National Emergency Communications Plan
National Emergency
National Emergency
Communications Plan
Communications Plan
July 2008
PRELIMINARY DRAFT v1.02
Rev. Au
g 7, 2008
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
Message from the Secretary
Numerous after-action reports from major incidents throughout the history of emergency
management in our Nation have cited communications difficulties among the many
responding agencies as a major failing and challenge to policymakers. Congress and the
Administration have recognized that a successful response to a future major incident—
either a terrorist attack or natural disaster—requires 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 we have 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— DHS—to improve the alignment,
integration, and coordination of the Federal mission.
•
All 56 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 75 largest urban and metropolitan areas maintain policies for
interoperable communications.
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
•
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 10 FEMA regions to coordinate multi-state efforts and measure
progress on improving the survivability, sustainability, and interoperability of
communications at the regional level.
In 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. I 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—
As needed, on demand, and as authorized;
At all levels of government; and
Across all disciplines.
Michael Chertoff
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
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.1
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)2 are able to demonstrate response-level
emergency communications3 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.
1 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.
2 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.
3 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
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
14th 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.4
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.5
1.1
Purpose of the National Emergency Communications Plan
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, as
• Set national goals and priorities
for addressing deficiencies in the
amended in 2006, mandated the creation of an
Nation’s emergency
overarching strategy to address emergency
communications posture
communications shortfalls. In addition, the
• Provide recommendations and
emergency response community has sought
milestones for emergency
national guidance to support a more integrated
response providers, relevant
government officials, and
coordination of emergency communications
Congress to improve emergency
priorities and investments.
communications capabilities
4 “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.
5 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.
1
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
As a result, Congress directed the DHS’ Office of Emergency Communications (OEC)6
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.7
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.
6 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.
7 Appendix 4 provides more detailed information on DHS programs supporting emergency communications.
2
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.8 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
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
SAFECOM
relationships with the ERC to leverage the ERC subject matter expertise. The
Executive Committee
SAFECOM ERC is a vehicle to provide a broad base of input from the public
(EC) and Emergency
safety community on its user needs to the SAFECOM program. The ERC
Response Council
provides a forum for individuals with specialized skills and common interests to
(ERC)
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.
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
Emergency
composed of 12 Federal departments and agencies, that assesses and
Communications
coordinates Federal emergency communications operability and interoperability
Preparedness Center
assurance efforts. The ECPC is the focal point for interagency emergency
(ECPC)
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.
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
Federal Partnership
intergovernmental cooperation and by identifying and leveraging common
for Interoperable
synergies. The FPIC represents more than 40 Federal entities; its membership
Communications
includes program managers of wireless systems, radio communications
(FPIC)
managers, Information Technology (IT) and Land Mobile Radio (LMR)
specialists, and telecommunications engineers. State and local emergency
responders participate as advisory members.
As part of the Project 25 (P25) standards development process, the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) developed the APIC to
Project 25 Interface
resolve issues that arose during that process. The APIC is composed of private
Committee (APIC)
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.
The NPSTC is a federation of national public safety leadership organizations
National Public
dedicated to improving emergency response communications and
Safety
interoperability through collaborative leadership. The NPSTC is composed of
Telecommunications
State and local public safety representatives. In addition, Federal, Canadian,
Council (NPSTC)
and other emergency communications partner organizations serve as liaisons to
the NPSTC.
8 Appendix 6 details the three-phased approach to develop the NECP that relied on stakeholder involvement.
3
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Entity
Roles and Responsibilities
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
National Security
aerospace companies. Through the National Communications System
Telecommunications
(NCS), the NSTAC provides private sector-based analyses and
Advisory
recommendations to the President and the Executive Branch on policy and
Committee (NSTAC)
enhancements to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP)
communications.
The CIPAC is a DHS program established to facilitate effective coordination
between government infrastructure protection programs and the infrastructure
Critical Infrastructure
protection activities of the owners and operators of critical infrastructure and key
Partnership Advisory
resources. The CIPAC enables public and private sector representatives to
Council (CIPAC)
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 &
N
N A
A TION
TION A
A L
L STR
STR A
A TEG
TEG Y
Y FOR
FOR
N
N A
A TION
TION A
A L
L STR
STR A
A TEG
TEG Y
Y FOR
FOR
HOME
HOME L
L A
A N
N D
D S
S E
E CURITY
CURITY A
A C
C T
T
STRATEGIES
HOME
HOME L
L A
A N
N D
D S
S E
E CURITY
CURITY
PH
PH Y
Y S
S IC
IC A
A L
L PR
PR OTEC
OTEC TION OF CI/K
TION OF CI/KA
(e.g., 12406,3,
DIRECTIVES &
EOs (e.g
EOs
., 12046,
HSPDs
(e.g., 5, 7, 8)
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
HSPDs (e.g., 5, 7, 8)
12472, 12656)
12472, 12656
Communications-specific
STRATEGIC
OPERATIONAL
PREPAREDNESS/
NATIONAL
INCIDENT
NATIONAL
NRF, SUPPORT
NIPP
PR
PR EP
EP A
A R
R ED
ED N
N ESS
ESS
NIMS
MANAGEMENT
NIPP
FUNCTION
GUIDELINES
GUIDELINES
POLICY & PLANNING
INITIATIVES
NECP
REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL
Emergency
PREPAREDNESS/
Operations Plans
Regional Strategic
Operations Pl
COMMUNICATIONS
Planning
PLANNING
Hazard Mitigation
INITIATIVES
SCIPS
SCIPs
TICPS
CPs
4
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
Future State
Strategy
Implementation
Vision
Objectives
Coordination
Goals
Initiatives
Measurement
Capabilities
Milestones
Evaluation Framework
NECP Approach and Organization
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.
5
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
Emergency response personnel
communications to allow emergency
can communicate—
responders to communicate as needed, on
• As needed, on demand,
demand, and as authorized at all levels of
and as authorized
government and across all disciplines.
• 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.9 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).10 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.
9 As defined in the National Incident Command System 200, Unit 2: Leadership and Management.
10 As defined in the National Incident Management System, FEMA 501/Draft August 2007, p.47.
6
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
NECP Goals
Goal 1—By 2010, 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas designated within the Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI)11 are able to demonstrate response-level
emergency communications within one hour for routine events12 involving
multiple jurisdictions13 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 event14 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.15 (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.16
11 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.
12 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.
13 Jurisdiction—A geographical, political, or system boundary as defined by each individual State.
14 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.
15 The National Communications Capabilities Report, 2008.
16 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.
7
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
Capabilities Needed
Continuum
•
Strong government leadership
•
Formal, thorough, and inclusive interagency governance
Governance
structures
•
Clear lines of communication and decision-making
•
Strategic planning processes
•
Standardized and uniform emergency responder interaction
Standard Operating
during emergency response operations
Procedures (SOP)
•
Standardized use and application of interoperable emergency
communications terminology, solutions, and backup systems
•
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
Technology
•
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
•
Uniform, standardized performance objectives to measure
effectiveness of emergency responders communications
capabilities
Training and Exercises
•
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
•
Adequate resources and planning to cover not only initial
system and equipment investment but also the entire life cycle
Usage
(operations, exercising, and maintenance)
•
Broad regional (interstate and intrastate) coordination in
technology investment and procurement planning
8
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.17 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.
17 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.
9
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
10
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.18
Current Emergency Communications Activities:19
• 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).20
18 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.
19 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.
20 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.
11
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
• 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.21
o Within 12 months, all States and territories should establish full-time
statewide interoperability coordinators or equivalent positions.
21 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.
12
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.22
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,23 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).24
22 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.
23 This collaboration would include State homeland security advisors and statewide interoperability coordinators.
24 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.
13
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
14
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
15
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
16
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
17
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
18
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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).
19
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
20
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
• 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.25
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.
25 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.
21
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
o Within 18 months, DHS develops training and technical assistance programs
for the National Interoperability Field Operations Guide (NIFOG);26
programs an appropriate set of frequency-band-specific nationwide
interoperability channels into all existing emergency responder radios;27 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
26 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.
27 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.
22
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
23
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
24
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
• 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
25
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
26
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
27
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
28
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
• 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.
29
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
30
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.28
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
28 The Interoperability Business Case is available on the SAFECOM website at:
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/grant/1336_interoperabilitybusiness.htm
31
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.29 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.
29 The National Infrastructure Protection Plan: Communications Sector-Specific Plan, p. 11.
32
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
33
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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
34
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
natural and man-made, and provides command and control of DoD personnel and
DoD agency and component resources.30
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,
30 Government Accountability Office (GAO), Report to Congressional Requesters: Homeland Defense, April 2008.
35
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
36
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
37
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
38
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
39
National Emergency
Natio
Communicatio
nal Emergency
ns Plan
Communicatio
July 2008
July
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.
40
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.
41
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
A – 1
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
Section 3 –
1
Commission (FCC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for a
Objective 4: Standards &
process for expediting national voluntary consensus standards for interoperable emergency
Emerging Technologies
communications equipment
Identify the appropriate capabilities necessary for emergency response providers and relevant
2
Section 2.3 –
government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of
Capabilities Needed
terrorism, and other man-made disasters
Identify the appropriate interoperable emergency communications capabilities necessary for
3
Section 2.3 –
Federal, State, local, and tribal governments in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism,
Capabilities Needed
and other man-made disasters
Recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for ensuring that emergency response
Section 3 –
4
providers and relevant government officials can continue to communicate in the event of
Initiatives and Milestones
natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters
for Objectives 2, 3, 5, 7
Recommend both short-term and long-term solutions for deploying interoperable emergency
Section 3 –
5
communications systems for Federal, State, local, and tribal governments throughout the
Initiatives and Milestones
Nation, including through the provision of existing and emerging technologies
for Objectives 3, 4, 5, 6
Identify how Federal departments and agencies that respond to natural disasters, acts of
6
Section 3 –
terrorism, and other man-made disasters can work effectively with State, local, and tribal
Objectives 1, 2, 7
governments in all States, and with other entities
Section 3 –
Identify obstacles to deploying interoperable emergency communications capabilities
For all objectives, see “Key
7
nationwide and recommend short-term and long-term measures to overcome those obstacles,
Gaps Driving Action” for
including recommendations for multi-jurisdictional coordination among Federal, State, local,
obstacles and relevant
and tribal governments
“Initiatives” for
recommendations
• Section 2.2 – Goals
Recommend goals and time frames for the deployment of emergency, command-level
8
• Section 3 – Relevant
communications systems and develop a timetable for the deployment of interoperable
Initiatives and Milestones
emergency communications systems nationwide
for all Objectives
Section 3 –
9
Recommend appropriate measures that emergency response providers should employ to ensure
Initiatives 4.2, 4.3, 6.2, 6.4,
continued operation of relevant governmental communications infrastructure
7.2, 7.3
(HR 1) Set a date, including interim benchmarks, by which State, local, and tribal
1031
governments, and Federal agencies expect to achieve a baseline level of national
Section 2.2 – Goals
interoperable communications
31 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.
A – 2
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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 &
N
N A
A TION
TION A
A L
L STR
STR A
A TEG
TEG Y
Y FOR
FOR
N
N A
A TION
TION A
A L
L STR
STR A
A TEG
TEG Y
Y FOR
FOR
HOME
HOME L
L A
A N
N D
D S
S E
E CURITY
CURITY A
A C
C T
T
STRATEGIES
HOME
HOME L
L A
A N
N D
D S
S E
E CURITY
CURITY
PH
PH Y
Y S
S IC
IC A
A L
L PR
PR OTEC
OTEC TION OF CI/K
TION OF CI/K
A
(e.g., 12406,3,
DIRECTIVES &
EOs (e.g
EOs
., 12046,
HSPDs
(e.g., 5, 7, 8)
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
HSPDs (e.g., 5, 7, 8)
12472, 12656)
12472, 12656
Communications-specific
STRATEGIC
OPERATIONAL
PREPAREDNESS/
NATIONAL
INCIDENT
NATIONAL
NRF, SUPPORT
NIPP
PR
PR EP
EP A
A R
R ED
ED N
N ESS
ESS
NIMS
MANAGEMENT
NIPP
FUNCTION
GUIDELINES
GUIDELINES
POLICY & PLANNING
INITIATIVES
NECP
REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL
Emergency
PREPAREDNESS/
Operations Plans
Regional Strategic
Operations Pl
COMMUNICATIONS
Planning
PLANNING
Hazard Mitigation
INITIATIVES
SCIPS
SCIPs
TICPS
CPs
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.
A – 3
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
• 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.
A – 4
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
− 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
Authorizes the Executive Branch to manage communications during wartime
and non-wartime emergencies, and creates the Federal Communications
The Communications Act
Commission (FCC) as the chief regulatory authority for communications
of 1934, amended by the
June 19, 1934;
technologies. The FCC works to enhance emergency communications
Telecommunications Act of
February 8, 1996
capabilities and addresses critical spectrum issues within the Public Safety and
1996
Homeland Security Bureau and in coordination with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
Ensures timely availability of the products, materials, and services needed to
Defense Production Act of
meet national defense and emergency preparedness requirements, and
September 8, 1950
1950
provides an operating structure to support a timely, comprehensive response
by industry in a national emergency situation.
Specifies that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
develop standards, guidelines, and associated methods and techniques for
Information Technology
Federal computer systems. Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
Management Reform Act
February 10, 1996
are developed by NIST when there are no existing voluntary standards to
of 1996 (P.L. 104-106)
address the Federal requirements for the interoperability of different systems,
portability of data and software, and computer security.
Requires the FCC to allocate 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to
The Balanced Budget Act
August 5, 1997;
public safety. The Deficit Reduction Act sets a firm deadline of February
of 1997; Deficit Reduction February 8, 2006
2009 by which television broadcasters must vacate the occupied spectrum for
Act (P.L. 109-171)
the public safety community.
10 U.S.C. Section 372-380,
Establishes protocols for the development, use, support, and maintenance of
Military Support for
communications equipment shared by the U.S. military and local law
1998
Civilian Law Enforcement
enforcement agencies.
Agencies, as amended
A – 5
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Name
Date
Description
Establishes processes by which the Federal government can provide assistance
The Robert T. Stafford
to State, local, and tribal governments, individuals, and nongovernmental
Disaster Relief and
November 23, 1988 organizations (NGO) for all-hazards emergency response and recovery. This
Emergency Assistance Act
includes establishment and use of temporary communications systems in
anticipation of or during an emergency.
Amends the Stafford Act and requires State mitigation plans as a condition of
Disaster Mitigation Act of October 30, 2000
disaster assistance.
2000 (P.L. 106-390)
Establishes the DHS as an executive department of the United States and
specifies significant responsibilities associated with emergency preparedness,
The Homeland Security
response, and recovery, including emergency communications and critical
Act of 2002 (Public Law
November 25, 2002 infrastructure. Includes provisions for coordinating or (as appropriate)
[P.L.] 107-296)
consolidating communications systems related to homeland security at all
levels of government.
Federal Information
Requires Federal agencies to develop a comprehensive information
Security Management Act
technology security program to ensure the effectiveness of information
December 17, 2002
of 2002 (part of P.L. 107-
security controls over information resources that support Federal operations
347)
and assets.
Addresses national preparedness by identifying the need for a nationwide
The Intelligence Reform
incident command system; establishes the Office for Interoperability and
and Terrorism Prevention December 17, 2004 Compatibility (OIC) for the enhancement of public safety interoperability; and
Act (P.L. 108-458)
calls for studies on interoperable communications standards, spectrum, and
strategies to meet public safety communications requirements.
Includes Title VI, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act,
which reorganizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
The Homeland Security
amends the Stafford Act, and addresses emergency communications. In
Appropriations Act of
addition, the legislation amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add
2007 (P.L. 109-295),
Title XVIII–Emergency Communications, establishing the Office of
including the 21st Century
October 4, 2006
Emergency Communications (OEC) and specifying its responsibilities.
Emergency
Transfers existing programs (e.g., Integrated Wireless Network, Interoperable
Communications Act of
Communications Technical Assistance Program) and elements of other
2006
programs (e.g., SAFECOM) to OEC and assigns new responsibilities (e.g.,
National Emergency Communications Plan, National Baseline Assessment,
and outreach and coordination).
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
Implementing the
the State Homeland Security Grant Program to assist State, local, and tribal
Recommendations of the
August 3, 2007
governments to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to terrorist
9/11 Commission Act of
acts. Directs the Secretary to establish the Interoperable Emergency
2007 (P.L. 110-53)
Communications Grant Program to make grants to States to carry out
initiatives to improve international, national, regional, statewide, local, and
tribal, interoperable emergency communications.
A – 6
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
Identifies the policy, goals, objectives, and principles for actions needed to
National Strategy for the
secure the infrastructures and assets vital to national security, governance,
Physical Protection of
February 2003
public health and safety, economy, and public confidence. Directs DHS to
Critical Infrastructures
partner with the private sector to understand the risks associated with the
and Key Assets
physical vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures and key assets.
National Strategy to Secure
Establishes priorities and initiatives to improve the physical security of cyber
February 2003
Cyberspace
systems and communications, including interdependencies.
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
National Strategy for
October 2007
recover from incidents; and (4) strengthen the homeland security foundation
Homeland Security
(revised)
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,
Delegates presidential responsibilities for management of the Federal
Relating to the Transfer of
electromagnetic spectrum to the Secretary of Commerce. Provides for the
March 27, 1978
Telecommunications
continuation of the Inter-department Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) to
Functions
assist the Secretary in exercising the delegated presidential authority.
Establishes the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), delegates presidential responsibilities for management of the
Department of Commerce
May 9, 1978
electromagnetic spectrum to its administrator, and establishes the
Organization Order 10-10
administrator’s authority and responsibility for all radio communications
systems operated by the Federal government.
Presidential Directive 53,
Reaffirms the need for connectivity for the Nation’s leaders and the ability to
November 15,
National Security
respond, restore, and recover the national telecommunication infrastructure in
1979
Telecommunications Policy
all emergencies.
Executive Order 12372,
Intends to foster intergovernmental partnerships by providing opportunities for
Intergovernmental Review of July 14, 1982
State, regional, and local coordination and review of proposed Federal financial
Federal Programs
assistance.
National Security Decision
Sets requirements for emergency restoration and recovery of communications
Directive 97, National
that support the Nation’s leaders, worldwide intelligence, and diplomacy.
June 13, 1983
Security Telecommunications
Confirms the provision of interoperable, reliable, and secure communications
Policy
for the President and his chief advisors as a national priority.
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,
Executive Order 12472,
the Intelligence Community, and emergency responders. Establishes NCS as
Assignment of National
the focal point for joint industry/government NS/EP communications planning
Security and Emergency
April 3, 1984
and directs the establishment of a national coordinating center. Establishes
Preparedness (NS/EP)
DHS as the agency responsible for planning, providing, operating, and
Telecommunications
maintaining telecommunications services and facilities as part of the National
Functions
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.
A – 7
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Name
Date
Description
Delegates NS/EP responsibilities to Federal departments and agencies,
Executive Order 12656,
November 18,
instructs agencies to develop plans and capabilities that will ensure continuity
Assignment of EP
1988
of operations, and reaffirms the need for interagency cooperation in the pursuit
Responsibilities
of telecommunications NS/EP.
Implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and establishes procedures for the
NCS Directive 3-1,
Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program. Authorizes priority
Telecommunications
August 10, 2000
services for domestic telecommunications services (e.g., Government
Operations
Emergency Telecommunications Service [GETS] and Wireless Priority Service
[WPS]).
Establishes the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, tasked with
Executive Order 13231,
ensuring the protection of information systems for critical infrastructure,
Critical Infrastructure
October 16, 2001 including emergency preparedness communications and the physical assets that
Protection
support these systems.
Directs the Secretary of DHS to develop and administer a national incident
Homeland Security
management system. The system is to provide a consistent nationwide
Presidential Directive
February 28,
approach to enable Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private
(HSPD) 5, Management of
2003
sector to work together effectively and efficiently to prepare for, prevent,
Domestic Incidents
respond to, and recover from domestic incidents regardless of cause, size, or
complexity.
Calls for Federal departments and agencies to identify, prioritize, and
HSPD 7, Critical
coordinate the protection of critical infrastructures and key resources to
Infrastructure Identification,
December 17,
prevent, deter, and mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts to destroy,
Prioritization, and
2003
incapacitate, or exploit them. Assigns DHS (delegated to the NCS) as the lead
Protection
for coordinating protection of national critical infrastructures, including the
communications sector.
Establishes policies to strengthen national preparedness to prevent and respond
to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies by requiring a
HSPD 8, National
December 17,
national domestic all-hazards preparedness goal. Establishes mechanisms for
Preparedness
2003
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.
Establishes processes to implement a comprehensive U.S. Spectrum Policy to
foster economic growth, ensure national and homeland security, maintain U.S.
Spectrum Policy for the
global leadership in communications technology development and services,
21st Century, The
November 30,
and satisfy other vital needs in areas such as public safety, scientific research,
President’s Spectrum Policy
2004
Federal transportation infrastructure, and law enforcement. NTIA leads the
Initiative
implementation of this initiative. Also calls for DHS to develop a
comprehensive plan for non-Federal public safety spectrum needs.
Calls for an effective, reliable, integrated, and flexible system to alert and warn
Executive Order 13407,
June 28, 2006
the American people in all-hazard emergencies. DHS is the Executive Agent
Public Warning System
for the Public Alert and Warning System Program.
Establishes National Essential Functions, which prescribe continuity
HSPD 20, National
requirements for all executive departments and agencies and provide guidance
May 4, 2007
Continuity Policy
for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments and private sector
organizations.
Requires that all departments and agencies that support National Essential
NCS Directive 3-10,
Functions operate and maintain—or have dedicated access to—
Minimum Requirements for
communications capabilities at their headquarters and alternate operating
July 25, 2007
Continuity Communications
facilities, as well as mobile in-transit communications capabilities, to ensure
Capabilities
continuation of mission critical functions across the full spectrum of hazards,
threats, and emergencies, including catastrophic attacks or disasters.
A – 8
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
The NIMS presents a unified approach to incident management, provides
standard command and control structures, and emphasizes preparedness,
National Incident
mutual aid, and resource management. The NIMS emphasizes that establishing
Management System
March 1, 2004
and maintaining a common operational picture and ensuring accessibility and
(NIMS)
interoperability are principal goals of communications and information
management.
Manual of Regulations and May 2003
Issued by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Procedures for Federal
edition;
Information to address the Department of Commerce’s frequency management
Radio Frequency
September 2006
responsibilities pursuant to delegated authority under Section 305 of the
Management
revision
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
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
National Infrastructure
July 2006
efforts into a single national program. The NIPP specifies the key initiatives,
Protection Plan (NIPP)
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.
Provides readiness targets, priorities, standards for assessments and strategies,
and a system for assessing the Nation’s overall level of preparedness. Consists
National Preparedness
September 2007
of related preparedness tools, such as the National Preparedness Vision,
Guidelines
National Planning Scenarios, the Universal Task List, and the Target
Capabilities List.
Establishes a comprehensive all-hazards approach to enhance the ability of the
United States to manage domestic incidents. Provides the structure and
National Response
December 2004;
mechanisms to coordinate and integrate incident management activities and
Framework (NRF),
re-released
emergency support functions across Federal, State, local, and tribal government
including Emergency
January 22, 2008 entities, and the private sector. ESF #2, led by NCS, ensures Federal
Support Function (ESF) #2
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
Provides emergency response agencies with information on FEMA’s concept
(SLG) 101: Guide for All-
for developing risk-based, all-hazard emergency operations plans. Clarifies the
September 1996
Hazard Emergency
preparedness, response, and short-term recovery planning elements that
Operations Planning
warrant inclusion in State and local Emergency Operations Plans.
TICPs present a region’s plan for establishing and maintaining tactical
interoperable communications, defined as the rapid provision of on-scene,
Tactical Interoperable
incident-based, mission-critical voice communications among all first-
Communications Plan
December 2006
responder agencies, in support of an incident command system as defined in
(TICP)
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.
A – 9
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Name
Date
Description
Describes the strategic vision, goals, and key long-term and short-term
strategic initiatives for States to improve communications interoperability.
Statewide Communication
Serves as a mechanism and roadmap to align emergency responders at all
Interoperability Plan
March 2008
levels of State government to improve communications interoperability.
(SCIP)
Developed initially in response to FY07 HSGP and Public Safety Interoperable
Communications (PSIC) Grant Program requirements.
A – 10
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
Lead
Key Policies, Plans, and Assessments
Policy/Plan
Agency
Strategy,
See Appendix 2 for overview of National Strategies, Legislation, Directives, and Executive
Executive
Legislation,
Orders related to emergency communications
branch,
Directives
Congress
Regulation of interstate and international communications (by radio, television, wire, satellite,
FCC
and cable)
−
Regulatory,
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
Spectrum
System [EAS], commercial mobile alerts)
Management
− Other (e.g., priority telecommunications and amateur radio services, special temporary
authority)
Federal government spectrum management, communications policy initiatives
NTIA
National
National Response Framework (NRF), Emergency Support Function #2 (ESF#2), National
DHS
Incident Management System (NIMS)
Preparedness
National Preparedness Guidelines: Target Capabilities List (TCL), Universal Task List (UTL),
DHS
Doctrine32
National Planning Scenarios
National/regional planning: National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), National Emergency DHS
Communications Plan (NECP), FEMA Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) planning,
Emergency
Regional Emergency Communications Coordination (RECC planning)
Communications
State-level planning: Statewide Communication Interoperability Plans (SCIP), all-hazard
State
Planning
emergency operations planning (and communications annexes)
agencies
Local-level planning: Tactical Interoperable Communications Plans (TICP), all-hazard
Local
emergency operations planning (and communications annexes)
agencies
National Communications Capability Report (NCCR), SAFECOM National Interoperability
DHS
Baseline Survey, DHS Nationwide Plan Review, Tactical Interoperable Communications
National-Level
Scorecard Report, others
Assessments
NSTAC Emergency Communications and Interoperability Report, Katrina After Action Reports, Multiple
9/11 Commission Reports
authors
32 Appendix 2 provides additional information on National Preparedness Doctrine.
A – 11
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
Office of Spectrum Management (e.g., national interoperability channel
Commerce
NTIA
resources)
Customs and Border Protection Secure Border Initiative Network (SBINet)
(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)
Federal Emergency Management Geo-Targeted Alerting System (GTAS) (with NOAA)
Agency (FEMA)
DHS Web Alert and Relay Network (WARN)
Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (IPAWS) (with FCC, NOAA/NWS)
National Warning and Alert System (NAWAS)
Homeland Security Preparedness Technical Assistance Program (e.g.,
Response/Recovery focusing on Interoperable Communications)
Immigrations and Customs
Atlas Program
Enforcement (ICE)
Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS)
DHS
Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) Program
National Communications
Wireless Priority Service (WPS)
System (NCS)
Shared Resources (SHARES) High-Frequency (HF) Radio Program
ESF #2 Communications Asset Database (CAD)
Integrated Wireless Network (IWN)
Interoperable Communications Technical Assistance Program (ICTAP)
SAFECOM (guidance, tools, templates)
OEC
FPIC integration projects
Communications Asset Survey and Mapping (CASM) Tool
ECPC clearinghouse
OIC
SAFECOM (R&D, T&E, Standards)
Office of the Chief Information OneNet
Officer (OCIO)
Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN)
Rescue 21
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Nationwide Automatic Identification System (NAIS)
Deepwater
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS)
Joint Tactical Radio System
DoD
Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT)
Joint task force civil support assets for disaster relief
Global Information Grid (GIG)
Army installation land mobile radio (LMR) systems
Department of the Army
DoD
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)
National Guard Bureau (NGB)
Army National Guard (ARNG) Joint Network Node (JNN) / Warfighter
Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
IWN
Wireless Management Office
DOJ 25 cities
(WMO)
DOJ
COMMTECH
WMO/Federal Bureau of
Satellite Mutual Aid Radio Talkgroup (SMART)
Investigation (FBI)
DOE
OCIO
Information Resource Program (includes wireless communications)
DOI OCIO Enterprise
Public Safety Communications Program
DOI
Infrastructure Division
A – 12
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Department
Agency/Bureau
Key Programs/Projects/Resources
Bureau of Land Management
National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) assets
(BML)
Aircraft Management Division
Joint aircraft all-risk-management, with USDA
(AMD)
National Highway Traffic Safety Enhanced 9-1-1
DOT
Administration
Next-Generation 9-1-1
National Interagency Incident Communications Division (NIICD) (partnership
USDA
U.S. Forest Service
with Department of the Interior agencies)
Treasury
Wireless Programs Office
IWN
PSHSB clearinghouse, ESF #2 CAD
Public Safety Homeland
FCC
Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS)
Security Bureau (PSHSB)
Network Outage Reporting System (NORS)
National Weather Service
Alert and warning systems (e.g., EAS, GTAS)
NOAA
(NWS)
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
Lead
Supporting/Participating Departments and Agencies
Centers
Agency
DHS/Office of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Central Intelligence Agency
Operations
(CIA), USCG, Bureau CBP, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), DoD, DOE, Department of
Coordination
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),
National Operations
Geo-spatial Mapping Office, ICE, Information Analysis Office, Infrastructure Protection
Office, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), National Capital Region (NCR),
Center (NOC)
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)
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
National Response
Administration, HHS, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NCS,
National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Coordination Center
Office of Personnel Management, Social Security Administration, Treasury, U.S. Agency for
(NRCC)
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
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
National Response
Prevention (CDC), DOT/Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), National Transportation
Center (NRC)
Safety Board (NTSB), Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Interior/USFS USFS/BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service,
National Interagency
NOAA/NWS, DOI/National Business Center/Aviation Management Division, US Fire
Fire Center (NIFC)
Administration, National Association of State Foresters
A – 13
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Coordination
Lead
Supporting/Participating
t
Depar ments and Agencies
Centers
Agen
cy
DHS/CBP
ICE
National Law
Enforcement
Communications
Center (NLECC)
DHS/NCS
Communications Information Sharing and Analysis Center (Comm ISAC)
National
Coordinating Center
for
Telecommunications
(NCC)
Director of
CIA, FBI, and 14 other classified and unclassified agencies
National
National
Counterterrorism
Intelligence
Center (NCTC)
National Military
DoD
Joint Staff of the armed forces
Command Center
(NMCC)
Exhibit A3-4 presents key standards and RDT&E initiatives involving emergency
communications.
Exhibit A3-4: Standards Development and RDT&E Initiatives
Key
Type of
Initiative
Organizations/Departments/
Initiative
Agencies
Digital Public
APCO Project 25 (P25), P25 Compliance Assessment Program
APCO, Telecommunications Industry
Association (TIA), DHS, National
Safety Radio
Institute of Standards and Technology
Standards
(NIST)
Broadband
APCO Project 25 Interface Committee (APIC) Broadband Task Group,
APCO, TIA, NIST
Committees
Project Mesa, P34
Emergency Data Exchange Language (EDXL) Messaging Standards
DOJ, DHS, COMCARE
Data Exchange Initiative, Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)–Distribution Element (DE),
Standards
Hospital Availability Exchange (HAVE) and Resource Messaging (RM),
National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)
DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T): 4.9 GHz Wireless
DHS/OIC
Standard, Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) specifications, Digital
Vocoder Working Group, Radio over Wireless Broadband (ROW-B),
Multi-Band Radio
ITS
NTIA Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS): Broadband
RDT&E
Wireless, Digital LMR, IT, Propagation Measurements and Models,
DOJ/National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Programs
Spectrum Research, Technology Transfer
DoC/NTIA, NIST
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
DoD
(NLECTC) System
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA)
DoD RDT&E programs
A – 14
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program
NTIA
Programs
Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP)
DHS
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP)
DHS
– State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
– Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
– Citizen Corps Program (CCP)
National Preparedness
– Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS)
Grant Programs (scope
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)
includes interoperable
Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)
communications)
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)
Grant guidance materials and associated support
DHS
– SAFECOM grant guidance
– Authorized Equipment List (AEL)
Grant Guidance, Tools,
– SAVER Program
and Assistance
– Technical assistance
DOJ, DoD, cross-
InterAgency Board (IAB), Standardized Equipment List (SEL)
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
Key Program(s)
Lead Agency
Initiative
Emergency Management Institute (EMI) (e.g., residential courses,
DHS
independent study [e.g., NIMS, NRF], continuity of operations)
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
Exercise
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
TICP exercises
Requirement by DHS for UASI regions
A – 15
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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:
•
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
OEC’s Communications Assets Survey and
establishing a roadmap for future
Mapping (CASM) tool provides an inventory
and analysis of interoperability communications
interoperability. These plans address
planning for use by emergency response agencies
designated critical elements for
nationwide. The tool allows agencies to store and
statewide interoperability and must be
display data about their communications assets.
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.
A – 16
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
A – 17
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
The NCS SHAred RESources (SHARES)
support response efforts.
High-Frequency (HF) Radio Program
provides a single interagency emergency voice
The NCS also offers an array of NS/EP
and data message-handling system. SHARES
priority communications services and
brings together the assets of thousands of HF
radio stations to transmit NS/EP information
programs to support emergency response.
when normal communications are unavailable.
The Government Emergency
SHARES provides the Federal government with
Telecommunications Service (GETS)
a forum for addressing issues affecting HF
provides emergency access and priority
radio interoperability.
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.
A – 18
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
•
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.
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
The Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a project
during a crisis. These include very high
to control U.S. borders and reduce illegal
frequency (VHF) and high frequency (HF)
immigration. The SBINet is a key piece of SBI
national tactical radio networks and several
that promotes real-time communications among
Border Patrol agents. Systems such as the
local communications centers.
Treasury Enforcement Communications System
are also used to coordinate between CBP’s
During all crises, U.S. Bureau of
Office of Border Patrol and ICE’s Office of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Investigations.
(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).
A – 19
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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.
A – 20
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
A – 21
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
A – 22
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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).
A – 23
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
Emergency Response Council Agreements
topped the list of homeland security advisors’
on a Nationwide Plan for Interoperable
concerns in 2007, as States continue to work to
Communications. SAFECOM Emergency
ensure that first responders from various
agencies, jurisdictions, and levels of government
Response Council (ERC) (with support from
can speak to each other during emergencies or at
the Office of Emergency Communications and
the scene of a disaster.
the Office for Interoperability and
Source: National Governors Association 2007
Compatibility). July 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.
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO) Homeland Security
& Preparedness Version 2.1.
APCO International. September 2007.
IP-based networks enable first responders to
have the flexibility and tools they need for
effective response and … modernize their
National Security Telecommunications
existing radio networks so they work together
Advisory Committee Report on Emergency
with other existing and future communications
Communications and Interoperability. The
networks and devices.
President’s National Security
Source: The Joint Advisory Committee on
Telecommunications Advisory Committee.
Communications Capabilities of Emergency
January 2007.
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.
A – 24
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
Federal Government Reports, Assessments, Plans, and Strategies
Congress, White House, and Special Commissions
The National Strategy for Homeland Security. White
The nation’s emergency communications
House Homeland Security Council. October 2007.
systems “must be resilient, either able
to withstand destructive forces regardless of
The Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to
cause or sufficiently redundant to suffer
Investigate the Preparation for and Response to
damage and remain reliable.
Hurricane Katrina. Select Bipartisan Committee to
Source: The National Strategy for Homeland
Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane
Security, revised October 2007
Katrina, U.S. House of Representatives. February 2006.
The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons
Learned. White House Homeland Security Advisor.
Communications challenges across the Gulf
February 2006.
Coast region in Hurricane Katrina’s wake
were more a problem of basic operability,
than one of equipment or system
The 9-11 Commission Report. The National Commission
interoperability.
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)
– 66% of public agencies use interoperability
Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC) Program
to some degree
Assessment. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA.
– Interoperability at local levels tends to be
January 2007.
more advanced than between State and
local agencies
SAFECOM 2006: National Interoperability Baseline
TICP Scorecards—
Survey. Department of Homeland Security, SAFECOM
– 68% of urban metro areas had established
regional interoperability
Program. December 2006.
– 80% of urban/metro areas use shared
systems and/or shared channels daily to
Answering the Call: Communication Lessons Learned
provide interoperability
from the Pentagon Attack. Department of Homeland
Security, Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) Program. January 2002.
A – 25
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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.
A – 26
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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 responsibility33 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 level34 (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.
33 As defined in the National Incident Command System 200 - Unit 2 - Leadership and Management.
34 As defined in the National Incident Management System, FEMA 501/Draft August 2007, p.47.
A – 27
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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.
A – 28
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
A – 29
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
FM
Frequency Modulation
FPIC
Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications
FY
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
Hz
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
A – 30
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
IECGP
Interoperable Emergency Communication Grant Program
IGA
Intergovernmental Agreement
IMSID
Incident Management Systems Integration Division
IP
Internet Protocol
IR
Incident Response
IRAC
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee
IT
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
LE
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
A – 31
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
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
RF
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
A – 32
National Emergency Communications Plan
July 2008
SEL
Standardized Equipment List
SHARES
Shared Resources Program
SHSP
State Homeland Security Program
SIEC
Statewide Interoperability Executive Commitee
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
UA
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
VA
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
A – 33
Document Outline
