- PSHSB Home
- About Us
- Advisory Committees
- Clearinghouse
- Emergency Information
- Policy Areas
- Public Safety Spectrum
- Releases
- Reporting Systems
- Summits
- Speeches and Presentations
In 2007, Congress required the Commission to assess the vulnerability of the Nation's critical communications infrastructure and the feasibility of various technologies to serve as a back-up communications system for emergency responders.1 The Commission conducted extensive interviews with first responders and their emergency communications planners and managers. These interviews and discussions highlighted the continuing need to increase interoperability and revealed the role that joint operations planning and preparation plays in the achievement of such interoperability. Furthermore, the FCC's Public Safety National Coordination Committee2 earlier recommended that interoperability planning be coordinated on a statewide basis and specifically that every state create a Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee (SIEC).3
The material in this web page is intended for SIECs and others responsible for planning interoperable emergency communications, specifically interoperable communications among emergency responders from multiple agencies and/or jurisdictions.4
The interviews with first responders and their emergency communications planners and managers illustrated the importance of advance planning and preparation among the agencies and jurisdictions that may require interoperable communications during a large-scale (regional, state, or larger) emergency, as compared with having a common network or networking technology.5
The responses to the 2007 southern California forest fires are illustrative of the importance of advance planning and preparation. The emergency communications systems in southern California are not based on a single network or system. Because they are instead a collection of systems used by multiple counties and agencies, responding agencies have applied a number of different technologies and methods coupled with advance inter-jurisdictional planning to respond effectively to wide-area emergencies like forest fires.6 Despite lacking a single unifying network, they have developed plans that incorporate lessons learned from earlier emergencies.
In order to be best prepared to respond to a future large-scale emergency, a state would benefit from advance interoperability and resiliency planning, including training and exercises for emergency responders. Below we list planning activities that multiple entities indicated are useful whether the regions or states involved have a single unifying network or not. The planning activities described below permit the combination of feasible discrete solutions to assist efforts toward a cohesive solution for interoperable and resilient emergency responder communications.7
The following activities are suggested for SIECs and others planning interoperability to consider:
1 Section 2201(b) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2201(b), 121 Stat. 266, 539-540 (9/11 Act).
2 The Public Safety National Coordination Committee was a federal advisory committee established by the Commission in 1999 to address and advise the Commission on operational and technical parameters for use of the 700 MHz public safety band. It also provided voluntary assistance in the development of coordinated regional plans.
3 The following were the final recommendations on governance of interoperability planning: (1) that all states be required to create a Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee, or equivalent, within a time certain; (2) that SIECs be given jurisdiction over all interoperability channels; (3) that states create an interoperability plan and file same with the Commission within a time certain; (4) that the interoperability plan be timely updated whenever substantive changes are made to it, and, in any event, every three years; and (5) that state interoperability plans be accessible from an electronic data base by suitably authorized officials. See Ex parte letter from Kathleen M. H. Wallman, Chair, to Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, WT Docket No. 96-86, July 25, 2003, page 5.
4 The Department of Homeland Security has developed a Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning (SCIP) methodology for states to use in developing their statewide interoperability strategic plans. See the SCIP web site (http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/tools/scip/ , last visited May 7, 2008) and various pages linked to it for considerations in developing a strategic plan. Among the linked sites, strategic planning methods and questions and issues to consider are provided in the Statewide Interoperability Planning Guidebook
(http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitybasics/1311_statewideinteroperability.htm , last visited May 7, 2008) and the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning (SCIP) Methodology v2.0 document (available at http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/library/interoperabilitycasestudies/1223_statewidecommunications.htm , last visited May 7, 2008) . The strategic plans are intended to provide a future vision for communications interoperability and to align emergency response agencies with the goals, objectives and initiatives for achieving that vision across the State (or territory). Detailed planning and implementation are done in post-SCIP stages. The material provided in this web page is intended to complement SCIP efforts by helping planners when they get to the detailed planning and implementation stages.
5 This Suggested Planning Activities list was composed as a result of interviews conducted for the report described in Section 2201(b) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2201(b), 121 Stat. 266, 539-540 (9/11 Act).
6 See FCC Report to Congress, Vulnerability Assessment and Feasibility of Creating a Back-Up Emergency Communications System (Pursuant to Public Law No. 110-53), available at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/clearinghouse/case-studies/ECS-vulnerability-assessment-report.pdf (last visited Apr. 25, 2008).
7 These are planning activities that interviewees found to be valuable. However, the list is not comprehensive. Other sources may provide planning recommendations, for example, the SAFECOM website and library, at http://www.safecomprogram.gov (visited May 7, 2008); and the FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Best Practices web site, at http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/clearinghouse/best-practices.html (visited May 7, 2008).
8 Mutual aid channels are channels available to public safety agencies that allow multiple agencies to coordinate their efforts as needed outside of their normal day-to-day operations. These channels, which are separate from the operational channels used by an agency, can be accessed by simply changing to the appropriate frequency. Thus, they can be especially useful during an emergency. Use is normally limited to interagency communication to allow multiple agencies to communicate directly with each other. Part 90 of the Commission's rules designates channels within each frequency band for mutual aid. In addition to the mutual aid frequencies specified in rules, agencies may agree to use common frequencies for this purpose. The primary advantage of mutual aid channels is that they permit emergency responders to use their own radios. This allows first responders to be familiar with the operation of the equipment.
9 A gateway is a device used to interconnect networks of dissimilar technology, protocol or ownership.
10 The National Capital Region has formal deployment procedures for its cache of radios. See http://www.interoperability.virginia.gov/pdfs/NCR_Radio_Cache_Deploym_Procs.pdf. 11The State of Florida indicated that it has points of contact to quickly buy or lease radios through commercial vendors. Radios would be available within 24-48 hours. State of Florida, Presentation to FCC Staff preparing 9/11 Act Report (Oct. 23, 2007).