stakeholders to develop an overall Vision statement

(Section 2.1) and established three high-level Goals (Section 2.2) that define the desired

future state of emergency communications. DHS then identified the emergency

communications Capabilities Needed (Section 2.3) for the emergency response

community to achieve the desired future state.

1.3.2 Developing a Strategy to Achieve the Future State

Based on the capabilities needed for the emergency response community to achieve the

desired future state, DHS developed seven Objectives (Section 3). Although all seven

objectives were designed to support the realization of the long-term vision, execution of

all initiatives and achievement of national milestones are not necessarily prerequisites for

achieving the three goals. DHS will continue to work with its stakeholders on the

implementation of the NECP initiatives and the attainment of these near-term goals. For

each objective, DHS developed Supporting Initiatives (Section 3), which are intended

to drive outcomes toward the future state. In crafting each initiative, DHS identified both

current emergency communications activities that affect the initiative and key gaps that

drive action in the initiative area. Finally, DHS identified Recommended National

Milestones (Section 3) that detail the timeline and outcomes of each initiative.

1.3.3 Implementing and Measuring Achievement of the Future State

In the final step, DHS provides guidance for implementing the NECP and

recommendations for measuring success (Section 4). These recommendations are based

on the legislative requirements for the NECP as outlined in Appendix 1.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

2. Defining the Future State of Emergency Communications

The NECP outlines the future vision of emergency communications over the next five

years. In doing so, it establishes tangible goals by which success can be measured.

2.1 Vision

Vision

The NECP vision is to ensure operability,

interoperability, and continuity of

communications to allow emergency

responders to communicate as needed, on

demand, and as authorized at all levels of

government and across all disciplines.

Emergency response personnel

can communicate—

• As needed, on demand,

and as authorized

• At all levels of

government

• Across all disciplines

2.2 Goals

To work toward this desired future state, DHS defined a series of goals that establish a

minimum level of interoperable communications and dates by which Federal, State, local,

and tribal agencies are expected to achieve that minimum level. Although not

comprehensive, these goals provide an initial set of operational targets which OEC will

expand further through a process that engages Federal, State, and local governments, the

private sector, and emergency responders. Section 4.2 outlines how OEC plans to

measure the nationwide achievement of these goals.

If emergency responders train regularly and use emergency communications solutions

daily, they will be able to use emergency communications more effectively during major

incidents. Therefore, the first two goals focus on day-to-day response capabilities that

will inherently enhance emergency response capabilities.

Response-level emergency communications is the capacity of individuals with primary

operational leadership responsibility to manage resources and make timely decisions

during an incident involving multiple agencies, without technical or procedural

communications impediments.

In addition to communicating with first-level

subordinates in the field, an Operations Section Chief should be able to communicate up

the management chain to the incident command level (i.e., between the Operations

Section Chief and Incident Command).

During the course of incident response,

Incident Command/Unified Command may move off-scene, which may require

establishing communications between Incident Command and off-scene Emergency

Operations Centers (EOC), dispatch centers, and other support groups.

As defined in the National Incident Command System 200, Unit 2: Leadership and Management.

As defined in the National Incident Management System, FEMA 501/Draft August 2007, p.47.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

NECP Goals

Goal 1—By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban

Areas Security Initiative (UASI)

are able to demonstrate response-level

emergency communications within one hour for routine events

involving

multiple jurisdictions

and agencies.

Goal 2—By 2011, 75 percent of non-UASI jurisdictions are able to demonstrate

response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine

events involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies.

Goal 3—By 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions are able to demonstrate response-

level emergency communications within three hours, in the event of a

significant event

as outlined in national planning scenarios.

The NECP identifies seven key objectives to move the Nation toward its overall vision.

Although all seven objectives are important to achieving all three goals, Objective 7

focuses primarily on enhancing the ability to communicate during a significant event as

outlined in Goal 3. Further, through OEC and the Federal Emergency Management

Agency’s (FEMA) Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Groups

(RECCWG), DHS will collaborate with State homeland security directors and State

interoperability coordinators to develop appropriate methodologies to measure progress

toward these goals in each State.

2.3 Capabilities Needed

Leveraging the findings from various sources of information, including analyses, from

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments on emergency communications, DHS

completed a comprehensive examination of emergency communications capabilities

across all levels of government and some private sector entities.

(A capability enables

the accomplishment of a mission or task.) Exhibit 4 summarizes the range of emergency

communications capabilities needed by emergency responders and maps those to the

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.

As identified in the FY08 Homeland Security Grant Program or on the FEMA Grants website:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/uasi/fy08_uasi_guidance.pdf.

Routine events—During routine events, the emphasis for response-level emergency communications is on operability

and interoperability. These types of events are further delineated in the Usage element of the SAFECOM

Interoperability Continuum as planned events, localized emergency incidents, regional incident management

(interstate or intrastate), and daily use throughout the region. See Appendix 5 for a further description of the

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.

Jurisdiction—A geographical, political, or system boundary as defined by each individual State.

Significant events—During significant events, the emphasis for response-level emergency communications is on

interoperability and continuity of communications. Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8: National

Preparedness (HSPD-8) sets forth 15 National Planning Scenarios, highlighting a plausible range of significant

events such as terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies that pose the greatest risks to the Nation. Any

of these 15 scenarios should be considered when planning for a significant event during which all major emergency

communications infrastructure is destroyed.

The National Communications Capabilities Report, 2008.

SAFECOM’s Interoperability Continuum was designed to help the emergency response community and Federal,

State, local, and tribal policymakers address critical elements for success as they plan and implement interoperability

solutions: http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/tools/continuum/default.html.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

These identified capabilities serve as the foundation for the NECP priority objectives,

initiatives, and recommended national milestones set forth in Section 3.

Exhibit 4: Emergency Communications Capabilities Needed to Achieve Future State

Lanes of the SAFECOM

Interoperability

Continuum

Capabilities Needed

Governance

• Strong government leadership

• Formal, thorough, and inclusive interagency governance

structures

• Clear lines of communication and decision-making

• Strategic planning processes

Standard Operating

Procedures (SOP)

• Standardized and uniform emergency responder interaction

during emergency response operations

• Standardized use and application of interoperable emergency

communications terminology, solutions, and backup systems

Technology

• Voice and data standards that pertain to real-time situational

information exchange and reports for emergency responders

before, during, and after response

• Uniform model and standard for emergency data information

exchange

• Testing and evaluation of emergency communications

technology to help agencies make informed decisions about

technology

• Emergency response communications technology based on

voluntary consensus standards

• Basic level of communications systems operability

Training and Exercises

• Uniform, standardized performance objectives to measure

effectiveness of emergency responders communications

capabilities

• Emergency response providers who are fully knowledgeable,

trained, and exercised on the use and application of day-to-day

and backup communications equipment, systems, and

operations irrespective of the extent of the emergency response

Usage

• Adequate resources and planning to cover not only initial

system and equipment investment but also the entire life cycle

(operations, exercising, and maintenance)

• Broad regional (interstate and intrastate) coordination in

technology investment and procurement planning



National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

3. Achieving the Future State of Emergency Communications

This section describes the strategy for achieving the NECP’s future state for emergency

communications and for meeting the overall goals identified in Section 2. Specifically,

this section discusses in detail the seven Objectives that delineate a comprehensive

assessment of the capabilities needed to close existing gaps and achieve the long-term

vision. In the near- term, DHS will continue to work with its stakeholders on

implementing the NECP initiatives and attaining near-term goals. As previously defined,

the three critical elements of emergency communications are operability, interoperability,

and continuity of communications. Progress toward achieving each of the seven

objectives is essential in realizing improvements in all three of these primary elements of

emergency communications.

In addition, this section defines Supporting Initiatives

for each objective, with a focus on driving outcomes toward the future state. Each

initiative identifies current emergency communications activities and key gaps. To

implement these initiatives, there are Recommended National Milestones to define the

timelines and outcomes.

3.1 Objectives, Initiatives, and Milestones

The objectives and initiatives provide national guidance to Federal, State, local, and tribal

agencies to implement key activities to improve emergency communications. Milestones

provide key checkpoints to monitor NECP implementation. The proposed timelines for

completing these initiatives began when the NECP was delivered to Congress on July 31,

2008. OEC will then coordinate development of implementation strategies with partner

organizations at all levels of government, private sector organizations, and non-

governmental associations The NECP identifies the following objectives to improve

emergency communications for Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency responders:

1. Formal decisionmaking structures and clearly defined leadership roles coordinate

emergency communications capabilities.

2. Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative

across agencies and aligned to achieve national goals.

3. Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to

effectively use their resources and personnel.

4. Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications

capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and

testing and evaluation.

5. Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises,

improved technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilities.

6. All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency

communications through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate

resource allocations, and public-private partnerships.

7. The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery

capabilities to communicate during significant events.

Note that no single objective is discretely linked to any one of the three elements (i.e., operability, interoperability, or

continuity of communications). Rather, progress in any objective area will result in improvements in each of the

three emergency communications components.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Substantial cooperation and collaboration across the stakeholder community are

necessary to achieve all of the milestones in each objective. The supporting initiatives

and recommended national milestones represent the DHS’ position on actions that must

occur and establish completion dates to meet NECP goals. DHS continues to work with

stakeholders at all levels of government to identify and verify ownership roles to drive

full participation and implementation of this Plan.

For some of the milestones, specific leadership and ownership roles are defined based on

associated mission areas, current activities, existing authorities, and feedback from

organizations during NECP development. In many cases, specific leadership roles to

achieve the milestones are not and presently cannot be defined. Although DHS has been

mandated by Congress to develop the NECP and coordinate its implementation, DHS has

limited authority to compel responsibilities and leadership roles—and the associated

expenditure of resources—for external organizations. To implement the NECP, OEC

will collaborate with its partner organizations to develop strategies that guide

achievement of the objectives, initiatives, and milestones. Exhibit 4 illustrates these

integrated elements of the NECP and depicts: A vision of the future state and goals that

support achievement of the vision; specific objectives to meet these goals; and supporting

initiatives with national milestones that define the outcomes and timelines required.

Exhibit 4: The NECP Roadmap

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 1: Formal Governance Structures and Clear Leadership

Roles

Formal decision-making structures and clearly defined leadership roles coordinate

emergency communications capabilities.

More than 50,000 independent agencies across the Nation routinely use emergency

communications. Each of these agencies is governed by the laws of its respective

jurisdiction or area of responsibility. No single entity is, or can be, in charge of the

Nation’s entire emergency communications infrastructure. In such an environment,

collaborative planning among all levels of government is critical for ensuring effective

and fully coordinated preparedness and response. Formal governance structures and

leadership are needed to manage these complex systems of people, organizations, and

technologies.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• National-level policies identify roles, responsibilities, and coordinating structures

for incident management (e.g., National Response Framework [NRF] and its

Emergency Support Function #2 [ESF#2], National Incident Management System

[NIMS] Joint Field Office Activation and Operations—Interagency Integrated

Standard Operating Procedure Annex E).

• The Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan (SCIP) Guidebookprovides

guidance on establishing a structure for governing statewide communications

interoperability planning efforts. All 56 States and territories now have SCIPs.

• The ECPC establishes a governance and decision-making structure for strategic

coordination of interdepartmental emergency communications at the Federal

level.

• FEMA leads the integration of tactical Federal emergency communications during

disasters and is developing requirements and an associated Disaster Emergency

Communications (DEC) Integration Framework for fulfilling emergency

communications needs during disasters.

• Decision-making bodies at the State, regional, and local levels coordinate

emergency communications issues (e.g., RECCWG,

statewide interoperability

coordinators and executive committees, local communications committees).

Most emergencies occur at the local level and are managed by local incident commanders. To best support the local

incident commander, Federal and State agencies must ensure the coordination of their interoperability efforts with

local agencies. This perspective is in agreement with the ERC’s guiding principles, SAFECOM Emergency

Response Council, Agreements on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable Communications, Summer 2007.



A subset of relevant and current emergency communication activities has been identified for each objective in the

NECP; these subsets are not meant to be comprehensive, but represent examples of stakeholder input collected

during NECP development. Many additional activities are planned and underway across all levels of government.

As defined in Section 1805 of the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2007, RECCWGs assess emergency

communications capabilities within their respective regions, facilitate disaster preparedness through the promotion of

multijurisdictional and multiagency emergency communications networks, and ensure activities are coordinated with

all emergency communications stakeholders within the RECCWG’s associated FEMA region. The FEMA Regional

Administrator oversees the RECCWG and its activities, and the RECCWG is required to report annually (at a

minimum) to the FEMA Regional Administrator. The RECCWG advises on all aspects of emergency

communications in its respective Region and incorporates input from emergency communications stakeholders and

representatives from all levels of government as well as from nongovernmental and private sector agencies.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• OEC is developing a governance sustainability and SCIP implementation

methodology to provide guidance and share lessons learned in creating and

sustaining effective statewide communications interoperability governance

structures for SCIP implementation.

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• In many cases, emergency response agencies are unaware of (or have yet to adopt

and integrate) national-level policies that define roles, responsibilities, and

coordinating structures for emergency communications.

• State Interoperability Executive Committees (SIEC) or their equivalents do not

have uniform structures, they typically act in an ad hoc capacity, and they often

lack inclusive membership.

• The Nation does not have an objective, standardized framework to identify and

assess emergency communications capabilities nationwide. Thus, it is difficult

for jurisdictions to invest in building and maintaining appropriate levels of

operability, interoperability, and continuity of communications.

• Emergency communications strategic planning efforts vary in scope and often do

not address the operability and interoperability concerns of all stakeholders.

• Many agencies often do not consider communications planning to be a priority

and therefore do not allocate resources for participation in planning activities.

• There is a need for greater Federal department and agency participation in State,

regional, and local governance and planning processes.

• Many States do not have full-time statewide interoperability coordinators, or

equivalent positions, to focus on the activities needed to drive change.

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 1.1: Facilitate the development of effective governance groups and

designated emergency communications leadership roles. Uniform criteria and

best practices for governance and emergency communications leadership across

the Nation will better equip emergency response agencies to make informed

decisions that meet the needs of their communities. Establishing effective

leadership positions and representative governance groups nationwide will

standardize decision-making and enhance the ability of emergency response

agencies to share information and respond to incidents.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS will establish a central repository of model formal

agreements (i.e., Memorandums of Agreement [MOA], Memorandums of

Understanding [MOU], and Mission Assignments) and information that will

enhance interstate and intrastate coordination.

o Within 12 months, all States and territories should establish full-time

statewide interoperability coordinators or equivalent positions.

This repository is envisioned as a component of the ECPC clearinghouse function. Please refer to Initiative 2.1 for

additional information and activities regarding the ECPC clearinghouse.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 12 months, DHS will conduct a National Emergency

Communications workshop to provide an opportunity for RECCWG

participants, statewide emergency communications coordinators, and other

interested parties to collaborate with one another and with Federal

representatives from the ECPC and FPIC.

o Within 12 months, RECCWGs are fully established as a primary link for

disaster emergency communications among all levels of government at the

FEMA regional level, sharing information, identifying common problems,

and coordinating multistate operable and interoperable emergency response

initiatives and plans among Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies.

o Within 12 months, SIECs (or their equivalents) in all 56 States and

territories should incorporate the recommended membership as outlined in

the SCIP Guidebook and should be established via legislation or executive

order by an individual State’s governor.

o Within 18 months, DHS will publish uniform criteria and best practices for

establishing governance groups and emergency communications leadership

roles across the Nation.

• Initiative 1.2: Develop standardized emergency communications

performance objectives and link to DHS’ overall system for assessing

preparedness capabilities nationwide. DHS will collaborate with Federal,

regional, State,

local, and tribal governments and organizations, as well as with

the private sector, to develop a more comprehensive and targeted set of evaluation

criteria for defining and measuring communications requirements across the

Nation. To prevent duplicative reporting requirements for its stakeholders, DHS

will ensure these assessment efforts leverage existing reporting requirements (e.g.,

for SCIPs, Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans [TICPs], and State

Preparedness Reports) and grant program applications (e.g., for the Interoperable

Emergency Communications Grant Program [IECGP] and the Homeland Security

Grant Program [HSGP]). Evaluation criteria will be based on the approach being

followed in DHS’ implementation plans for the National Preparedness

Guidelines/Target Capabilities List (TCL).

FEMA organizes the United States into 10 FEMA regions. Each FEMA region has its own Regional Headquarters

led by a Regional Administrator. FEMA regions are responsible for working in partnership with emergency

management agencies from each state within the respective region to prepare for, respond to, and recover from

disasters. FEMA regions and their Regional Administrators will be leveraged to provide oversight, implementation,

and execution for their respective RECCWGs.

This collaboration would include State homeland security advisors and statewide interoperability coordinators.

DHS is currently developing TCL implementation plans for animal health, EOC management, intelligence, onsite

incident management, mass transit protection, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)/hazardous material (hazmat)

rescue and decontamination. Communication requirements will be based on the concepts and principles outlined in

the NECP and in the baseline principles provided in the NIMS (e.g., common operating picture; interoperability;

reliability, scalability and portability; and resiliency and redundancy). These requirements will be based on the

command requirements for response-level emergency communications as defined in the NECP, and will also include

the full range of communications requirements for all of the standardized types of communications (e.g., strategic,

tactical, support, public address) identified in the NIMS.



National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS will develop a standardized framework for

identifying and assessing emergency communications capabilities

nationwide.

o Within 18 months, DHS’ emergency communications capability framework,

in preparation for release, will be reviewed during a series of technical

working group meetings with stakeholders from the emergency response

community.

o Within 24 months, the emergency communications capability framework

will be incorporated as the communications and information management

capability in the DHS/FEMA National Preparedness Guidelines/TCL, which

will serve as a basis for future grant policies.

• Initiative 1.3: Integrate strategic and tactical emergency communications

planning efforts across all levels of government. Tactical and strategic

coordination will eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize

interagency synchronization, bringing together tactical response and strategic

planning.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS will make available an effective communications-

asset management tool containing security and privacy controls to allow for

nationwide intergovernmental use.

o Within 12 months, tactical planning among Federal, State, local, and tribal

governments occurs at the regional interstate level.

• Initiative 1.4: Develop coordinated grant policies that promote Federal

participation and coordination in communications planning processes,

governance bodies, joint training and exercises, and infrastructure sharing.

The largest investment category of DHS grant funds is interoperable

communications. Federal acquisition, deployment, and operating funds

supporting Federal mission-critical communication systems often cannot be used

to support State and local communication needs (when otherwise appropriate).

These limitations on the use of these funds can inhibit the realization of the goals

of coordination and interoperability, as systems are developed, deployed, and

maintained.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS fiscal year (FY) 2009 grant policies provides

guidance on how to best support national interoperability needs through the

promotion of shared infrastructure, cooperative planning, and coordinated

governance.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 12 months, best practices for sharing infrastructure, addressing

spectrum issues, and developing agreements among Federal, State, and local

emergency response communicators are promoted through DHS technical

assistance programs, in accordance with applicable laws.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 2: Coordinated Federal Activities

Federal emergency communications programs and initiatives are collaborative across

agencies and aligned to achieve national goals.

Federal departments and agencies rely on emergency communications capabilities to

support mission-critical operations (e.g., law enforcement, disaster response, homeland

security). Traditionally, individual Federal departments and agencies have not

considered the benefits of planning and implementing emergency communications

systems in conjunction with other Federal departments and agencies, or with State and

local agencies. It is critical that Federal programs and initiatives—including grant

programs—responsible for managing and providing emergency communications, are

coordinated to minimize duplication, maximize Federal investments, and ensure

interoperability.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• The ECPC has been established to serve as the Federal focal point for

interoperable emergency communications. An ECPC clearinghouse is being

designed as a central repository for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments to

publish and share tactics, techniques, practices, programs, and policies that

enhance interoperability for emergency communications.

• RECCWGs are being established to provide regional coordination points for

emergency communications preparedness, response, and recovery for Federal,

State, local, and tribal governments within each FEMA region.

• Federal, State, and local agencies are both independently and jointly upgrading

and modernizing their tactical communications systems. There are several

Federal grant programs (e.g., the HSGP and the Public Safety Interoperable

Communications [PSIC] Grant Program) that State, local, and tribal entities can

use to enhance their emergency communications capabilities.

• DHS is establishing the IECGP to support projects that focus on improving

operable and interoperable emergency communications for State, local, and tribal

agencies and for international border agencies. IECGP guidance is being

developed to close gaps associated with governance, planning, training, and

exercises and currently focuses grant funds on initiatives that are not focused on

technology.

• OEC’s Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP)

helps to enhance interoperable emergency communications among Federal, State,

local, and tribal governments by providing assistance on governance, SOPs,

technology, training and exercises, usage, and engineering issues. The ICTAP

leverages and works with other Federal, State, and local interoperability efforts

whenever possible to enhance the overall capacity for agencies and individuals to

communicate with one another.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• Information on Federal emergency communications programs, activities, and

standards is not consistently or adequately shared with State and local agencies.

• Federal emergency responders are not integrated into existing State and local

networks because of capacity, frequency coordination, and channel congestion

issues.

• Federal grant programs for interoperable emergency communications are not

targeting gaps in a consistent and coordinated manner.

• There is a lack of overall Federal coordination at the regional level and

participation in regional UASI and statewide planning activities (e.g., SIEC).

• Regulatory and legal issues act as barriers to the further use of shared capabilities

across all levels of government.

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 2.1: Establish a source of information about Federal emergency

communications programs and initiatives. There are a number of Federal

programs and initiatives focused on emergency communications. DHS will

establish a focal point for coordinating intergovernmental emergency

communications to help the Federal Government identify duplicative efforts and

achieve greater economies of scale.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, Federal departments and agencies leverage the ECPC as

the central coordinating body for providing Federal input into, and

comments on, Federal emergency communications projects, plans, and

reports.

o Within 12 months and annually thereafter, the ECPC submits a strategic

assessment to Congress, detailing progress to date, the remaining obstacles

to interoperable emergency communications, and Federal coordination

efforts.

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes a uniform method for coordination and

information sharing between ECPC and the RECCWGs.

o Within 18 months, the ECPC web-based clearinghouse portal commences

operation, with strong consideration given to leveraging existing portals,

such as the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN),

DHS ONE-Net, and DHS Interactive.

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes targeted outreach and training activities

to ensure that stakeholders across the Nation are aware of the availability of

ECPC clearinghouse resources.

• Initiative 2.2: Coordinate all technical assistance programs to provide

greater consistency for the delivery of Federal services. Coordinated and

uniform technical assistance will improve the reliability of communications

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

systems and operator expertise. Technical assistance can be targeted to address

gaps identified in SCIPs and the priorities outlined in the NECP.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, through the ECPC, a catalog of current technical

assistance programs will be established, to both ensure the awareness of

available technical assistance and reduce duplication.

o Within 6 months, DHS establishes a focal point for consistent and

comprehensive technical assistance and guidance for emergency

communications planning with Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies.

o Within 12 months, Federal agencies establish a common methodology

across all Federal operability and interoperability technical assistance

programs and will train the personnel who provide technical assistance on

the use of this methodology.

o Within 18 months, DHS establishes a consistent and coordinated method for

States and localities to request Federal technical assistance.

• Initiative 2.3: Target Federal emergency communications grants to address

gaps identified in the NECP, SCIPs, and TICPs. Targeted Federal grants will

allow emergency response agencies to address communications gaps and

coordinate planning efforts. Federal grant funding represents only a small

fraction of overall emergency response emergency communications investment.

Nonetheless, such funding is a key tool by which State and local emergency

response agencies can address national emergency communication priorities.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, all IECGP investments are coordinated with the

statewide interoperability coordinator and SIEC, or its equivalent, to support

State administrative agency investments, including filling the gaps identified

in the NECP and SCIPs.

o Within 12 months, DHS grant policies are developed to encourage regional

operable and interoperable solutions, including shared solutions, and to

prioritize cost-effective measures and multi-applicant investments.

o Within 12 months, the ECPC stands up a working group to coordinate grant

priorities across Federal grant programs.

• Initiative 2.4: Enable resource sharing and improve operational efficiencies.

Most government-owned wireless infrastructure that supports emergency

response exists at the State and local levels. Further, many State and local

agencies have modernized and expanded their systems through mechanisms such

as Federal grant programs (e.g., the HSGP and the PSIC Grant Program), or they

are currently in the process of doing so. By working with State and local

agencies, Federal agencies can benefit from these improvements by leveraging

both existing and planned infrastructure to improve operability and

interoperability. In addition, there are a number of Federal-level programs and

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

initiatives involving the deployment of communications infrastructure, which

present opportunities for resource and infrastructure sharing (e.g., spectrum,

Radio Frequency [RF] sites). Federal agencies should work to better understand

existing and planned programs, initiatives, and infrastructure across all levels of

government to improve coordination, maximize investments, and more quickly

field capabilities.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, DHS conducts an assessment of shared regional/State

systems to determine the potential for resource sharing among Federal,

State, local, and tribal agencies.

o Within 12 months, DHS prioritizes sharing opportunities, based on Federal

emergency communications requirements.

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes partnerships between Federal, State,

local, and tribal agencies, as appropriate.

• Initiative 2.5: Establish interoperability capabilities and coordination

between domestic and international partners. Emergencies occurring near the

Mexican and Canadian borders frequently require a bi-national response,

necessitating interoperability with international partners. These countries often

have different technical configurations and regulatory statutes than the United

States. Coordination is essential to ensure that domestic and international legal

and regulatory requirements are followed.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, and annually thereafter, hold plenary meetings of the

United States-Mexico Joint Commission on Resolution of Radio

Interference to address identified interference cases between the United

States and Mexico.

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes best practices for emergency

communications coordination with international partners (i.e., cross border

interoperability coordination with Mexico and Canada).

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes demonstration projects between

Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies, and international partners, to

improve interoperability in border areas that are at risk for large-scale

incidents (natural or man-made) requiring international responses (including

illegal border crossings or smuggling activities that result from an incident).

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 3: Common Planning and Operational Protocols

Emergency responders employ common planning and operational protocols to effectively

use their resources and personnel.

Agencies often create SOPs to meet their unique emergency communications

requirements. In recent years, with support from the Federal Government, emergency

responders have developed standards for interoperability channel naming, the use of

existing nationwide interoperability frequencies, and the use of plain language. NIMS

represents an initial step in establishing national consistency for how agencies and

jurisdictions define their operations; however, additional steps are required to continue

streamlining response procedures.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• National-level preparedness and incident management doctrines (e.g., NRF,

NIMS, Joint Field Office Activation and Operations Interagency Integrated

Standard Operating Procedures, TCLs) are in various stages of development;

these exist to define common principles, roles, structures, and target capabilities

for incident response.

• Strategic and tactical interoperable emergency communications planning has

begun at the State and local levels (e.g., TICPs, SCIPs, FEMA, State and regional

emergency communications planning).

• Common nomenclature initiatives for interoperability channels (e.g., NPSTC

Channel Naming Report) are underway.

• FEMA has developed a DEC Integration Framework and continues to support

both government and nongovernmental organizations in developing plans and

response frameworks and defining roles and responsibilities.

• FEMA’s NIMS Integration Center is developing the National Emergency

Responder Credentialing System (NERCS).

• Federal grant guidance (e.g., FY 2008 SAFECOM grant guidance; FY 2008

IECGP grant guidance) exists for migrating current radio practices to plain

language standards.

• The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC), in coordination with

OEC, is developing an SOP Development Guide, a Shared Channel Guide v2.0,

and a brochure on plain language.

• DHS recently issued Federal Continuity Directive-1, which establishes continuity

planning guidelines for Federal departments and agencies.

• The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued the National

Communications System Directive (NCSD) 3-10, Minimum Requirements for

Continuity Communications Capabilities as planning direction for

communications capabilities that support continuity of operations.

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• There are inconsistencies in the use of plain language, the interoperability channel

naming conventions, the interoperability frequencies, and SOPs.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• Nationwide adoption and usage of NIMS, NRF, and NERCS has been slow

because some users are often unfamiliar with the direction and intent of these

policies.

• Inconsistent use of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-designated

national interoperability channels has limited the effectiveness of this

interoperability solution for emergency response communications systems

operating in the same frequency band.

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 3.1: Standardize and implement common operational protocols

and procedures. A national adoption of plain-language radio practices and

uniform common channel naming, along with the programming and use of

existing national interoperability channels, will allow agencies across all

disciplines to effectively share information on demand and in real time. Using

common operational protocols and procedures avoids the confusion that using

disparate coded language systems and various tactical interoperability frequencies

can create. Use of the existing nationwide interoperability channels with common

naming will immediately address interoperability requirements for agencies

operating in the same frequency band.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, OEC develops plain-language guidance in concert with

State and local governments to address the unique needs of agencies/regions

and disciplines across the Nation.

o Within 6 months, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) certifies,

and emergency response accreditation organizations accept, the NPSTC

Channel Naming Guide as the national standard for FCC-designated

nationwide interoperability channels.

o Within 9 months, the National Integration Center’s (NIC) Incident

Management Systems Integration Division (IMSID) promotes plain-

language standards and associated guidance.

o Within 12 months, grant policies for Federal programs that support

emergency communications are coordinated, providing incentives for States

to include plans to eliminate coded substitutions throughout the Incident

Command System (ICS).

o Within 12 months, Federal agencies identify a uniform naming system for

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA)

designated nationwide interoperability channels, and this naming system is

integrated into the NPSTC Guide.

TheNational Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and members of the Interdepartment

Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), with support from the FCC, revised the NTIA Manual of Regulations and

Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management. The NTIA amended the Conditions for Use and eliminated

the requirement to establish an MOU between non-Federal and Federal entities on the use of the law enforcement

(LE) and IR channels. However, the new conditions do require the non-Federal entity to obtain a license and include

a point of contact in the license application it submits to the FCC for use of the LE/IR channels.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 18 months, DHS develops training and technical assistance programs

for the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide (NIFOG);

programs an appropriate set of frequency-band-specific nationwide

interoperability channels into all existing emergency responder radios;

and

preprograms an appropriate set of frequency-band-specific nationwide

interoperability channels into emergency response radios that are

manufactured or purchased through Federal funding as a standard

requirement.

o Within 24 months, all SCIPs reflect plans to eliminate coded substitutions

throughout the ICS, and agencies incorporate the use of existing nationwide

interoperability channels into SOPs, training, and exercises at the Federal,

State, regional, local, and tribal levels.

• Initiative 3.2: Implementation of the NIMS and the NRF across all levels of

government. Emergency response agencies across all levels of government

should adopt and implement national-level policies and guidance to ensure a

common approach to incident management and communications support.

Implementation of these policies will establish clearly defined communications

roles and responsibilities and enable integration of all communications elements

as the ICS structure expands from the incident level to the national level.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, all Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response

providers within UASI jurisdictions have implemented the Communications

and Information Management section of the NIMS.

• Initiative 3.3: Develop and implement model SOPs for specified events and

all-hazards response. SOPs address the range of informal and formal practices

and procedures that guide emergency responder interactions and the use of

interoperable emergency communications solutions. Agencies should develop,

coordinate, and share best practices and procedures that encompass both

operational and technical components. Command and control protocols should be

NIMS-compliant and incorporate the ICS as an operational guide. Procedures for

the activation, deployment, and deactivation of technical resources should be

included, as well as roles and responsibilities for the operation, management,

recovery, and continuity of equipment and infrastructure during an incident.

Agencies should identify procedures used to trigger and implement backup

communications solutions if primary systems and solutions should become

unavailable. As the scale of an incident expands, procedures for the integration of

NIFOG is a collection of technical reference material to be used by radio technicians who are responsible for the

radios to be used and applied during disaster response. NIFOG includes information from the National

Interoperability Frequency Guide (NIFG), instructions on the use of NIFG, and other reference material. NIFOG is

formatted to be a pocket-sized guide that is easy for radio technicians to carry.

Milestones in this area refer to the programming of an “appropriate set” of interoperability channels. This language

is used in recognition that most radios used by emergency responders do not have the capacity to hold all of the

national interoperability channels in addition to their required operational channels. Some radio channels are

discipline-specific and are inappropriate to program in radios of other disciplines.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

communications solutions become increasingly critical. Agencies must institute

processes by which policies, practices, and procedures are regularly developed

and reviewed for consistency across agencies.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, DHS identifies and refines model SOPs for tactical

communications and develops associated SOP training for emergency

responders.

o Within 12 months, DHS identifies and refines model SOPs for emergency

communications during specific types of incidents and all-hazards response

(beyond tactical communications).

o Within 18 months, DHS collaborates with partner emergency

communications organizations to disseminate model SOPs and provides

SOP training by mission type, incident type, and all-hazards response to

emergency response agencies. DHS will provide these SOPs and training

on a regional basis.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 4: Standards and Emerging Communication Technologies

Emerging technologies are integrated with current emergency communications

capabilities through standards implementation, research and development, and testing

and evaluation.

The emergency response community recognizes that no single technological solution can

address all emergency communications challenges or meet the needs of all agencies. The

proprietary nature of many communications technologies creates an ongoing challenge to

system connectivity and establishing interoperability among them. The presence of

wireless data networks, Internet Protocol (IP)-based mobile communications devices, and

location-based commercial services, however, are creating potential opportunities to

enhance command and control and situational awareness. Accelerating the development

of standards for existing and emerging technologies can address these technology

challenges, and therefore improve communications during response operations for both

routine and significant events.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), the

National Association of State Technology Directors (NASTD), and the

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) are developing a set of

communications standards—the Project 25 (P25) suite of standards—for digital

LMR. This effort is being undertaken in cooperation with the emergency

response community, the private sector, and the Federal Government.

• The standards for two of the eight P25 interfaces have been developed.

• OIC is establishing a P25 Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) to assess

manufacturers’ equipment for compliance with P25 standards.

• Major documents on Common Air Interface (CAI) standards have been completed

and products that implement CAI standards are currently being fielded; other

major P25 standards documents are rapidly being developed.

• Standards for data exchange are in development to improve information-sharing

capabilities among disparate emergency response software applications (e.g.,

Emergency Data Exchange Language [EDXL] standards including the Common

Alerting Protocol, Distribution Element [DE], Hospital Availability Exchange

[HAVE], Resource Messaging [RM], and the National Information Exchange

Model [NIEM]).

• Broadband initiatives and standards development include the P25 Interface

Committee’s (APIC) Broadband Task Group (BBTG), Project MESA, and the

NPSTC Broadband Working Group.

• Research and development (R&D) and testing and evaluation initiatives are

driven by OIC (e.g., Voice over Internet Protocol [VoIP], Vocoder Testing,

Multi-Band Radio, and Radio over Wireless Broadband [ROW-B]) and by the

Department of Defense (DoD) (e.g., Joint Tactical Radio System [JTRS] and Joint

Interoperability Test Command).

• The President’s Spectrum Policy Initiative focuses on identifying methods that

use emerging technologies, such as cognitive radio, to increase the efficiency and

effectiveness of spectrum usage.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• Several States (e.g., Arizona, California, and Texas) are developing statewide

“systems of systems” that leverage emerging technologies to establish

interoperability among different levels of government and span frequency bands.

• FEMA, following its DEC Integration Framework end-state architecture, is

developing standardized deployable emergency communications capabilities that

provide scalable and flexible voice, video, and data services.

• In the ongoing FCC rulemaking proceeding to establish a nationwide broadband

emergency response network in the 700 Megahertz (MHz) band, OEC is

coordinating with Federal emergency response agencies through the FPIC to

ensure that such agencies have access to this broadband network and that Federal

interests are represented in network-sharing negotiations with emergency

response and commercial licensees.

• The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) CommTech Program, with support from

OIC, is funding R&D in the areas of cognitive and software-defined radio (SDR)

and is providing input to the SDR forum to ensure emergency response needs are

met by these technologies.

• DHS’ Science and Technology Directorate’s Command, Control, and

Interoperability Division is leading a Common Operating Picture R&D program.

• DOJ and other Federal entities are funding pilot projects to support State, local,

and tribal emergency services activities.

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• Personnel responsible for designing or procuring communications systems are

sometimes unaware of the status of communications standards.

• The number and diversity of emergency response agencies that are procuring

systems increases the complexity and difficulty of developing technologies to

meet these user requirements.

• Standards development is hindered by the diverse requirements of independent

emergency response organizations and agencies.

• Secure communications interoperability across Federal, State, local, and tribal

emergency communications systems are often hindered by the Federal sector’s

use of encryption.

• There is insufficient information about testing and assessing emergency response

technologies, which makes it difficult for emergency response agencies to make

informed procurement decisions about technology for use both now and in the

future.

• State and local government agencies do not consistently participate in standards-

making bodies and development processes.

• A common view of existing incident conditions and resources is not readily

available or easily shared across Federal, State, and local jurisdictions in a way

that improves the understanding of the emergency or event

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 4.1: Adopt voluntary consensus standards for voice and data

emergency response capabilities. Voluntary consensus standards will enable

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

agencies to make informed procurement decisions and to benefit from emerging

technologies. Compliance assessment programs provide a documented

certification process for communications equipment and programs.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, a P25 CAP is established to test equipment for compliance

with approved interfaces.

o Within 6 months, a specifications profile for VoIP is published and tested

using multiple manufacturers’ equipment.

o Within 12 months, DHS publishes the P25 CAP Summary Test Reports and

manufacturers’ Supplier’s Declaration of Compliance (SDoC) for

equipment.

o Within 18 months, DHS makes standards and compliance information

available to emergency response agencies to help inform their

communications equipment purchases (e.g., the Authorized Equipment List

[AEL] and the Standardized Equipment List [SEL]).

o Within 18 months, DHS establishes compliance strategies for non-land

mobile radio emergency communications technologies.

o Within 24 months, develop standards for the exchange of real-time

situational information for emergency responders before, during, and after

an incident.

o Within 36 months, develop voluntary consensus standards for emergency

communications data file structures and messaging formats.

• Initiative 4.2: Research, develop, test, and evaluate new voice, video, and

data solutions for emergency communications, based on user-driven needs

and requirements. Used in conjunction with legacy systems, new technologies

have the potential to eliminate current technological challenges such as a lack of

available frequencies and the use of multiple frequency bands. Aggregating the

demands of emergency response agencies during the development of

requirements for these emerging technologies will increase the effectiveness of

the private sector in developing standardized products and services.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 3 months, DHS develops a process for emergency response agencies

to collaborate with the private sector to aggregate user requirements.

o Within 9 months, emergency response agencies identify and prioritize near-

term (3–5 years) requirements.

o Within 24 months, emergency response agencies develop, with the

cooperation of private sector and other stakeholders, quality-of-service

parameters for the most important near-term requirements.

• Initiative 4.3: Transition to and/or integrate legacy systems with next-

generation technologies based on voluntary consensus standards.

Transitioning to next-generation technologies may offer emergency response

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

agencies easier-to-use and more functional capabilities, depending on their

individual needs. The upcoming FCC narrowbanding deadline calls for non-

Federal emergency response agencies operating in frequencies below 512 MHz to

transition from 25 kilohertz (kHz) to 12.5 kHz channels by 2013 to ensure

spectrum efficiency. Federal grants can facilitate the migration and transition

from legacy to approved open architecture and next-generation systems.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, Federal grant policies are developed to encourage the

migration to approved interoperable next generation systems.

o Within 12 months, DHS publishes the results of pilots and evaluations of

emerging technologies making this information available to emergency

response agencies and the private sector to support their migration planning,

standards development, and product development efforts.

o Within 12 months, DHS publishes information and materials that highlight

system migration best practices, lessons learned, and the benefits of new

system capabilities.

• Initiative 4.4: Implement the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) for

Federal responders. A standard nationwide encryption method will diminish the

interoperability challenges faced by Federal responders (who previously used

different methods) and will provide guidance to local and State agencies when

working with Federal agencies.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 18 months, achieve encrypted interoperability between Federal

departments and agencies using the AES.

o Within 18 months, publish a uniform standard for the AES for State, local,

and tribal emergency responders who decide to use encryption.

o Within 24 months, Federal grant policies are modified to accommodate an

AES-encrypted feature for radio equipment used by State, local, and tribal

emergency responders.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 5: Emergency Responder Skills and Capabilities

Emergency responders have shared approaches to training and exercises, improved

technical expertise, and enhanced response capabilties.

Training and exercises play a vital role in preparedness, readiness, and proficiency in

accessing and using communications capabilities during emergency events. Preparedness

is essential to ensuring that interoperable emergency communications equipment is well

maintained, operational, and ready for deployment. Achieving appropriate levels of

readiness and proficiency ensures that personnel can deploy, set up, and use equipment

effectively, both on their own and in conjunction with other emergency responders.

Conducting training and exercises helps emergency responders understand their roles and

be properly prepared to respond to a wide range of emergency events.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• Many State and local agencies have adopted NIMS training requirements, which are

measured by Federal standards (e.g., NIMS 5-Year Training Plan).

• Incident Type III Communications Unit Leader (COML) training, which

standardizes the emergency communications component of incident management,

has been finalized. An awareness course that is intended to provide basic-level,

communications-specific training to other command unit leaders, is under

development.

• There are existing standards and guidelines for national preparedness exercises that

help standardize and measure exercise efficiency (e.g., the Homeland Security

Exercise and Evaluation Program [HSEEP]).

• Large-scale preparedness exercises (e.g., Top Official [TOPOFF]) are being

conducted with participants across levels of government, in addition to some

communications-specific exercises (e.g., UASI TICP exercises); additional annual

exercises are generally conducted at the State and local levels.

• OEC is developing a planned events methodology to help emergency response

officials design and execute interoperable communications plans for planned

events.

• OEC is developing a Table Top Exercise Methodology as a training aid to reinforce

interoperability practices and procedures for emergency responders.

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• Some emergency response agencies have not yet received NIMS training or have

not adopted NIMS policies.

• A national standard for Type III COML training and certification has been

developed, but has not yet been rolled out nationwide.

• A training curriculum for Communications Unit Technicians (COMT), Radio

Operators (RADO), and other communications-unit positions has not yet been

developed.

• Many emergency response agencies have only a limited number of qualified

technical staff available to support daily operations and provide surge support for

emergency communications.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

• Private sector partners have not been consistently involved in training and

exercises.

• There are insufficient communications-specific training courses and field exercises

available to emergency responders, and there is a lack of coordination with the

private sector on training and exercises.

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 5.1: Develop and implement national training programs and

certification processes. Standardized training programs should be established to

deliver regular training to all emergency responders who use or manage

communications resources. To build knowledge and competency throughout the

emergency response community, this training should be conducted within

agencies, across disciplines, jurisdictions, and levels of government, and with key

private sector organizations. Training programs should be sufficiently

comprehensive to address small-scale to large-scale events and to build the

capability for coordinating with a full range of emergency response providers

during all-hazards scenarios. Specific programs should include training for

COMLs, COMTs, and the Federal Emergency Communications Coordinators

(FECC). These programs should be evaluated regularly to determine their

effectiveness and their impact on performance and proficiency levels, and to

ensure that the programs’ existing content remains valid, incorporating new

content as needed.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes national-level training programs and

certification processes for COML, COMT, and FECC personnel.

o Within 12 months, DHS finalizes and publishes ICS Communications Unit

resource definitions (personnel and equipment).

o Within 12 months, DHS develops a nationwide interoperability channel

usage guide and ensures that shared channel training curriculum and

courseware are available.

o Within 18 months, DHS develops and uses standardized training and

credentialing for COML and other ICS Communications Unit positions

across the Nation.

o Within 18 months, DHS establishes a certification process for other

emergency communications users and providers, including COMT,

dispatchers, and emergency response providers.

• Initiative 5.2: Develop and inject standardized emergency communications

performance objectives and evaluation criteria into operational exercises.

Incorporating standardized objectives and evaluation criteria into exercise

programs will ensure the consistent evaluation of communications performance.

By evaluating communications as part of operational exercises, leadership will

gain enhanced awareness and understanding of communications gaps. This

understanding will ensure communications needs are prioritized appropriately.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes standardized exercise evaluation criteria

based on the emergency communications performance objectives

established in the DHS/FEMA Communications and Information

Management Capability Framework.

o Within 18 months, the exercise evaluation criteria are reviewed in

preparation for release through technical working group meetings with

stakeholders from the emergency response exercise community.

o Within 24 months, the emergency communications criteria are incorporated

into the Exercise Evaluation Guides of the DHS/FEMA HSEEP.

• Initiative 5.3: Provide targeted training to improve skills and capabilities of

technical staff. Although most technicians receive formal communications

training at the start of their careers as well as informal on-the-job training,

ongoing or refresher training is not commonly provided, in part because there are

not enough qualified subject matter experts. Communications technicians

typically are too burdened with daily operations and maintenance activities to

engage in formal training campaigns. As a result, users who do not rely on

communications equipment for their daily missions might be unfamiliar with the

equipment and procedures for its use

. Developing training programs for technical

staff will increase the number and enhance the expertise of technical and

operational resources.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS develops and disseminates training program

guidance and curricula for emergency communications technical staff.

o Within 18 months, DHS provides educational and training opportunities to

emergency response agencies per requests through technical assistance

programs.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 6: System Life-Cycle Planning

All levels of government drive long-term advancements in emergency communications

through integrated strategic planning procedures, appropriate resource allocations, and

public-private partnerships.

Emergency response providers must upgrade and regularly maintain communications

systems and capabilities to ensure effective operation; Federal grants can help meet these

needs. However, initial capital investments in capabilities, enabled by grants, often are

not accompanied by a plan for long-term sustainability. Grants should allow for

expanded support of system upgrades, governance, planning, policies and procedures,

and training and exercises. Federal agencies face a similar challenge in identifying

sustainable funding mechanisms to upgrade and maintain communications systems.

Public and private sector partners have their own core competencies and, thus, increased

collaboration will add long-term value to emergency communications.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• OEC and OIC published an Interoperability Business Case to help emergency

response officials develop a compelling business case for funding ongoing local

interoperability efforts.

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• Emergency communications are not viewed as a priority by many agencies; thus,

resources are not allocated for participation in planning activities.

• Communications planning is not viewed as a priority by many agencies. DHS is

working to ensure that limited Federal resources are targeted and expended more

strategically on identified gaps, while maintaining adequate State and local

flexibility.

• Many jurisdictions still pursue a short-term, technology-centric approach to solving

emergency communications problems, but without addressing comprehensive

planning for the equally important governance mechanisms, SOPs, and regular

training and exercises.

• Procurement decisions are often made without consulting neighboring jurisdictions

or agencies.

Supporting Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 6.1: Conduct system life-cycle planning to better forecast long-

term funding requirements. Providing planning and business case best

practices through technical assistance will enable leadership to project the true

cost of sustaining the organization’s communications system and allow budgeting

for maintenance and eventual replacement. Grant funding investment

justifications from States and spending within the Federal Government should be

The Interoperability Business Case is available on the SAFECOM website at:

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1336_interoperabilitybusiness.htm 

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

prioritized to support cooperative, regional (intrastate and interstate) system

planning efforts.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS will revise current guidance documents that specify

best practices for achieving basic operable communications while planning

for interoperability.

o Within 18 months, DHS will collect and share best practices to help

emergency response agencies identify emergency communications system

life-cycle benchmarks to enhance long-term cost planning and budgeting.

o Within 24 months, Federal grant programs will require system life-cycle

plans for all communications systems purchased with Federal grant dollars.

• Initiative 6.2: Expand the use of public and private sector partnerships

related to emergency communications. Although the private sector owns more

than 85 percent of critical infrastructure, government and emergency response

agencies own and operate communications systems that support their critical

missions, including defense, law enforcement, and emergency response.

The

private sector’s capabilities include fixed, mobile, and rapidly deployable

networks, assets, and facilities that can help ensure the success of emergency

communications. A more comprehensive understanding of the specific service

offerings and capabilities of private sector organizations will enable emergency

response agencies to better leverage existing and future communications

capabilities.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS convenes a summit of emergency responders and

private sector representatives to identify and make recommendations on

additional public-private sector partnerships to improve emergency

communications.

• Initiative 6.3: Assess existing Federal mission-critical wireless capabilities

and upgrade and modernize them according to mission needs. In many areas,

Federal departments and agencies are still working to achieve the basic

operability to achieve their missions. Federal agencies require high-quality,

secure, and reliable communications systems to support their mission-critical

operations. Whether facing a natural disaster or other emergency, tactical

communications can enable Federal emergency responders to perform their jobs,

ultimately protecting against the loss of life and property. Federal agencies must

develop and implement strategies to meet modernization mandates and upgrade

their infrastructures to attain resilient communications systems.

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Communications Sector-Specific Plan, p. 11.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, all Federal departments and agencies assess existing

communications capabilities and compare them with the capabilities needed

to complete their missions.

o Within 12 months, all Federal agencies determine priorities, plan budgets

and schedules, and design required upgrades to mission-critical subscriber

and infrastructure equipment.

• Initiative 6.4: Enhance emergency communications system survivability

using redundant and resilient system designs. Disasters can adversely affect

the performance of the communications systems that agencies use for emergency

response. Emergency response agencies must identify the types of incidents that

can disrupt the communications system components (e.g., radio repeaters,

backhaul circuits, and power systems) and develop plans to enhance survivability.

Implementing redundant infrastructure, developing resilience strategies, defining

recovery time objectives, and exercising communications continuity plans will

improve communications system survivability.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS will coordinate with RECCWGs to conduct impact

analyses of communications systems to identify the impact from the affects

of the disaster and disruption scenarios analyzed.

o Within 18 months, DHS will coordinate with RECCWGs to ensure that all

Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response providers have

developed and implemented communications continuity plans for

maintaining or recovering and stabilizing operations during and following

disaster events.

o Within 24 months, DHS will coordinate with RECCWGs to ensure that all

Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency response providers have

coordinated communications continuity exercises and established crisis

communications procedures and policies.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Objective 7: Disaster Communications Capabilities

The Nation has integrated preparedness, mitigation, and response and recovery

capabilities to communicate during significant events.

Significant incidents require maximum emergency response coordination. Emergency

response is made more complex because such incidents often damage the

communications infrastructure. To adequately react to the destruction or disruption of

communications capabilities, agencies must proactively develop continuity plans, pre-

position the placement and delivery of deployable communications assets and resources,

and participate in training and exercise programs that include disaster communications-

response scenarios. Appendix 3 provides an overview of Federal emergency response

agencies and their programs, systems, and services.

Current Emergency Communications Activities:

• The Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) component of the FEMA

DEC describes DHS’ primary rapid and deployable emergency communications

capability in support of Federal, State, and local responders for the first 96 hours

following an incident.

• Since 2006, the FEMA DEC has been working with individual States and

territories to identify potential communications gaps during responses and to

mitigate the gaps by pre-planning response packages tailored for each State.

FEMA plans to complete 23 State and territory DEC Annexes by 2008.

• The Joint Network Nodes (JNN) is the bridge between the Warfighter Information

Network–Tactical (WIN-T), a high-capacity network system that enables units

and command centers to communicate while on the move, and the Army’s

30-year-old legacy voice communications system, Mobile Subscriber Equipment.

• The National Guard Bureau (NGB) has deployed the Joint Incident Site

Communications Capability (JISCC) in 56 States and territories, a transit

case-based system that includes satellite reach-back communications, incident site

communications, interoperability gateway communications, and command post

integration and support equipment.

• The PSIC Grant Program funded $75 million in Strategic Technology Reserves

(STR) for States and territories. Investments were made in deployable assets,

radio caches, infrastructure enhancements, and satellite technology.

• Some State, local, and tribal agencies are developing statewide communications

systems and shared systems to expand capabilities.

• Emergency response providers are enhancing communications continuity plans

(e.g., backup and mobile/deployable solutions, and strategic technology reserves).

• Federal priority communications services and reporting systems are available for

priority access and telecommunications system restoration and recovery (e.g.,

Government Emergency Telecommunications Service [GETS],

Telecommunications Service Priority [TSP], Wireless Priority Service [WPS],

and Disaster Information Reporting System [DIRS]).

• Established in 2002, the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) provides

Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) for domestic emergencies, both

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

natural and man-made, and provides command and control of DoD personnel and

DoD agency and component resources.

Key Gaps and Obstacles Driving Action:

• The emergency response community needs to become better informed about

Federal agencies’ strategic, policy, and operational capabilities for emergency

communications.

• There is no integration framework that describes disaster communications services,

the community of agencies and companies that provide these services, and the

procedures for integrating these services and communities.

• Communications planning activities related to disasters that may overwhelm or

destroy communications systems are limited.

• There are multiple deployable and disaster communications asset data sets, but

there is no comprehensive and accurate data set that could be used to integrate

communications during a disaster.

• There is a need for disaster emergency communications technical standards to

ensure uniform interoperability in terms of design specifications, methods of

systems employment, processes, and/or operating practices. Some standards are

mandatory and some are voluntary.

• Many agencies have a limited ability to identify replacement equipment and

operations and maintenance funding to ensure the basic operability of their primary

tactical systems.

• The ability to communicate across agencies and jurisdictions is limited by the

fragmented nature of spectrum and by the requirement to operate on noncontiguous

bands.

• Neither emergency response agencies nor commercial communications providers

have standardized means for identifying individuals authorized to access and

receive information about the disaster area.

• Few agencies conduct communications infrastructure threat and vulnerability

assessments of their critical communications assets as part of their emergency

communications planning activities.

• Many emergency response agencies are unaware of the priority services available

from the Federal Government during emergencies.

• Many States do not have MOUs or frequency agreements with NGB to guide the

use of the JISCC system.

Priority Initiatives and Milestones to Address Key Gaps:

• Initiative 7.1: Provide an integration framework for disaster

communications operations and response to ensure that the Federal

Government can effectively fulfill requests during incident response.

Although disaster communications capabilities are owned by many agencies and

private sector entities, there is currently a limited understanding of how these

capabilities would be integrated during operations. Following Hurricane Katrina,

Government Accountability Office (GAO), Report to Congressional Requesters: Homeland Defense, April 2008.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

deployable assets were in use across the operations areas, but there was limited

coordination. In addition, a common operating picture was not available to senior

leaders across government.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 6 months, DHS develops Disaster Tactical Communications

Requirements Analysis to assess Federal, State, and local disaster

emergency communications functional support areas (e.g., restoration,

mission operations/team support, facility, tactical, and planning and

coordination).

o Within 12 months, based on the Disaster Tactical Communications

Requirements Analysis, DHS develops an Integration Framework and

Concept of Operations (CONOPS) describing how disaster

communications requirements are filled and integrated at the national,

regional, and incident levels.

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes the capability to track and monitor

Federal assets during a response scenario.

• Initiative 7.2: Implement disaster communications planning and

preparedness activities. Identifying critical communications vulnerabilities and

developing mitigation strategies is important for all agencies with operational

responsibilities during significant incidents. Agencies should evaluate the

readiness posture of communications centers (e.g., Public Safety Answering

Points [PSAP]) and emergency response and commercial networks that may be

vulnerable to weather damage, flooding, and man-made disasters. The

vulnerabilities identified should be a primary focus of disaster planning and

preparedness activities. System planning activities should account for the

availability of alternative and backup communications solutions, and resilient and

diverse pathways to support communications if primary capabilities become

unavailable.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, RECCWGs will work with State and local agencies to

assess priority State vulnerabilities that, absent mitigation, could

jeopardize command and control capabilities and critical mission

operations.

o Within 12 months, DHS develops and publishes best practices and

methodologies that promote the incorporation of vulnerability assessments

into the emergency communications planning process.

o Within 24 months, develop plans and procedures to enhance emergency

911 systems and PSAP communications.

o Within 24 months, complete disaster communications training and

exercises for all 56 States and territories.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

o Within 24 months, all Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies in UASIs

will have defined alternate/backup capabilities in emergency

communications plans.

• Initiative 7.3: Leverage existing and emerging technologies to expand and

integrate disaster communications capabilities among emergency response

providers. Deployable communications technologies can provide robust voice,

video, and data capabilities for agencies during disasters. Packaging these

capabilities to be quickly deployable and easily integrated and interoperable is a

significant challenge. DHS will work across the government and the private sector

to enable more effective pre-positioning and integration of existing and cutting-

edge technologies.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, using the results of the Disaster Tactical

Communications Requirements Analysis, DHS identifies a list of

technologies that meets the majority of requirements identified.

o Within 18 months, DHS provides a Disaster Communications Capability

List to be included in the AEL and the SEL that provides an overview of

approved interoperable or standardized equipment that should be used

during response.

o Within 24 months, DHS will reassess its pre-positioning framework to

evaluate whether it best meets national disaster communications needs.

• Initiative 7.4: Accelerate the implementation of emergency communications

components in the NRF, specifically, national access and credentialing. NRF

establishes a comprehensive, national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident

response and is used broadly in an operational context for incident management

activities related to pre-incident prevention and post-incident response and

recovery. The Joint Field Office (JFO) DEC Branch coordinates Federal

communications support to response efforts during incidents requiring a Federal

response. The JFO DEC Branch also coordinates communications support to

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and emergency responders when

their systems have been impacted and provides communications and information

technology support to the JFO and its field teams. Comprehensive use of NRF

will ensure consistent operations across the Nation and will reduce the risk of

miscommunication among emergency response agencies. Ensuring suitable

credentialing for all responders who require access to an incident site is another

factor that is critical to rapid and effective response and recovery. Depending on

the extent and impact of the incident, those who require access and credentials

may include Federal, State, local, and tribal emergency responders, as well as

NGO and private sector telecommunications infrastructure provider response

personnel.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 24 months, DHS develops national access and credentialing

guidelines that offer emergency responders, including critical commercial

communications providers, a means of identifying individuals eligible to

access and receive information about the disaster area.

• Initiative 7.5: Implement systems and procedures that ensure the Federal

Government’s ability to establish situational awareness, develop a common

operating picture, and provide timely and consistent information during

crises. The collection and dissemination of information in preparation for and

during an incident is essential to mitigate threats and to respond efficiently.

Situational awareness includes predicting the occurrence of a natural disaster or

an attack; knowing the extent of damage that results from an event; having an

operating picture that includes the status of response activities, critical

infrastructures, and public health; and understanding plans for response and

restoration. Situational awareness processes and activities reduce barriers to

information sharing.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 12 months, DHS establishes a plan for an integrated asset tracking

system to enable information sharing across the national, regional, and

incident levels.

• Initiative 7.6: Promote the use of priority services programs and expand

their capabilities (e.g., GETS, WPS, and TSP) to next-generation networks.

Priority access services are critical to the ability of emergency responders to

access telecommunications resources during an incident. Significant incidents

create high demand for telecommunications resources by emergency responders

and the public. It is critical that emergency response providers have access to

telecommunications resources when needed to enable information exchange.

Currently, the National Communications System sponsors several priority access

services (e.g., GETS, TSP, and WPS) that are available for use by Federal, State,

local, and tribal agencies. Based on mission requirements, agencies across

various levels of government should leverage these services to ensure access to

telecommunications resources when needed. In addition, planning is needed to

ensure the availability of these services as networks transition to next-generation

technologies.

Recommended National Milestones:

o Within 18 months, OEC will work with statewide coordinators to promote

the availability and use of priority access services throughout their States

or territories.

o Within 24 months, DHS establishes plans to transition priority access

services to next-generation networks.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

4. Implementing and Measuring NECP Achievement

The success of the NECP requires the commitment of all emergency response disciplines

at all levels of government. Achieving its goals and priority objectives will require

coordination across geographical, political, and cultural jurisdictions and boundaries.

Therefore, this Plan provides strategic direction and guidance that Congress, Federal

departments and agencies, State, local, and tribal government officials, and the private

sector can use to identify future actions to address communications deficiencies.

4.1 Implementation

OEC, within DHS’ National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), is designated

as the primary Federal agent charged with overseeing NECP implementation. In this

role, OEC will monitor achievement of the NECP’s recommended milestones and

initiatives and will coordinate with its stakeholders to assess progress in reaching this

Plan’s goals. OEC’s current options for motivating emergency response agencies to

implement the NECP include providing technical assistance to State, regional, local, and

tribal government officials; developing grant policies and coordinating DHS-

administered grant programs (e.g., IECGP); and coordinating Federal activities through

the ECPC and FPIC. In addition, OEC will use statutory reporting requirements to

monitor and report on progress towards implementing the NECP (e.g., State annual

reports under the IECGP, RECCWG annual reports, ECPC annual strategic assessment,

and OEC’s assessment and biennial progress reports).

Within the first year of the NECP implementation, OEC will partner with key

stakeholders to determine valid metrics for the objectives and initiatives. OEC will

provide a status report in its Biennial Progress Report to Congress, due February 2010.

Implementation of the NECP will be a coordinated effort among all levels of government

including those listed below.

Executive and Legislative Branches—The NECP will provide the legislative and

executive branches with recommended initiatives and national milestones that will

inform them of emergency communications priorities, activities, and resource

allocations for consideration and action.

Federal Agencies—The NECP documents the challenges of coordinating emergency

communications efforts at the Federal level. Federal responders must also be able to

work with State and local responders during an emergency. Two key Federal

partnerships will be used to implement the NECP. Through the ECPC, Federal

implementation of the NECP will be a collaborative effort, offering all stakeholders a

better understanding of the achievements at this level. Through FPIC, Federal

response organizations will work with State and local agencies and governments to

improve communications and resource sharing.

State, Local, and Tribal Governments—The NECP provides guidance for

improved emergency communications to State, local, and tribal agencies and

governments to better focus Federal funding dollars and provides a forum for regional

planning and participation. State, local, and tribal governments should strive to align

with the NECP and implement key initiatives.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

Private Sector—The NECP identifies private sector support to communications

during emergencies and recovery efforts and provides consistent direction for private

sector involvement in standards development, advanced communications

technologies, and services development and deployment.

4.2 Metrics

DHS will use future versions of the following reports and assessments to help assess

progress toward achieving NECP goals:

o ECPC Annual Strategic Assessment

o RECCWG Annual Report

o OEC’s Biennial Progress Report

o OEC’s National Communications Capabilities Report.

Through OEC and the FEMA RECCWGs, DHS will collaborate with State homeland

security advisors and statewide interoperability coordinators to develop valid

methodologies for measuring progress toward these goals.

4.3 Future Requirements

As reflected in Initiatives 1.2 and 5.2, DHS will collaborate with Federal, State, regional,

and local governments and the private sector to develop a more comprehensive and

targeted set of evaluation criteria for defining, measuring, and assessing communications

requirements across the Nation. To prevent duplicative reporting requirements for

stakeholders, assessment efforts will leverage existing reporting requirements (e.g.,

SCIPs, TICP, and State preparedness reports) and grant program applications (e.g.,

IECGP and HSGP). Evaluation criteria will be consistent with DHS implementation of

the National Preparedness Guidelines and the TCL.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

V. Conclusion

Ultimately, the NECP’s goals cannot be achieved without the support, dedication, and

commitment of the stakeholders who have been involved in developing this Plan. The

Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sectors must work together and support each other

to achieve nationwide operability, interoperability, and continuity of emergency

communications. The NECP provides stakeholders with a shared strategy to mitigate the

unique challenges that effective communication presents. By taking the NECP to action,

this diverse community can truly achieve a unified vision that allows emergency

responders to communicate as needed, on demand, and as authorized, at all levels of

government and across all disciplines.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 1

NECP Appendices

Appendix 1: NECP Legislative Requirements Compliance Matrix

Appendix 2: Alignment with National Strategies, Planning Initiatives, and

Key Authorities

Appendix 3: Key Federal Emergency Communications Initiatives,

Programs, Systems, and Services

Appendix 4: DHS Organizations with Responsibilities and Programs

Supporting Emergency Communications

Appendix 5: The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

Appendix 6: NECP Stakeholder Coordination

Appendix 7: NECP Source Documents

Appendix 8: Glossary of Terms

Appendix 9: Acronyms

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 2

Appendix 1: NECP Legislative Requirements Compliance

Exhibit A1-1 is a matrix that maps the National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP) to the

Title XVIII legislative requirements.

Exhibit A1-1: Matrix of Title XVIII Legislative Requirements with NECP Sections

No. Title XVIII Legislative Requirements NECP Section(s)

Include recommendations developed in consultation with the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for a

process for expediting national voluntary consensus standards for interoperable emergency

communications equipment

Section 3 –

Objective 4: Standards &

Emerging Technologies

Identify the appropriate capabilities necessary for emergency response providers and relevant

government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of

terrorism, and other man-made disasters

Section 2.3 –

Capabilities Needed

Identify the appropriate interoperable emergency communications capabilities necessary for

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism,

and other man-made disasters

Section 2.3 –

Capabilities Needed

Recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for ensuring that emergency response

providers and relevant government officials can continue to communicate in the event of

natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters

Section 3 –

Initiatives and Milestones

for Objectives 2, 3, 5, 7

Recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for deploying interoperable emergency

communications systems for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments throughout the

Nation, including through the provision of existing and emerging technologies

Section 3 –

Initiatives and Milestones

for Objectives 3, 4, 5, 6

Identify how Federal departments and agencies that respond to natural disasters, acts of

terrorism, and other man-made disasters can work effectively with State, local, and tribal

governments in all States, and with other entities

Section 3 –

Objectives 1, 2, 7

Identify obstacles to deploying interoperable emergency communications capabilities

nationwide and recommend short-term and long-term measures to overcome those obstacles,

including recommendations for multi-jurisdictional coordination among Federal, State, local,

and tribal governments

Section 3 –

For all objectives, see “Key

Gaps Driving Action” for

obstacles and relevant

“Initiatives” for

recommendations

Recommend goals and time frames for the deployment of emergency, command-level

communications systems and develop a timetable for the deployment of interoperable

emergency communications systems nationwide

• Section 2.2 – Goals

• Section 3 – Relevant

Initiatives and Milestones

for all Objectives

Recommend appropriate measures that emergency response providers should employ to ensure

continued operation of relevant governmental communications infrastructure

Section 3 –

Initiatives 4.2, 4.3, 6.2, 6.4,

7.2, 7.3

(HR 1) Set a date, including interim benchmarks, by which State, local, and tribal

governments, and Federal agencies expect to achieve a baseline level of national

interoperable communications

Section 2.2 – Goals

This NECP requirement was added by H.R. 1, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public

Law 110-53), which was signed into law August 3, 2007.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 3

Appendix 2: Alignment with National Strategies, Planning

Initiatives, and Key Authorities

The NECP has been designed to complement and support overarching homeland security and

emergency communications legislation, strategies, and initiatives. The NECP applies guidance

from these authorities, including key principles and priorities, to establish the first national

strategic plan focused exclusively on improving emergency communications for emergency

response providers nationwide. Moreover, the NECP provides a critical link between national

communications priorities and strategic and tactical planning at the regional, State, and local

levels. Exhibit A2-1 illustrates the linkage between the NECP and primary emergency

communications authorities.

Exhibit A2-1: Key Homeland Security and Emergency Communications Authorities

NATIONAL

LEGISLATION &

STRATEGIES

PREPAREDNESS/

INCIDENT

MANAGEMENT

POLICY & PLANNING

INITIATIVES

DIRECTIVES &

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL

HSPDs(e.g., 5, 7, 8)

EOs

(e.g., 12406,3,

12472, 12656)

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

HOMELAND SECURITY

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/K

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF CI/KA

HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

NRF, SUPPORT

FUNCTION

OPERATIONAL

NIPP

NATIONAL

PREPAREDNESS

GUIDELINES

NATIONAL

PREPAREDNESS

GUIDELINES

TICPS

TICPs

SCIPS

SCIPs

Regional Strategic

Planning

Regional Strategic

Planning

STRATEGIC

PREPAREDNESS/

COMMUNICATIONS

PLANNING

INITIATIVES

Hazard Mitigation

Emergenc

Operations Plans

Emergenc

Operations Plans

NIMS

HSPDs

(e.g., 5, 7, 8)

(e.g., 12046,

12472, 12656)

EOs

NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR

HOMELAND SECURITY

NECP

Communications-specific

Various emergency communications authorities shape, and are reflected in, the NECP—

• Legislation—The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended by the Homeland Security

Appropriations Act of 2007, provides the primary authority for the homeland security

mission and establishes a foundation for emergency communications efforts nationwide.

Other legislation identifies priorities at the national level and establishes departmental

responsibilities and processes related to national preparedness and emergency

communications.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 4

• Strategies—National strategies provide the vision and strategic direction for emergency

communications elements of the homeland security mission. For example, the National

Strategy for Homeland Security emphasizes situational awareness as an incident management

principle and stresses the importance of communications interoperability and survivability.

This strategy and others, such as the National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical

Infrastructure and Key Assets, identify high-level actions and priorities for national

preparedness related to communications (e.g., improving public safety communications,

supporting development of interoperable, secure communications systems, coordinating

interoperability standards, developing redundant communications networks, and promoting

common standards and terminology for equipment and training).

• Federal Directives and Executive Orders—These documents set national policies and

executive mandates for specific initiatives, programs, and associated responsibilities. For

example, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD 5) required the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) to develop and implement a National Incident Management

System (NIMS) and the National Response Plan (NRP). HSPD 8 mandated the development

of a National Preparedness Goal to help entities build and maintain capabilities to prevent,

protect, respond, and recover from major incidents. Other directives and executive orders

identify and assign responsibilities for communications functions (e.g., spectrum, critical

infrastructure, telecommunications continuity, and alert and warning).

• Preparedness/ Incident Management DHS Policy and Planning Initiatives—National

policy and planning initiatives follow from legislation, directives, and orders, implementing

the programs and activities described therein. Consistent with these DHS policy initiatives,

the NECP focuses on improving the emergency communications posture nationwide through

strategic goals, objectives, initiatives, and milestones. Following are descriptions of some

key Federal policy and planning initiatives for incident management and emergency

response:

− National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)—The NIPP, and supporting sector-

specific plans, establishes a comprehensive risk management framework that provides the

unifying structure for integrating existing and future critical infrastructure and key

resource (CI/KR) protection efforts into a single national program. The NIPP specifies

key initiatives, milestones, and metrics required to protect the Nation’s CI/KR and

provides a coordinated approach that defines the roles and responsibilities of Federal,

State, and local governments as well as the private sector.

− National Incident Management System (NIMS)—Provides a nationwide template for

incident management, establishing uniform doctrine for command and management,

resources, communications, information management, and supporting technologies.

Specific to communications, NIMS defines concepts and principles (e.g., interoperability,

reliability, resiliency), management characteristics (e.g., communications types, planning,

equipment standards, training), and standards and formats (e.g., radio usage procedures,

plain language), which are clearly reflected in the NECP.

− National Response Framework (NRF)—Establishes a comprehensive, national, all-

hazards approach to domestic incident response. The NRF is used broadly in an

operational context for incident management activities related to pre-incident prevention

and post-incident response and recovery.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 5

− National Preparedness Guidelines—Provides readiness targets, priorities, standards for

assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the Nation’s overall level of

preparedness. The guidelines consist of standard planning tools, such as the Target

Capabilities List (TCL), that agencies should develop and maintain to provide guidance on

the specific capabilities and levels of capability related to the homeland security mission.

In the area of communications, the TCL stresses the importance of operable, interoperable,

and redundant communications during an emergency, and provides measures and metrics

to define how quickly and how effectively critical communications tasks should be

performed. The NECP was developed consistent with TCL guidelines and preparedness

objectives, and should help local communities meet their requirements under TCL.

• State, Regional, and Local Planning—The NECP provides a critical link between national

priorities and strategic and tactical planning at the regional, State, and local levels. DHS has

analyzed the progress and gaps identified through State and local planning efforts in

developing the NECP’s priorities, initiatives, and associated actions. In turn, these national

priorities will be incorporated into existing and future regional, State, and local planning

efforts.

Descriptions of the key legislation, strategies, directives and executive orders, and policy

initiatives that shape the emergency communications policy environment are provided below.

A2.1 Legislation

Exhibit A2-2 describes the key legislation that guides national efforts to ensure communications

during crises.

Exhibit A2-2: Key Legislation

Name Date Description

The Communications Act

of 1934, amended by the

Telecommunications Act of

1996

June 19, 1934;

February 8, 1996

Authorizes the Executive Branch to manage communications during wartime

and non-wartime emergencies, and creates the Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) as the chief regulatory authority for communications

technologies. The FCC works to enhance emergency communications

capabilities and addresses critical spectrum issues within the Public Safety and

Homeland Security Bureau and in coordination with the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Defense Production Act of

1950

September 8, 1950

Ensures timely availability of the products, materials, and services needed to

meet national defense and emergency preparedness requirements, and

provides an operating structure to support a timely, comprehensive response

by industry in a national emergency situation.

Information Technology

Management Reform Act

of 1996 (P.L. 104-106)

February 10, 1996

Specifies that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

develop standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for

Federal computer systems. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)

are developed by NIST when there are no existing voluntary standards to

address the Federal requirements for the interoperability of different systems,

portability of data and software, and computer security.

The Balanced Budget Act

of 1997; Deficit Reduction

Act (P.L. 109-171)

August 5, 1997;

February 8, 2006

Requires the FCC to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to

public safety. The Deficit Reduction Act sets a firm deadline of February

2009 by which television broadcasters must vacate the occupied spectrum for

the public safety community.

10 U.S.C. Section 372-380,

Military Support for

Civilian Law Enforcement

Agencies, as amended

1998

Establishes protocols for the development, use, support, and maintenance of

communications equipment shared by the U.S. military and local law

enforcement agencies.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 6

Name Date Description

The Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act

November 23, 1988

Establishes processes by which the Federal government can provide assistance

to State, local, and tribal governments, individuals, and nongovernmental

organizations (NGO) for all-hazards emergency response and recovery. This

includes establishment and use of temporary communications systems in

anticipation of or during an emergency.

Disaster Mitigation Act of

2000 (P.L. 106-390)

October 30, 2000

Amends the Stafford Act and requires State mitigation plans as a condition of

disaster assistance.

The Homeland Security

Act of 2002 (Public Law

[P.L.] 107-296)

November 25, 2002

Establishes the DHS as an executive department of the United States and

specifies significant responsibilities associated with emergency preparedness,

response, and recovery, including emergency communications and critical

infrastructure. Includes provisions for coordinating or (as appropriate)

consolidating communications systems related to homeland security at all

levels of government.

Federal Information

Security Management Act

of 2002 (part of P.L. 107-

347)

December 17, 2002

Requires Federal agencies to develop a comprehensive information

technology security program to ensure the effectiveness of information

security controls over information resources that support Federal operations

and assets.

The Intelligence Reform

and Terrorism Prevention

Act (P.L. 108-458)

December 17, 2004

Addresses national preparedness by identifying the need for a nationwide

incident command system; establishes the Office for Interoperability and

Compatibility (OIC) for the enhancement of public safety interoperability; and

calls for studies on interoperable communications standards, spectrum, and

strategies to meet public safety communications requirements.

The Homeland Security

Appropriations Act of

2007 (P.L. 109-295),

including the 21st Century

Emergency

Communications Act of

2006

October 4, 2006

Includes Title VI, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act,

which reorganizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

amends the Stafford Act, and addresses emergency communications. In

addition, the legislation amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add

Title XVIII–Emergency Communications, establishing the Office of

Emergency Communications (OEC) and specifying its responsibilities.

Transfers existing programs (e.g., Integrated Wireless Network, Interoperable

Communications Technical Assistance Program) and elements of other

programs (e.g., SAFECOM) to OEC and assigns new responsibilities (e.g.,

National Emergency Communications Plan, National Baseline Assessment,

and outreach and coordination).

Implementing the

Recommendations of the

9/11 Commission Act of

2007 (P.L. 110-53)

August 3, 2007

Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish the Urban Area

Security Initiative to provide grants to assist high-risk metropolitan areas to

prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to terrorist acts. Establishes

the State Homeland Security Grant Program to assist State, local, and tribal

governments to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to terrorist

acts. Directs the Secretary to establish the Interoperable Emergency

Communications Grant Program to make grants to States to carry out

initiatives to improve international, national, regional, statewide, local, and

tribal, interoperable emergency communications.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 7

A2.2 Strategy

Exhibit A2-3 describes the key homeland security strategies that provide direction for emergency

communications elements of the homeland security mission.

Exhibit A2-3: Key Homeland Security Strategies

Name Date Description

National Strategy for the

Physical Protection of

Critical Infrastructures

and Key Assets

February 2003

Identifies the policy, goals, objectives, and principles for actions needed to

secure the infrastructures and assets vital to national security, governance,

public health and safety, economy, and public confidence. Directs DHS to

partner with the private sector to understand the risks associated with the

physical vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures and key assets.

National Strategy to Secure

Cyberspace

February 2003

Establishes priorities and initiatives to improve the physical security of cyber

systems and communications, including interdependencies.

National Strategy for

Homeland Security

October 2007

(revised)

Provides a common framework to guide the Nation’s homeland security efforts

toward achieving four primary goals: (1) prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks;

(2) protect people, critical infrastructures, and key resources; (3) respond and

recover from incidents; and (4) strengthen the homeland security foundation

for long-term success. Specific to communications, the strategy emphasizes

situational awareness as a critical incident management principle and stresses

the importance of communications interoperability and survivability.

A2.3 Directives and Executive Orders

Exhibit A2-4 describes the key directives and executive orders for ensuring communications

during crises.

Exhibit A2-4: Key Directives and Executive Orders

Name Date Description

Executive Order 12046,

Relating to the Transfer of

Telecommunications

Functions

March 27, 1978

Delegates presidential responsibilities for management of the Federal

electromagnetic spectrum to the Secretary of Commerce. Provides for the

continuation of the Inter-department Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) to

assist the Secretary in exercising the delegated presidential authority.

Department of Commerce

Organization Order 10-10

May 9, 1978

Establishes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA), delegates presidential responsibilities for management of the

electromagnetic spectrum to its administrator, and establishes the

administrator’s authority and responsibility for all radio communications

systems operated by the Federal government.

Presidential Directive 53,

National Security

Telecommunications Policy

November 15,

1979

Reaffirms the need for connectivity for the Nation’s leaders and the ability to

respond, restore, and recover the national telecommunication infrastructure in

all emergencies.

Executive Order 12372,

Intergovernmental Review of

Federal Programs

July 14, 1982

Intends to foster intergovernmental partnerships by providing opportunities for

State, regional, and local coordination and review of proposed Federal financial

assistance.

National Security Decision

Directive 97, National

Security Telecommunications

Policy

June 13, 1983

Sets requirements for emergency restoration and recovery of communications

that support the Nation’s leaders, worldwide intelligence, and diplomacy.

Confirms the provision of interoperable, reliable, and secure communications

for the President and his chief advisors as a national priority.

Executive Order 12472,

Assignment of National

Security and Emergency

Preparedness (NS/EP)

Telecommunications

Functions

April 3, 1984

Establishes the National Communications System (NCS) as the Federal

interagency system to ensure that the national telecommunications

infrastructure is responsive to the NS/EP needs of national leaders, the military,

the Intelligence Community, and emergency responders. Establishes NCS as

the focal point for joint industry/government NS/EP communications planning

and directs the establishment of a national coordinating center. Establishes

DHS as the agency responsible for planning, providing, operating, and

maintaining telecommunications services and facilities as part of the National

Emergency Management Systems. Identifies DHS’ role in advising, assisting,

and ensuring that State and local governments develop and maintain national

security and emergency preparedness telecommunications plans.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 8

Name Date Description

Executive Order 12656,

Assignment of EP

Responsibilities

November 18,

1988

Delegates NS/EP responsibilities to Federal departments and agencies,

instructs agencies to develop plans and capabilities that will ensure continuity

of operations, and reaffirms the need for interagency cooperation in the pursuit

of telecommunications NS/EP.

NCS Directive 3-1,

Telecommunications

Operations

August 10, 2000

Implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and establishes procedures for the

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program. Authorizes priority

services for domestic telecommunications services (e.g., Government

Emergency Telecommunications Service [GETS] and Wireless Priority Service

[WPS]).

Executive Order 13231,

Critical Infrastructure

Protection

October 16, 2001

Establishes the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, tasked with

ensuring the protection of information systems for critical infrastructure,

including emergency preparedness communications and the physical assets that

support these systems.

Homeland Security

Presidential Directive

(HSPD) 5, Management of

Domestic Incidents

February 28,

2003

Directs the Secretary of DHS to develop and administer a national incident

management system. The system is to provide a consistent nationwide

approach to enable Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private

sector to work together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, prevent,

respond to, and recover from domestic incidents regardless of cause, size, or

complexity.

HSPD 7, Critical

Infrastructure Identification,

Prioritization, and

Protection

December 17,

2003

Calls for Federal departments and agencies to identify, prioritize, and

coordinate the protection of critical infrastructures and key resources to

prevent, deter, and mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts to destroy,

incapacitate, or exploit them. Assigns DHS (delegated to the NCS) as the lead

for coordinating protection of national critical infrastructures, including the

communications sector.

HSPD 8, National

Preparedness

December 17,

2003

Establishes policies to strengthen national preparedness to prevent and respond

to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a

national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal. Establishes mechanisms for

improved delivery of Federal preparedness assistance to State and local

governments, and outlines actions to strengthen the preparedness capabilities of

Federal, State, regional, local, and tribal entities.

Spectrum Policy for the

21st Century, The

President’s Spectrum Policy

Initiative

November 30,

2004

Establishes processes to implement a comprehensive U.S. Spectrum Policy to

foster economic growth, ensure national and homeland security, maintain U.S.

global leadership in communications technology development and services,

and satisfy other vital needs in areas such as public safety, scientific research,

Federal transportation infrastructure, and law enforcement. NTIA leads the

implementation of this initiative. Also calls for DHS to develop a

comprehensive plan for non-Federal public safety spectrum needs.

Executive Order 13407,

Public Warning System

June 28, 2006

Calls for an effective, reliable, integrated, and flexible system to alert and warn

the American people in all-hazard emergencies. DHS is the Executive Agent

for the Public Alert and Warning System Program.

HSPD 20, National

Continuity Policy

May 4, 2007

Establishes National Essential Functions, which prescribe continuity

requirements for all executive departments and agencies and provide guidance

for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments and private sector

organizations.

NCS Directive 3-10,

Minimum Requirements for

Continuity Communications

Capabilities

July 25, 2007

Requires that all departments and agencies that support National Essential

Functions operate and maintain—or have dedicated access to—

communications capabilities at their headquarters and alternate operating

facilities, as well as mobile in-transit communications capabilities, to ensure

continuation of mission critical functions across the full spectrum of hazards,

threats, and emergencies, including catastrophic attacks or disasters.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 9

A2.4 National-Level Policy and Planning Initiatives

Exhibit A2-5 describes the key national-level policy and planning initiatives that guide

emergency response efforts.

Exhibit A2-5: Key National-Level Policy and Planning Initiatives

Name Date Description

National Incident

Management System

(NIMS)

March 1, 2004

The NIMS presents a unified approach to incident management, provides

standard command and control structures, and emphasizes preparedness,

mutual aid, and resource management. The NIMS emphasizes that establishing

and maintaining a common operational picture and ensuring accessibility and

interoperability are principal goals of communications and information

management.

Manual of Regulations and

Procedures for Federal

Radio Frequency

Management

May 2003

edition;

September 2006

revision

Issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and

Information to address the Department of Commerce’s frequency management

responsibilities pursuant to delegated authority under Section 305 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

National Infrastructure

Protection Plan (NIPP)

July 2006

The NIPP, and supporting sector-specific plans, establishes a comprehensive

risk management framework that provides the unifying structure for integrating

existing and future critical infrastructure and key resource (CI/KR) protection

efforts into a single national program. The NIPP specifies the key initiatives,

milestones, and metrics required to protect the Nation’s CI/KR and provides a

coordinated approach that defines the roles and responsibilities of Federal,

State, and local governments as well as the private sector.

National Preparedness

Guidelines

September 2007

Provides readiness targets, priorities, standards for assessments and strategies,

and a system for assessing the Nation’s overall level of preparedness. Consists

of related preparedness tools, such as the National Preparedness Vision,

National Planning Scenarios, the Universal Task List, and the Target

Capabilities List.

National Response

Framework (NRF),

including Emergency

Support Function (ESF) #2

December 2004;

re-released

January 22, 2008

Establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the

United States to manage domestic incidents. Provides the structure and

mechanisms to coordinate and integrate incident management activities and

emergency support functions across Federal, State, local, and tribal government

entities, and the private sector. ESF #2, led by NCS, ensures Federal

communications support to Federal, State, local, tribal, and private sector

efforts.

A2.5 State, Regional, and Local Planning

Exhibit A2-6 describes some of the key regional, State, and local planning initiatives related to

emergency communications.

Exhibit A2-6: Key Regional, State, and Local Planning Initiatives

Name Date Description

State and Local Guide

(SLG) 101: Guide for All-

Hazard Emergency

Operations Planning

September 1996

Provides emergency response agencies with information on FEMA’s concept

for developing risk-based, all-hazard emergency operations plans. Clarifies the

preparedness, response, and short-term recovery planning elements that

warrant inclusion in State and local Emergency Operations Plans.

Tactical Interoperable

Communications Plan

(TICP)

December 2006

TICPs present a region’s plan for establishing and maintaining tactical

interoperable communications, defined as the rapid provision of on-scene,

incident-based, mission-critical voice communications among all first-

responder agencies, in support of an incident command system as defined in

the NIMS model. Developed initially by the Urban Area Security Initiative

(UASI) areas in response to Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Homeland Security Grant

Program (HSGP) guidance.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 10

Name Date Description

Statewide Communication

Interoperability Plan

(SCIP)

March 2008

Describes the strategic vision, goals, and key long-term and short-term

strategic initiatives for States to improve communications interoperability.

Serves as a mechanism and roadmap to align emergency responders at all

levels of State government to improve communications interoperability.

Developed initially in response to FY07 HSGP and Public Safety Interoperable

Communications (PSIC) Grant Program requirements.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 11

Appendix 3: Key Federal Emergency Communications Initiatives,

Programs, Systems, and Services

This appendix presents a summary of key Federal initiatives related to emergency

communications collected as part of the ECPC clearinghouse Federal Interoperability

Catalog. While this is not an exhaustive inventory of Federal programs, the information below

represents the most comprehensive data set to date and will act as living document. The

summary below promotes emergency interoperable communications information sharing and

awareness among Federal agencies by highlighting programs and initiatives that are related to

other departments and agencies, including:

• Policy and Planning Initiatives

• Federal Systems and Services

• Information Sharing and Command and Control Centers

• Standards and Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Initiatives

• Grant Funding Initiatives

• Training and Exercise Initiatives.

Exhibit A3-1 summarizes key emergency communications policy and planning initiatives.

Exhibit A3-1: Key Emergency Communications Policy and Planning Initiatives

Type of

Policy/Plan

Key Policies, Plans, and Assessments

Lead

Agency

Strategy,

Legislation,

Directives

 See Appendix 2 for overview of National Strategies, Legislation, Directives, and Executive

Orders related to emergency communications

 Executive

branch,

Congress

Regulatory,

Spectrum

Management

 Regulation of interstate and international communications (by radio, television, wire, satellite,

and cable)

− Spectrum (e.g., 700 MHz D Block, digital television transition, 800MHz rebanding)

− Alert and warning (e.g., Public Safety Access Point [PSAP], Enhanced 911, Emergency Alert

System [EAS], commercial mobile alerts)

− Other (e.g., priority telecommunications and amateur radio services, special temporary

authority)

 Federal government spectrum management, communications policy initiatives

 FCC

 NTIA

National

Preparedness

Doctrine

 National Response Framework (NRF), Emergency Support Function #2 (ESF#2), National

Incident Management System (NIMS)

 National Preparedness Guidelines: Target Capabilities List (TCL), Universal Task List (UTL),

National Planning Scenarios

 DHS

Emergency

Communications

Planning

 National/regional planning: National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), National Emergency

Communications Plan (NECP), FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) planning,

Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC planning)

 State-level planning: Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP), all-hazard

emergency operations planning (and communications annexes)

 Local-level planning: Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans (TICP), all-hazard

emergency operations planning (and communications annexes)

 DHS

 State

agencies

 Local

agencies

National-Level

Assessments

 National Communications Capability Report (NCCR), SAFECOM National Interoperability

Baseline Survey, DHS Nationwide Plan Review, Tactical Interoperable Communications

Scorecard Report, others

 NSTAC Emergency Communications and Interoperability Report, Katrina After Action Reports,

9/11 Commission Reports

 DHS

 Multiple

authors

Appendix 2 provides additional information on National Preparedness Doctrine.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 12

Exhibit A3-2 presents key tactical and emergency communications systems and programs, as

well as telecommunications and other support services provided by Federal government

agencies.

Exhibit A3-2: Federal Tactical and Emergency Communications Systems and Services

Department Agency/Bureau Key Programs/Projects/Resources

Commerce

NTIA

Office of Spectrum Management (e.g., national interoperability channel

resources)

Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet) Customs and Border Protection

(CBP)

Tactical Modernization Program

Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC)

Mobile Emergency Response System (MERS)

FEMA National Radio System (FNARS)

Emergency Alert System (EAS) (with FCC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration [NOAA]), Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS)

Geo-Targeted Alerting System (GTAS) (with NOAA)

DHS Web Alert and Relay Network (WARN)

Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) (with FCC, NOAA/NWS)

National Warning and Alert System (NAWAS)

Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA)

Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program (e.g.,

Response/Recovery focusing on Interoperable Communications)

Immigrations and Customs

Enforcement (ICE)

Atlas Program

Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program

Wireless Priority Service (WPS)

Shared Resources (SHARES) High-Frequency (HF) Radio Program

National Communications

System (NCS)

ESF #2 Communications Asset Database (CAD)

Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)

Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP)

SAFECOM (guidance, tools, templates)

FPIC integration projects

Communications Asset Survey and Mapping (CASM) Tool

OEC

ECPC clearinghouse

OIC SAFECOM (R&D, T&E, Standards)

OneNet Office of the Chief Information

Officer (OCIO)

Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN)

Rescue 21

Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)

DHS

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

Deepwater

Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS)

Joint Tactical Radio System

Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT)

Joint task force civil support assets for disaster relief

DoD

Global Information Grid (GIG)

Army installation land mobile radio (LMR) systems

Department of the Army

Joint Interoperability Test Command

U.S. Marine Corps Marine Corps Network Operations and Security Center

Department of the Navy National Enterprise Land Mobile Radio (ELMR) infrastructure

Air National Guard (ANG)–Theater Deployable Communications (TDC)

Joint Incident Site Communications Capability (JISCC)

DoD

National Guard Bureau (NGB)

Army National Guard (ARNG) Joint Network Node (JNN) / Warfighter

Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

IWN

DOJ 25 cities

Wireless Management Office

(WMO)

COMMTECH

DOJ

WMO/Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI)

Satellite Mutual Aid Radio Talkgroup (SMART)

DOE

OCIO

Information Resource Program (includes wireless communications)

DOI

DOI OCIO Enterprise

Infrastructure Division

Public Safety Communications Program

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 13

Department Agency/Bureau Key Programs/Projects/Resources

Bureau of Land Management

(BML)

National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) assets

Aircraft Management Division

(AMD)

Joint aircraft all-risk-management, with USDA

Enhanced 9-1-1

DOT

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Next-Generation 9-1-1

USDA

U.S. Forest Service

National Interagency Incident Communications Division (NIICD) (partnership

with Department of the Interior agencies)

Treasury

Wireless Programs Office

IWN

PSHSB clearinghouse, ESF #2 CAD

Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS)

FCC

Public Safety Homeland

Security Bureau (PSHSB)

Network Outage Reporting System (NORS)

NOAA

National Weather Service

(NWS)

Alert and warning systems (e.g., EAS, GTAS)

Exhibit A3-3 presents examples of key homeland defense, homeland security, and public safety

centers that have been established to share critical and sensitive information to protect the

Nation, and to provide proper levels of command and control over field forces that could be

brought to bear for incidents that require Federal assistance. These centers coordinate

information, provide support to Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies engaged in response or

recovery activities, and ensure that affected parties receive critical or sensitive information in a

timely manner.

Exhibit A3-3: Information Sharing and Command and Control Centers

Coordination

Centers

Lead

Agency

Supporting/Participating Departments and Agencies

National Operations

Center (NOC)

DHS/Office of

Operations

Coordination

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Central Intelligence Agency

(CIA), USCG, Bureau CBP, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), DoD, DOE, Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS), DOI, Department of State, DOT, Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS), FBI, FEMA, Federal Protective Service (FPS),

Geo-spatial Mapping Office, ICE, Information Analysis Office, Infrastructure Protection

Office, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National Capital Region (NCR),

NOAA, National Security Agency, Postal Inspection Service, DHS Public Affairs, DHS

Science and Technology Directorate, United States Secret Service (USSS), DHS State and

Local Coordination Office, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Los Angeles

Police Department (LAPD), Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia (MPDC), New

York Police Department (NYPD)

National Response

Coordination Center

(NRCC)

DHS/FEMA Commerce, DoD, DOE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, DOI, DOJ,

Department of Labor, Department of State, DOT, EPA, FCC, FEMA, General Services

Administration, HHS, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NCS,

National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Treasury, U.S. Agency for

International Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USCG, USDA, U.S. Postal

Service, VA, American Red Cross, Corporation for National and Community Service, Small

Business Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority

National Response

Center (NRC)

DHS/USCG Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), DoD/Edgewood Chemical

Biological Center (ECBC), DOE, EPA, FBI, FEMA, HHS/Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC), DOT/Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB), Nuclear Regulatory Commission

National Interagency

Fire Center (NIFC)

Interior/USFS USFS/BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service,

NOAA/NWS, DOI/National Business Center/Aviation Management Division, US Fire

Administration, National Association of State Foresters

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 14

Coordination

Centers

Lead

Agency

Supporting/Participating Departments and Agencies

National Law

Enforcement

Communications

Center (NLECC)

DHS/CBP ICE

National

Coordinating Center

for

Telecommunications

(NCC)

DHS/NCS Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Comm ISAC)

National

Counterterrorism

Center (NCTC)

Director of

National

Intelligence

CIA, FBI, and 14 other classified and unclassified agencies

National Military

Command Center

(NMCC)

DoD Joint Staff of the armed forces

Exhibit A3-4 presents key standards and RDT&E initiatives involving emergency

communications.

Exhibit A3-4: Standards Development and RDT&E Initiatives

Type of

Initiative

Key

Organizations/Departments/

Agencies

Digital Public

Safety Radio

Standards

APCO Project 25 (P25), P25 Compliance Assessment Program APCO, Telecommunications Industry

Association (TIA), DHS, National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST)

Broadband

Committees

APCO Project 25 Interface Committee (APIC) Broadband Task Group,

Project Mesa, P34

APCO, TIA, NIST

Data Exchange

Standards

Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Messaging Standards

Initiative, Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)–Distribution Element (DE),

Hospital Availability Exchange (HAVE) and Resource Messaging (RM),

National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)

DOJ, DHS, COMCARE

RDT&E

Programs

 DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T): 4.9 GHz Wireless

Standard, Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) specifications, Digital

Vocoder Working Group, Radio over Wireless Broadband (ROW-B),

Multi-Band Radio

 NTIA Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS): Broadband

Wireless, Digital LMR, IT, Propagation Measurements and Models,

Spectrum Research, Technology Transfer

 National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center

(NLECTC) System

 Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA)

 DoD RDT&E programs

 DHS/OIC

 ITS

 DOJ/National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

 DoC/NTIA, NIST

 DoD

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 15

Exhibit A3-5 presents key Federal grant initiatives related to interoperable and emergency

communications.

Exhibit A3-5: Federal Grant Initiatives for Emergency Communications

Type of Initiative Grant Program Lead Agency

Interoperability Grant

Programs

 Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program

 Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP)

NTIA

DHS

National Preparedness

Grant Programs (scope

includes interoperable

communications)

 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)

– State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)

– Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)

– Citizen Corps Program (CCP)

– Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)

 Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)

 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)

 Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG)

 Buffer Zone Protection Plan (BZPP)

 Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP)

 Homeland Security National Training Program (HSNTP) and Competitive

Training Grant Program (CTGP)

DHS

Grant Guidance, Tools,

and Assistance

 Grant guidance materials and associated support

– SAFECOM grant guidance

– Authorized Equipment List (AEL)

– SAVER Program

– Technical assistance

 InterAgency Board (IAB), Standardized Equipment List (SEL)

DHS

DOJ, DoD, cross-

governmental

participants

Exhibit A3-6 presents key Federal training and exercise initiatives involving emergency

communications.

Exhibit A3-6: Federal Training and Exercise Initiatives

Type of

Initiative

Key Program(s) Lead Agency

Emergency Management Institute (EMI) (e.g., residential courses,

independent study [e.g., NIMS, NRF], continuity of operations)

DHS

Training

Communications Unit Leader (COML) curriculum development DHS/OIC, Incident Management Systems

Integration Division (IMSID), National Wildfire

Coordinating Group (NWCG), FEMA

National Exercise Program (NEP) DHS/FEMA

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) DHS

Top officials (TOPOFF) 4 DHS/FEMA

Determined accord DHS/FEMA

National Nuclear Security Formal Exercise Program DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA)

Disaster response exercises (international and national exercises) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Hurricane preparedness tabletop exercises DHS

Golden Phoenix DoD

Exercise

TICP exercises Requirement by DHS for UASI regions

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 16

Appendix 4: DHS Organizations with Responsibilities and

Programs Supporting Emergency Communications

Improving the Nation’s ability to communicate effectively during emergency situations is among

the most fundamental missions assigned to DHS. With passage of the Homeland Security Act of

2002 and subsequent amendments over the last five years, DHS has assumed lead responsibility

for many of the U.S. Government’s most important national communications functions, while

simultaneously creating new programs to meet emerging communications needs at the Federal,

State, local, and tribal levels.

The consolidation of emergency communications missions, roles, and responsibilities under DHS

is an important step toward coordinating and improving communications planning, preparedness,

protection, crisis management, and recovery operations after September 11, 2001. DHS’

communications initiatives and capabilities serve a diverse set of customers: the President; the

executive branch of the Federal Government; defense and intelligence agencies; law

enforcement; State, local, and tribal authorities; emergency responders; and critical infrastructure

owners and operators.

For the emergency response community, OEC was established in 2007 as the focal point for

developing, implementing, and coordinating interoperable and operable communications for

emergency responders at all levels of government. OEC oversees three programs for improving

emergency communications for Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies—the Integrated

Wireless Network (IWN), the Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program

(ICTAP), and the SAFECOM program (excluding its RDT&E and standards functions). In

addition, OEC is responsible for implementing new programs and initiatives to enhance

interoperable communications, including:

OEC’s Communications Assets Survey and

Mapping (CASM) tool provides an inventory

and analysis of interoperability communications

planning for use by emergency response agencies

nationwide. The tool allows agencies to store and

dis

data about their communications assets.

• Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP): SCIPs are locally driven,

multi-jurisdictional, and multi-disciplinary plans to address statewide interoperability. For

the first time in history, all 56 States and territories have developed SCIPs, marking a

critical milestone in breaking down

the barriers of the past and

establishing a roadmap for future

interoperability. These plans address

designated critical elements for

statewide interoperability and must be

approved by OEC for a State to

qualify for grant funding through the Homeland Security Grant Program and Public Safety

Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program.

• National Communications Capabilities Report (NCCR): The NCCR provides a

framework for evaluating current emergency communications capabilities across all levels

of government. The NCCR will help government officials to determine priorities and to

allocate resources more effectively.

• Emergency Communications Preparedness Center (ECPC): The ECPC is the Federal

focal point and clearinghouse for coordinating interoperability efforts among Federal

departments and agencies. OEC currently chairs the ECPC Working Group, which

coordinated Federal input to the NECP. The ECPC’s annual strategic assessment for

Congress describes the current status of Federal interoperable communications.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 17

To accomplish its overall mission, OEC must coordinate with other DHS organizations that have

responsibilities for ensuring communications and with other Federal departments and agencies.

The following describes OEC’s primary partners within DHS, including their key

communications functions, programs, and responsibilities.

FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) Division, organized under FEMA’s

Disaster Operations Directorate, prepares for and delivers emergency communications assistance

during major disasters. FEMA DEC plays a key role in integrating and coordinating Federal

disaster communications services and capabilities in FEMA regions and in the incident area.

Key FEMA DEC planning activities include the following:

• State Emergency Planning: To support FEMA’s integration role, FEMA DEC assists in

the development of emergency communications plans and procedures for regions and

States; supports standards and technical advancements to improve communications; and

conducts training, tests, and exercises of emergency communications capabilities and

procedures. FEMA DEC also provides an integration and coordination point for Federal

departments and agencies that provide disaster communications capabilities and support

during incidents.

• DEC Integration Branch: The primary responsibilities of FEMA’s Communications

Integration Branch (CIB) is to advance the establishment of the DEC end-state architecture

and integrate FEMA DEC services with FEMA Headquarters (HQ), regions, emergency

communications program offices (e.g., OEC, OIC), communications capability providers

(e.g., United States Coast Guard, National Guard Bureau, USNORTHCOM), and response

agencies. The CIB supports the FEMA regional offices by providing assistance and

guidance in DEC planning and policies, guidance and oversight of the RECCWGs, and

assistance in a disaster when the region requires such assistance.

• DEC Tactical Branch: The Tactical Emergency Communications Branch (TECB) of the

FEMA DEC Division is composed of two key components: Mobile Emergency Response

Support (MERS) Program Management and MERS Detachments. MERS provides rapidly

deployable command, control, and disaster emergency communications capabilities and

tactical operations and logistics support for on-scene management of disaster response

activities. MERS is a key FEMA disaster response asset that plays an important role in

supporting disaster response operations

The National Communications System (NCS) is an interagency system that brings together

24 Federal departments and agencies in a joint planning framework for National Security and

Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications. The NCS supports the Executive Office

of the President for Enduring Constitutional Government, Continuity of Operations (COOP), and

Continuity of Government (COG), and delivers a suite of priority telecommunications services to

national leaders. To ensure effective planning and response, the NCS manages the National

Coordinating Center for Telecommunications (NCC), a public-private partnership for sharing

information and coordinating response and recovery operations.

The NCS has a number of responsibilities and programs to enhance communications for the

emergency response community. As the coordinator for Emergency Support Function (ESF) #2

(Communications), the NCS is responsible for ensuring that the Nation’s communications

infrastructure and capabilities are maintained in any emergency situation. The NCS is

responsible for coordinating the planning and provisioning of NS/EP communications for the

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 18

The NCS SHAred RESources (SHARES)

High-Frequency (HF) Radio Program

provides a single interagency emergency voice

and data message-handling system. SHARES

brings together the assets of thousands of HF

radio stations to transmit NS/EP information

when normal communications are unavailable.

SHARES provides the Federal government with

a forum for addressing issues affecting HF

radio interoperability.

Federal Government under all hazards, including crisis recovery and reconstitution. The NCS

monitors emergency situations to determine the potential impact on existing telecommunications

services and to ensure that sufficient

telecommunications capability is provided to

support response efforts.

The NCS also offers an array of NS/EP

priority communications services and

programs to support emergency response.

The Government Emergency

Telecommunications Service (GETS)

provides emergency access and priority

processing on the local and long-distance

portions of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). The Wireless Priority Service

(WPS) gives Federal, State, local, and critical infrastructure personnel priority access calling on

cellular networks for NS/EP purposes during times of high network congestion. The

Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program managed by NCS gives NS/EP users

priority processing of their telecommunications service requests in the event of service

disruption.

The Office for Interoperability and Compatibility (OIC) was established in 2004 to strengthen

and integrate interoperability and compatibility efforts to improve Federal, State, local, and tribal

emergency response and preparedness. Managed by the Science and Technology Directorate,

OIC helps coordinate interoperability issues across DHS. OIC programs and initiatives address

critical interoperability and compatibility issues. Priority areas include communications,

equipment, and training. Key OIC activities include:

• Standards Acceleration: OIC is working with NIST and the Institute for

Telecommunication Sciences (ITS) to support the efforts of the emergency response

community and the private sector, as they accelerate the development of the Project 25

(P25) suite of standards. P25 standards will help produce voice communications

equipment that is interoperable and compatible, regardless of manufacturer. In addition to

interoperability, P25 aims to promote spectral efficiency, backwards compatibility, and

scalability. OIC is also partnering with emergency responders, Federal agencies, and

standards development organizations, including the Organization for the Advancement of

Structured Information Standards (OASIS), to accelerate the creation of data messaging

standards. The EDXL Messaging Standards Initiative is a practitioner-driven, public-

private partnership to create information sharing capabilities between disparate emergency

response software applications, systems, and devices. The resulting Extensible Markup

Language (XML) standards assist the emergency response community in sharing data

seamlessly and securely while responding to an incident.

• Compliance Assessment: In collaboration with its partners, OIC is establishing a P25

Compliance Assessment Program (CAP) to provide demonstrable evidence of P25 product

compliance. P25 CAP will improve adoption of P25 standards in manufacturer systems

while creating a mechanism enabling procurement officers and the emergency response

community to confidently purchase and use P25 compliant products. The P25 CAP

program ensures that emergency response equipment is compliant, thus improving

interoperable communications. It also stimulates competition among manufacturers, which

results in more affordable technologies for the emergency response community.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 19

• Technology Demonstrations: OIC conducts Technology Demonstration Projects across

the Nation to test and demonstrate technologies in real-world environments, including data

and video, and strategically assess results.

• Communications Unit Leader (COML) Training: OIC developed the COML

curriculum to establish a standardized course of training for communications in a Type III

incident. The Type III COML course trains emergency responders on how to be radio

communications leaders during all-hazards emergency operations—significantly improving

communications across multiple jurisdictions and disciplines responding to an incident.

The course was delivered to the National Incident Management System (NIMS) Incident

Management Systems Integration Division (IMSID) and was accepted as NIMS compliant.

Through the development of the Type III COML course, DHS will provide a tool for

training communications unit leaders and their command and general staff to perform the

critical mission of managing interagency and cross-disciplinary communications during all-

hazards incidents.

The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a project

to control U.S. borders and reduce illegal

immigration. The SBINet is a key piece of SBI

that promotes real-time communications among

Border Patrol agents. Systems such as the

Treasury Enforcement Communications System

are also used to coordinate between CBP’s

Office of Border Patrol and ICE’s Office of

Investi

ations.

OEC and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are collaborating on a series of

communications projects to improve interoperability for law enforcement and other first

responders along the Canadian and Mexican borders. CBP operates and maintains various

command, control, communications, and

intelligence (C3I) assets that could be used

during a crisis. These include very high

frequency (VHF) and high frequency (HF)

national tactical radio networks and several

local communications centers.

During all crises, U.S. Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(ICE) uses many public and government-

operated systems to communicate with other executive branch agencies, elements of the

Intelligence Community, and Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. In an effort to

improve coordination and interoperability between CBP and ICE, DHS established the Secure

Border Initiative (SBI) to link a number of organizational components with communications and

other technology for a comprehensive border enforcement approach.

The U.S. Coast Guard maintains a disciplined command and control (C2) communications

system that consists of several integrated components that are designed to be interoperable with

DoD components in times of national emergency and/or war. The U.S. Coast Guard plays an

active role in Federal interoperability forums, including the ECPC and Federal Partnership for

Interoperable Communications (FPIC).

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 20

Appendix 5: The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum, developed with practitioner input from the DHS’

SAFECOM program, is designed to help emergency response agencies and policymakers plan

and implement interoperability solutions for data and voice communications. The tool identifies

five critical elements that must be addressed to achieve a sophisticated interoperability solution:

governance, standard operating procedures (SOP), technology, training and exercises, and usage

of interoperable communications. Jurisdictions across the Nation can use the SAFECOM

Interoperability Continuum to track their progress in strengthening interoperable

communications.

Exhibit A5-1: SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum Elements

Interoperability is a multidimensional challenge. To gain a true picture of a jurisdiction’s

interoperability capabilities, its progress in each of the five interdependent elements must be

considered. For example, when a jurisdiction procures new equipment, it also should plan and

conduct training and exercises to ensure that it make the best use of the equipment. What

constitutes

optimal interoperability is determined by the individual needs of an agency or

jurisdiction. The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum is a guide for jurisdictions when they

are considering new interoperability solution, either because their needs have changed or because

additional funding has become available

. An evolving tool, the SAFECOM Interoperability

Continuum supports the National Preparedness Strategy and aligns with national frameworks,

including, but not limited to, the National Response Framework, NIMS, the National Emergency

Communications Plan, and the National Communications Baseline Assessment. To maximize

the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum’s value to the emergency response community,

SAFECOM will regularly update the tool using a consensus process that involves practitioners,

technical experts, and representatives from Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 21

Appendix 6: NECP Stakeholder Coordination

OEC used a three-phased approach to develop the NECP that relied on stakeholder involvement

at each stage: Data Gathering and Analysis, Strategy Development, and Plan Development and

Review.

Exhibit A6-1: National Emergency Communications Plan Approach



Stakeholder Outreach and Coordination

OEC considered stakeholder involvement the single most important element in the NECP

development process. In accordance with Title XVIII requirements, OEC was directed to

develop the NECP in cooperation with Federal departments and agencies; State, local, and tribal

governments; emergency response providers; and the private sector. To engage this diverse

group of stakeholders, OEC established a cross-governmental focus group of emergency

response personnel and coordinated with existing councils, committees, associations, and

partnerships that represent the emergency response community.

At the Federal level, OEC coordinated with the Emergency Communications Preparedness

Center (ECPC) and the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC). At the

State and local levels, OEC worked closely with the SAFECOM Executive

Committee/Emergency Response Council (EC/ERC) and the National Public Safety

Telecommunications Council (NPSTC). Private sector involvement was coordinated through the

Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC), which included representatives

from the Communications Sector Coordinating Council, the Emergency Services Coordinating

Council, the Information Technology Coordination Council, and the State, local, territorial, and

Tribal Government Coordinating Council.

Phase 1: Data Gathering and Analysis

As a key first phase in the development process, OEC drew heavily from a foundation of

emergency communications documentation and initiatives. During this data gathering and

analysis phase, OEC worked in coordination with stakeholders to identify key emergency

communications policies, strategies, plans, and reports for consideration. OEC then analyzed

findings, lessons learned, issues, gaps, priorities, and recommendations from numerous sources,

including the NCCR; SCIPs; the 2006 National Interoperability Baseline Survey and numerous

after-action reports from September 11, 2001, Hurricane Katrina and other recent natural and

man-made incidents. These source documents were key drivers for the NECP’s assessment of

the current state-of-emergency communications and also helped shape the NECP’s strategic

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 22

goals, objectives, and initiatives. A list of the key documentation used to develop the NECP is

presented in Appendix 7.

Phase 2: Strategy Development

Next, OEC worked closely with stakeholders to develop the high-level strategy for the NECP.

Building on the legislative requirements, OEC used information gleaned from the data gathering

and analysis effort, as well as stakeholder involvement, to craft the NECP’s overarching strategic

goals and priority initiatives. OEC worked with key coordination bodies (e.g., EC/ERC, ECPC,

and NECP Focus Group) to develop and prioritize the specific near- and long-term emergency

communications actions needed to implement these initiatives.

Phase 3: Plan Development and Review

During the final phases of NECP development, OEC conducted extensive outreach efforts to

ensure that both DHS and external public and private sector stakeholders had an opportunity to

review the document. Exhibit A6-2 illustrates the key steps in the evolution of the NECP—the

key inputs and the considerations that shaped its goals and initiatives—and also demonstrates

how OEC will work with the emergency response community to use the plan as a framework to

improve its communications planning and capabilities as well as overall coordination

nationwide.

Exhibit A6-2: Key Steps in Evolution of the NECP

The success of the NECP requires the commitment of all emergency response disciplines at all

levels of government. Achieving its goals and priority objectives will require coordination

across geographical, political, and cultural jurisdictions and boundaries. OEC’s current levers

and incentives for driving NECP implementation include the provision of technical assistance to

State, regional, local and tribal government officials; grant guidance and the coordination of

DHS administered grant programs (such as the IECGP); and the coordination of Federal

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 23

activities through the ECPC and FPIC. In addition, OEC will use statutory reporting

requirements to monitor and report on progress towards implementing the NECP (e.g., State

annual reports under the IECGP, the RECCWG annual reports, the ECPC annual strategic

assessment, and OEC’s assessment and biennial progress reports).

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 24

Appendix 7: NECP Source Documents

State, Local, and Tribal

National Governors Association 2007 State Homeland Security Directors Survey. National

Governors Association. December 2007.

Public safety interoperable communications

topped the list of homeland security advisors’

concerns in 2007, as States continue to work to

ensure that first responders from various

agencies, jurisdictions, and levels of government

can speak to each other during emergencies or at

the scene of a disaster.

Emergency Response Council Agreements

on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable

Communications. SAFECOM Emergency

Response Council (ERC) (with support from

the Office of Emergency Communications and

the Office for Interoperability and

Compatibility). July 2007.

Source: National Governors Association 2007

State Homeland Security Directors Survey

Indian Country Border Security and Tribal Interoperability Pilot Program: The Importance of

Tribes at the Frontlines of Border and Homeland Security (TBS Pilot Program) Final Report. The

National Native American Law Enforcement Association; the National Congress of American Indians.

March 2006.

National Associations, Task Forces, Advisory Committees, and Panels

Joint Advisory Committee on Communications Capabilities of Emergency Medical and Public

Health Care Facilities Report to Congress. February 2008.

IP-based networks enable first responders to

have the flexibility and tools they need for

effective response and … modernize their

existing radio networks so they work together

with other existing and future communications

networks and devices.

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) Homeland Security

& Preparedness Version 2.1.

APCO International. September 2007.

National Security Telecommunications

Advisory Committee Report on Emergency

Communications and Interoperability. The

President’s National Security

Telecommunications Advisory Committee.

January 2007.

Source: The Joint Advisory Committee on

Communications Capabilities of Emergency

Medical and Public Health Care Facilities,

February 2008

FCC Independent Panel Reviewing the

Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks. Federal Communications Commission

Industry Panel. June 2006

Why Can’t We Talk? National Task Force on Interoperability. February 2003.

Final Report of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications

Commission. September 1996.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 25

Federal Government Reports, Assessments, Plans, and Strategies

Congress, White House, and Special Commissions

The National Strategy for Homeland Security. White

House Homeland Security Council. October 2007.

The nation’s emergency communications

systems “must be resilient, either able

to withstand destructive forces regardless of

cause or sufficiently redundant to suffer

damage and remain reliable.

The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to

Investigate the Preparation for and Response to

Hurricane Katrina. Select Bipartisan Committee to

Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane

Katrina, U.S. House of Representatives. February 2006.

Source: The National Strategy for Homeland

Security, revised October 2007

The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons

Learned. White House Homeland Security Advisor.

February 2006.

Communications challenges across the Gulf

Coast region in Hurricane Katrina’s wake

were more a problem of basic operability,

than one of equipment or system

interoperability.

The 9-11 Commission Report. The National Commission

on Terrorist Attacks. July 2004.

Source: Federal Response to Hurricane

Katrina: Lessons Learned, February 2006

The Department of Homeland Security

The National Communications Capabilities Report. Department of Homeland Security, Office of

Emergency Communications. March 2008.

Target Capabilities List: A Companion to the National Preparedness Guideline. Department of

Homeland Security. September 2007.

National Incident Management System (NIMS). Department of Homeland Security. August 2007.

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP): Communications Sector Specific Plan.

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection. May 2007.

The National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Emergency Services. Department of Homeland

Security, Office of Infrastructure Protection. May 2007.

Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards Summary Report. Department of Homeland

Security. January 2007.

2006 SAFECOM Survey—

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) Program

Assessment. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.

January 2007.

– 66% of public agencies use interoperability

to some degree

– Interoperability at local levels tends to be

more advanced than between State and

local agencies

TICP Scorecards—

SAFECOM 2006: National Interoperability Baseline

Survey. Department of Homeland Security, SAFECOM

Program. December 2006.

– 68% of urban metro areas had established

regional interoperability

– 80% of urban/metro areas use shared

systems and/or shared channels daily to

provide interoperability

Answering the Call: Communication Lessons Learned

from the Pentagon Attack. Department of Homeland

Security, Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Program. January 2002.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 26

Appendix 8: Glossary of Terms

Agreements. Governance capability sub-element encompassing mechanisms approved to

govern interagency coordination and the use of interoperable emergency communications

solutions.

Continuity of Communications. Ability of emergency response agencies to maintain

communications capabilities when primary infrastructure is damaged or destroyed.

Cross-Discipline. Involving emergency response providers from different disciplines (e.g.,

police, fire, EMS).

Cross-Jurisdiction. Involving emergency response providers from different jurisdictions (e.g.,

across State, county, or regional boundaries).

Decision-Making Groups. Governance capability sub-element that refers to a collection of

public safety practitioners and leaders who pool their expertise to improve interoperable

emergency communications.

Emergency Communications. Means and methods for transmitting and receiving information

necessary for successful incident management, when needed and as authorized.

Exercises. Training and exercises capability sub-element encompassing emergency scenarios

developed to establish proficiency in identifying communications resources needed and

available, implementing processes and procedures, and leveraging solutions to effectively

establish and maintain communications.

Funding. Governance capability sub-element encompassing the levels and reliability of

financial resources available for one-time capital investments and recurring operating costs in

support of interoperable emergency communications.

Frequency of Use and Familiarity. Usage capability sub-element encompassing the level of

familiarity, proficiency, and frequency with which interoperable emergency communications

solutions are activated and used.

Governance. Capability element that includes government leadership, decision-making groups,

agreements, funding, and strategic planning.

Interoperability. Ability of emergency responders to communicate among jurisdictions,

disciplines, frequency bands, and levels of government as needed and as authorized. System

operability is required for system interoperability.

Jurisdiction. Geographical, political, or system boundary as defined by each State.

Leadership. Governance capability sub-element encompassing the involvement of government

leaders and their commitment to ensuring the political and fiscal priority of interoperable

emergency communications.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 27

Operability. Ability of emergency responders to establish and sustain communications in

support of mission operations.

Operability Assurance. Process of ensuring that emergency response providers and

government officials can continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of

terrorism, or other man-made disasters.

Policies, Practices, and Procedures. Standard operating procedures sub-element encompassing

the range of formal and informal communications policies, practices, and procedures.

Private Sector Emergency Response Providers. Businesses and other nongovernmental

organizations that provide emergency services in support of major incidents.

Response Level Emergency Communications. Capacity of individuals with primary

operational leadership responsibility

to manage resources and make timely decisions during a

multi-agency incident without technical or procedural communications impediments. In addition

to communicating to first-level subordinates in the field, the Operations Section Chief should be

able to communicate upwards to the incident command level

(e.g. between the Operations

Section Chief and Incident Command). As the incident grows and transitions, Incident

Command/Unified Command can move off scene and may require communication between

Incident Command and off-scene EOCs, dispatch centers, and other support groups as

appropriate.

Routine Incidents. Emergencies that happen on a regular basis. Examples of these types of

events are further explained in the Usage element of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

as planned events, localized emergency incidents, regional incident management (interstate or

intrastate), and daily use throughout the region.

Significant Incidents. Interoperability and continuity of communications are the emphasis for

response-level emergency communications during significant events. Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 8: National Preparedness (HSPD-8) sets forth 15 national planning

scenarios that highlight a plausible range of significant events, such as terrorist attacks, major

disasters, and other emergencies, that pose the greatest risk to the Nation. Any of these 15

scenarios should be considered when planning for a significant incident in which all major

emergency communications infrastructure is destroyed.

Standard Operating Procedures. Capability element that includes the range of informal and

formal policies, practices, and procedures that guide emergency responder interactions and the

use of interoperable communications solutions.

Strategic Planning. Governance capability sub-element encompassing the disciplined efforts

and processes to establish long-term goals and objectives for interoperable emergency

communications.

System Functionality. Technology capability sub-element encompassing the range of fixed and

mobile/deployable systems and equipment used for interoperable emergency communications

and associated voice, data, and video capabilities.

As defined in the National Incident Command System 200 - Unit 2 - Leadership and Management.

As defined in the National Incident Management System, FEMA 501/Draft August 2007, p.47.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 28

System Performance. Technology capability sub-element encompassing the availability,

reliability, and scalability of communications systems and equipment.

Technology. Capability element that encompasses the systems and equipment that enable

emergency responders to share information efficiently and securely during an emergency

incident, and addresses the functionality, performance, interoperability, and continuity

capabilities of those systems and equipment.

Training. Training and exercises capability sub-element encompassing the scope and frequency

of educational activities related to interoperable emergency communications.

Training and Exercises. Capability element that includes educational activities and simulations

conducted to help ensure that emergency responders know their roles and are properly prepared

to respond to a wide range of emergencies.

Usage. Capability element that refers to the frequency and familiarity with which emergency

responders use interoperable emergency communications solutions.

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 29

Appendix 9: Acronyms

AEL

Authorized Equipment List

AES

Advanced Encryption Standard

AFG

Assistance to Firefighters Grants

APCO Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials–International

APIC

APCO Project 25 Interface Committee

AVL

Automatic Vehicle Location

BBTG

APIC Broadband Task Group

BIA

Bureau of Indian Affairs

BORTAC Border Tactical Communications

CAI Common Air Interface

CAP

Common Alerting Protocol

CAP

Compliance Assessment Program

CASM Communications Asset Survey and Mapping Tool

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CCI

Command, Control and Interoperability

CCP

Citizen Corps Program

CDMA

Code Division Multiple Access

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CIPAC Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council

COG Continuity of Government

COML

Communications Unit Leader

COMT Communications Unit Technicians

COOP Continuity of Operations

COP

Committee of Principals

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services

CTCSS Continuous Tone Controlled Squelch System

DEC Disaster Emergency Communications

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DIRS Disaster Information Reporting System

DM Disaster Management

DoD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of the Interior

DOJ Department of Justice

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 30

DOT Department of Transportation

DSCA Defense Support to Civil Authorities

EC/ERC Executive Committee/Emergency Response Council (SAFECOM)

ECPC

Emergency Communications Preparedness Center

EDXL

Emergency Data Exchange Language

EMS Emergency Medical Services

EMT Emergency Medical Technician

EOC Emergency Operations Center

ESF Emergency Support Function

FAS

Frequency Assignment Subcommittee

FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCC

Federal Communications Commission

FCD

Federal Continuity Directive

FDMA

Frequency Division Multiple Access

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIPS

Federal Information Processing Standard

FLEWUG Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group

Frequency Modulation

FPIC Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications

Fiscal Year

G&T

Grants and Training

GETS Government Emergency Telecommunications Service

GPS Global Positioning System

GSM

Global System for Mobile Communications

HAZMAT Hazardous Material

HF High Frequency

HSEEP

Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program

HSGP

Homeland Security Grant Program

HSPD

Homeland Security Presidential Directive

Hertz

ICC

Interoperable Communications Committee

ICE

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICP

Incident Command Post

ICS Incident Command System

ICTAP

Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program

iDEN

Integrated Digital Enhanced Network

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 31

IECGP

Interoperable Emergency Communication Grant Program

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement

IMSID

Incident Management Systems Integration Division

Internet Protocol

IR Incident Response

IRAC

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee

Information Technology

IWN Integrated Wireless Network

JISCC

Joint Incident Site Communications Capability

JITC

Joint Interoperability Test Command

JNN

Joint Network Nodes

JTRS

Joint Tactical Radio System

kHz

Kilohertz

Law Enforcement

LEPC

Local Emergency Planning Committee

LETPP

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program

LMR

Land Mobile Radio

MAA

Mutual Aid Agreement

MERS

Mobile Emergency Response Support

MESA Mobility for Emergency and Safety Applications

MHz Megahertz

MMRS

Metropolitan Medical Response System

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAC

Network Access Code

NCC National Coordinating Center for Telecommunications

NCCC National Command and Coordination Capability

NCCR National Communications Capabilities Report

NCR National Capital Region

NCS

National Communications System

NCSD National Communications System Directive

NECP National Emergency Communications Plan

NERCS

National Emergency Responder Credentialing System

NGB

National Guard Bureau

NGO

Nongovernmental Organization

NIC

National Integration Center

NIEM

National Information Exchange Model

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 32

NIFOG

National Interoperability Field Operations Guide

NIJ

National Institute of Justice

NIMS

National Incident Management System

NIPP National Infrastructure Protection Plan

NIST

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NORTHCOM

U.S. Northern Command

NPSPAC

National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee

NPSTC National Public Safety Telecommunications Council

NRF

National Response Framework

NRP National Response Plan

NS/EP

National Security and Emergency Preparedness

NSTAC

National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee

NTIA

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

NVOAD

National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters

O&M

Operations and Maintenance

OCIO

Office of the Chief Information Officer

OEC

Office of Emergency Communications

OGC

Office of General Counsel

OIC

Office for Interoperability and Compatibility

P25

Project 25

PDA

Personal Digital Assistant

PSAP

Public Safety Answering Point

PSIC

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program

PSWAC

Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee

PSWN

Public Safety Wireless Network

PTT

Push-to-Talk

QoS

Quality of Service

R&D Research and Development

RADO Radio Operator

RDT&E Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation

RECCWG Regional Emergency Communications Coordination Working Group

Radio Frequency

RoIP

Radio over Internet Protocol

SBI Secure Border Initiative

SCIP

Statewide Communication Interoperability Plan

SdoC Supplier’s Declaration of Compliance

SDR Software Defined Radio

National Emergency Communications Plan July 2008

A – 33

SEL Standardized Equipment List

SHARES Shared Resources Program

SHSP

State Homeland Security Program

SIEC

State Interoperability Executive Council

SME

Subject Matter Expert

SOP

Standard Operating Procedure

STR

Strategic Technology Reserve

SWAT

Special Weapons and Tactics

TCL Target Capabilities List

TDMA

Time Division Multiple Access

TIA Telecommunications Industry Association

TICP

Tactical Interoperable Communications Plan

TOPOFF

Top Officials

TSP

Telecommunications Service Priority

Urban Areas

UASI

Urban Area Security Initiative

UCALL

UHF Calling Channel

UHF

Ultra High Frequency

ULS

Universal Licensing System

UPS

Uninterruptible Power Supply

USCG

United States Coast Guard

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFS

United States Forest Service

UTAC

UHF Talk Around Channel

VCALL

VHF Calling Channel

Department of Veteran Affairs

VHF

Very High Frequency

VoIP

Voice over Internet Protocol

VTAC

VHF Talk Around Channel

WIN-T Warfighter Information Network - Tactical

WPS Wireless Priority Service