USE OF 

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREA FUNDS 

TO COMBAT 

METHAMPHETAMINE TRAFFICKING

REPORT TO CONGRESS

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Washington, DC 20503
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 707 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 

Reauthorization Act of 1998, as amended by Section 301 of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 

2006, Public Law 109-469, ONDCP is providing Congress with this report “describing the use of 

HIDTA [High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area] funds to investigate and prosecute organizations 

and individuals trafficking in methamphetamine in the prior calendar year.” 

Specifically, ONDCP is required to provide information regarding: “(A) the number of 

methamphetamine manufacturing facilities discovered through HIDTA-funded initiatives1

This report distinguishes between calendar year (CY) and fiscal year (FY) because the 

majority of the reporting and data collection is done on a CY basis. State and local law 

enforcement report their data on a CY basis. This also allows for a more up-to-date 12-month 

reporting period. 

 in the 

previous fiscal year; (B) the amounts of methamphetamine or listed chemicals [as defined in the 

Controlled Substances Act] seized by HIDTA-funded initiatives in the area during the previous 

year; and (C) law enforcement intelligence and predictive data from the Drug Enforcement 

Administration [DEA] showing patterns and trends in abuse, trafficking, and transportation in 

methamphetamine and listed chemicals.” 

In addition, before any funds are awarded to a HIDTA, the Director shall certify that the 

law enforcement entities participating in that HIDTA are providing laboratory seizure data to the 

national clandestine laboratory database at the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) (see Appendix 

A). 

HIDTA Program Data Relating to Methamphetamine Seizures and Investigations 

The 28 Regional HIDTA programs located throughout the Nation remain committed to 

reducing the production, trafficking, and use of methamphetamine. There were 4,977 

methamphetamine laboratories seized nationwide as of November 28, 2010,2

 

1

 “Initiative” is defined as activities that implement portions of a HIDTA’s Strategy as opposed to an organization of activities/investigative 

efforts.

according to the

DEA National Seizure System (NSS). HIDTA-funded initiatives were responsible for seizing 

874 methamphetamine laboratories, approximately 17.5 percent of the total number seized

nationwide. While the total number of labs seized nationwide was slightly higher than in 2009, 

the HIDTA funded initiatives focused more on investigations and trafficking of 

methamphetamine and less on actual lab seizures largely because the shift to smaller toxic labs

makes finding the labs more difficult and time consuming and produced fewer long lasting 

results. In addition to the denied revenue associated with the dismantlement of these laboratories

($7,236,888), an estimated wholesale value of $149,879,334 of methamphetamine and 

$122,931,234 of “ice” (crystal) methamphetamine was removed from the market in CY 2010. 

Another reason for the difference from the prior year came as a result of the measures taken by 

the Government of Mexico to eliminate the importation of pseudoephedrine. 

2 November 28, 2010, was selected as the cutoff date to permit timely preparation and submission of this report. Data collection is continuously 

done.
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 2 

DEA Intelligence and Predictive Data on Methamphetamine Patterns and Trends

In the domestic arena, DEA contributes to HIDTA-funded initiatives by investigating and 

responding to methamphetamine labs. Beginning in 2001, the law enforcement community 

witnessed an increase in methamphetamine laboratories nationwide. This trend peaked in 2005. 

A strong decline occurred at that point, associated with the passage and implementation of the 

national Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMEA), Title VII of Public Law 

109-177. Most recently, however, the downward trend appears to have ended, and there is a 

renewed need for enhanced effort against methamphetamine labs. The number of 

methamphetamine labs seized nationally increased from CY 2009 to 2010 (from 4,469 to 4,977). 

In addition, DEA has noted that, while the labs are generally smaller when compared to previous 

years, the lab sites nevertheless present toxic and dangerous threats to individuals and the 

environment. Given their increasing number and widespread dispersal, these new small toxic 

labs (STLs) are an increasing threat. 

The impact of the CMEA was positive, but there is now evidence that its effectiveness in 

restricting access to methamphetamine precursors has been subverted. Case investigations and 

intelligence indicate that individuals, as well as organized groups, continue to effectively 

circumvent the law to obtain pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products in amounts that exceed 

legal limits. These activities are fueling an increase in the domestic production of 

methamphetamine. Potential methamphetamine producers are acquiring precursor chemicals in 

illicit quantities by a process known as “smurfing.” This process involves going from store to 

store, purchasing the maximum allowable limit of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products at 

each store and then pooling these purchases for the production of methamphetamine. Buying the 

products at multiple retail outlets circumvents individual purchase limits. A related development

is a crude methamphetamine production technique known as the “one-pot method.”3

HIDTA-funded initiatives also develop extensive cases that often involve international 

partners. DEA, as a leading Federal agency in HIDTA initiatives, provides significant 

intelligence and case analysis to support HIDTA activities against methamphetamine, 

particularly methamphetamine originating in Mexico. In addition to methamphetamine produced 

in domestic STLs, Mexican methamphetamine production has been a significant source of the 

drug within the United States. Accordingly, DEA works with the Mexican Government and the 

international community to target methamphetamine producing and trafficking organizations, as 

well as organizations responsible for smuggling and diverting precursor chemicals. DEA has 

expanded drug intelligence sharing with Mexico and provided training to approximately 2,890 

police and other departmental officials at a variety of locations in the United States and in other 

countries. 

 This 

technique enables the producer to capitalize on smaller quantities of precursors and has been 

linked to the increase in smurfing. This trend has continued from 2009, when smurfing became 

more prevalent. 

 

3

 The “one-pot” method allows methamphetamine cooks to combine anhydrous ammonia, pseudoephedrine or ephedrine tablets, and the reactive

metal (i.e., lithium) into a single container from the beginning of the process. The method reduces the amount of time needed for the process. 

The one-pot method is capable of producing a minimal amount of methamphetamine (usually gram quantities or less).
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 3 

On a global scale, DEA participates in the Project Prism task force, an international effort 

under the auspices of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB).4

Moreover, DEA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), jointly investigate the importation of precursor chemicals into the 

United States. The recently-established collaborative effort, known as the DEA/CBP Long 

Beach Port Project, has created an automated system using existing databases to identify and 

target suspect chemical consignments at ports of entry. As of September 30, 2010, this initiative 

has led to the seizure of approximately 83,121 kilograms of ephedra, and 15,576 kilograms of 

pseudoephedrine and other methamphetamine precursor chemicals.

 The goal of Project 

Prism is to assist governments in developing and implementing procedures to effectively monitor 

and control the global trade in methamphetamine precursors. Project Prism enhances HIDTAfunded initiatives that target trafficking organizations and supports efforts to track and respond to 

the illicit importation of methamphetamine precursors. 

Building on the collaborative efforts between the Governments of the United States and 

Mexico, enhanced by the multi-agency cooperation and coordination among Federal, state, and 

local law enforcement agencies, HIDTA-funded initiatives have had a significant impact on 

methamphetamine production and trafficking. 

INTRODUCTION

Several trends in methamphetamine manufacturing became apparent at the end of 2009. 

Recent history indicates some striking successes against the methamphetamine trade, most often 

through a combination of organizational attack and restrictions on the supply of essential 

precursor chemicals. For instance, international restrictions on the movement of bulk 

pseudoephedrine, a critical methamphetamine precursor— which, in 2003 and 2004, was most 

often diverted from Canada to methamphetamine “super-lab” production facilities in the United 

States—, led to a rapid decrease in these large production facilities. Street-level 

methamphetamine purity decreased in the United States. However, pseudoephedrine was still 

available domestically in retail cold remedies, purchases of which fed the rise of small toxic labs. 

With the passage of the CMEA and implementation of limits for individual purchases, the 

number of these small toxic labs plummeted between 2004 and 2007. 

However, since 2007, methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers have adapted, and 

now use smurfing and the one-pot method. As a consequence, the number of STLs is once again 

on the rise in a number of states. STLs frequently depend on a supply of pseudoephedrine from 

the retail cold remedy market that is obtained by efforts, often systematic and organized, to 

circumvent the monitoring and control provisions of the CMEA. Investigations and intelligence 

have revealed that individuals and organized groups are engaged in activities to obtain 

pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products in amounts that exceed the CMEA limits (3.6 grams 

daily and a cumulative 9 grams in 30 days purchase limit). This smurfing activity has been 

identified by law enforcement during active surveillance and review of log books maintained by 

retailers. In one smurfing investigation, an organization purchased over 60 pounds (almost 

 

4 The INCB is the independent and quasi-judicial control organization monitoring the implementation of the United Nations drug control 

convention.
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 4 

27,216 grams) of pseudoephedrine tablets in less than 30 days by traveling to multiple retail 

locations such as convenience stores and highway rest stops, locations which are referred to as 

the “gray market.”5

In addition, the method of methamphetamine production is also changing with the rise of 

the “one-pot” method. This method enables relatively small quantities of methamphetamine to 

be made from pseudoephedrine products without the presence of a full laboratory. The nature of 

the precursor chemicals employed in methamphetamine manufacture is also shifting. In some 

instances, HIDTAs report a return to the phenyl-2-propanone (P2P) method, which enables 

production without the need for pseudoephedrine or ephedrine. 

 

More recently, likely in response to the effective restrictions imposed in Mexico, such as 

the restriction on importation of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine for licit purposes, 

methamphetamine producers are importing phenylacetic acid, a chemical that allows for a 

derivation of methamphetamine precursors for production, bypassing pseudoephedrine and 

ephedrine restrictions. Moreover, there is an increase in the smuggling of methamphetamine

precursors, including pseudoephedrine, from third-party nations. They are re-routed to Mexico 

in violation of its import controls. The increasing use of pseudoephedrine contained in 

pharmaceutical preparations, which are not strictly controlled on the international market in the 

same manner as bulk pseudoephedrine, is also cause for concern. 

The most recent data derived from DEA show that methamphetamine street-level purity 

is once again on the rise, signaling increased availability. 

In response to these developments, the ONDCP/HIDTA-sponsored 2009 National 

Methamphetamine and Pharmaceuticals Initiative (NMPI) conference, attended by nearly 400 

Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers from around the Nation, directly addressed the 

troubling trends in domestic methamphetamine production. For example, presenters explained 

that in several states, and especially in California, teams of smurfers are highly organized and 

often use global positioning system (GPS) devices to map out every store location that contains 

pseudoephedrine for sale. Smurfing is not only feeding small user labs in several communities 

throughout the United States, but according to law enforcement investigations and reporting, the 

organized drug gang activities are sufficient to also supply large-scale “super labs” run by drug 

trafficking organizations in California. 

Trend indications are that smurfing is responsible for the majority of the 

methamphetamine lab incidents in the last year. The development by methamphetamine 

manufacturers/traffickers and users of crude production methods, such as the “one pot method,”

has also led to an increase in smurfing. These simple methods, which at times only produce a 

gram to one ounce of methamphetamine, some of questionable quality and purity, require 

smaller amounts of pseudoephedrine tablets. These smaller amounts of tablets are then 

combined with other easily obtainable household items, such as lithium strips (from batteries); 

white gas, often used in camping fuel; household lye; and water to produce methamphetamine. 

In certain areas they are also using ammonium nitrate, which can be acquired as a fertilizer or 

 

5 “Gray market” is a colloquial term used to describe sales of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine combination products from non-traditional retail 

outlets such as gas stations and convenience stores.
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 5 

from cold packs designed for bruises. When the “one pot method” uses only pseudoephedrine as 

a precursor, the quality of the methamphetamine remains high. 

The increases in methamphetamine production and labs present related environmental 

threats, as well. Methamphetamine cooks and producers frequently dump chemical waste in 

parks, along highways, in neighborhoods, and sometimes down the drain and into public water 

supplies. Investigators are now reporting that methamphetamine laboratory operators are 

burying their related trash and dump sites6

In sum, ONDCP and its partner agencies are concerned that existing Federal laws to 

control pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, the key precursor chemicals needed to make 

methamphetamine, are no longer sufficient to deter drug trafficking organizations. Drug 

producers and traffickers have adapted their methods of operation to circumvent the CMEA. 

Thus, after an initial decrease in lab incidents following the implementation of the CMEA, lab 

seizure numbers are on the rise. Domestic methamphetamine production has increased since 

2007. During the period 2006-2007, the Mexican government’s restriction on precursor 

chemicals severely disrupted Mexican production capabilities. To compensate for that reduced 

importation, U.S. production and distribution networks grew to meet domestic demand for the 

drug by avoiding the precursor restrictions imposed by the CMEA. ONDCP and its law 

enforcement partners have been working on a solution. A few states and municipalities

(including Oregon, Mississippi, and cities and counties in Missouri) have made pseudoephedrine 

obtainable by prescription only. 

more frequently in an effort to disguise their illegal 

activities. Methamphetamine labs pose serious health and safety risks to the public, law 

enforcement and, most tragically, children, who sometimes live in these toxic environments and 

are subjected to physical danger and neglect. 

Electronic tracking (e-tracking) is another response to the problem. However, purchasers 

use false forms of identification to get around the e-tracking systems. A prescription 

requirement for pseudoephedrine is a promising tool in a comprehensive plan to address 

methamphetamine production. Any additional measures to reduce diversion by restricting the 

sale of pseudoephedrine, however, should be balanced with the need to maintain access for 

legitimate and safe use. In the State of Oregon, where pseudoephedrine is obtained by 

prescription only, the number of labs declined from over 100 to just 10 labs seized this past year. 

In Mississippi, where pseudoephedrine was made available only by prescription in July 2010, the 

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics reports the number of labs seized declined by 65 percent from 

July to December 2010. For states with no or relatively few clandestine labs detected within 

their borders, a prescription requirement can still be an important tool to prevent “smurfers” 

(individuals making numerous retail purchases of pseudoephedrine below legal quantity 

thresholds for use in methamphetamine production) from neighboring states crossing their 

borders to take advantage of pseudoephedrine availability. A prescription requirement may also 

help prevent the pattern of smurfing and small-scale lab operations from starting or increasing. 

 

6 Laboratory dump sites are locations where discarded laboratory equipment, empty chemical containers, waste by-products, pseudoephedrine 

containers, etc., were abandoned or dumped, but no lab was found.
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 6 

SPECIFIC INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE ONDCP 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006 

A. Number of methamphetamine manufacturing facilities discovered through HIDTAfunded initiatives in the previous fiscal year:

This report distinguishes between calendar year (CY) and fiscal year (FY) because the 

majority of the reporting and data collection is done on a CY basis. State and local law 

enforcement report their data on a CY basis. This also allows for a more up-to-date 12-month 

reporting period. 

Each Executive Board of the 28 HIDTAs designs a local strategy to address the major 

drug trafficking threat in its area of responsibility, while ensuring alignment with the 

Administration’s National Drug Control Strategy. In 2006, the United Nations Commission on 

Narcotic Drugs (CND) passed a resolution sponsored by the United States requesting 

governments: (1) provide an annual estimate of legal precursor requirements; and (2) track the 

export and import of such precursors. To date, 114 countries and jurisdictions have provided 

these estimates, greatly improving the international community’s understanding of the flow of 

these chemicals and the potential for diversion. These measures, along with the sustained and 

coordinated efforts of Federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement, have contributed to a 

reduction in domestic methamphetamine laboratory seizures, from a high of 10,037 in CY 2004 

to 2,958 in CY 2007, according to data provided by the DEA. Since the CY 2007 low, there has 

been a gradual increase, to the CY 2010 figure of 4,977 labs seized as of November 22, 2010; 

however, the total number of laboratory incidents has significantly declined. 

From CY 2009 to CY 2010, clandestine laboratory seizures have increased slightly and 

clandestine laboratory incidents (dump sites, lab equipment, empty chemical containers, waste 

byproducts, and chemicals/equipment/glassware) have decreased. These figures, while below 

the epidemic years of 2002-2005, are still a concern, as they continue an upward trend in terms 

of labs seized and a reversal of progress made following the implementation of the CMEA and 

the restrictions imposed by a number of states on purchases of pseudoephedrine. 
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 7 

Trends in Clandestine Laboratory Seizures and Incidents7

The ONDCP Reauthorization Act also requests HIDTA-related data from the previous 

fiscal year. However, in order to provide more current and additional data, the table below 

shows calendar year information, which is also compatible with the HIDTA Performance 

Management Process database. This table displays the number of methamphetamine 

laboratories, by size, dismantled by HIDTA initiatives in CY 2010. It further includes estimates 

of the potential value of the methamphetamine produced. 

Size, Number, and Potential Value of Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratories

Dismantled by HIDTA-Funded Initiative, CY 2010 

Laboratory Size* Number

Seized

Potential Value of 

Methamphetamine

Produced++

Less than 2 oz. per batch 600 $1,986,782

2-8 oz. per batch 231 1,499,900

9-31 oz. per batch 21 411,476

32-159 oz. per batch 16 1,548,740

10-20 lbs. per batch 3 731,750

More than 20 lbs. per batch 3 1,058,240

Total 874 $7,236,888

* Size of lab indicates the amount of methamphetamine that could be produced in one batch.

++ The Potential Value of Methamphetamine produced is determined by multiplying the batch size in ounces times the number of labs of that 

production capacity, and the local wholesale value per ounce in the area where the lab was dismantled. 

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, HIDTA Performance Management Process Database

Generally, the production capability of clandestine laboratories seized in 2010 was less 

than in previous years. It should be noted that prior to the implementation of the CMEA and

 

7 Data is reported in Calendar Year. Information for CY 2010 is as of November 28, 2010, with data collected through the end of October 2010. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2009 2010

Lab Seizures

Total Incidents
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 8 

restrictions by a number of states on pseudoephedrine purchases, larger labs, labeled “super 

labs,” with a production capacity of 10 pounds per batch or more, were seized predominantly in 

west coast states. 

On November 29, 2010, in Atlanta, a Gwinnett County Police task force seized 

approximately 933 pounds of methamphetamine at a single site with an estimated value of $44 

million. The operation occurring at this site has been classified as a “super-lab,” which is 

defined as capable of producing 10 pounds or more of methamphetamine. Also found were 

propane tanks, plastic tubs, bottles of acetone, and 200 gallons of methamphetamine in solution. 

The police also found 150 pounds of crystal methamphetamine ready for sale. This is believed 

to be one of the largest methamphetamine seizures in the country, and certainly the largest ever 

seized east of the Mississippi River. Ten days later, also in the Atlanta Metropolitan area, 

approximately 40 pounds of processed “ice” (crystal) methamphetamine and approximately ten 

gallons of methamphetamine in solution were seized. The seizing of all the methamphetamine 

solution is something new and may be indicative of a new trend, although it is too early to make 

that determination. 

While the number of total lab seizures is slightly up, the labs being seized are much 

smaller and produce significantly smaller quantities. Nevertheless, the danger posed by the 

smaller labs is as significant as that posed by the larger labs. The smaller labs are usually more 

dangerous because the cooks are generally less experienced chemists who often have little regard 

for the safety issues that arise when dealing with explosive and poisonous chemicals. 

Additionally, the smaller operations are more likely to put children at risk because these labs can 

be anywhere and are volatile. 

B. Amounts of methamphetamine or listed chemicals seized by HIDTA-funded 

initiatives in the area during the previous year:

 One measure of the effect of methamphetamine or precursor chemical seizures is the 

revenue denied to trafficking organizations. The two tables below display actual amounts seized 

in CY 2010 and the wholesale value of the seizures.

Amount and Wholesale Value of Methamphetamine Removed from the Marketplace by 

HIDTAs in CY 2010 

Drug Amount Seized

(kg) Wholesale Value 

Methamphetamine 5,761.605 $149,879,334

Ice8 3,263.466 122,931,234

Total 9,025.071 $272,810,568

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, HIDTA Performance Management Process Database

 

8 Ice, also known as crystal methamphetamine, is methamphetamine hydrochloride, which consists of clear chunky crystals resembling ice, and 

can be inhaled by smoking.
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 9 

Amount and Wholesale Value of Listed Chemicals Removed from the Marketplace by 

HIDTAs in CY 2010 

Chemicals Amount Seized

(kg) Wholesale Value 

Meth Precursor: Iodine 226.987 $511,672

Meth Precursor: 

Pseudoephedrine

13.792 173,200

Total 240.779 $648,872

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, HIDTA Performance Management Process Database

C. Law enforcement intelligence and predictive data from DEA showing patterns and 

trends in abuse, trafficking, and transportation in methamphetamine and listed chemicals

Globally, DEA engages in bilateral cooperation on behalf of the U.S. Government with 

the many countries that produce, manufacture, or act as transit areas for precursor chemicals in 

an effort to encourage regulatory control of their movement. Domestically, DEA continues to 

dedicate enforcement, intelligence, and diversion resources to disrupt the abuse, trafficking, and 

transportation of methamphetamine. Information acquired as part of this cooperative effort is 

used to determine trends in the abuse, trafficking and transportation of methamphetamine and 

listed chemicals. Much of this is done through initiatives and interagency partnerships. One 

such partnership is the Project Prism Task Force.

Project Prism Task Force

DEA’s international activities to combat methamphetamine trafficking include its 

participation in the Project Prism Task Force. Project Prism is an international initiative under 

the auspices of the INCB designed to assist governments in developing and implementing 

operating procedures to control and more effectively monitor trade in amphetamine-type 

stimulant precursors to prevent their diversion. The initiative allows for sharing of information 

and helps to identify trends in diversion, trafficking, and distribution. 

For example, to date, there have been three operations under Project Prism resulting in 

identification of 120 suspicious shipments. Shipments of over 115 tons of ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine were suspended, stopped, or seized, preventing up to 103 tons of 

methamphetamine from being produced. This has had an impact in the trafficking and 

transportation of methamphetamine. 

Mexico has instituted measures to eliminate commercial importation of these chemicals 

for licit purposes, making illicit diversion and Mexican methamphetamine production more 

challenging. Accordingly, to make up for the inability to divert licit chemicals within Mexico,

traffickers appear to be smuggling these precursor substances by masking their movement 

internationally. 
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 10 

Analysis of available Project Prism data indicates that trafficking organizations are 

targeting and exploiting other global regions as transshipment locations for precursor chemicals 

destined for Mexico. Specifically, these regions are Central America, South America, Africa, 

and the Middle East. Intelligence suggests Mexico and Colombia-based operatives have made a 

concerted effort to establish contacts in Africa and elsewhere for the purpose of obtaining 

precursor chemicals, likely destined for the Americas and particularly for Mexico. Additional 

intelligence suggests that Mexican-based operatives have made concerted efforts to establish 

operations and contacts in Central and South America, particularly Argentina, Honduras, 

Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Uruguay, to purchase the chemicals needed to manufacture 

methamphetamine.

Operations conducted under Project Prism and DEA investigations further indicate that, while 

traffickers continue to obtain precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production in the form of 

pharmaceutical preparations containing pseudoephedrine, they are now targeting non-controlled 

substances, such as esters of phenylacetic acid and other chemicals, to manufacture synthetic drugs. 

DEA’s Methamphetamine Profiling Program (MPP) has shown a clear indication that traffickers have 

increased their use of the phenyl-2-propanone -- P2P-- method for methamphetamine manufacturing. 

The primary precursor chemical used in this method is phenylacetic acid (PAA). Recent analysis 

indicates that approximately 50 percent of all samples tested were made using the P2P method. By 

contrast, in 2007 the level of the P2P method usage in Mexican-produced methamphetamine was only 1

percent.

 DEA continues to work with the Mexican Government and the international 

community to target organizations responsible for diverting precursor chemicals and producing 

and trafficking methamphetamine. Mexico has enhanced its Federal Commission for Protection 

Against Sanitary Risks, which has led to the integration of chemical control under a single 

department. 

In June 2008, the Mexican Government issued a decree indicating it would not issue any 

new import permits for ephedrine/pseudoephedrine products or their derivatives. As a result, 

Mexico eliminated pseudoephedrine and ephedrine imports in 2008, and all existing stockpiles 

have been used or destroyed. In addition, Mexico made the importation, distribution, and 

possession of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products illegal. Though the impact of these 

developments was initially positive, it appears traffickers are once again able to secure supplies 

of illicit precursor chemicals in Mexico. The supplies are coming from other countries such as 

China and India. DEA’s System To Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) data 

for all domestic methamphetamine indicate that, from July 2007 through June 2010, the price per 

pure gram of methamphetamine decreased 61.8 percent, from $268.27 to $102.64, while the 

purity increased 115 percent, from 39 percent to 83 percent. 

An additional aspect of DEA’s efforts to control precursor chemicals consists of 

partnerships with domestic agencies. Cooperation between DEA and DHS is of particular 

importance in investigating the importation of precursor chemicals into the United States. DEA 

is constantly working on various means to better track precursor chemicals used in the 

clandestine production of methamphetamine and other illicit synthetic drugs. DEA established a 

joint program with DHS/CBP in September 2006 to monitor and investigate the importation of 
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 11 

precursor chemicals into the United States.9

The project involved establishing an automated profiling system, which enabled agents to 

more effectively utilize existing CBP databases to target suspect chemical consignments. DEA 

provided CBP with information regarding precursor chemicals, suspect company names, and 

other intelligence derived from DEA investigations. This information was used by CBP in 

creating certain rules and conditions upon which to build profiles of importation cargo. These 

profiles assist in the detection of chemical shipments that may warrant closer inspection. 

 The program initially targeted containerized cargo 

consignments entering United States ports and evolved to monitor air cargo as well. 

In February 2008, the CBP moved to centralize and conduct their chemical cargo 

targeting from their National Targeting Center-Cargo (NTC-C; a CBP-Headquarters component) 

in Herndon, Virginia. DEA has since assigned personnel to the NTC-C. DEA regularly 

coordinates the development of information to and from the NTC-C, and that information is then 

disseminated to domestic and foreign offices for investigation. The program is national in scope, 

with particularly active engagement between DEA and CBP personnel at the ports in Los 

Angeles, Newark, Seattle, and Miami. The intelligence and information exchanged between 

DEA and CBP have significantly enhanced efforts to apprehend imported cargos of illicit 

chemicals.

As of September 30, 2010, this joint initiative has led to the seizure of approximately: 

• 83,121 kilograms of ephedra; 

• 15,576 kilograms of pseudoephedrine; 

• 500 kilograms of pseudoephedrine HCL; 

• 6,408 kilograms of ephedrine mixtures; 

• 484 kilograms of ephedrine tablets; 

• 149,800 kilograms of ethyl phenyl acetate;

• 841 kilograms of dimethcathinone (a Schedule I controlled substance analog); 

• 1,300 kilograms of phenylpropanolamine; 

• 218,064 kilograms of iodine; 

• 14,350 kilograms of red phosphorous; 

• 96,000 kilograms of yellow phosphorous; 

• 1 pound (750 tablets) of piperidine; 

• 5,000 liters of methylamine anhydrous; and 

• One tablet press. 

These results are encouraging, and together, the DEA and relevant DHS agencies are now 

examining other areas where the program could be instituted to track the importation of 

precursor chemicals.

In addition to coordination with the DHS and international partners, attacking trafficker 

organizations, and developing information, DEA is also providing training for host-country 

personnel around the globe. In FY 2010, DEA provided training to approximately 2,890 

 

9 This project was initially referred to as the DEA-CBP Long Beach Port Project because the prototype arrangement was launched at the port of 

Long Beach, California.
______________________________________________________________________________

Report to Congress on Use of HIDTA Funds to Combat Methamphetamine Trafficking Page 12 

Mexican police and other departmental officials in a variety of locations throughout the U.S., 

Mexico, and Central America. These training initiatives highlighted investigative, enforcement, 

and regulatory methods related to the reduction of methamphetamine trafficking. In addition, in 

FY 2010, 72 Mexican officials/law enforcement professionals received Clandestine Laboratory 

training from the DEA International Training Section. 

Further, in FY 2010, DEA, sometimes working in conjunction with the Department of 

State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, provided or sponsored 

chemical training to 440 foreign partners from 27 nations worldwide. This training consisted of 

courses such as Chemical Diversion Investigations, Clandestine Laboratory Training, Precursor 

Chemical Diversion, and Chemical Control. These courses provide the fundamentals needed to 

conduct effective investigations, and emphasize the importance of international collaboration. 

Finally, the partnership between the U.S. and Mexico also involves expanded drug 

information-sharing, including participation of vetted liaisons at the El Paso Intelligence Center 

(EPIC), as well as bilateral conferences and meetings. 

Certification of Methamphetamine Laboratory Seizure Reporting to El Paso Intelligence 

Center:

In accordance with the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006, the Director of ONDCP 

hereby certifies that the law enforcement entities participating in the HIDTA program are 

providing laboratory seizure data to the national clandestine laboratory database at EPIC. 

ONDCP has received confirmation from each of the HIDTA Directors that all clandestine 

methamphetamine laboratory seizures are being reported to EPIC. 

SUMMARY

ONDCP remains committed to reducing methamphetamine manufacturing, trafficking, 

and use, and has adopted rigorous performance management standards for each of the HIDTAs, 

requiring them to systematically report all methamphetamine seizures and the results of ongoing 

investigations. As indicated in this report, the HIDTA program maintains a specific focus on 

methamphetamine issues, and ONDCP works with its partners to ensure an appropriate level of 

attention is given to methamphetamine manufacturing, trafficking, and use. The standards with 

which HIDTAs comply are an integral part of the Performance Management Process (PMP) to 

which all HIDTAs must adhere. The PMP database has 12 core tables, and two of these 

specifically address methamphetamine issues and provide data for this report. The PMP Core 

Table #4 “Drugs Removed” lists drugs removed from the marketplace for the previous calendar 

year and includes other listed chemicals noted in this report. The PMP Core Table #6 captures 

methamphetamine laboratory seizures by size, which is also indicated in this report. 

ONDCP will continue to monitor data trends in methamphetamine production, 

trafficking, and use. By doing so, we will ensure appropriate strategies are in place to continue 

recent successes in disrupting and dismantling methamphetamine- and polydrug-trafficking 

organizations.