Performance and 

Accountability Report

Fiscal Year 2009

U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report i

This is the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

(PAR). The PAR is a comprehensive report that combines CBP’s Annual Performance Report with its audited 

financial statements, assurances on internal control, accountability reporting and agency assessments. CBP’s PAR 

provides financial and performance information that enable Congress and the public to assess the performance of 

the agency as it relates to the CBP mission.

CBP is America’s frontline border agency, we guard the boundaries of freedom and stand between the good citizens of our nation and those who want to do us harm. The CBP PAR discusses the agency’s strategic goals and 

objectives and provides a comparison of agency performance targets to actual performance results. The CBP PAR 

satisfies the reporting requirements of the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106–531), Government 

Performance and Results Act (Public Law No. 103–62), Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Public Law No. 

101–576), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–136, Financial Reporting Requirement, dated 

June 10, 2009, and other financial management statutes and reports.

The CBP PAR provides a summary of the agency’s major mission programs, including strategies. Additional information related to the specific programs, initiatives, tools and resources to achieve objectives can be found in the 

body of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Congressional Budget Justification for the President’s 

budget, which details information by DHS component.

About This Report
ii U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents 1

Commissioner’s Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Management’s Discussion and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Core Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Fiscal Year 2009 Statistical Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Drug Seizure Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Major Mission Programs and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Budget by Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Budget Resource Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Looking Ahead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Headquarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Component Organizations and Field Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Performance Goals and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Performance Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Fiscal Year 2009 Performance by Strategic Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Management Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

DHS Financial Accountability Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Federal Information Security Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Systems and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Self-Inspection Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Management Inspections Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Financial Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Overview of the Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Limitations of the Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Performance Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Performance Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Individual Performance Measure Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Financial Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Message from the Chief Financial Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Notes to Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Required Supplementary Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Other Accompanying Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Auditor Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report on Major Management Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Independent Auditor’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Management’s Response to the Independent Auditor’s Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Table of Contents
2 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

I am pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2009 Performance and Accountability Report for 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

CBP is the Nation’s single unified border agency, within the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, that protects our borders from terrorism, human and drug smuggling, illegal migration, and agricultural pests while simultaneously facilitating the 

flow of legitimate travel and trade. Millions of tons of cargo, as well as more than a 

million people each day, cross our borders for legitimate purposes. As our mission continues to grow, CBP continues to make progress toward better protecting our country 

from the threat of global terrorism, while we have continued our efforts to stem illegal 

immigration, drug trafficking, and alien smuggling. CBP continues to update and adjust 

programs to enhance overall efficiency and keep pace with the anticipated growth in the volume of cargo and 

passengers arriving at our Nation’s port of entry.

CBP’s accomplishments in Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 have been impressive. Through the implementation of the Western 

Hemisphere Travel Initiative, we now have a document requirement for individuals crossing our land border ports 

of entry. In 2009, CBP attained the goals of doubling the size of the Border Patrol workforce, now at a level of 

20,100 agents, and have now built 636.5 miles of fence along the Southwest Border. We have improved the amount 

and the quality of actionable intelligence and information getting to our frontline officers and have made CBP a 

model agency for emergency preparedness and response. We seized a record amount of drugs at and beyond our 

borders and expanded Unmanned Aircraft Systems operations to the Northern Border, and effectively used our air 

assets to address emerging threats, like semi-submersible vessels in the transit zone and ultra lights crossing our 

Southern Border. We also continued to strengthen our relationships with international partners to enhance and 

compliment our border security, especially with our neighbors to the north and to the south. We increased our 

enforcement efforts to combat southbound firearms and currency smuggling. Finally we have made great progress 

in working to put advanced tools and technologies into the hands of our frontline agents and officers.

CBP has made tremendous progress in our efforts to reduce cost, streamline processes, and increase transparency 

in order to address the requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. CBP is currently 

planning to execute major capital improvements at CBP-owned land ports of entry using funds allocated through 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Upon completion, these ports will be equipped with the 

latest inspection technology and enhanced security features necessary to meet CBP’s evolving mission. CBP also 

continues to enhance its Non-Intrusive Inspection technology to promote the effectiveness of its layered enforcement strategy, while keeping pace with the anticipated growth in the volume of cargo arriving at our Nation’s 

ports of entry. Tactical communications modernization activities have also been initiated to enhance the communication capabilities for CBP agents and officers.

CBP is committed to meeting Secretary Napolitano’s challenge to look at every aspect of our work and find creative, 

feasible ways to reduce costs and increase productivity by implementing Efficiency Review Initiatives throughCommissioner’s Message
Commissioner’s Message 3

out the agency. In response, CBP has developed new policies, internal controls, and procedures for performance 

tracking for the 20 DHS efficiency initiatives.

As a result of the FY 2009 Financial Statement Audit, CBP received an unqualified opinion on its full set of financial 

statements. This outstanding accomplishment demonstrates CBP’s discipline and accountability in the execution 

of its fiscal responsibilities as a steward of CBP programs, and reflects a fourth year of an unqualified opinion 

for CBP.

The CBP FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) includes financial and performance information 

that is reliable, complete, and addresses CBP’s compliance with financial management requirements. The PAR also 

identifies some areas for improvement.

CBP evaluated our management controls and financial management systems in compliance with the Federal 

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 and our internal controls over financial reporting as required by the 

Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act. As a result of this self-assessment, CBP identified three material weaknesses for FY 2009, and two instances of nonconformance, all are carryovers from 

previous years.

» Business Continuity

» Information Security 

» Custodial Revenue and Drawback Controls

» Financial Systems Security

» Core Financial Systems

While current CBP financial management systems do not substantially comply with Federal financial management 

systems requirements and the U.S. Government Standards General Ledger at the transaction level, CBP is modernizing its financial systems. CBP is in its sixth year of using SAP as an integrated solution for its budget, procurement, acquisition, asset management, finance and business reporting processes.

KPMG LLP conducted an independent audit of CBP’s FY 2009 Financial Statements. The material weaknesses they 

reported, which are cited in the Financial Section of this report, support those identified through CBP’s self-assertion process, with two exceptions:

•	 Material weakness on business continuity testing of Chief Financial Officer designated financial systems identified through CBP’s FY 2009 internal control evaluation process.

•	 Material weakness on information security related to US VISIT technology security issues that were identified 

by the Government Accountability Office in 2007.

Commissioner’s Message
4 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

CBP will work to improve deficiencies identified in the Performance and Accountability Report and will put in 

place timetables for corrective action to ensure future compliance. We remain committed each year to share information on our financial and program performance.

I would like to congratulate the entire CBP workforce for all of our achievements over the past year and the job 

performed every day to protect our Nation. Our success would not have been possible without the tireless efforts 

and unyielding work ethic of the men and women of CBP.

Jayson P. Ahern, Acting Commissioner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

December 9, 2009

Commissioner’s Message
Management’s 

Discussion and 

Analysis
6 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Mission

CBP is the frontline border security agency within DHS charged with the priority mission of preventing terrorists 

and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. 

CBP prevents narcotics, agricultural pests and smuggled goods from entering the country and also identifies and 

arrests individuals with outstanding criminal warrants. CBP leverages its enforcement and intelligence-gathering 

capabilities to execute the mission of border and airspace security. More than 58,600 CBP employees manage, control, and protect the Nation’s borders at, and between, the official ports of entry. CBP is responsible for protecting 

more than 5,000 miles of border with Canada, 1,900 miles of border with Mexico, and 95,000 miles of shoreline. 

CBP’s mission is vitally important to the protection of the American people and the national economy.

Core Values

Vigilance is how we ensure the safety of all Americans. We are continuously watchful and alert to deter, detect, and 

prevent threats to our Nation. We demonstrate courage and valor in the protection of our Nation.

Service to Country is embodied in the work we do. We are dedicated to defending and upholding the 

Constitution and the laws of the United States. The American people have entrusted us to protect the homeland 

and defend liberty.

Integrity is our cornerstone. We are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. Our actions bring honor to 

ourselves, our agency, and our country.

Fiscal Year 2009 Statistical Highlights

•	 Ports of entry: 327 (includes 15 preclearance stations)

•	 Border Patrol sectors: 20 (with 139 Border Patrol stations nationwide and 32 permanent checkpoints)

•	 Air units: 46 (2 Training locations and 3 Radar/Communications locations)

•	 Marine units: 67 (1 Training Location and 1 Maintenance location)

•	 Trade entries processed: 24.8 million

•	 Total revenue collected: $29 billion (includes custodial and entity revenue)

•	 Illegal narcotics seized: 2.4 million pounds (represents narcotics held by CBP until disposal or destruction)

•	 Illegal alien apprehensions between the ports of entry: 556,041

•	 Inadmissible aliens interdicted at the ports of entry: 224,680

Overview of CBP
7

•	 Pedestrians and passengers processed: 361 million

•	 Conveyances processed: over 109 million

•	 Aircraft passengers processed: over 87 million

Drug Seizure Statistics

Note: The following amounts represent total CBP seizures, including 

amounts transferred to other government agencies for disposition.

•	 Number of pounds of cocaine seized: 135,943

•	 Number of pounds of heroin seized: 2,015

•	 Number of pounds of marijuana seized: 4,330,475

•	 Number of pounds of methamphetamine seized: 6,135

Major Mission Programs and Strategies

As America’s frontline border security agency, CBP has established programs and strategies designed to enhance 

border security and other mission critical functions by operating as a fully integrated information-driven agency. 

CBP strives to maximize partnerships on the home front and abroad by promoting an effective management infrastructure that fosters the highest standards of integrity. CBP has built a layered strategy using risk-based approaches 

and performance management techniques that maximize CBP’s strengths.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

During Fiscal Year 2009, CBP received a supplemental appropriation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, Public Law 111–5 (ARRA). ARRA made $680 million available to CBP until the end of Fiscal Year 2010 

for infrastructure investment. ARRA allocated $160 million for the procurement and deployment of non-intrusive 

inspection (NII) systems and tactical communications equipment and radios; $100 million for the expedited 

development and deployment of border security technology on the southwest border; and $420 million for the 

planning, management, design, alteration and construction of CBP-owned border land ports of entry (LPOEs).

Non-Intrusive Inspection

CBP has developed a multilayered screening process to identify, target, and inspect high-risk shipments. An examination of high risk shipments that meet certain identifying criteria includes scanning with large-scale non-intrusive equipment and radiation detection equipment. CBP uses the Automated Targeting System (ATS), a rules-based 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP

CBP Border Patrol drug seizure.
8 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

computer system to automatically review the electronic bill of lading/manifest data of more than 11 million containers before they arrive at U.S. point of entry (POE), allowing CBP to flag containers that are considered highrisk. NII equipment is then used to scan the contents of those containers identified as high-risk or those randomly 

selected by CBP officers for further review.

CBP officers use large-scale NII equipment, such as gamma ray and X-ray imaging systems, to scan the contents 

of entire containers. These units scan the interior of a full-size, 40-foot container, in less than one minute. Some 

of the currently deployed high-energy X-ray systems can penetrate more than one foot of steel. This equipment is 

effective at identifying a variety of illegal activity and contraband, including human smuggling, narcotics, weapons, and explosives. Large-scale NII equipment is deployed at nearly all U.S. land border crossings and seaports.

CBP uses radiation portal monitors (RPMs) to scan cargo containers for radioactive material. Using RPMs, cargo 

is scanned in vehicle-processing lanes at land border ports, as it is off-loaded from ships and aircraft at seaports 

and select airports, and at express consignment facilities. Officers also use personal radiation detectors (PRDs) and 

radiation isotope identification devices (RIIDs) to scan for and identify signs of radioactive materials as they perform inspections on smaller vehicles and shipments. Special high-tech tools such as densitometers and fiber-optic 

scopes allow officers to peer inside suspicious containers. Finally, if necessary, containers are opened and unloaded 

for a more thorough carton-by-carton inspection.

Secure Border Initiative and SBInet

CBP’s Secure Border Initiative (SBI) is a comprehensive multi-year plan established by the DHS to secure our 

Nation’s borders and reduce illegal immigration. SBI integrates and unifies systems, programs and policies needed 

to secure the border and enforce customs and immigration laws.

SBI’s primary functions focus on developing, deploying and integrating both technology solutions and tactical 

infrastructure to assist frontline CBP personnel and their border security operations. The development of these 

border security resources is managed within the SBInet and SBI Tactical Infrastructure (TI) Programs. SBInet is 

responsible for the development, installation, and integration of technology solutions. The SBI TI Program will 

maintain physical components designed to secure the border, and consists of roads, pedestrian and vehicle fencing, and lights.

The CBP SBInet Program Office serves as the executive agent for the DHS SBInet program. SBInet’s strategic goals are 

to (1) ensure border security by providing resources and capabilities to gain and maintain control of the Nation’s 

borders at and between the POEs; (2) lead the development and deployment of a Common Operating Picture 

(COP); and (3) provide responsible acquisition management.

In FY 2009, SBInet continued deployment of its COP. The COP provides uniform data to all DHS agencies and is 

interoperable with stakeholders external to DHS. The COP enables users to make sound tactical, operational and 

strategic decisions; quickly inform CBP and other DHS components of strategic implications of mission success; 

Overview of CBP
9

rapidly exchange strategic, operational, and tactical information with supporting commands and interagency 

organizations; effectively plan, execute and evaluate multiple mission events; and effectively interface with DHS 

partners to satisfy mission requirements.

DHS’s comprehensive plan to gain control of the Southwest Border includes additional substantial investments in 

technology, infrastructure, and enforcement personnel. The deployment of these resources will depend on the 

threat levels, operational needs, and current assets in a given area along the border.

As efforts continue to deploy tactical infrastructure and technology solutions across the borders of the United States, 

SBI remains committed to implementing border security tools that will increase the effectiveness and efficiency 

of CBP’s agents and officers.

Land Ports of Entry

CBP identified and prioritized repairs, enhancements and replacement projects needed to modernize northern and 

southern border ports to sustain evolving operational requirements. Current facilities were designed to meet earlier mission requirements and have site configurations that restrict the flow of traffic, or pose constraints that limit 

the ability to deploy the optimal complement of inspection technology. CBP received $420 million in ARRA funds 

to address modernization needs for CBP’ LPOEs. These funds are targeted to replace 23 of the 43 LPOEs currently 

in CBP’s inventory. CBP’s strategy focuses on increasing the quality of facility performance and facility-related services. The ultimate goal is to improve these critical assets to better meet CBP’s mission to secure the nation’s border 

while facilitating legitimate travel and trade.

National Border Patrol Strategy

CBP’s strategy to secure our Nation’s borders between the 

POEs is prescribed largely in the National Border Patrol 

Strategy. The area between the POEs consist of miles of 

open space, deserts, waterways, forests, and prairies—

making our Nation’s borders vulnerable to the threats 

of terrorism and to exploitation by human smugglers as 

well as smugglers of drugs and other illicit contraband. 

The strategic goal of CBP’s Office of Border Patrol (OBP) 

is to gain, maintain, and expand effective control of our 

Nation’s borders between the POEs. To assist in achieving its goal, the Border Patrol implemented the National 

Border Patrol Strategy that articulates a clear, strategic 

mission and program purpose to establish and maintain 

border security. The five main objectives of the National Border Patrol Strategy are the following:

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP

CBP Border Patrol agent apprehends an individual near 

the U.S. Border.
10 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

•	 Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their weapons as they attempt to enter illegally 

between the POEs;

•	 Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement;

•	 Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other contraband;

•	 Leverage “Smart Border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement personnel; and

•	 Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve the quality of life and economic vitality of 

these areas.

The primary goal of the National Border Patrol Strategy is effective control of the border, which is achieved by 

deploying the right mix of resources based on threat potential, vulnerabilities, associated risk, and operational 

dynamics to reasonably ensure that CBP is able to achieve the following:

•	 Detect an illegal entry into the United States between the POEs;

•	 Identify and classify the threat level associated with that illegal entry;

•	 Respond to the area of the illegal entry; and

•	 Bring the situation to a law enforcement resolution.

These four elements must be accomplished to establish effective control of the borders. A proper mix of technology, personnel, infrastructure (to include pedestrian and vehicle fencing), checkpoint operations, and rapid 

response capabilities will facilitate the detection of illegal cross-border activity. The appropriate mix of these components varies depending on the challenges of the focus area and a dynamic border environment.

Focused Border Security Enforcement Initiatives

The appropriate mix for deployment of Border Patrol resources is determined through OBP’s Operational 

Requirements Budget Based Program (ORBBP). ORBBP is a rigorous and comprehensive methodology that takes 

a risk-based approach in determining resource requirements, deployments and operational tactics in a dynamic 

operational environment. ORBBP allows field commanders to examine and assess all factors, current and future, 

internal and external, affecting border security and ensures the engagement of the appropriate resources and tactics against current and projected threats and vulnerabilities. Using this methodology, OBP met or exceeded all of 

its performance targets for border Miles under Effective Control for prior and current fiscal years.

Through the deployment of the right mix of new resources and enforcement operations supported by intelligence 

activities, the Border Patrol increased the FY 2008 miles of border under effective control from 757 miles to 939 

miles at the end of FY 2009, a 24 percent increase.

Overview of CBP
11

Intelligence Driven Operations: Border Intelligence Centers

The mission of Border Intelligence Centers (BICs) is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons, smugglers and 

their contraband, and illegal aliens from entering the United States through the real-time collection, analysis and 

dissemination of tactical intelligence. Originally developed as the Command and Control Intelligence Coordination 

Center in the San Diego Sector, BICs represent a significant enhancement to CBP’s ability to rapidly collect, analyze, 

disseminate and share intelligence information.

The BICs collect and analyze information through the use of databases, operational statistics, other agency intelligence reports and interviews with apprehended illegal aliens and smugglers, as well as through the use of geospatial decision support tools. The products produced by the BICs support the implementation of coordinated border 

enforcement operations which result in more effective and efficient deployment of resources to address evolving 

threats and vulnerabilities. Actionable intelligence is forwarded to decision makers at all levels within CBP and is 

shared with DHS components and other law enforcement partners. These efforts support CBP’s commitment to 

become a fully integrated intelligence-driven organization.

Integrated Border Enforcement Teams

The Integrated Border Enforcement Teams (IBET) operate as intelligence-driven enforcement teams comprised of 

U.S. and Canadian federal, state/provincial, and local law enforcement personnel. The IBETs incorporate an integrated mobile response capability (air, land, and marine) designed to provide collaboration and support top participating law enforcement agencies and to serve as a force multiplier to maximize border enforcement efforts in 

support of CBP’s National Strategy. IBETs consist of five core agencies with law enforcement responsibilities within 

the border area. These agencies share information and intelligence, coordinate operations, and share resources 

to maximize border enforcement efficiency and effectiveness. The participating agencies include CBP OBP, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) 

and Canadian Border Services Agency.

Since their inception, IBETs have enhanced border integrity and security on both sides of the U.S. and Canadian 

border by identifying, investigating, and interdicting persons and criminal organizations that pose a threat to the 

national security of both the United States and Canada. There are 24 IBETs in 15 IBET Regions. Each of these IBETs 

actively share information, and work bi-national and joint enforcement operations aimed at securing the integrity 

of the United States-Canada border.

Threat-Based Surge Operations

OBP has continued to implement and fully utilize surge operations to maintain or gain effective control of the 

border through improved enforcement. The Border Patrol’s strategy for implementing surge operations across the 

southwest border is based on threats, risks, vulnerabilities and the resources of our partner agencies. These operations increase the probability of apprehending terrorists and the weapons they attempt to move illegally across 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
12 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

the border by entering the United States between the POEs. These operations also help to reduce crime in border 

communities. Surge operations are implemented to proactively address actionable intelligence, seasonal migration 

trends, and other trends in cross-border criminal activity.

Operation Arizona Denial

Operation Arizona (AZ) Denial commenced on October 1, 2008 and operated through the end of FY 2009. 

Operation AZ Denial was designed to promote a level of deterrence to incrementally establish and maintain 

operational control to prioritized areas of the border within the Tucson Sector, which experiences the highest level 

of illegal entry attempts. The purpose of the operation is to augment the Tucson Sector through the continued 

expansion of increased levels of effective control, and to support the mission of anti-terrorism. To ensure that 

achieved gains are sustained, resources such as SBInet, tactical infrastructure enhancements, and station manpower 

enhancements, will be deployed to these areas. Arizona Denial uses the following four faceted enforcement strategies to gain operational control of prioritized areas of the border:

•	 Breaking the Smuggling Cycle: Separates illegal aliens granted voluntary return from the smuggling organizations waiting for them upon their return. These programs include the AZ Denial Prosecutions Initiative 

(ADPI), Alien Transfer and Exit Program (ATEP), and Interior Repatriation Program.

•	 Operational Coordination: Creates partnerships with law enforcement agencies and other stakeholders to 

coordinate enforcement efforts in support of sector operations.

•	 Intelligence Fusion: Brings CBP and partner agency intelligence personnel together in a single center in which 

information can be fused, analyzed, and used to create tactical and operational intelligence-driven operations.

•	 Focus Enhanced Enforcement Operations: Rather than being spread throughout the Sector, resource enhancements are focused in support of operations in a priority area. Each individual enforcement assignment, operation, and initiative is used to address one or more of six prioritized border areas of focus.

Operation AZ Denial 2009 provides the roadmap that establishes station and Sector priorities for 

operational execution.

Operation Streamline

Operation Streamline, an enhanced prosecution effort, is one component of an enforcement model with the 

desired outcome of reducing illegal cross-border activity by delivering consequences and deterrence. The effort 

is a collaboration between personnel and resources from DHS, which includes CBP’s OBP and Office of the Chief 

Counsel and ICE’s Office of Detention and Removal; as well as resources from the Department of Justice (DOJ), 

which includes the U.S. Federal Courts, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the U.S. Marshals 

Service. Based on threat levels and illegal entrant activity assessments in the border areas, the OBP focuses its 

resources on designated zones to ensure the probability of apprehension, detention, criminal prosecution, incarceration, and the ultimate removal of illegal entrants. All aliens in violation of the law that are apprehended within 

the designated zones are charged and criminally prosecuted for violation of 8 U.S.C. 1325 (illegal entry), with a 

Overview of CBP
13

potential sentence of up to 180 days. The average sentence ranges from 15 to 90 days for illegal entrant aliens with 

no prior history.

Operation Streamline began on December 6, 2005 in the Del Rio Sector as a result of increasing apprehensions 

within this sector, particularly “Other Than Mexicans” (OTMs), who were exploiting the “catch and release process.” Since inception in Del Rio, Operation Streamline has contributed to the dramatic decrease in apprehensions 

in the sector.

Additional sectors have also implemented Operation Streamline and credit the method for its deterrence of illegal 

entrants. In December 2006, Operation Streamline was implemented along a small section of the U.S./Mexico 

Border in Yuma Sector as a tool to mitigate the border violence/assaults. By June 2007, Yuma Sector expanded the 

operation to encompass a larger section of its southern border with Mexico. Operation Streamline was expanded 

to Laredo Sector in October 2007 to address increasing entries in specific border zones. The Tucson Sector initiated 

Operation Streamline in January 2008 along the U.S./Mexico border in an effort to minimize the risk of injury and 

death to illegal aliens within the sector’s Area of Responsibility (AOR). Finally, the Rio Grande Valley Sector implemented Operation Streamline program in June 2008, along a small section of the U.S./Mexico border, and during 

Fiscal Year 2009 expanded it to cover a larger section of the border within their eastern area of operations.

Caribbean Border Interagency Group

The mission of the Caribbean Border Interagency Group (CBIG) is to optimize joint efforts and serve as a forcemultiplier for our DHS and participating DOJ partners as we work to prevent, detect, and interdict the entry of 

terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, illegal migrants, and illegal narcotics across shared areas of responsibility. 

These partners include CBP’s OBP, Office of Air and Marine (OAM), and Office of Field Operations (OFO), the 

USCG, ICE and the U. S. Attorney’s Office.

CBIG is an effort that embodies the principles of integration and collaboration on which DHS was created. The 

partnership developed an innovative prosecution template. This process ensures that enforcement efforts include 

gathering evidence sufficient for successful prosecution of violators of maritime or immigration laws. The USCG’s 

development of biometric capability at sea is also a key accomplishment and is critical to identifying and categorizing those apprehended as threats. Prosecutions have increased 548% in 2009 as compared to FY06 due to CBIG 

standard operating prosecution procedures. Due to this collaborative effort, estimated migrant flow through the 

Mona Channel has decreased 87% (FY 05: 10,053 compared to FY 09: 1,283), since 2005.

Operation Stonegarden

Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) provides funding to designated localities to enhance cooperation and coordination 

between Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States 

borders along routes of ingress from the International borders, to include travel corridors in the States bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as States and territories with International water borders. OPSG is designed to 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
14 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

incorporate the services of State, Local, and Tribal (SLT) law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enhancing 

border security and preventing the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons of mass effect, while at the same time 

mitigating the conspicuous effects of human trafficking organizations.

The Border Patrol, with its unique operational knowledge of effective border enforcement, leads Operation 

Stonegarden’s locality eligibility and selection process. In order to analyze a level of risk, two primary factors were 

considered: threat and vulnerability. When determining threat, one looks to determine the catastrophic impact 

(the level of damage, death, disruption, etc.) that would result by the action or incident, and the ability and intent 

of the terrorist organization to commit an act. To determine vulnerability, the likelihood, or opportunity, for the 

action or incident to occur is considered. Threat and vulnerability can vary significantly, so by giving each a value 

based on specific factors the risk may be calculated for planning purposes.

Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 program highlights include:

FY 2008

•	 $60 million appropriated for FY 2008

•	 15 States eligible

•	 64 Counties or equivalent operations received awards totaling $60 million

FY 2009 

•	 $60 million appropriated for FY 2009

•	 38 States/Territories eligible

•	 88 Counties or equivalent operations received awards totaling $60 million

•	 $30 million supplemental appropriation for FY 2009

•	 30 counties or equivalent operations eligible to receive FY 2009 supplemental award

•	 29 counties or equivalent operations received awards totaling $30 million

Forward Operating Bases

The use of Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) began in the Tucson Sector to address remote crossing points that, 

historically, have been difficult for agents to patrol because of the vast distances and time involved to access these 

areas. FOBs have proven to be beneficial in the detection and deterrence of illegal entries in the areas in which they 

have been deployed and are now utilized in the Yuma and Del Rio Sectors.

The use of FOBs directly supports the OBP’s mission of gaining, maintaining, and expanding operational control 

of our nation’s borders. As OBP continues to gain control of the border, illegal migration activities and smuggler 

Overview of CBP
15

tactics shift in an attempt to identify and exploit vulnerabilities in border security measures, particularly in the 

more remote areas of the U.S. border. Strategically placed FOBs provide a cost-effective, secure staging facility that 

allows agents to be forward deployed in proximity to the border, thus improving our capability to rapidly respond 

to and counter these shifts in illicit cross border traffic.

Border Patrol Checkpoint Operations

Border Patrol traffic checkpoint operations play a significant strategic and tactical role in the support of the National 

Border Patrol Strategy. The Border Patrol currently operates a combination of 32 permanent and 125 tactical traffic 

checkpoints nationwide as part of a three-tiered, defense-in-depth strategy to secure our Nation’s border between 

the POEs. This strategy involves the use of line-watch operations on the border, roving patrol operations near the 

border, and traffic checkpoints on highways leading away from the border.

The primary targets of an effective Border Patrol traffic checkpoint operation are immigration violators. Specific 

operational emphasis is placed on terrorists and terrorist weapons, criminals, and smugglers of humans and 

narcotics who have successfully evaded detection at or between the POEs. Traffic checkpoints deter criminal elements from using major traffic arteries as egress routes from the border, which results in improved effectiveness 

of line-watch and roving patrol operations. Smugglers use highway infrastructure to further the illegal entry of 

their smuggling operations into the United States and away from the border. Highways provide a rapid and cheap 

means of transporting illicit cargo away from the bulk of enforcement assets and to the intended destination. 

Traffic checkpoints deny routes of egress to the criminal element and force them to take alternate avenues that 

leave them more susceptible to detection.

Border Patrol agents at the checkpoint are highly trained to identify suspect vehicles and subjects through a combination of visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, and logic cues during vehicle and interview inspection. OBP also 

employs specialized resources – such as canines trained to sniff out concealed humans and narcotics, radiation 

detection equipment, and Vehicle and Cargo Inspection Systems – that enhance agent ability to prevent illegal 

aliens and contraband from proceeding into the interior of the United States.

During FY 2009, the following border enforcement successes were attributed to OBP traffic checkpoint 

operations nationwide:

•	 15,846 individuals arrested (2.85 percent of total Border Patrol apprehensions) 

•	 3,921 cases referred for prosecution

•	 4,694 narcotic seizure events and incidents (29.44 percent of the total Border Patrol narcotic seizures)

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
16 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

National Targeting Center

National Targeting Center - Passenger

Created to be the single point of reference for CBP anti-terrorism efforts, the National Targeting Center – Passenger 

(NTC-P) plays a vital role in the identification of individuals who pose a national security concern at 327 U.S. POEs 

and 139 Border Patrol stations throughout the United States. While the vast majority of travelers and goods are 

legitimate, NTC-P is designed to carefully examine the small minority of those who may be involved in terrorism 

or its attendant concerns (e.g. money laundering, facilitation of travel, etc). The facility is staffed with both permanent and Temporary Duty (TDY) analysts as well as several inter-agency liaisons to provide 24x7 tactical targeting 

and analytical research support for CBP anti-terrorism efforts.

In addition to providing the field, CBP headquarters, and other U.S. government and law enforcement agencies 

with in-depth research on suspected terrorist travel, trends, and associates, NTC-P has expanded its operations 

over the last fiscal year to include:

•	 A training initiative at 13 ports of entry focusing on the utilization of the Intelligence and Operations 

Framework System (formerly “Targeting Framework”) to create events and streamline passenger processing;

•	 Linkage to Interpol’s Stolen/Lost Travel Document (SLTD) database to screen for fraudulent document use;

•	 Assistance to the Immigration Advisory Teams operating out of nine foreign airports to prevent the boarding 

of those who will be inadmissible upon arrival to the United States; and

•	 Development of and linkage to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) program for Visa Waiver 

country applicants by manually vetting ESTA applicants with potential threats to national security.

Additionally, NTC-P conducts liaison work with the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Central Intelligence 

Agency (CIA), ICE, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Office of 

Intelligence, Federal Air Marshals, Department of State (DOS), USCG and Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(CIS) Fraud Detection and National Security unit.

These programs and areas of innovation establish NTC-P as CBP’s preeminent anti-terrorism facility. It is a prime 

example of pushing our zone of security outward – keeping terrorism at “arms length” by screening passengers 

before they arrive at the U.S. border.

NTC-P’s international links have been expanded with our partners in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Interpol. 

In FY 2009, NTC-P established a partnership with other foreign government entities and DHS is in negotiations 

with additional countries to conduct joint operations headquartered out of NTC-P. While these other centers have 

varying missions and levels of access to the kinds of data that NTC-P has, the operational exchange of information 

and the development of like rules has increased the common border security of the United States and participating 

nations. This partnership has been further enhanced by the strengthening of data sharing agreements between the 

United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Mexico.

Overview of CBP
17

Finally, NTC-P has worked diligently to develop links within the intelligence community to apply knowledge 

and tools that can enhance border security through data verification and other techniques to corroborate identity information and gain insight into commercial entities. NTC-P continues to be a participant at many working 

groups whose main goal is to streamline and facilitate the sharing of information to ensure the continued safety 

of the U.S. commercial passenger environment. In furtherance of this goal, all NTC-P Watch Commanders have 

been trained in the Incident Command System network.

National Targeting Center - Cargo

The National Targeting Center - Cargo (NTC-C) is a critical node in CBP’s layered enforcement strategy. NTC-C 

supports CBP cargo-related activities by proactively targeting and coordinating examinations of high-risk cargo in 

all modes of transportation; provides high-quality research to Container Security Initiative (CSI), Secure Freight 

Initiative (SFI), domestic analytical units, and other government agencies; and implements new proactive methodologies. NTC-C employs a specialized permanent and TDY staff to provide 24x7 tactical and strategic cargo 

researches in all modes. NTC-C staff is comprised of CBP officers, Import Specialists, Agriculture Specialists, 

program managers, and scientists. NTC-C liaisons with officers representing the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Commerce (DOC), ICE, and Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA).

NTC-C identifies companies and cargo linked to identified terrorists and creates Memoranda of Information 

Received (MOIRs), The Enforcement Communication System (TECS) records, ATS user-defined rules, ATS notes, 

and Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) nominations. NTC-C conducts user-defined queries for 

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), Weapons of Mass Effect (WME), Agro-terrorism, and Bio-terrorism threats. 

NTC-C identifies shipments linked to terrorism, narcotics, and trade-based money laundering. NTC-C conducts 

research on seized or detained documents from countries of interest relating to terrorism, organized crime, and 

human smuggling to develop additional targets and makes enforcement referrals to ICE.

NTC-C enhances remote targeting operations in support of the CSI, supports and coordinates the International 

Container Security (ICS) component of SFI, and supports domestic and CSI/SFI port targeting. During FY 2009, the 

CSI and SFI operations housed at NTC-C became stand-alone operations with staffing and management structures 

within NTC-C, providing additional support staffing as workload demands increase.

In FY 2009, NTC-C significantly expanded outbound targeting operations. In support of the DHS mandate to 

increase southbound validations of weapons shipments to Mexico, NTC-C is aggressively targeting outbound and 

in-transit shipments to Mexico for weapons. NTC-C coordinates with CBP ports to conduct examinations and 

with the CBP Mexico Attaché to verify the legitimacy of the shipment and anticipated arrival of the shipment by 

the Government of Mexico (GOM). NTC-C also reviews outbound and in-transit cargo destined to other high risk 

countries such as controlled chemicals and dual-use equipment used in the production of WMD/WMEs.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
18 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

In FY 2009, NTC-C significantly expanded narcotics and precursor targeting. NTC-C identifies drug trends, conducts tactical post seizure analysis, targets those involved and disseminates intelligence products to CBP, DHS, 

and other government agencies (OGAs). In addition to targeting for heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, the NTC-C 

narcotics unit also has nationwide responsibility for targeting precursor chemicals used for the production of 

methamphetamines, ecstasy, and other dangerous drugs. NTC-C houses the CBP National Post Seizure Analysis 

Team (NPSAT). NPSAT is comprised of personnel from OFO, the Office of Intelligence and Operations (OIOC), 

OBP and OAM. NPSAT is institutionalizing and expanding upon the successes of the NTC-C narcotics unit. NTC-C 

is also aggressively targeting shipments originating in or transiting Mexico for narcotics and precursor chemicals 

utilizing risk management principles. Targeting is based upon post seizure analysis, intelligence received from the 

GOM, ICE, DEA, OGAs, Mexican seizure data, and Mexico 24-Hour Rule data.

Under the International Cargo Targeting Fellowship Program, CBP supports the assistance of other countries in 

developing systems to manage anti-terrorism and security threats by hosting foreign customs officials. The objective is an exchange of information and the refinement of targeting methodologies to identify high-risk cargo 

shipments. Benefits include working together to effectively reduce terrorism and security risks, maximizing the 

security and facilitation of the international supply chain, and providing an additional layer in CBP’s multi-layered 

defense strategy to enhance national security. Throughout 2008, NTC-C and Japan Customs and Tariff Bureau 

Officers engaged in high-risk cargo shipment collaborations. The European Union joined the program when 

the first representatives from Sweden and the Netherlands began in April 2008. In FY 2009, the International 

Cargo Targeting Fellowship program was enhanced by outstanding cooperation with Mexico. In April 2009, two 

representatives from the United Mexican States’ Tax Administration Service (TAS) began working at NTC-C on a 

weekly basis.

In FY 2009, the NTC-C Agricultural/Biological Terrorism Countermeasures (ABTC) Team increased efforts to 

identify and target shipments and subjects that pose potentially significant risks. NTC-C, Agriculture Program 

Trade Liaisons (APTL) staff collaborate with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), USDA, and OGAs utilizing the Agricultural Resource Atlas (AgRA) data to identify entities who work with or store biological materials. Law enforcement, government, and commercial databases are used to expand upon the AgRA data to target 

entities with derogatory information that have the capability and knowledge to utilize biological materials for 

nefarious purposes.

Office of Air and Marine

CBP’s Office of Air and Marine (OAM) secures the borders against terrorists, acts of terrorism, drug smuggling, and 

other illegal activity by operating air and marine branches at strategic locations along the borders. Multi-mission 

aircraft with advanced sensors and communication equipment provide powerful interdiction and mobility capabilities directly in support of detecting, identifying, and interdicting suspect conveyances, and apprehending suspect terrorists and smugglers. OAM maximizes the capabilities of air and marine assets through a cohesive joint 

Overview of CBP
19

air operations model for centralized command and control and a responsive and integrated control system for 

decentralized execution.

OAM works in partnerships with numerous stakeholders in performing its missions throughout the continental 

United States and the Western Hemisphere. This includes domestic operations at the borders; source, transit, 

and arrival zone operations; interior law enforcement support; and support to other agencies. Truly crosscutting 

within DHS and the Federal Government as a whole, the unique capabilities of OAM serve as both a standalone 

entity and as a force multiplier. To fulfill the CBP mission of border protection, the focus has expanded from a 

concentration on the southern border to a broader initiative that includes all of our Nation’s borders.

Container Security Initiative

Maritime containerized shipping is a critical component 

of global trade because most of the world’s manufactured goods are transported in maritime cargo containers. In the United States, almost half of incoming trade 

(by value) arrives by containers onboard ships. More 

than 9 million cargo containers arrive on ships and are 

off-loaded at U.S. seaports each year.

Through the Container Security Initiative (CSI), sea cargo 

containers that pose a risk for terrorism are identified 

and examined at foreign ports before they are shipped 

to the United States. CBP receives the bill of lading and 

manifest data on sea containers 24 hours before the containers are loaded on vessels destined for the United States. Through partnerships with foreign governments, CSI 

deploys teams of CBP officials to work with their host nation counterparts to screen containers that pose a terrorism risk. CSI extends the U.S. zone of security outward so that America’s borders are the last line of defense, not 

the first.

CSI is a reciprocal program that offers participating countries the opportunity to send their customs officers to 

major U.S. POEs to target ocean-going containerized cargo being exported to their countries. Likewise, CBP shares 

information on a bilateral basis with its CSI partners.

CSI consists of three core elements:

•	 Using intelligence and automated advance targeting information to identify and target containers that pose a 

risk for terrorism;

•	 Prescreening those containers that pose a risk at the port of departure before they arrive at U.S. ports; and

•	 Using state-of-the-art detection technology to scan containers that pose a risk.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP

CBP uses the mobile VACIS to inspect cargo contents 

at the POE.
20 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

In FY 2009, CBP officers conducted operations in 58 CSI ports overseas. These CSI ports account for approximately 

86 percent of cargo containers destined for the United States. During the year, CSI continued to transition CSI TDY 

personnel to permanent status and place resources at NTC-C to reduce the number of CBP officers deployed. CSI 

will continue to evaluate and right-size several CSI ports to achieve desired staffing levels.

As of September 30, 2009, 33 foreign administrations have joined or have committed to join the CSI program. 

Strong support from countries in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, North and South America, and the Caribbean 

ensures that CSI will continue to receive cooperation from foreign customs administrations in those areas.

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) and its focus on strengthening supply chain security is an 

important layer in CBP’s cargo enforcement strategy. C-TPAT asks its member partners to ensure the integrity of 

their security practices and communicate and verify the security guidelines of their business partners within the 

supply chain.

C-TPAT requires trade community participants to document and validate their supply chain security procedures in 

relation to the program’s criteria. C-TPAT Supply Chain Security Specialists (SCSS) and C-TPAT participants jointly 

conduct validations of the supply chain security procedures. The validation process is essential to verifying the 

company’s commitment to C-TPAT.

In addition to conducting validations, C-TPAT’s cadre of SCSSs provide advice and guidance to trade community 

representatives on supply chain security issues, identify supply chain security vulnerabilities, and monitor company initiatives that address those vulnerabilities. Validations conducted by SCSSs determine the accuracy and 

effectiveness of companies’ security profiles as applied to their foreign and domestic supply chains.

For calendar year 2009, C-TPAT identified 2,888 companies for which the SAFE Port Act requires a validation to 

be conducted. Of these 2,888 validations, 1,014 were initial validations and 1,874 were revalidations. In addition, 

C-TPAT identified over 500 Mexican highway carriers who require validations. As of September 30, 2009, C-TPAT 

has validated 2,572 companies. Of the completed validations, 888 were initial validations and 1,684 were revalidations. Currently, there are 510 initial validations along with 394 revalidations in progress.

During 2009, C-TPAT also performed the necessary field work and testing which enabled CBP to sign a mutual 

recognition arrangement (MRA) with Japan Customs and Tariff Bureau’s (CTB) Authorized Economic Operator 

(AEO) industry partnership program and laid the foundation for the signing of two additional MRAs in 2010 

(Korea and Singapore).

The C-TPAT program also developed a comprehensive Mexico strategy in 2009 which included conducting a 

series of workshops along the Southwest border, developing an operational plan to TDY SCSS to select southwest 

Overview of CBP
21

border ports later in the year to verify compliance with minimum security criteria and selecting high risk Mexico 

manufacturers to confirm security measures in place.

C-TPAT also organized and executed the annual trade conference in New Orleans which involved more than 

1,200 company representatives. The program also organized and executed the first ever C-TPAT Northern Border 

Highway Carrier conference which involved more than 400 company representatives and provided information to 

many companies which have never attended a formal C-TPAT conference.

C-TPAT expects to meet its current and projected validation workload for the next two years, but continued membership growth will require CBP to re-examine program resources. C-TPAT will continue to strengthen the validation process, support foreign customs administrations as they stand up their own industry partnership programs 

and apply persistent pressure on the government of China to allow SCSSs to conduct validations in China or allow 

CBP to conduct a third round of joint validations with China Customs.

Secure Freight Initiative

The Secure Freight Initiative (SFI) incorporates a three-pronged approach to enhance supply chain security that 

includes the International Container Security (ICS) program, the development of a regulation to require additional data elements for improved high-risk targeting (known as Security Filing 10+2), and initiatives to identify 

and acquire technology enhancements to strengthen cargo scanning and cargo risk assessment capabilities. The 

Security Filing portion of SFI will be addressed in the “Looking Ahead” section of this report.

International Container Security Initiative

ICS uses an integrated scanning system, consisting of RPMs provided by the Department of Energy (DOE) and NII 

imaging systems provided by CBP to scan containers as they move through foreign ports. Using optical character recognition technology, data from these systems are integrated and provided to CBP officers, who determine 

whether the container should be referred to the host nation for secondary examination before lading. For the CBP 

officers, SFI/ICS provides additional data points that are used in conjunction with advanced manifest data to assess 

the risk of each container coming to the United States.

On October 12, 2007, CBP met the legislative requirement of the SAFE Port Act of 2006 to establish a pilot program 

in three foreign ports that couples NII and RPMs to scan all U.S.-bound containers laden in those ports for radioactive and nuclear material. The SFI’s ICS program is fully operational and is currently scanning all U.S.-bound 

containers laden in: Port of Qasim (Pakistan), Puerto Cortes (Honduras), and Port of Southampton (UK).

CBP has gone beyond the legislative mandate and is deploying SFI operations on a limited basis in three additional 

locations that will provide diverse environments with unique challenges, such as high volume and transshipment 

ports. These three additional SFI locations are as follows:

•	 The Modern Terminal in Hong Kong, China (Fully operational in January 2008);

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
22 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

•	 The Port of Salalah, Oman (Operational testing is scheduled to begin in early 2010); and

•	 The Gamman Terminal in Busan, the Republic of Korea (Fully operational in March 2009)

As of April 30, 2009, the SFI pilot at the Modern Terminal in the Port of Hong Kong officially ended by mutual 

agreement between DHS and the Hong Kong government. This pilot study provided valuable operational lessons 

on the technical, logistical, and diplomatic challenges associated with scanning maritime containers in a highvolume port such as Hong Kong. CBP and the Hong Kong government have agreed to continue to work together 

under the current CSI agreement and explore alternative approaches toward enhancing container and trade security through risk management and total supply chain security.

100% Scanning Legislation

On August 3, 2007, the President signed Public Law 110–53, “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations 

Act of 2007”, which requires 100 percent scanning of all U.S.-bound containers by July 12, 2012. CBP will continue 

to work closely with the trade community, industry, and foreign partners to implement 100 percent scanning in 

a thoughtful, responsible and practical manner that integrates smoothly into the global trade supply chain with 

minimal if any disruption to the trade.

CBP has developed options for deploying overseas scanning systems to a limited number of strategic locations 

where the additional scan data would prove the most beneficial to enhance DHS’ risk-based, layered strategy 

towards securing maritime cargo. These locations were identified through a collaborative analysis between CBP, 

DoD, DOE, and DOS. CBP used a risk matrix, which fuses the DOE Megaports Initiative with CBP’s data analysis. 

The risk-based matrix incorporated data that assessed risk based on transnational terrorism threats, the countries’ 

commitments to securing nuclear material, political violence, high-risk shipment volume, and additional social 

and political filters such as crime, port security and tolerance for corruption.

These options focus deployments of SFI operations in strategic locations through which potentially high-risk containerized U.S.-bound cargo transits or originate, and will provide additional data to CBP officers for assessing the 

risk of those containers laden at an SFI port. This strategic approach is consistent with DHS’ risk based and layered 

approach to securing maritime containerized cargo.

Canine Enforcement Teams

CBP has the largest and most diverse law enforcement canine program in the United States. CBP canine officers and 

border patrol agents use specially trained detector dogs to combat terrorist threats, identify explosive threats, and 

interdict concealed persons, currency, agriculture, narcotics, and other contraband at the POEs, at international 

mail facilities, and along the border between the POEs. Some CBP detector dogs are trained to perform Border 

Patrol Search and Rescue (SAR) missions. In FY08, Border Patrol initiated the Special Response Team (SRT) Patrol 

Canine program, training these teams for use in tactical high stress situations. These teams are also another tool 

Overview of CBP
23

in CBP’s ongoing effort to combat border violence to prevent assaults against agents and illegal aliens and control 

criminal activity along the border. At present there are 11 teams deployed along the Southwest Border.

Canine teams are assigned to 78 POEs and 120 Border Patrol stations, sectors, and special operations groups throughout the United States. OBP has organized a canine/horse patrol unit which will allows the canine to be worked 

alongside the handler riding on horseback. To meet both new and growing threats, the CBP Canine Program has 

trained and deployed canine teams in an array of specialized detection capabilities. CBP has two canine enforcement training facilities, located in Front Royal, VA, and El Paso, TX. In FY 2009, CBP trained approximately 657 

detector dogs at its training academies.

Expedited Removal Program

A key element of CBP’s ongoing effort to deter illegal entry is the implementation and expansion of the Expedited 

Removal (ER) program to all Border Patrol sectors. ER is a removal process that requires mandatory detention of 

select classes of illegal aliens who can be removed from the United States without an immigration hearing. The ER 

process also has built-in provisions to address aliens who believe they have a claim to credible fear. An alien who 

claims credible fear is interviewed by an asylum officer who determines whether or not the alien has a bona fide 

claim. If a claim is determined to be valid, the alien is not removed from the United States under the provisions 

of the ER program.

The program was expanded to include illegal aliens apprehended by Border Patrol on the southwest border and 

later extended to include apprehensions on the northern border. This includes illegal aliens who are present in the 

United States without having been admitted or paroled following inspection by a CBP officer at a designated POE 

and within 100 miles of the U.S. border. It also includes those who are unable to establish their physical presence 

in the United States for the two week period before the date of encounter.

In the more than three years since the announcement of the end of “catch and release”, the ER program has 

become a routine way of doing business. As of September 30, 2009, all aliens apprehended along the southwest 

and northern borders who are subject to detention pending removal and are otherwise ineligible for release from 

custody under U.S. Immigration law are now being detained for removal utilizing the ER program if the alien 

meets the guidelines. There are a few exceptions based on humanitarian reasons, but these cases are reviewed 

on a case-by-case basis. In FY 2009, the Border Patrol apprehended 45,283 OTM aliens at the southwest border, 

3,130 along the northern border, and 4,242 on the coastal border, of which all of those subject to removal 

were detained.

International Liaison Unit

The mission of the International Liaison Unit (ILU) is to create and maintain positive working relationships and to 

foster alliances with foreign counterparts to increase border security. The alliances established by the ILU maintain 

open communications and mutual respect with foreign and domestic law enforcement counterparts. Previously 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
24 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

named the Mexican Liaison Unit (MLU), which started in El Centro, CA the MLU was reorganized in FY 2008 as 

the ILU to standardize national policies and procedures for international liaison. Today, the ILU is operational in all 

Southwest Border Patrol sectors and has dedicated manpower resources of approximately 32 agents, with a coordinator in Washington, DC, and one coordinator in each of the sectors participating in the program. Their success 

was the direct result of relationships formed with Mexican authorities in Federal, State, and local law enforcement 

having the common goal of border safety and security.

The ILU strategic goals are as follows:

•	 Establish, develop, and maintain effective relationships of trust and confidence with individuals representing 

their foreign government agencies;

•	 Identify and develop common law enforcement objectives with foreign governments to combat border crime;

•	 Cultivate and reinforce commitment with foreign and domestic law enforcement communities; and

•	 Develop and maintain information sharing with foreign and domestic law enforcement agencies.

Agents serving under the ILU focus and engage in activities that complement and support current program operations as well as agency and department enforcement strategies.

The ILU’s established partnerships have helped pave the way for programs like the Border Violence Protocols program, formed in an effort to reduce and provide a response to increased violence in the immediate border area 

along the southwest border, and the “Operation Against Smugglers Initiative on Safety and Security” (OASISS). 

OASISS was a product of the United States-Mexico agreement to establish a bilateral, standardized prosecution 

program. The OASISS program was developed to address the increasing amount of alien smugglers across the 

Southwest border. The program allows for alien smugglers apprehended in the United States to be prosecuted by 

the Government of Mexico (GOM). This program has been very effective in areas along the Southwest Border that 

are affected by guidelines that make it difficult to prosecute certain alien smuggling cases. In FY 2009, 479 OASISS 

cases were generated, with 509 principals were accepted for prosecution by the GOM.

Consolidated Trusted Traveler Program

The Consolidated Trusted Traveler Program (CTTP) is an umbrella of CBP’s Trusted Traveler Programs [NEXUS (a 

joint venture between Canadian and U.S. authorities), the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection 

(SENTRI), the Free and Secure Trade program (FAST), and Global Entry] that use a common automated system to 

register program enrollees and perform automated identification and validation. The goals of the program are to 

identify and expedite low risk travelers, and to free CBP officers to increase security at the POEs by enabling them 

to concentrate on higher-risk travelers.

NEXUS and SENTRI are land border management processes that provide expedited CBP processing for pre-approved, 

low-risk travelers. In addition, NEXUS offers expedited CBP processing in selected Canadian preclearance airports. 

Overview of CBP
25

Applicants must voluntarily undergo a thorough biographical background check against criminal, law enforcement, customs, immigration, and terrorist indices. In addition, a personal interview with a CBP officer is required. 

Once an applicant is approved, they are issued a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) card that will identify their 

record and status in the CBP database upon arrival at the U.S. POE. This allows users to have access to specific, 

dedicated primary lanes for processing into the United States. For NEXUS participants in the preclearance airports, 

the member’s iris is scanned allowing users to have access to the self-service kiosks.

The FAST commercial driver program is the result of the United States, Canada, and Mexico Border Partnership 

Action Plan (PAP). The FAST program provides expedited processing of participants’ qualifying merchandise in 

designated traffic lanes at select border sites. These designated FAST lanes allow FAST qualified shipments a nearly 

unencumbered approach up to and through the commercial facility.

Global Entry, CBP’s newest trusted traveler program in the airport environment, was announced as a pilot program in June 2008. The program is available at seven airport locations: Atlanta, Chicago, Dulles, Houston, JFK, Los 

Angeles, and Miami International Airport. CBP will be completing the rulemaking process to make Global Entry a 

permanent program that will expand to an additional 13 airports by the end of 2009.

Admissibility Review Office

CBP’s Admissibility Review Office (ARO) provides institutional knowledge and a consistent decision-making 

approach regarding the admissibility, inadmissibility, and exercise of discretion for inadmissible aliens under the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The ARO works extensively with DOS and other agencies to determine 

whether inadmissible aliens can legally travel as non-immigrants with waivers. Each case requires an assessment 

of the risk of harm to society if CBP admits the alien, which the ARO balances with the alien’s reasons for wanting 

to travel.

The ARO currently processes and adjudicates all waivers of inadmissibility that DOS consular officers recommend 

worldwide and decides all government non-immigrant waivers. It also processes and adjudicates all waiver applications submitted directly to CBP by individual international travelers.

Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit

The Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit (FDAU) was established in 2005 to act as a central location for the collection and analysis of fraudulent travel documents seized by CBP officers nationwide. The mission of the FDAU is to 

remove fraudulent travel documents from circulation and prevent the use of these documents by mala fide travelers attempting to enter the United States. Since its inception, the FDAU has received over 158,000 fraudulent documents. The FDAU receives documents that are counterfeit, altered, presented by impostors, or otherwise obtained 

by fraud or intended for fraudulent use. Genuine documents presented by imposters make up the vast majority of 

the fraudulent documents received by the FDAU.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
26 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

The FDAU manages the CBP Fraud Prevention Program (FPP). The goal of the FPP is to increase fraudulent document interceptions by expanding access to standardized training, high quality document examination equipment, and current information on fraudulent document use and fraud trends. One hundred and forty two CBP 

officers have been designated as Fraud Prevention Officers (FPO), and have been tasked with sharing information 

regarding document fraud and fraud trends, creating reports on fraudulent document use, conducting document 

examination training and working closely with headquarters on matters related to document examination and 

document fraud.

As part of the FPP, CBP purchased 78 Video Spectral Comparator (VSC) document examination workstations. 

These workstations were delivered to 58 ports of entry, 4 international mail and/or cargo facilities, 5 preclearance 

locations, 3 Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) locations, and the CBP Academy and the CBP Advanced Training 

Center. A VSC is a comprehensive document examination instrument that assists its users in detecting document 

forgeries and identifying the differences between forged and genuine documents.

The FDAU also manages the Carrier Liaison Program (CLP). The mission of CLP is to enhance border security by 

increasing commercial carrier effectiveness in identifying improperly documented passengers destined for the 

United States. CLP uses interactive training, which allows participants to engage in hands-on instruction in fraudulent document identification, passenger assessment, impostor identification, and travel document verification. The 

CLP team has developed innovative training products, including a sample travel document that allows participants 

to examine dozens of common security features. Since its inception, CLP has provided training to over 19,800 airline industry personnel in 110 countries on 287 training missions. CLP developed standardized training material 

for the carrier industry and has developed a Vessel Inspection Guide for the seaport industry.

CBP has partnered with Dutch law enforcement authorities regarding Electronic Documentation and Information 

System in Investigation Networks with Information of Travel Documents (Edison-TD). Edison-TD is a stand-alone 

global database used for the verification of travel and identity documents. The FDAU is the U.S. representative on 

the Edison-TD steering committee. The FDAU is currently coordinating access to the online version of the database, which will be available for use by CBP officers at all POEs and facilities.

Enforcement Information Technology Advances

Advance Passenger Information System

The Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) is the single most critical element in our ability to identify 

dangerous individuals entering or departing the United States Through this system, CBP receives biographical and 

travel document information on passengers and crew arriving in and departing from the United States by air, sea, 

and in some cases, land (from commercial bus and rail operators).

APIS data is received in advance of a traveler boarding the intended aircraft or departing on a commercial vessel, 

allowing CBP to screen all travelers against government watch lists and provide a screening response to carriers. 

Overview of CBP
27

CBP receives advance information on passengers and crew that is also sufficient for basic law enforcement automated queries that look for matches with multi-agency law enforcement alerts, immigrant visas, and historical 

databases. The APIS process has also been modified to incorporate ESTA screening to allow carriers to use the 

existing APIS processes to meet new ESTA requirements.

Additionally, in an effort to secure our nation’s borders and protect national security, CBP published the Advance 

Information on Private Aircraft Arriving and Departing the United States Final Rule in the Federal Register on 

November 18, 2008. The rule requires private aircraft pilots, or their designees, to transmit electronically to CBP 

traveler manifest information for each individual onboard the aircraft. CBP now conducts watch list and law 

enforcement screening of APIS data for both commercial and private aircraft arriving in or departing from the 

United States.

COMPSTAT

OBP has implemented COMPSTAT, a “comparative statistics” tool created to support OBP field and headquarters 

personnel by providing enterprise-wide data in a flexible, robust, and user-friendly reporting tool. The comparison of enforcement statistics which shows changes in activity, has always been used throughout the Border Patrol 

to continuously adjust operations. COMPSTAT is a tool that assists the process of making operational adjustments 

more efficient by providing actual enforcement statistics to field commanders and headquarters staff in a usable 

format, as well as an “available on demand” fashion.

COMPSTAT is a desktop accessed system that provides timely statistical reports containing a compiliation of data 

from multiple systems used within OBP, including Enforcement Case Tracking (ENFORCE), the Border Patrol 

Enforcement Tracking System (BPETS), and Intelligent Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD), and display the 

results in a usable and understandable format. For FY09, dozens of pre-formatted reports were made available in 

COMPSTAT. These reports allow users to enter a limited number of parameters and compile data for a specific 

sector or station as well as a specific date range. Comparisons can also be viewed in order to see changes in activity 

levels for different time periods. Data provided by the COMPSTAT application will provide valuable operational 

and tactical information for field analysis. Additionally, a HQ COMPSTAT module was added to the application 

for Headquarters and Sector Staff to have visibility into a higher, more strategic level of reporting functionality. 

COMPSTAT is currently available to all OBP sectors and stations.

e3 Prosecutions

e3 is a web-based application. The deployment of e3 technology further enhances the ability of tactical field commanders to make informed and operationally effective decisions. e3 Prosecutions serves as a central repository to 

capture information related to the day-to-day processes by which criminal prosecution activities are identified, 

assigned, performed, managed, scheduled, and measured. The information will be used to analyze effectiveness 

and efficiency as it relates to the overall mission of securing the Nation’s borders.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
28 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Within general guidance from the DOJ, each U.S. Attorney’s Office has its own priorities, and prosecutorial 

guidelines. e3 Prosecutions is a web-based application with the flexibility to adapt to local procedures and regulations as it relates to the form and function of collecting, submitting, and reporting of data, legal articulation, and 

court documents associated with disparate court locations. e3 Prosecutions has ample depth to collect, manage 

and report activities related to cases handled utilizing administrative resolutions or referred to outside agencies. 

e3 Prosecutions allow for electronically submitting and exchanging prosecution case data between other federal 

agencies. This establishes a partnership for efficient parallel missions by eliminating redundant manual data collection. e3 Prosecutions was also developed to manually capture and subsequently update critical data locally during 

systems failures, for timely submission to the U.S. Attorney and the Judiciary.

Enterprise Geospatial Information Services

The Enterprise Geospatial Information Services (eGIS) is a web-based mapping application that provides agents 

and analysts with the ability to create and view spatial data. As a whole, eGIS is a complete business process that 

encompasses spatial data collection, cartography and analysis and web based mapping functionality.

eGIS data collection efforts focus on Global Positioning System (GPS) collection of border patrol station locations, 

technology deployments, tactical infrastructure deployments and foundation level data, such as aerial imagery 

and transportation layers. Cartography and analysis is supported through the Geospatial Service Center located 

at CBP Headquarters, while web based map development is supported through the CBP Office of Information 

and Technology.

Intelligent Computer Assisted Detection

The Intelligent Computer Assisted Detection (ICAD) application supports real time tracking of OBP’s covert sensor 

network and serves as the foundation for monitoring agent status and safety. ICAD displays sensor activations and 

allows Sector enforcement specialists to document sensor response and disposition. ICAD also provides the ability 

to report and analyze sensor activations over time.

Radiological and Nuclear Detection/Non Intrusive Inspection Program

The mission of the Radiological and Nuclear Detection/ NII program (RADNUC/NII) Program encompasses 

a variety of technologies. The RADNUC program consists of any piece of equipment that enables an agent to 

scan, detect and identify any radiological/nuclear material concealed within an object. The NII Program encompasses equipment that utilizes various x-ray technologies to locate concealed narcotics, guns, explosives, money 

and stowaways.

During FY09, OBP substantially increased its radiological and nuclear threat detection capabilities by increasing 

the number of fielded RIID by 169. This added capability more than doubled the detection capabilities of the 

field agents.

Overview of CBP
29

OBP also purchased and deployed four Z-Backscatter Fords (zBF) and deployed them at various locations in 

Texas, Arizona and California. These units provide the agents an enhanced probable cause and consent search 

capability at traffic checkpoints to more effectively and efficiently reveal concealed contraband in passenger and 

commercial vehicles.

Mobile Surveillance Systems

OBP has 41 Mobile Surveillance System (MSS) units deployed along the Northern and Southern Border. The 

combination of electronic surveillance sensors, when applied in concert with appropriate tactics, techniques and 

procedures, enhance the ability of CBP to detect, identify, classify, and track persons attempting to enter the 

United States by other than legal or lawfully approved avenues of approach and/or entry. The deployment of this 

equipment helped CBP meet its additional goal of increasing border protection capabilities within its allotted manpower. Future procurements for additional MSS units are underway for FY 10.

Mobile Processing Center

The Mobile Processing Center (MPC) is a 53-foot, reconfigured semi-trailer that provides a mobile solution to 

mass migration, remote processing and disaster related incidents. Through the MPC, agents are linked via satellite 

to the DHS/CBP network with access to ENFORCE, IAFIS, e-mail, internet, and other law enforcement systems. 

Additionally, agents are provided with a platform utilizing the Radio Interoperability System (RIOS) to communicate with other federal, state, and local agencies. The MPC is used to assist with emergency responses such as a 

command center for terrorism related and disaster-relief situations.

Immigration Advisory Program

The Immigration Advisory Program (IAP) is a partnership with foreign governments and commercial airlines to 

identify and deny boarding to high-risk travelers using advanced targeting and passenger analysis information at 

foreign airports before boarding aircraft bound for the United States. The goals of IAP are to protect air travel and 

improve national security. IAP has four major objectives:

•	 Enhance border and air travel security by preventing terrorists and other high-risk passengers from boarding 

commercial aircraft destined for the United States;

•	 Disrupt alien smuggling and human trafficking air routes;

•	 Combat the proliferation of fraudulent travel documents used by terrorists and alien smuggling organizations; 

and

•	 Prevent improperly documented passengers from traveling to the United States.

CBP deploys officers to key international hub airports to assist and train air carriers and host country authorities on 

how to screen and identify prospective passengers before they board flights to the United States. With this added 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
30 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

security layer, CBP can respond to suspected overseas threats before flight departure and avoid delaying, canceling, 

or diverting flights destined to the United States.

In FY 2009, IAP resulted in 2,776 no-board recommendations to host government authorities, of which 212 

were confirmed NTC targets, and 38 were identified as fraud cases and referred to host government and local 

law enforcement officials for further action. The no-board recommendations saved carriers over $4.5 million in 

fines and saved the U.S. Government $4.1 million in avoided processing costs. From the inception of IAP through 

September 30, 2009, IAP has saved the airlines $12.3 million in fines and the U.S. Government $11.3 million in 

processing costs. These cost savings were the direct result of 7,554 no-board recommendations, of which 472 

were confirmed NTC targets and 261 were identified as fraud cases and referred to host government and local law 

enforcement officials.

IAP first became operational in Amsterdam and Warsaw in 2004 and is now operational at 9 locations in 7 countries, to include Tokyo, London-Heathrow, Frankfurt, Seoul, Madrid, London-Gatwick, and Manchester. In addition, CBP is working to expand IAP to several additional sites.

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires CBP to identify 50 foreign airports for 

potential IAP expansion. CBP has identified these airports and will monitor the locations to ensure IAP growth is 

achieved and available resources are properly managed. To continue IAP expansion CBP will pursue opportunities 

with foreign governments as they emerge.

CBP is in negotiation with several foreign governments regarding IAP expansion. Some possible locations include 

Paris, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Negotiations are also under way with governments in countries where IAP is currently deployed to expand IAP to additional airports in those countries.

Border Safety Initiative

The Border Safety Initiative (BSI) was initiated in June of 1998, building on the longstanding public safety and 

humanitarian measures practiced by the U.S. Border Patrol. The primary objective of the BSI is the reduction of 

injuries and prevention of deaths along the southwest border region. Over the past several years, unscrupulous 

alien smugglers have moved migrants into more remote areas with hazardous terrain and extreme conditions. In 

particular, the BSI is intended to inform potential migrants of the hazards of crossing the border illegally and to 

respond to those who are in a life-threatening situation. Through the BSI initiative, OBP works closely with the 

government of Mexico to discourage illegal crossings and to identify those who have perished in the desolate 

border terrain.

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 requires DHS and DOS to develop and implement 

a plan to require all travelers (U.S. citizens and foreign nationals alike) to present a passport or other acceptable 

Overview of CBP
31

document that denotes identity and citizenship when entering the United States. Congress amended portions of 

the Act in 2006. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) is the joint DOS/DHS plan to implement this 

9/11 Commission recommendation and congressional mandate. The goal of WHTI is to strengthen border security 

and facilitate entry into the United States for citizens and legitimate international visitors.

WHTI was successfully implemented for air travel on January 23, 2007. Since then, compliance has been and continues to be extremely high (more than 99 percent). On January 31, 2008, CBP ended the practice of accepting 

oral declarations of citizenship alone for United States and Canadian citizens entering the United States across land 

borders. With the implementation of WHTI at land and sea POEs on June 1, 2009, travelers are required to present 

acceptable documentation to support their citizenship claims. To date, compliance at the land border is more than 

95 percent. Beginning June 1st, acceptable documents included a passport, a U.S. passport card, and enhanced 

driver’s license, or a trusted traveler card (NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST).

CBP collaborated with DOS to develop the passport card for U.S. citizen use at the land borders. This document 

uses advanced technology, including vicinity RFID technology, to facilitate the primary inspection process and 

costs less than the standard U.S. passport book. To date, over 2 million passport cards have been issued. The DOSissued Border Crossing Card (BCC) is modeled after the passport card and has vicinity RFID capability. It contains 

multiple layers of overt, covert, and forensic security features, making it as counterfeit and tamper resistant as the 

passport card. The vicinity RFID capability provides for the same electronic verification of the document as the 

passport card, which is a significant security enhancement over physical features alone. Over 352,000 BCCs have 

been issued.

RFID has been used successfully along U.S. land borders since 1995. Through trusted traveler programs, such 

as NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST, U.S. border officials are able to expedite legitimate cross-border travel and trade. 

Membership in these programs currently exceeds 652,500. Integral to the successful implementation of WHTI is 

the deployment of vicinity RFID infrastructure to the POEs to read the enhanced travel documents. Installation has 

been completed in 377 lanes at the 41 high-volume land border POEs and 3 lanes at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC).

CBP has entered into an agreement with the States of Washington, New York, Vermont, and Michigan to produce 

enhanced driver’s licenses (EDL) that would meet the requirements of WHTI for border crossing. Washington has 

issued more than 104,000 EDLs; New York over 212,000; Vermont over 9,900; and Michigan over 88,500. In addition, the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec have instituted EDL’s for their 

residents. British Columbia also issued over 21,600 EDL’s, Quebec over 31,500; Manitoba over 6,600; and Ontario 

over 14,700.

CBP has deployed the new Vehicle Primary Client software application to U.S. land border ports. This critical software quickly and effectively provides officers with vital information on border crossers. The training and deployment of the new software is completed at all the WHTI implemented sites. The software is currently deployed at 

over 580 lanes across the land borders.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
32 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology

U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program launched in 2004 continues to be 

deployed at many of our land, sea, and air POEs. This system provides CBP officers at primary and secondary 

inspection stations with biometric identifiers such as fingerprints (using an inkless fingerprint scanner) and photographs (using a digital camera) to verify the identity of foreign nationals wishing to enter the United States. 

During FY 2008, CBP began deployment of 10 fingerprint scanners to primary POEs. US-VISIT’s biometric information thwarts identity fraud by providing unalterable, unassailable identity information. It is an integral part of 

the entry-exit system that provides CBP with unique identity information to help determine whether someone 

has remained in the country longer than authorized. This system interacts with existing criminal databases that 

identify people with criminal histories and those who may be linked to terrorist activities.

Capacity Building

CBP is committed to a number of international initiatives aimed at facilitating legitimate travel and trade. CBP continues to collaborate and enhance its partnership with the following nations/international organizations: Canada, 

China, Mexico, World Customs Organization, and the European Union. CBP’s international capacity building 

efforts are designed to improve international relationships and enhance border security by assisting in the adoption of best practices and the development of infrastructure that will allow foreign partners to keep pace with 

changes in the global environment, securing the smooth and safe flow of people and goods.

CBP supports the World Customs Organization‘s Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Trade (SAFE) by 

sharing best practices and implementing training modules to protect the global supply chain from the threat of 

terrorism. CBP’s international capacity building efforts are focused on the following areas: international narcotics 

and crime control; non-proliferation; export control and related border security; commercial enforcement operations; and private sector partnership programs. Each program begins with a border security assessment designed 

to determine the type of training and/or equipment needed to improve operations within the host foreign 

country. Additionally, the assessments provide the host government with a better understanding of their border 

control vulnerabilities.

To address the identified vulnerabilities, CBP has established joint partnerships with international organizations, 

federal government agencies, and other foreign partners. Funding for these programs is provided by a number of 

entities including the International Law Enforcement Academy, DOS’ Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, US Agency for International Development, DoD, DOE, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. In 

FY 2009, CBP has provided capacity building support to over 80 countries.

Overview of CBP
33

Budget by Program

The charts below present a comparison of the fiscal year budgets by major program element for FY 2009 and 

FY 2008. These charts are based on appropriated budget authority received of $11.4 billion in FY 2009 and $9.4 

billion in FY 2008. The FY 2009 appropriated funds equal total appropriations of $13.2 billion shown on the 

Consolidated Statement of Budgetary Resources, less $1.4 billion in CBP non-entity activity and $391 million in 

adjustments to appropriated authority during FY 2009. The FY 2008 appropriated funds equal total appropriations of $11.9 billion shown on the Statement of Budgetary Resources, less $2.5 billion in CBP non-entity activity 

authority and User Fee authority.

FY 2009

Security Between Ports of Entry

39%

C-TPAT/FAST

1%

Security at Ports of Entry

34%

Construction

7%

NII

2%

CSI

1%

BSFIT

7%

ACE

4%

Air & Marine 

Operations

5%

Air & Marine Operations

6%

FY 2008

Security at Ports of Entry

27%

C-TPAT/

FAST

1%

Security Between Ports of Entry

40%

Construction

4%

NII

1%

CSI

2%

BSFIT

14%

ACE

5%

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
34 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Budget Resource Obligations

The charts below present a comparison of the distribution of CBP budget resource obligations for FY 2009 and 

FY 2008. These charts are based on current year entity obligations totaling $11.7 billion in FY 2009 and $11.8 

billion in FY 2008. These totals do not include non-entity obligations and obligations related to prior year appropriations totaling $2.9 billion during FY 2009 and $2.8 billion during FY 2008 included in the Consolidated 

Statement of Budgetary Resources obligations totals of $14.60 billion and $14.63 billion for FY 2009 and 

FY 2008, respectively.

User 

Fees

9%

Salaries & FY 2009

Expenses Direct

65%

Operations & 

Maintenance

4%

Border Security Fencing, 

Infrastructure & Technology

4%

Modernization

4%

Other

9%

Facilities

4%

Salaries & Expenses 

Reimbursable

1%

FY 2008

Salaries & Expenses Direct

58%

Operations & 

Maintenance

6%

Border Security Fencing, 

Infrastructure & Technology

16%

Modernization

4%

Other

1%

Facilities

2%

Salaries & Expenses 

Reimbursable

13%

Overview of CBP
35

Looking Ahead

CBP continues to expand and enhance mission effectiveness by its forward-looking approach to secure America’s 

borders and the vitality of our economy.

CBP Office of Air and Marine

Since submitting its initial Air Strategic Plan, the Office of Air and Marine (OAM) has made significant progress 

in achieving its planned end-state. OAM has deployed assets in a regional “clockwise” approach. In FY 2006, 

assets were deployed along the southwest border; assets were deployed to reinforce the northern border in FYs 

2007, 2008 and 2009; and for FY 2010, asset deployments will focus on the Southeast Coast Border Region. This 

approach takes into consideration the entire national border, best addresses threats, and increases efficiency and 

operational effectiveness.

OAM continues to strategically address threats and challenges by deploying additional air and marine assets, facilities, and personnel. Multiple aircraft procurements are on contract and have been funded, or are pending contract 

award. OAM has identified new site requirements to expand its surveillance and interdiction coverage across the 

maritime approaches to the United States and is addressing personnel needs by hiring additional agents and staff. 

Concurrent with these efforts, OAM continues to build management and infrastructure systems that will effectively support field operations, including CBP agents and officers on the ground.

In FY 2009 Air and Marine continued to standardize and modernize its fleet in support of the OAM Strategic 

Plan to recapitalize aging aviation and marine assets. Inventories of helicopters, fixed wing, unmanned aircraft 

systems, and interceptor vessels were expanded with new acquisitions and deliveries of prior year procurements. 

This multi-year investment in Air and Marine capital assets will help to support expanded border surveillance and 

maritime domain awareness.

Unmanned Aircraft System

Beginning in November 2004, CBP conducted test programs using unmanned aircraft for surveillance missions 

along the U.S./Mexico border in Arizona. The test results were very positive and CBP initiated the UAS program 

in 2005. The UAS provides an efficient and reliable supplement to existing detection and intelligence gathering 

technologies. Unmanned aircraft have a significant advantage over manned aircraft with the capacity to fly more 

than 30 hours without refueling. This technology has proven highly successful in supporting existing manned aircraft, maintaining current ground assets, and monitoring remote portions of the border that are often difficult to 

reach safely or are unable to accommodate infrastructure devices. Since the start of operations in 2004, UASs have 

been instrumental in the apprehension of undocumented aliens, the seizure of drugs, and the recovery of stolen 

vehicles. UASs have proven effective in locating subjects during hours of darkness and providing a situational 

awareness and officer safety capability that is unparalleled.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
36 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

In March 2008, CBP OAM hosted a Joint Maritime UAS viewing at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), FL. The event was 

the culmination of more than a year’s work to deploy and demonstrate the integration of a variant of the Predator 

B UAS within OAM and USCG maritime operations. The demonstration took place in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

and the Florida Straits and involved air and marine assets from OAM and USCG. This Gulf Coast demonstration 

validated the usefulness of integrating a suite of sensors (radars, electro-optical, and automated identification 

system (AIS) on a UAS and applying them in an operationally relevant environment. In July 2008 OAM hosted a 

Joint Requirements summit to determine the required capabilities of sea search radar for the maritime variant. 

During FY 2008, OAM also conducted test and evaluation flights along the northern borders of the United States. 

Of the 6 UAS funded in FY 2006 and FY 2007, the sixth was delivered in January 2009. The FY 2009 enacted 

budget provided sufficient funding for a seventh UAS, which was delivered during the third quarter of FY 2009.

UASs will continue to be used in securing the border of the United States by providing strategic intelligence, surveillance, and interdiction support. CBP was the first Federal law enforcement agency to fly unmanned aircraft on 

a sustained basis, outside of controlled airspace, within the United States. UAS operations will expand as additional 

systems are delivered to the southwest border, deployed for test and evaluation to the northern border, and reoutfitted with maritime search radars for testing and evaluation in the southeast coastal area of responsibility. It 

is envisioned that 3 UAS squadrons of 18 UASs will be utilized by OAM in its effort to control the borders of the 

United States.

In the future, OAM will maintain command and control of expanding UAS operations through the Air Marine 

Operations Center (AMOC), including flight control of the mission segment and collection of sensor data from the 

AMOC. The AMOC will oversee the air tasking of UAS’s in all operational regions. Tactically, OAM UAS Operations 

Centers will conduct launch and recovery missions via locations that provide access to the National Airspace 

System (NAS) from restricted airspace.

Marine Program Expansion

The FY 2008 consolidated appropriation provided OAM funding to establish 11 additional marine sites consistent with the OAM Strategic Plan. Six of these sites are planned along the Great Lakes region, one in Maine and 

the remaining in the central Caribbean approaches to the United States. This appropriation additionally provided 

funding for 82 employees for these 11 sites.

The FY 2009 consolidated appropriation provided funding for 115 additional employees specifically to complete 

the staffing requirements as well as funding to commence purchasing necessary vessels for the11 sites.

Outbound

The Outbound Policy and Programs (OBT) Division is responsible for the enforcement of U.S. export laws and regulations. The OBT mission is to interdict the illegal export of unreported currency (to include proceeds from narcotics trafficking and other illicit activities that are fueling violence along the Southwest Border); arrest fugitives; 

Overview of CBP
37

interdict illegal export of weapons and ammunition; prevent international terrorist groups and rogue nations from 

obtaining sensitive and controlled commodities; interdict stolen property, including stolen vehicles; and increase 

export compliance.

To perform this mission, CBP will conduct outbound “pulse and surge” operations by inspecting people, cargo, 

and conveyances leaving the United States at all airports, seaports, land border crossings, and at international mail/

courier facilities. Outbound operations will be conducted on a random basis or will be intelligence based.

The success of CBP’s outbound mission will rely on its overall layered enforcement strategy. CBP officers will continue to use their experience and depend on currency/firearms canine teams, intelligence, and various inspectional 

tools to assist in outbound operations. This will include planned upgrades and expansion to the existing License 

Plate Reader (LPR) program. The LPR program will increase CBP’s capabilities to identify and interdict persons of 

interest or contraband (i.e., unreported currency, weapons, stolen vehicles) before they depart the United States.

Security Filing (10+2)

The Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements rule (Security Filing10+2) became effective on 

January 26, 2009, as an Interim Final Rule and is an additional layer to CBP’s security and enforcement strategy 

for securing U.S.-bound ocean cargo. Security Filing “10+2” joins the 24 hour rule, the C-TPAT program, and CSI 

in collecting advanced information to improve CBP’s targeting efforts. The advance data provided by the Security 

Filing “10+2” rule, such as importer entry data, vessel stow plan, and container status messages, will increase the 

transparency of all parties involved in the international container shipping supply chain and will allow CBP targeting specialists to identify risk factors earlier in the transaction process. Under this new rule the importers are 

responsible for supplying CBP with ten trade data elements 24 hours prior to lading, while the ocean carriers are 

required to provide their vessel stow plans no later than 48 hours after departure and their container status messages no later than 24 hours after creation or receipt.

CBP is committed to a 1-year delayed enforcement period from the effective date to allow the trade time to modify 

their business processes in order to comply with this new rule. Therefore, liquidated damages and any other 

monetary penalties will not be assessed if those penalty actions are simply to “enforce compliance” with the new 

regulations. Additionally, CBP will not issue “Do Not Load” messages for reasons related to compliance with the 

Security Filing “10+2” rule. However, CBP still reserves the right to take any and all actions required to protect the 

security of the United States. The delayed enforcement period is scheduled to end on January 26, 2010.

Electronic System for Travel Authorization

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) will allow CBP to effectively address the new requirements 

imposed by the 9/11 Act. Section 711 of the 9/11 Act requires that DHS develop and implement a fully automated 

version of ESTA to collect information from aliens wishing to travel by air or sea to the United States under the 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
38 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Visa Waiver Program (VWP). ESTA screens the information provided to determine whether the alien presents a 

security risk and is eligible to travel to the United States.

In FY 2009, CBP estimates that there were over 17 million entries into the United States from the 35 VWP countries. Determining eligibility for VWP travel in advance of travel will reduce the number of instances in which 

a traveler who does not meet VWP criteria arrives in the United States and is subsequently denied admission. In 

such cases, the traveler and the carrier incur additional expense as immediate return to the country of origin 

is required.

CBP screens travelers against appropriate databases to identify potential threats to the security of the United States. 

Those travelers determined to be inadmissible as a result of this screening are denied a travel authorization via 

ESTA and as result are unable to travel to the United States under VWP. Those persons denied via ESTA are given 

the opportunity to apply for a visa to travel to the United States at the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

Currently, the ESTA web site appears in English and 20 other languages and has the full capacity to process the 

total volume of Visa Waiver travelers arriving in the United States. ESTA became mandatory for all VWP travelers 

in January 2009.

In addition to the ESTA web-based application, CBP automated the paper form I-94W in FY 2009. This allows VWP 

travelers to apply for a travel authorization via the ESTA web site without having to fill out the paper form I-94W 

for entry into the United States.

Model Ports of Entry Program

The Model Ports Program strives to create a more efficient international arrivals process to facilitate and promote 

travel to the United States while improving security. Program elements include queue management, new directional signage, instructional videos, and local working groups consisting of CBP and travel stakeholders.

The Model Ports pilot was initiated in 2007 at Dulles and Houston International Airports. Using lessons learned 

and best practices from Houston and Dulles, the Model Ports Program was officially expanded to the remaining 

18 model ports, which had the highest number of foreign visitors in August 2008. They include: Atlanta, Boston, 

Dallas/Ft. Worth, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, Chicago, New York 

(JFK), Orlando, Philadelphia, Sanford (FL), San Juan, San Francisco, and Seattle. In FY 2008, Congress appropriated 

$40 million and 200 additional CBP officers to the Model Ports Program.

CBP developed an informational video that contains practical information about the entry process. The video will 

be played along with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts’ “Welcome: Portraits of America” video to welcome visitors 

at Model Ports. CBP has also revised its signage to provide international travelers with information and guidance through the entry process. The signage was delivered in October 2008 and the new video was completed in 

April 2009.

Overview of CBP
39

CBP, DHS, DOS, airlines, airports, and the travel industry continue to work together to analyze the entry process 

and improve customer service. Working groups are being formed at the 20 Model Ports expansion airports to analyze and set goals for wait times and to formalize special queuing areas for diplomats and passengers who require 

special processing to ensure the most efficient use of facilities and available resources. Additional queuing alternatives will be examined and tested. CBP began collecting wait times from the 20 Model Ports in April 2008. Wait 

times for all of the Model Ports became available on CBP’s Wait Time page http://apps.cbp.gov/bwt/ on CBP.gov in 

June 2008 and a follow up conference was conducted in March 2009.

Advances for Improved Internal and External Border Patrol Communications

OBP created the Communications Division in FY 2008 to develop a strategic and directed communications effort 

across both the internal and external spectrum of audiences and to add significant value and benefit to the overall 

communication efforts. The Communications Division strives to leverage success by encouraging employee participation and promoting effective leadership communication, both within the agency and outside of the agency. 

This is accomplished by presenting a clear and focused understanding of OBP’s mission, accomplishments, methods, and goals. Effective communication clarifies expectations and provides feedback which promotes teamwork 

and a performance-driven management. This division continues to develop and now consists of three branches 

that coordinate their efforts to reach all audiences, internal and external.

•	 The Information Coordination Branch (ICB) is responsible for maintaining and supporting both internal and 

external web sites, managing Headquarters correspondence, and providing content and editorial support to 

CBP HRM web based publications geared to retain applicants’ interest during the sometimes protracted hiring 

process. New initiatives include the study of two electronic correspondence and archiving system test beds 

currently in the field, with an eye to their adoption Border Patrol wide. ICB’s most recent efforts include the 

creation of the United States Border Patrol (USBP) Magazine in a print medium designed to have a broad audience appeal, as well as a significant increase in both internally and externally directed intranet messaging.

•	 The Field Communications Branch (FCB) was established as a direct response to an identified need to provide 

enhanced and coordinated communication between OBP Headquarters in Washington, DC and employees in 

field locations throughout the United States. FCB established direct communication between Headquarters and 

field components with the Ask HQ feature located on the CBPnet Secure web site. This feature is essentially 

an open forum that allows field personnel to raise concerns, receive policy clarification, and ask questions 

directly to OBP Headquarters about all Border Patrol related matters leading to the identification and resolution of various issues and problems.

The success of the Headquarters level FCB has led to the establishment of sector level FCBs in Tucson, San Diego, 

and El Paso Sectors. The sector level FCBs increase connectivity between Headquarters and sectors, and deal 

exclusively with questions and local policies specific to that sector. The FCB has instituted a chain learning concept whereby agents are temporarily detailed to the Headquarters FCB and returned to their duty station while 

remaining FCB field contacts. This system has facilitated communications at all levels and establishes long-term 

connectivity between OBP and field organizational components.

•	 The External Communications Branch (ECB) provides support and assistance regarding OBP external messaging to Congress, other agencies, and the general public, enhancing relations and serving as liaison with 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
40 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

external stakeholders at all levels. The ECB helps to manage external information flow, and coordinates with 

other CBP and DHS communication components, detailing experienced agents into positions within these 

offices, as well as Congressional committee assignments on Capitol Hill. The ECB plans and develops proactive 

communication plans for external audiences to support and enhance communication efforts for Border Patrol 

operations and initiatives and responds publicly to critical issues through appropriate channels.

Human Resources Management

The Office of Human Resources Management (HRM) has developed a five-year strategic plan to effectively meet 

the challenges of CBP’s future state. HRM’s plan outlines a proactive course of action for building a sustainable 

infrastructure to handle the agency’s projected growth, providing quality service and products to its customers, 

and integrating CBP’s long-term human resources goals and objectives. HRM’s strategic goals are: 1) to become 

a premier provider of customer-centric Human Resource (HR) advisory services; 2) to promote an environment 

that values employees; 3) to attract and retain a workforce that is capable of meeting CBP’s mission; and 4) to build 

an infrastructure that provides for dynamic HR services.

Summary

CBP will continue to integrate state-of-the-art technologies and traditional security infrastructures at U.S. 

POEs and along our Nation’s borders and to work in collaboration and partnership with the trade community 

and foreign governments to secure the United States from terrorists and terrorist weapons while facilitating 

world commerce.

Overview of CBP
41

CBP Organization

Commissioner

Deputy 

Executive Director Commissioner

SBI

Executive Director

Office of Equal 

Opportunity

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Field 

Operations

Chief

Office of Border Patrol

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Air and Marine

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Intelligence 

and Operations 

Coordination

Director

Office of

Trade Relations

Director

Office of Policy 

and Planning

Chief Counsel

Chief of Staff

Deputy Chief 

of Staff

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of International 

Affairs

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of International 

Trade

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of 

Congressional Affairs

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Finance

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Human 

Resources 

Management

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of 

Internal Affairs

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Public Affairs

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Training 

and Development

Assistant 

Commissioner

Office of Information 

and Technology

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
42 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Headquarters

Office of the Commissioner: On March 1, 2009, Jayson P. Ahern was named Acting Commissioner for CBP following 

the retirement of Commissioner W. Ralph Basham, and is responsible for securing, managing, and controlling our 

Nation’s borders. As Acting Commissioner, Mr. Ahern advances CBP’s priority mission of preventing terrorists and 

terrorist weapons from entering the United States while facilitating legitimate trade and travel.

Office of the Deputy Commissioner: Jayson P. Ahern was appointed Deputy Commissioner, CBP, in August 2007. Mr. 

Ahern maintains his role as Deputy Commissioner and is responsible for providing leadership and executive-level 

direction to CBP’s day-to-day operations. This includes oversight of agency initiatives that facilitate the international movement of legitimate, low-risk goods and travelers while promoting effective border security.

Office of the Chief of Staff (COS): Serves as the direct liaison to DHS for all agency issues. COS assists the Commissioner 

in formulating and implementing policies through coordination with other CBP office components, DHS, and 

other government agencies. COS provides advice and counsel to the Commissioner in defining priorities to accomplish CBP mission and goals.

Office of Chief Counsel (OCC): Serves as the chief legal officer of CBP and reports to the General Counsel of DHS. The 

Chief Counsel serves as the Ethics Officer for the organization and is the principal legal advisor to the Commissioner 

of CBP and its officers. The OCC provides legal advice to and legal representation of CBP officers in matters relating 

to the activities and functions of CBP.

Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO): Ensures compliance with the civil rights statutes, regulations, and executive orders 

governing Federal employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, 

physical and mental disability, and/or reprisal. The OEO provides a framework for the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of CBP policies and programs. The OEO also formulates and implements policies and programs in the areas of diversity and cultural awareness, dispute resolution, equal employment opportunity (EEO) 

complaints processing, and EEO and civil liberties compliance.

Office of Secure Border Initiative (SBI): Is accountable for the development and oversight of the SBInet and transportation programs. Established in FY 2007, the SBI office provides CBP-wide coordination, analysis, and integration 

of SBI-related programs and activities. In addition, SBI serves as an integrator and a facilitator for border security 

programs and activities, particularly those that impact multiple CBP organizations or require strategic coordination 

and perspective.

Office of Policy and Planning (OPP): Advises the executive staff on policy development and implementation in the 

broad array of issues addressed by CBP, including national border security policy, immigration enforcement, 

cargo security and facilitation, agriculture protection, interagency coordination, and legislation. The office further coordinates with individual offices and programs inside and outside the agency to develop specific strategies 

and planning guidance that support CBP’s mission. This includes managing the strategic planning process related 

Overview of CBP
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 43

to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), and 

the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). In addition to the policy and planning activities of the office, OPP 

serves as the central coordination point for congressional reporting and all matters under review or audit by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

Office of Trade Relations (OTR): Ensures that accurate, timely, and consistent information is provided to the international trade community on CBP trade policy, as established by the agency. OTR is the primary point of contact for 

the international trade community (importers, exporters, carriers, customhouse brokers, forwarders, bond providers, trade associations and financial institutions) for the resolution of trade issues. OTR is responsible for promoting compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and for managing CBP’s engagement 

with the Commerical Operations Advisory Committee of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (COAC).

Component Organizations and Field Structure

CBP is organized into 13 separate offices, each of which reports directly to the Commissioner. The mission of each 

office is described briefly below:

Office of Field Operations (OFO): Enforces customs, immigration, and agriculture laws and regulations at U.S. borders 

and has the primary responsibility for preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States 

at the POEs. OFO maintains programs at 20 field operation offices; 327 POEs, which include 15 preclearance stations in Canada, the Caribbean, and Ireland; and 58 CSI ports worldwide. A Director of Field Operations heads 

each field office. Port Directors oversee POEs in their operational areas, where virtually all conveyances, passengers, and goods legally enter and exit the United States. OFO oversees the enforcement of laws and regulations 

while ensuring the safe and efficient flow of goods and people through the POEs.

Office of Border Patrol (OBP): Serves as the CBP law enforcement organization with the primary responsibility for 

preventing terrorists, weapons of terrorism, illegal aliens, drugs, and those who smuggle them from entering the 

United States between the POEs. The Border Patrol is organized into 20 sectors along the southwestern, northern, 

and coastal areas of the United States.

Office of Air and Marine (OAM): Protects the American people and Nation’s critical infrastructure through the coordinated use of integrated air and marine forces to detect, interdict, and prevent acts of terrorism and the unlawful 

movement of people, illegal drugs, and other contraband toward or across the borders of the United States. OAM’s 

core competencies include air and marine interdiction, air and marine law enforcement, and air and national 

border domain security. OAM further supports DHS missions such as response and recovery to natural disasters 

and terrorism.

Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination (OIOC): Is responsible for the entire intelligence cycle, including 

planning, collecting, processing, producing, and disseminating of all sources of information and intelligence in 

Overview of CBP
44 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

support of CBP’s mission. OIOC coordinates national incident response and intelligence driven special operations 

that require collaboration between CBP offices. OIOC is responsible for directly supporting the Commissioner 

and senior CBP leadership by obtaining, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence in a timely manner to help 

CBP carry out its primary mission of detecting, identifying, and preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from 

entering the United States. OIOC directs and efficiently manages an integrated intelligence capability that ensures 

that frontline operators and senior leadership have the value-added intelligence required to drive operations and 

support policy.

Office of International Affairs (INA): Is responsible for coordinating and supporting CBP’s foreign initiatives, programs and activities. INA establishes essential partnerships with U.S. Government agencies, foreign administrations, and international organizations. INA supports CBP’s defense in-depth strategy by implementing programs 

and initiatives that promote border enforcement best practices and capacity building. INA also negotiates international agreements and works to strengthen multi- and bi-lateral relationships that facilitate legitimate travel 

and trade. INA’s organizational structure is composed of a Headquarters office in Washington, DC, with attachés, 

representatives, and advisors in embassies, consulates, and counterpart agencies in 27 nations.

Office of International Trade (OT): Provides unified strategic direction for trade policy and program development. 

CBP OT directs national enforcement responses through effective targeting of goods crossing the border as well 

as punitive actions taken against companies participating in predatory trade practices, including textile transshipment and intellectual property rights infringement. Through coordination with international partners and other 

U.S. Government agencies, OT directs CBP risk-based programs designed to detect and prevent the importation of 

contaminated agricultural products, goods that present health and safety risks, and products requiring protection 

from unfair trade practices. OT is an agency leader in promoting trade facilitation through partnership programs. 

OT streamlines the flow of legitimate shipments and fosters corporate self-governance to achieve compliance with 

trade laws, regulations, and international trade agreements. A risk-based audit program is used to respond to allegations of commercial fraud and to conduct corporate reviews of internal controls to ensure that importers comply 

with trade laws and regulations. Finally, OT provides the legal tools to promote facilitation and compliance with 

customs, trade, and border security requirements through the issuance of CBP regulations, binding rulings and 

decisions, informed compliance publications, and structured training and outreach on international trade laws and 

CBP regulations.

Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA): Advises CBP managers on legislative and congressional matters and assists 

members of Congress and their staff in understanding current and proposed CBP programs.

Office of Finance (OF) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO): Oversees all financial operations, procurement, acquisition, 

asset management, and budget activities within CBP. OF is responsible for administering $13.2 billion that is budgeted annually for law enforcement and trade operations and processing collections of $29 billion in custodial 

and entity revenue annually. This office is responsible for administering the broad range of financial management 

activities delineated under the CFO Act of 1990, including accounting, budgeting, procurement, asset management, financial systems, and financial management.

Overview of CBP
45

Office of Human Resources Management (HRM): Provides human resources support by filling positions, offering 

employee services and benefits, processing personnel actions, improving business processes, and facilitating workforce effectiveness. HRM promotes and enables mission accomplishment through human capital planning and 

utilization, strategic leadership, labor–management relations, training, and employee safety.

Office of Information and Technology (OIT): Provides CBP with information, services and technology solutions to secure 

the border, prevent the entry of terrorists or terrorist weapons, and facilitate legitimate trade and travel. In addition, OIT operates a worldwide, round-the-clock secure, stable, and high-performance Information Technology 

(IT) infrastructure and supports tactical communications, scientific solutions, and forensic services. OIT implements and supports CBP’s IT, automation, and technology strategies. OIT personnel manage all computers and 

related resources, including all operational aspects of the Computer Security Program. OIT establishes requirements for computer interfaces between CBP and various trade groups and government agencies, and manages 

matters related to automated import processing and systems development.

Office of Internal Affairs (IA): Serves as the designated Office of Security for CBP and manages a wide range of investigative and security functions and programs, including applicant and employee background investigations and 

clearances; employee integrity and misconduct investigations; integrity awareness; corruption detection through 

research and analysis of all available data; operational field testing; credibility assessment, including polygraph 

examination; physical, informational, industrial, internal, and operational security; and management inspections. 

IA’s mission is clear and critically important—to promote the integrity and security of the CBP workforce.

Office of Public Affairs (OPA): Communicates CBP’s mission and operations to the agency’s chief stakeholders, which 

includes the American public, foreign nationals who conduct business in the United States, international trade 

entities, and travelers who cross U.S. borders. Tools used in the national and international public communication 

process include media outreach and public information campaigns conducted via media events, video, photography, and informational brochures. In addition, CBP maintains a public web site (www.cbp.gov) and a national customer service call center to address public questions and complaints. OPA also keeps the CBP workforce informed 

through the CBPnet Intranet site, the weekly e-mailed news compilation “Frontline News,” and mass e-mails. A 

bimonthly newsletter, “CBP Today,” is distributed to CBP personnel and other stakeholders nationwide.

Office of Training and Development (OTD): Is responsible for the centralized leadership and direction of all CBP training programs for the entire workforce. OTD ensures that all training supports the CBP mission and strategic goals, 

and that the workforce is prepared to meet the challenges faced in the performance of mission critical operations 

by establishing CBP training standards and policies, leading the development, delivery and evaluation of training, 

and procuring the necessary tools.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Overview of CBP
46 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Overview of CBP
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 47

Overview of CBP
48 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

In FY 2009, CBP issued its updated Strategic Plan for FY 2009–2014. The plan serves as the foundation of an overall framework that links CBP strategic planning to the resource allocation process. This updated plan is designed 

to guide the strategic planning efforts of the various offices and programs within CBP; enable the development 

of effective strategies and establish key priorities needed to achieve our mission and improve operational performance. Agency progress is described in this PAR.

CBP’s Strategic Management Framework (SMF) was developed to facilitate the development of performance plans 

within CBP and improve the integration of planning, performance, and resource management CBP-wide. The SMF 

is a comprehensive approach designed to ensure that performance plans and associated strategies provide clear strategic direction, transparent accountability, and promote a results-oriented culture throughout the organization.

The SMF consists of four parts: the CBP Strategic Plan (mission, vision, goals, and objectives); cross-cutting strategy documents; component level implementation plans; and a quarterly review process to monitor performance. 

The illustration below outlines the SMF and its associated process and documents.

Performance Goals and Results
49

Performance Management

CBP uses performance measures to determine if desired results are achieved, which indicates what the agency is 

accomplishing. These measures provide decision-makers with the necessary information on where they should 

place resources and strategic efforts to ensure program effectiveness. Performance measures also keep CBP focused 

on its key goals and cross-cutting enablers, help to justify budget increases, and provide focus for planning efforts. 

Additionally, performance measures establish results in reporting to the OMB and DHS, as well as responding to 

GAO and DHS OIG recommendations.

In the past, CBP performance measures have evenly aligned to a program and strategic goal. With the creation of 

the FY 2009–2014 CBP Strategic Plan, the agency identified several strategic areas that would benefit from new 

outcome-based performance measures. CBP is developing a plan to establish these new outcome measures for its 

strategic goals and cross-cutting enablers. CBP will demonstrate program effectiveness in achieving our long-term 

performance goals through the continuous improvement of performance measures.

The strategic goals and objectives in the FY 2009–2014 CBP Strategic Plan provide a roadmap of activities for 

accomplishing the agency’s important mission. CBP also recognizes that certain cross-cutting enablers affect CBP’s 

ability to accomplish its mission and ultimately achieve its goals. Focusing on the cross-cutting enablers that cut 

across CBP’s goals enables CBP to better outline strategies to these factors into action plans.

The three critical identified enablers are:

•	 Leverage intelligence and information sharing to maximize the effectiveness of limited resources. CBP must 

leverage its frontline officers and agents to gain information that can be used to strengthen the Nation’s security and to act upon intelligence that will help CBP carry out its critical border security mission.

•	 Maximize the power of partnerships. Partnerships have contributed greatly to CBP’s progress in developing 

and implementing the various strategies that have improved border security and facilitation of global trade 

and travel. CBP’s success relies upon the creation of enduring partnerships and maintaining open lines of 

communication domestically and internationally. Identifying, establishing, and enhancing or expanding beneficial partnerships will allow CBP to enhance the enforcement of and compliance with agriculture, immigration and other federally enforced laws and regulations.

•	 Promote achievement and a results-driven culture through an effective management infrastructure that fosters 

the highest standards of integrity. CBP fosters an environment designed to leverage state-of-the-art technologies, innovative strategies, and worldwide partnerships to protect America’s communities and defend its 

borders. Through the development and implementation of the SMF that integrates investment management, 

resource management and program management, CBP will achieve a maximum return on investment on its 

top mission-focused goals.

CBP’s cross-cutting enablers (improved intelligence and information sharing, expansion of partnerships, and management operations and organization effectiveness) are critical to CBP’s success in achieving our mission and are 

primary considerations in developing strategies and action plans to implement the CBP Strategic Plan.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Goals and Results
50 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

CBP is dedicated to continuously refining and improving its performance measures. The goal is to ensure that the 

data we report internally and externally are useful to senior executives tasked with making tough programming 

and funding decisions. As CBP begins to implement the FY 2009–2014 CBP Strategic Plan, programs will evaluate their performance measures and align them to the new strategic goals and objectives. Wherever gaps exist, 

new measures will be developed. CBP’s performance measures’ reliability and validity will be assessed each year 

through structured reviews, external feedback, and independent audits.

FY 2009 Performance by Strategic Goal

This section presents a discussion of highlighted FY 2009 performance objectives and related key performance 

measures for each of CBP’s strategic goals. Additional performance measures and results can be found in the 

“Performance” section under “Performance Summary,” beginning on page 70.

Strategic Goal 1: Secure Our Nation’s Borders to Protect America from the Entry of 

Dangerous People and Goods and Prevent Unlawful Trade and Travel.

As a frontline border security agency, CBP has a multifaceted and complex mission of protecting the Nation 

against a multitude of cross-border violations. All CBP 

efforts to secure the border, including our mission of 

enforcing the immigration, customs, trade, agriculture, 

and other laws of the United States contribute to the 

mission of thwarting terrorism.

Performance Objective—Establish and maintain effective control of air, land, and maritime borders through 

the use of the appropriate mix of infrastructure, technology, and personnel.

CBP will continue its efforts to expand and maintain effective control of all air, land, and maritime borders at and 

between our POEs through a layered, defense-in-depth approach. Providing security along our northern, southern, and coastal borders requires effective coordination and integration of all of CBP’s operational components, 

along with the guidance and assistance of essential CBP mission support personnel.

Performance Goals and Results

CBP Officer checks a passenger’s documents.
51

Performance Measure—Border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors).

Description

This measure depicts the number of border miles under effective control, a condition met when 

there is reasonable assurance that illegal entries are detected, identified, and classified, and the 

Border Patrol has the ability to respond and bring these incidents to a satisfactory law enforcement 

resolution. Our Nation’s southwest, northern, and coastal borders extend 8,607 miles through 

deserts, prairies, forests, mountains, open spaces, waterways, small town settings, and urban centers. 

This vast area between the legal ports of entry is controlled by deploying the appropriate mix of 

personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure to the disparate border environments.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 288 Miles 449 Miles 599 Miles 757 Miles 815 Miles 939 Miles

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The Border Patrol gained an additional 182 miles of border under effective control since 

FY 2008. This increase can be attributed to a combination of different factors. In many areas, tactical 

infrastructure that had been under construction was completed, closing off some of the high-risk 

areas exploited by the criminal element. This first line of defense allowed sectors to re-deploy agents 

and mobile SBInet technology in order to more efficiently patrol the border. The Southwest Border 

also received approximately 1,960 new agents, further enhancing the sectors’ ability to deploy 

personnel efficiently and responsibly. The right mix of personnel, technology and infrastructure is 

critical to gaining effective control of our Nation’s borders.

Data Source Operational Requirements Based Budget Program (ORBBP) database.

Performance Objective—Deploy and employ the most effective inspection and scanning technology available at 

designated land border ports, airports, seaports, permanent Border Patrol traffic checkpoints, and international 

areas in which CBP operates to detect and prevent the entry of hazardous materials, goods, and instruments of 

terror into the United States.

CBP uses a layered, defense-in-depth approach that includes multiple technology combinations. CBP employs NII 

technology to detect and interdict weapons, narcotics, currency, and other contraband secreted in large containers 

and commercial shipments. Technologies currently deployed include large-scale X-ray and gamma ray imaging 

systems, radiation detection technology, and a variety of portable and hand-held technologies.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Goals and Results
52 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—Percent of truck and rail containers screened for contraband and concealed people 

using imaging or physical inspection.

Description

The percentage of truck and rail containers screened for contraband and concealed people using NII 

technology and physical inspection. Truck and rail containers scanned are those that are identified 

as high-risk through the Automated Targeting System (ATS) as well as those selected for random 

review. NII technology consists of X-ray imaging and electromagnetic imaging equipment that is 

very effective at inspecting trucks, containers, and packages for shapes, density, and hidden cargo to 

identify weapons, narcotics, smuggled humans, and concealed cargo. NII equipment is not effective 

at identifying radioactive or weapons-grade materials which are identified using radiation portal 

monitors. These two technologies work together to fully screen cargo.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 28.90% 32.80% 40.00% 35.80% 35.00% 39.10%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The percentage scanned is significantly higher than the standard for FY 2009 due in part 

to the significant decline in the overall volume of containers arriving at U.S. land border ports. The 

decline in volume is a result of the economic downturn experienced over the past year.

Data Source Operations Management Reports (OMR) Data Warehouse.

Performance Measure—Percent of sea containers screened for contraband and concealed people using 

imaging or physical inspection.

Description

The measure shows progress towards increasing security by measuring the percent of sea containers 

arriving at seaports that were screened for contraband and concealed people using NII technology 

and physical inspection. Sea containers that are scanned are those that are identified as high-risk 

through ATS manifest reviews as well as those selected for random review. NII technology consists 

of x-ray imaging and electromagnetic imaging equipment that is very effective at inspecting trucks, 

containers, and packages for shapes, density, and hidden cargo. It is very effective at identifying 

weapons, narcotics, smuggled humans, and concealed cargo. NII equipment is not effective at 

identifying radioactive or weapons-grade materials which are identified using radiation portal 

monitors. These two technologies work together to fully screen cargo.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 5.60% 5.25% 4.00% 3.60% 3.20% 4.60%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The percentage scanned is significantly higher than the standard for FY 2009 due in part 

to the significant decline in the overall volume of containers arriving at U.S. land border ports. The 

decline in volume is a result of the economic downturn experienced over the past year.

Data Source Operations Management Reports (OMR) Data Warehouse.

Performance Goals and Results
53

Performance Objective—Secure the use and availability of the best quality and quantity of biometric and biographical information at designated land border ports, airports, seaports, Border Patrol Stations, permanent checkpoints, and international areas in which CBP operates to detect and prevent the entry of dangerous people into the 

United States.

CBP officers use biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints (using an inkless fingerprint scanner) and photographs 

(using a digital camera), to verify the identity of foreign nationals wishing to enter the United States. The US-VISIT 

program continues to deploy and support biometric systems by providing biometric information that helps thwart 

identity fraud by providing unalterable, unassailable identity information and aiding in determining if someone 

has remained in the country longer than authorized. Border Patrol Stations are equipped to collect and electronically transmit biometric information to the automated databases such as the Automated Biometric Identification 

System (IDENT) and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). These systems collect 

and maintain biometric information and perform searches against other law enforcement databases to identify 

criminals and allows CBP to quickly determine whether a person who is apprehended is the subject of a currently 

posted warrant or has a prior criminal record.

Performance Measure—Percent of individuals screened against law enforcement databases for entry into the 

United States.

Description

This measure identifies the percent of individuals arriving at the POEs who have their names and 

other identifying information checked against electronic law enforcement databases. Identification 

documents such as passports, visas, border crossing cards, military identification, etc., are reviewed 

for authenticity and the individual’s name and other identifying information are checked against 

electronic law enforcement databases available through The Enforcement Communication System 

(TECS) during the entry process at all POEs, including airports, land border ports, and seaports. More 

thorough screening increases the likelihood that high-risk travelers that might cause harm are not 

allowed entry into the United States.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A N/A 73.50% 80.00% 83.40%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—CBP has worked with the Department of State (DOS) to increase the number of Radio 

Frequency Identification (RFID) enabled passport cards and Border Crossing Cards. It has also 

continued to deploy RFID technology to the land border ports of entry to increase the enforcement 

query rate of all travelers.

Data Source The Enforcement Communication System (TECS),

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Goals and Results
54 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure the Efficient Flow of Legitimate Trade and Travel Across 

U.S. Borders.

In order to meet the twin goals of security and facilitation, CBP will develop and implement programs 

that expedite the processing of people and goods at 

land border ports, airports, and seaports, while at the 

same time securing the global trade environment and 

strengthening supply chain security. CBP will focus its 

resources on identifying and responding to high-risk 

travelers and conveyances. CBP employs a risk-based, 

layered enforcement approach through the use of accurate advance information; the most advanced inspection, 

screening, and scanning technology available; modernized systems for cargo processing; and international and 

trade compliance partnership programs. Modern trading practices make it essential for CBP to provide risk-based, predictable, transparent, and efficient procedures for 

the clearance of goods, while simultaneously addressing increasingly complex trade compliance requirements and 

evolving security challenges.

Performance Objective—Expedite the processing of people, products, and conveyances at land border 

ports, airports, and seaports, through the use of accurate advance information and modernized systems for 

cargo processing.

CBP’s ability to expedite the processing of people, products, and conveyances is dependant on its ability to identify 

high-risk travelers and goods for inspection. High-risk targeting allows law-abiding travelers and commerce to 

move without unnecessary delay. CBP applies its targeting methods against data to determine which passengers 

or shipments need to be segregated for closer inspections. CBP uses ATS and associated databases to provide CBP 

officers (including those stationed overseas) with advance notice of travelers and goods arriving at U.S. POEs, 

allowing them to cross-check the passenger and cargo manifests against databases such as TECS and the National 

Crime Information Center. CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system has modernized U.S. trade 

processing by consolidating seven cargo processing systems into a single portal. ACE provides CBP and other component personnel with better information before a shipment reaches U.S. borders so that cargo can be expedited 

based on compliance with U.S. laws.

Performance Goals and Results

CBP Border Patrol agent utilizes an automated 

fingerprint recognition system.
55

Performance Measure—Air passengers compliant with laws, rules, and regulations (%).

Description

This measure is the compliance rate of international air passengers with all of the laws, rules, 

and regulations that CBP enforces at the Ports of Entry, with the exception of agriculture laws and 

regulations. It is also referred to as the Air Compex rate, and includes all customs and immigration 

violations, both category I (major) and category II (relatively minor). Category II violations far 

out-number category I violations and include all noncompliance with established customs and 

immigration laws, rules, and regulations, as well as violation of all rules and regulations of other 

agencies that CBP is tasked by Congress with enforcing. This includes inadmissible alien travelers 

(for any reason) as well as discovery of prohibited items for other agencies, such as Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) pharmaceutical regulations, confiscation of alcoholic beverages on behalf 

of state authorities, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) product safety alerts, and trade 

violations such as amended declarations resulting in additional revenue or CBP action.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 99.00% 98.70% 98.70% 99.50% 99.20% 98.10%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—The process used to compile Compliance Examination (COMPEX) data was 

substantially revised during FY 2009, following GAO audit recommendations to expand COMPEX to 

fully incorporate all qualifying immigration and agricultural violations. This resulted in an increase 

in the total number of minor violations included. In addition, the implementation of WHTI at major 

airports, completed during 2008, resulted in more thorough inspections and document checks, 

which may have also contributed to an increase in minor violations. These increases in observed 

minor violations resulted in an overall reduction in the computed air passenger compliance rate.

Recommended 

Action

CBP will continue to enhance information provided to travelers in advance of arrival, through 

pre-clearance programs, trusted traveler programs, and traveler education efforts such as the 

“Know Before You Go” web page on the CBP web site www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/

and signage at airports in an effort to better inform travelers and familiarize them with CBP 

requirements. This will help reduce the number of minor violations encountered and improve 

overall passenger compliance.

Data Source The Enforcement Communication System (TECS), Categories I and II violations.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Performance Goals and Results
56 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—Compliance rate for C-TPAT members with established C-TPAT security guidelines.

Description

This measure provides a summary of the overall compliance rate achieved for all validations 

performed during the Fiscal Year. After acceptance into the C-TPAT program, all C-TPAT members 

must undergo a periodic validation in which CBP examiners visit company locations and verify 

compliance with an industry-specific set of CBP security standards and required security practices. 

These validations are prepared using a weighted scoring system that is used to develop an overall 

compliance rate for each company. This measure provides a summary of the overall Compliance Rate 

achieved for all validations performed during the Fiscal Year.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 97.00% 98.00% 98.00% 99.90% 99.00% 97.50%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—The C-TPAT compliance rate for members with established C-TPAT security criteria 

decreased during FY 2009 as the program strengthened its validation process, which increased the 

number of companies suspended or removed following a validation. New suspension and removal 

guidelines following a validation were implemented and management oversight was increased and 

applied consistently at all levels.

Recommended 

Action

Program validation process improvements implemented in FY 2009 will have an on-going impact on 

C-TPAT operations. C-TPAT will continue to apply the strengthened security criteria and suspension/

removal rules and identify additional improvements based on observed results.

Data Source C-TPAT Validation Reports.

Performance Goals and Results
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 57

Overview

To assist with DHS’ compliance with the provisions of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

(FMFIA); the DHS Financial Accountability Act of 2004; the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000; the Federal 

Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA); the Federal Information Security Management Act of 

2002 (FISMA); and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, “Management’s Responsibility 

for Internal Control,” revised December 2004, the Commissioner of CBP must provide annual assurance statements 

to DHS regarding CBP’s management and financial system controls, internal controls over financial reporting, and 

performance data reliability regarding activity that is significant at the DHS Consolidated level. Any material weaknesses or deficiencies are reported in the statements. Information for these statements is derived from GAO and 

DHS OIG reviews, independent audits, and self-assessments provided by CBP management.

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

In accordance with FMFIA and OMB Circular A-123, CBP has evaluated its management controls and financial 

management systems for the FY ending September 30, 2009. Through its annual self-assessment process and GAO 

and OIG reviews for FY 2009, we are reporting 5 material weaknesses and 2 instances of nonconformance. Because 

of corrective actions implemented by CBP, the material weaknesses in Laptop Computer Security and the Secure 

Border Initiative Program Executive Office – Implementation of Management Controls that were reported in previous years were reduced to significant deficiencies for FY 2009 reporting.

Custodial Revenue and Drawback Controls

Drawback involves the reimbursement of duties paid by an importer on materials or merchandise imported 

into the United States and subsequently exported. In 1993, deficiencies were reported in the controls to prevent 

excessive drawback claims. CBP’s Automated Commercial System (ACS) has inherent limitations in detecting and 

preventing excessive drawback claims; therefore, CBP relies on a risk-based approach to review drawback claims. 

The strengthening of drawback controls is dependent on legislation to simplify the drawback process and to revise 

document retention requirements for the trade. CBP has recommended changes to the record-keeping requirements; however, support from the Trade community is crucial to proposing a statutory change. In addition, weaknesses have been noted and are being addressed in the monitoring of Foreign Trade Zones and Customs Bonded 

Warehouses, as well as the tracking of In-Bond cargo.

Property, Plant, and Equipment

CBP did not have adequate policies and procedures in place to properly account for new equipment purchases and 

transfers, construction, or to properly identify and allocate indirect costs to construction projects, or to ensure that 

depreciation is properly computed and recorded in a timely manner. In addition, CBP found a need to improve 

Management Assurances
58 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

agency-wide communication to ensure that significant financial related events outside the Office of Finance are 

timely communicated for proper and timely accounting and reporting consideration.

Financial Reporting

CBP did not conduct a thorough review of the year-end financial statements which initially resulted in misstatements to the year-end financial statements. CBP Management will update their policies and procedures for assembling the financial statements to include standard reviews, approvals, and edit checks.

Business Continuity

For FY 2009, CBP reported inadequate resources for business continuity testing of Chief Financial Officer designated financial systems. Continuity plans are tested to ensure that, in the event of a true emergency, resources are 

in place and individuals are trained to quickly and effectively continue business processes at an alternate location 

in the event that the CBP Data Center is made unavailable. However, during a scheduled test, CBP found that it was 

not possible to bring all systems online because hardware was not available at the recovery facility to fully and 

properly perform the continuity testing. CBP is currently studying options for correcting this weakness.

Information Security (previously US VISIT Technical Security Issues)

In 2007, GAO performed a Technical Security Assessment of US VISIT and determined that CBP needed to immediately address significant security weaknesses in systems supporting core CBP systems. As of 2009, CBP has implemented 61 of 82 audit recommendations; however, significant upgrades to the CBP infrastructure still remain. CBP 

anticipates corrective actions to be completed by December 31, 2011, pending available funding.

Financial Systems Security 

(previously Information Technology General and Application Controls)

DHS requires each Component’s information technology (IT) systems identified as CFO-Designated Systems to 

comply with the 27 key internal controls detailed in the DHS Management Directive 4300–1, DHS Sensitive 

Systems Policy Directive 4300A, DHS 4300A Sensitive Systems Handbook (SSH), and its Attachment R, Compliance 

Framework for CFO Designated Financial Systems. During the FY 2009 A-123 assessment of Information Technology 

General Controls, it was noted that 3 of 7 CBP CFO-Designated Financial Systems have IT internal control weaknesses with user account management and noted weaknesses with IT security logging and monitoring, system 

software, and segregation of duties, thereby limiting management’s assurance on the internal controls over 

these systems.

Management Assurances
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 59

Core Financial Systems

This material weakness was first reported in 1993 when it was noted that CBP’s core financial systems were not 

integrated and did not provide certain financial information for managing operations. The implementation of 

Systems, Applications, and Products (SAP) Release 3 in 2004 addressed a number of the issues under this weakness. The remaining open issue relates to the accounts receivable functionality that will be provided by the 

Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) once it becomes the system of record for trade revenue activity and 

reporting. In addition, the Computerized Aircraft Reporting and Material Control (CARMAC) System and Customs 

Automated Maintenance and Inventory Tracking System (CAMITS) are not integrated with SAP at the transaction 

level. Reconciliations are performed to ensure accurate reporting.

DHS Financial Accountability Act

The DHS Financial Accountability Act requires an assertion of internal controls over financial reporting. For 

FY 2009, the scope of CBP’s assessment of internal controls over financial reporting included performing limited tests of operational effectiveness throughout FY 2009 and tests of design as of September 30, 2009, over 

the following processes that generated significant balance sheet and statement of custodial activity from a DHS 

Consolidated level:

Tests of Operational Effectiveness

•	 Entity Level Controls

•	 Fund Balance with Treasury

•	 Financial Reporting

•	 Property Management

•	 Revenue Management

•	 Tests of Design

•	 Financial Systems Security

Based on the scope of this assessment, CBP provides reasonable assurance that internal controls over financial 

reporting were designed and/or operating effectively, with the exception of the aggregated issues of the material 

weaknesses, Custodial Revenue and Drawback Controls, Property, Plant and Equipment and Financial Reporting, 

as previously discussed. CBP management believes that sufficient compensating controls exist to provide assurance 

on the related financial statements and will continue to test and refine these controls.

Management Assurances
60 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

FFMIA instructs agencies to maintain an integrated financial management system that complies with Federal 

system requirements, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board standards, and the U.S. Standard General 

Ledger at the transaction level. Although CBP has made significant improvements toward compliance with 

the implementation of SAP financial software, it cannot claim full compliance because of the deficiencies 

previously discussed.

Federal Information Security Management Act

FISMA requires agencies to conduct an annual self-assessment review of their IT security programs and to develop 

and implement corrective actions for identified security weaknesses and vulnerabilities. CBP has completed a comprehensive self-assessment for FY 2009 and can state with reasonable assurance that the IT security controls are in 

compliance with FISMA, with the exception of the material weakness previously discussed.

Management Assurances
Management’s Discussion and Analysis 61

Overview

Data Integrity: CBP is dedicated to providing clear, concise, relevant, and reliable data for managerial decision 

making and program management. CBP strives to ensure that the data are both quantifiable and verifiable and 

provided in a timely manner. In place are internal management controls, including ongoing data reviews, annual 

self-inspections, audit trails, restricted access to sensitive data, and separation of duties, which are designed to 

safeguard the integrity and quality of CBP’s data resources.

Data Systems and Controls: Performance data for the planned performance measures are generated by automated 

management information and workload measurement systems and reports as a byproduct of day-to-day operations. All levels of management routinely monitor the data systems and controls. CBP management has reviewed 

the performance measurement data for FY 2009 and has determined, with reasonable assurance, that the data is 

complete, accurate and reliable.

Audit of the FY 2009 CBP Consolidated Financial Statements: To assist the Department in complying with the DHS 

Financial Accountability Act of 2002, the DHS OIG engaged independent auditors, KPMG LLP, to audit CBP’s consolidated financial statements (Consolidated Balance Sheets, Consolidated Statements of Net Cost, Consolidated 

Statements of Changes in Net Position, Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources, and Consolidated Statements 

of Custodial Activity), hereinafter referred to as the “financial statements.” The objective of the audit was to determine whether CBP’s financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting 

Principles (GAAP) in the United States. The Independent Auditor’s Report can be found on page 142.

Self-Inspection Program

The Self-Inspection Program (SIP), administered by the Office of Internal Affairs, Management Inspections Division 

(MID), is one of a number of processes through which CBP monitors compliance with agency policies and procedures, the accomplishment of operational objectives, and the security of funds, property, and other agency 

resources. SIP complements other monitoring processes that include ongoing management oversight, systematic 

monitoring, quality assurance reviews, periodic audits and inventories, and other verification activities. SIP also 

helps CBP meet federal internal controls requirements established by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act, 

OMB Circular A-123, and the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act.

SIP helps keep CBP managers and supervisors informed and current on CBP policies, procedures, and other requirements, including those they may not have been aware of. A fundamental feature of SIP is the requirement that 

managers reporting deficiencies in their operations develop and implement a corrective action(s) that will effectively resolve each deficient condition. The responsible manager must identify the basis (cause) for the deficient 

condition, the corrective action taken or planned to address the deficient condition, and the date the action was 

completed or its target completion date. SIP provides a mechanism for managers to identify and correct problems 

at the local level and to obtain more control over activities that they oversee. Self-inspections assist managers in 

Systems and Controls
62 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

identifying areas of non-compliance and potential vulnerability in their operations that they likely would not have 

otherwise discovered; program requirements help ensure that appropriate corrective actions are promptly implemented. SIP assists CBP managers and supervisors in maintaining accountability for their areas of responsibility as 

it requires them to “back-up” the results of their self-inspection with supporting documentation for the next level 

of management, which is responsible for certifying the results as correct.

As self-inspection results are reviewed and certified as accurate, CBP managers gain confidence that program 

internal controls are being properly implemented and problems are being identified and corrected. Results of the 

assessments are entered into the Self-Inspection Reporting System (SIRS). On a national level, the analysis of selfinspection results allows executive managers and national program managers to: gauge the level of compliance 

with critical program controls; examine the issues or underlying cause of reported instances of non-compliance; 

and identify programmatic issues that require national attention.

For the current reporting cycle, a total of 2,220 managers and supervisors in 657 CBP headquarters and field offices 

performed self-assessment activities that included performing, certifying, and/or approving the results of office 

self-inspections. CBP managers and supervisors completed 13,305 self-inspection worksheets and answered a total 

of 86,089 worksheet questions.

Management Inspections Program

As part of its oversight role to promote the integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency of CBP programs and operations, the Office of Internal Affairs, Management Inspections Division (MID), performs management inspections 

that compliment operational monitoring activities performed by CBP component offices. As part of an integrated 

inspections program, MID performs office inspections, program evaluations, contract and other financial reviews, 

quality assurance and procedural deficiency reviews, follow-up reviews of audit recommendations made by the 

Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General, and 

other analytical assessments of operational or management issues.

In completing inspections, MID provides CBP executive managers with timely, objective and reliable information and analysis concerning the administration and implementation of CBP programs, policies and procedures. 

When appropriate, MID will provide recommendations for changes in organizational policies, procedures, and 

practices intended to: resolve identified programmatic, process, or systemic weaknesses; address operational vulnerabilities; strengthen systems of internal control; and/or address impediments to the achievement of CBP goals 

and objectives.

The management inspections initiated by MID reflect a proactive approach to identifying areas of potential vulnerability or conditions that could hinder the accomplishment of CBP operational goals and objectives. During 

FY 2009, MID initiated 27 management inspections; issued 16 management inspection reports; and presented 

Systems and Controls
63

CBP executive managers with 59 recommendations to address operational, financial or administrative deficiencies 

identified during inspection activity.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Systems and Controls
64 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Financial Management

Overview

CBP strives to be a leader in financial management by providing high-quality, cost-efficient services through 

customer involvement and modern, integrated financial systems. Its goal is to continuously develop and implement more effective and efficient methods to obtain, manage, and deliver the financial resources, capital assets, 

and financial services required to meet or exceed the needs of customers and stakeholders. Because CBP is also 

a revenue-collection agency, it is imperative that it accurately identify amounts owed to CBP and efficiently and 

effectively collect, report, and account for revenue.

Providing top-quality financial management services includes translating workloads and requirements into budget 

requests for needed resources; allocating and distributing funds after resources are made available; acquiring and 

distributing goods and services used to accomplish the CBP mission; managing and paying for those goods and 

services; and reporting on the costs and use of personnel, goods, and services.

For FY 2009, SAP financial software continues to be used by CBP. SAP is a modular, PC-based, integrated financial 

management and reporting system that provides full materials management, budgeting, and general and subsidiary ledger capabilities. The impact of SAP is far-reaching, as it has put into place new automated, integrated processes for core finance and accounting, budget execution, and reporting.

Overview of the Financial Statements

The financial statements and footnotes appear in the “Financial Section” of this report on pages 88 through 139. 

The financial statements have been audited by the independent auditor engaged by the DHS OIG, KPMG LLP, who 

determined that the financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with GAAP.

Consolidated Balance Sheet

The Consolidated Balance Sheet presents the property owned by CBP (assets), amounts owed by CBP (liabilities), 

and the amounts of the difference (net position). As of September 30, 2009, total assets were $15.2 billion, an 8 

percent increase from FY 2008, which was primarily due to the construction of tactical infrastructure and virtual 

fence along the U.S. southern border.
65

Fund Balance with Treasury

50%

Other

4%

Duties & Trade 

Receivables

12%

Property, Plant & Equipment

34%

2009 Assets

Fund Balance with Treasury

55%

Other

5%

Duties & Trade 

Receivables

15%

Property, Plant & 

Equipment

25%

2008 Assets

As of September 30, 2009, total liabilities were $5.3 billion, a decrease of 7 percent over FY 2008, which related 

to amounts due to the Treasury General Fund. The charts below present a comparison of the major categories of 

assets and liabilities as a percentage of the totals for FY 2009 and FY 2008.

Accounts Payable

16%

Injured Domestic 

Industries

11%

Payroll & Benefits

24%

Due to the General Fund

38%

2009 Liabilities

Other

9%

Refunds Payable

2%

2008 Liabilities

Accounts 

Payable

19%

Injured Domestic 

Industries

7%

Payroll & Benefits

21%

Due to the General Fund

43%

Other

8%

Refunds Payable

2%

Consolidated Statement of Net Cost

The Consolidated Statement of Net Cost presents the net cost of the major CBP programs as they relate to the goals 

of the 2009–2014 Strategic Plan. The gross cost less any offsetting revenue for each program equals net cost of 

operations. Net cost of operations was $10.7 billion.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Financial Management
66 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Facilitation at the Ports of Entry

56%

Border Security 

& Control

35%

Air & Marine Operations

5%

2009 Net Program Costs

Border Security Fencing, 

Infrastructure & Technology

1%

Automation 

Modernization

3%

2008 Net Program Costs

Facilitation at the Ports of Entry

59%

Border Security & Control

37%

Air & Marine Operations

4%

Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position

The Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position represents those accounting transactions that caused the 

net position of the balance sheet to change from the beginning to the end of the reporting period. CBP’s net cost 

of operations serves to reduce the net position. Appropriations used totaled $9.2 billion, representing 75 percent 

of CBP’s total financing sources. CBP collected and retained $2.2 billion of non-exchange revenue, amounting to 

18 percent of total financing sources, which was used to fund CBP operations.

Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources

The Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources illustrates how budgetary resources were made available, as well 

as their status at the end of FY 2009. CBP had $17.7 billion in budgetary resources, of which $3.1 billion were 

unobligated. CBP incurred obligations of $14.6 billion and recorded $15 billion in gross outlays by the end of the 

fiscal year.

Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity

The Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity presents non-entity (financial activity conducted by CBP on 

behalf of others) revenue and refunds using a modified cash basis. This method reports revenue from cash collections separately from receivable accruals, and cash disbursements are reported separately from payable accruals. 

The custodial revenue, using the modified cash basis, for FY 2009 was $26 billion.

Financial Management
67

Duties

86%

User Fees

4%

2009 Custodial Cash Collections

Excise Taxes

10%

Other

< 1%

2008 Custodial Cash Collections

Duties

87%

User Fees

5%

Excise Taxes

8%

Other

< 1%

Limitations of the Financial Statements

The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of the operations 

of CBP, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515(b). While the financial statements have been prepared from 

the books and records of CBP in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Federal entities and 

the formats prescribed by OMB, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control 

budgetary resources, which are prepared from the same books and records.

The financial statements should be read with the realization that they are a component of the U.S. Government, 

a sovereign entity. Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources cannot be liquidated without the enactment 

of an appropriation by Congress, and payment of liabilities, other than for contracts, can be abrogated by the 

sovereign entity.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Financial Management
68 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Performance Section
70 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

The chart below highlights CBP’s success in achieving fiscal year 2009 performance goals. The performance measures are established as an integral part of the CBP Strategic Plan and the DHS Future Years Homeland Security 

Program (FYHSP). The measurement data are collected through various systems and methods and then entered 

into the FYHSP system for tracking and compiling for management decision-making and year-end reporting.

FY 2009 Performance Summary

Target Not Met

30%

Target Met

70%

Security, threat, and risk analyses often necessitate changes in the agency’s focus. CBP performance measures continue to evolve to better reflect operational functions and alignment with critical missions.

For fiscal year 2009, CBP has 27 reportable performance measures that support the Strategic Plan. Of the 27 performance measures, 19 were met and 8 were not met. The performance data presented in this report are in accordance with the guidance provided by OMB. The data integrity discussion in the “Systems and Controls” section 

of the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis” (page 61) describes CBP’s commitment to providing quality and 

timely performance information to increase its value to CBP management and interested parties. CBP managers 

routinely use these data to improve the quality of program management and demonstrate accountability of program results.

Individual Performance Measure Results

This section describes CBP’s fiscal year 2009 results for each FYHSP performance measure by the strategic goal and 

performance objective they support. Although some of the performance measures may relate to more than one 

performance objective, each performance measure was aligned under the single objective considered most relevant 

or meaningful. Discussions of the key performance measures can be found in the “Management’s Discussion and 

Analysis” section under “Performance Goals and Results,” beginning on page 48.

Performance Summary
Performance Section 71

Performance Summary

Strategic Goal 1: Secure Our Nation’s Borders to Protect America from the Entry of 

Dangerous People and Goods and Prevent Unlawful Trade and Travel.

Performance Objective—Establish and maintain effective control of air, land, and maritime borders through the 

use of the appropriate mix of infrastructure, technology, and personnel.

Performance Measure—Border miles under effective control (including certain coastal sectors).

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—See page 51 for results and detailed discussion.

Performance Measure—Border miles with increased situational awareness aimed at preventing illegal entries 

per year.

Description

This measure indicates the number of border miles where situational awareness has increased or 

improved to prevent illegal entries into the United States. The Border Patrol uses the following levels 

to describe border security: Remote/Low Activity, Less Monitored, Monitored, and Controlled. 

Border regions classified as Remote/Low Activity are generally characterized by rugged and 

inaccessible terrain. By raising the border security status to Less Monitored (or higher) the Border 

Patrol improves its situational awareness and border security.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 387 Miles 480 Miles 100 Miles 555 Miles

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—OBP used a balanced application of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure, 

as well as partnerships with other law enforcement—particularly on the Northern Border—to raise 

situational awareness in the higher risk areas of our border.

Data Source Operational Requirements Based Budget Program (ORBBP) database.
72 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—Percent of apprehensions at Border Patrol checkpoints.

Description

Checkpoints are facilities used by the Border Patrol to monitor traffic on routes of egress from areas 

on the Southwestern and Northern borders. Checkpoints are an integral part of the Border Patrol’s 

defense-in-depth, layered strategy. As such, measurements of activities occurring at checkpoints 

serve not only to gauge checkpoint operational effectiveness, but also serve as barometers of the 

effectiveness of the Border Patrol’s overall national border enforcement strategy to deny illegal entries 

into the United States. This measure examines one component of checkpoint activity, the number 

of persons apprehended by Border Patrol agents, and compares these apprehensions to Border Patrol 

apprehensions made nationwide.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A 5.90% 5.00%* 2.00% > 3.00% 2.85%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—Apprehensions at the checkpoints, as a percentage of all OBP apprehensions, 

have been reduced from FY 2006 levels of nearly 6%. This measure serves as a barometer of our 

operational effectiveness in the immediate border area. Increased operational control at the border 

may help explain the drop in apprehensions at checkpoints.

Recommended 

Action

Border Patrol is examining a better, more holistic methodology for targeting its percentage of 

checkpoint apprehensions by reviewing the coordination and interconnection of checkpoint 

operations with other operations used to control the border environment.

Data Source

Summary records from Border Patrol’s Checkpoint Activity Report (CAR) and data maintained in two 

databases: ENFORCE and BPETS.

*Percentage does not include data from Tucson Sector.

Performance Measure—Percent of traffic checkpoint cases referred for prosecution

Description

This measure examines the percentage of Border Patrol checkpoint apprehensions that are referred 

for federal, state, and local prosecution. Prosecution referrals illustrate the effectiveness of Border 

Patrol checkpoint operations in identifying dangerous criminals for prosecution, this enhancing 

overall public safety.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 13% 18% > 18% 25%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—OBP successfully worked with strategic partners to present a high number of cases 

for prosecution, with the intent to deter criminal aliens and the criminal element in border 

communities.

Data Source Reported by quarterly data calls to Border Patrol sectors.

Performance Summary
73

Performance Measure—Number of Border Patrol Agents trained in rescue and emergency 

medical procedures.

Description

The number of agents trained and certified in rescue and emergency medical procedures. One of the 

Border Patrol’s Border Safety Initiative (BSI) objectives is to increase the number of agents trained and 

certified in rescue and emergency medical procedures at the field agent level to improve the Border 

Patrol’s capabilities to prevent and respond to humanitarian emergencies to create a safer and more 

secure border region.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 796 1,381 690 1,956

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—As the number of Border Patrol agents has increased significantly, OBP has intensified 

its efforts to train a higher number of agents in rescue and emergency medical response capabilities. 

These skills improve an agent’s ability to provide humanitarian assistance to persons in distress.

Data Source Border Patrol Enforcement Tracking System (BPETS).

Performance Measure—Number of airspace incursions along the southern border (extending the physical 

zone of security beyond the borders).

Description

The number of airspace incursions along the southern border. The measure monitors OAM efforts 

in reducing, with the intent of ultimately denying, the use of border air space for acts of terrorism 

or smuggling using intelligence and threat assessments. OAM continues to gather and analyze 

intelligence on past and current threat patterns to forecast and disseminate information about 

potential and emerging threats. The targeted goals for this measure are to maintain this low level of 

border incursions at a minimum and reduce it if possible, until there are no border incursions.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A 13 32 9 10 20

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—There were a total of 20 incursions of other than ultra-light or Mexican Military 

aircraft on the southwest border for FY 2009. An increase in ground inspection successes has forced 

drug smuggling organizations to increase the use of air assets for smuggling purposes.

Recommended 

Action

Radar technology and integration software is currently being upgraded to increase the likelihood of 

detection of smaller and slower air targets.

Data Source TECS, AMOR and validated real-time data.

Performance Section

Performance Summary
74 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—Percent of air support launches accomplished to support border ground agents to 

secure the border.

Description

A primary and important measure for OAM is its capability to launch an aircraft when a request is 

made for aerial support. This measure captures the percent of all requests made for air support to 

which the program was able to respond.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 98% 98% > 95% 99%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—Of 19,487 requests, 120 “no launches” were submitted. These requests for air support 

could not be supported, due to either improper aircraft, crew or maintenance problems.

Data Source Air and Marine Operations Reporting System (AMOR).

Performance Measure—Percent of at-risk miles under strategic air surveillance (strategic air coverage).

Description

The percent of at risk miles under strategic air surveillance evaluated according to up-to-the-minute 

information and intelligence. This measure describes the area of the U.S. border determined to be 

under the span of control of OAM assets. CBP OAM uses a multi-level approach for aerial response 

and support to accomplish its goals:

•	 Strategic surveillance for the P-3 and UAS aircraft;

•	 Intelligence driven support for the rapid deployment of forces; and

•	 Strategic and tactical support to ground law enforcement such as the Office of Border Patrol 

and ICE.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A 55% 60% 84% 80% 82%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The addition of northern border radars from DoD and the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) has increased the percentage of miles under strategic surveillance.

Data Source SAP, CARMAC, APATS, CAMITS generated reports and analyst spreadsheets.

Performance Summary
75

Performance Measure—Total number of cumulative miles of permanent tactical infrastructure constructed.

Description

The total number of permanent cumulative miles of tactical infrastructure constructed. Tactical 

infrastructure consists of barriers built to deter or delay illegal entries into the United States. Tactical 

infrastructure includes pedestrian fencing, all-weather roads, vehicle fence and permanent lighting 

installed in the border areas to support border enforcement activities.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 400.2 Miles 501.6 Miles 800 Miles 812 Miles

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—Includes 636.5 miles of pedestrian and vehicle fence, 106.5 miles of permanent roads, 

and 68.6 miles of permanent lighting.

Data Source Permanent tactical infrastructure implementation plans and installation progress data in ORBBP, SAP, 

ENFORCE, and BPETS.

Performance Measure—Percent of border miles covered by SBInet technology – southwest border.

Description

SBInet is an integrated system of technology such as radars, cameras, and ground sensors that provide 

diction and surveillance capabilities to law enforcement personnel over the U.S. border. This measure 

describes the border miles covered by SBInet technology as a percentage of the total of U.S. southwest 

land border miles.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A N/A N/A 35.10% 27%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—Experiencing budget cuts (will not deploy AJO this FY and contractor delivery 

schedule slips. AJO is sector in Arizona. More specifically, Ajo, Arizona).

Recommended 

Action

SBI and the system prime contractor continued to resolve technical and programmatic issues that 

precluded on-time delivery of capabilities to the border. Corrective actions were identified, and in 

many cases already implemented. Technology deployments along both the southern and northern 

borders are underway today and future progress measures will be improving significantly.

Data Source Wide-Area Sensor Surveillance Planning Tool (WASSPT).

Performance Objective—Deploy and employ the most effective inspection and scanning technology available at 

designated land border ports, airports, seaports, permanent Border Patrol traffic checkpoints, and international 

areas in which CBP operates to detect and prevent the entry of hazardous materials, goods, and instruments of 

terror into the United States.

Performance Section

Performance Summary
76 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—Percent of truck and rail containers screened for contraband and concealed people 

using imaging or physical inspection.

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—See page 52 for results and detailed discussion.

Performance Measure—Percent of sea containers screened for contraband and concealed people using 

imaging or physical inspection.

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—See page 52 for results and detailed discussion.

Performance Objective—Secure the use and availability of the best quality and quantity of biometric and biographical information at designated land border ports, airports, seaports, Border Patrol Stations, permanent checkpoints, and international areas in which CBP operates to detect and prevent the entry of dangerous people into the 

United States.

Performance Measure—Percent of individuals screened against law enforcement databases for entry into the 

United States.

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—See page 53 for results and detailed discussion.

Strategic Goal 2: Ensure the Efficient Flow of Legitimate Trade and Travel across 

U.S. Borders.

Performance Objective—Expedite the processing of people, products, and conveyances at land border 

ports, airports, and seaports, through the use of accurate advance information and modernized systems for 

cargo processing.

Performance Measure—Air passengers compliant with laws, rules, and regulations (%).

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—See page 55 for results and detailed discussion.

Performance Summary
77

Performance Measure—Land border passengers compliant with laws, rules, and regulations (%).

Description The compliance rate of land border vehicle passengers with all of the laws, rules, and regulations that 

CBP enforces at the Ports of Entry, with the exception of agriculture laws and regulations.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.9% 99.8%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—The process used to compile COMPEX data was substantially revised during FY 2009, 

following GAO audit recommendations to expand COMPEX to fully incorporate all qualifying 

immigration and agricultural violations. This resulted in an increase in the total number of minor 

violations included. In addition, the implementation of WHTI at major land border ports, completed 

during 2008, resulted in more thorough inspections and document checks, which may have also 

contributed to an increase in minor violations. These increases in observed minor violations resulted 

in an overall reduction in the computed land border passenger compliance rate.

Recommended 

Action

CBP will continue to enhance information provided to travelers in advance of arrival, through 

pre-clearance programs, trusted traveler programs, and traveler education efforts such as the “Know 

Before You Go” web page on the CBP web site www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/vacation/kbyg/ and signage 

at airports in an effort to better inform travelers and familiarize them with CBP requirements.

Data Source The Enforcement Communication System (TECS), Categories I and II violations.

Performance Measure—Border vehicle passengers in compliance with agricultural quarantine regulations 

(percent compliant).

Description

The degree of compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agricultural quarantine 

regulations and other mandatory agricultural product restrictions. CBP randomly samples border 

vehicle passengers for compliance with all USDA laws, rules and regulations using USDA guidance on 

sampling procedures.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 93.7% 92.9% 95.7% 97.7% 95.5% 97.06%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The border vehicle agricultural compliance rate is determined by the rate of occurrence 

of all agriculture-related violations of arriving travelers. CBP has been moving aggressively to fill 

open Agricultural Specialist positions and continued progress in reaching full staffing levels has 

enable CBP to maintain the high level of compliance achieved last year.

Data Source USDA Work Accomplishment Data System (WADS) Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 

monitoring activities.

Performance Section

Performance Summary
78 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—International air passengers in compliance with agriculture quarantine regulations 

(percent compliant).

Description

The degree of compliance with agriculture quarantine regulations and other mandatory agricultural 

product restrictions. CBP randomly samples international air passengers for compliance with all 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) laws, rules and regulations using USDA guidance on 

sampling procedures.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 95.8% 95.5% 94.2% 95.8% 96% 96.12%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The air passenger agricultural compliance rate is determined by the rate of occurrence of 

all agriculture-related violations of arriving travelers. CBP has been moving aggressively to fill open 

Agricultural Specialist positions and continued progress in reaching full staffing levels may have 

contributed to the improvement observed for FY 2009.

Data Source USDA Work Accomplishment Data System (WADS) Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 

monitoring activities.

Performance Measure—Land border apprehension rate for major violations.

Description

This measure provides a statistically valid estimate of the apprehension rate of land vehicle passengers 

for major violations who enter the United States through land POEs. The sample rate is used to 

estimate the “expected” number of major violations in the general population. Major violations found 

during regular primary inspection processes are compared to the “expected” number to compute 

the apprehension rate for major violations among vehicle passengers traveling into the United States. 

A major violation involves serious criminal activity including possession of narcotics, smuggling of 

prohibited products, human smuggling, weapons possession, fraudulent U.S. documents, and other 

offenses serious enough to result in arrest.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 34.5% 28.9% 28% 56.4%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The process used to compile COMPEX data was substantially revised during FY 2009, 

following GAO audit recommendations to expand COMPEX to fully incorporate all qualifying 

immigration and agricultural violations.

Data Source The Enforcement Communication System (TECS), Categories I and II violations.

Performance Summary
79

Performance Measure—Air passenger apprehension rate for major violations.

Description

This measure provides a statistically valid estimate of the apprehension rate of air passengers for 

major violations at international airports. The sample rate is used to estimate the “expected” number 

of major violations in the general population. Major violations found during regular primary 

inspection processes are compared to the “expected” number to compute the apprehension rate for 

major violations among air passengers traveling into the United States. A major violation involves 

serious criminal activity including possession of narcotics, smuggling of prohibited products, human 

smuggling, weapons possession, fraudulent U.S. documents, and other offenses serious enough to 

result in arrest.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A 40.3% 25% 25% 69.1%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The process used to compile COMPEX data was substantially revised during FY 2009, 

following GAO audit recommendations to expand COMPEX to fully incorporate all qualifying 

immigration and agricultural violations. All passengers with violations identified through 

pre-screening programs and information provided in advance of arrival are identified prior to normal 

processing and are not included in the COMPEX sample.

Data Source The Enforcement Communication System (TECS), Categories I and II violations.

Performance Measure—Compliance rate for C-TPAT members with established C-TPAT security guidelines.

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—See page 56 for results and detailed discussion.

Performance Section

Performance Summary
80 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Performance Measure—Percent of CBP workforce using ACE functionality to manage trade information.

Description

The number of CBP personnel using ACE, compared with the targeted adoption rate, shows that 

internal personnel have easier and quicker access to more complete, accurate, and sophisticated 

information than in the past.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 8% 23% 30% 38.3% 63% 40%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—CBP user rate was impacted by later than expected deployment of ACE capability in 

FY 2009. CBP field personnel will continue to use ACS as the cargo processing system of record until 

ACE releases replace it.

Recommended 

Action

CBP management will continue to focus attention on the release of capabilities that will introduce 

ACE functionality to a greater number of CBP trade processing personnel.

Data Source ACE system-use metrics.

Performance Objective—Employ the use of risk management and targeting to detect and deter trade non-compliance and apply consistent enforcement actions.

Performance Measure—Total number of linked electronic sources from CBP and other government agencies 

for targeting information.

Description

The number of electronic sources to which CBP information technology systems are linked to share 

information for targeting purposes. The ability to accurately and efficiently identify a potential risk 

to border security in any conveyance entering the United States is improved by linking data sources 

from CBP automated systems and other government agencies, through ACE, as a single source for 

border decision makers.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A 9 16 19 22 22

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—CBP met the goal of providing targeted information by creating access to and linking 

electronic data sources. This has enabled CBP to improve decision-making with the efficient use of 

information for vetting security risks.

Data Source Targeting and Analysis Systems Program Office (TASPO).

Cross-Cutting Enabler—Leverage intelligence and information sharing to maximize the effectiveness of our limited resources.

Performance Summary
81

Performance Measure—Percent of time The Enforcement Communication System (TECS) is available to 

end users.

Description

Quantification, as a percentage, of the end-user experience in terms of TECS service availability. TECS 

is a CBP mission critical law enforcement application system designed to identify individuals and 

businesses suspected of or involved in violation of federal law. TECS is also a communications system 

permitting message transmittal between DHS law enforcement offices and other national, state, and 

local law enforcement agencies. TECS provides access to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication Systems (NLETS) with the capability 

of communicating directly with state and local enforcement agencies. NLETS provides direct access to 

state motor vehicle departments.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 96.2% 98% 98.7% 99.9% 98% 99%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—The target was met based on the calculation of an adjusted availability. TECS ID was not 

working for a 3 week period in August. The adjusted availability was calculated by omitting the 

3 week period in August, and using the availability numbers before and after the 3 week period. 

Results are based on synthetic transactions that are executed every 10 minutes. The synthetic 

transaction performs typical operations that an actual user would perform against TECS database and 

measure the success or failure of those transactions. The majority of failures during this period were 

due to problems with the automated process that performs the synthetic transactions.

Data Source Topaz, a web-based application that enables users to track and analyze availability and system 

performance problems.

Performance Section

Performance Summary
82 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Cross-Cutting Enabler—Maximize the power of partnerships.

Performance Measure—Percent of requested cargo examinations conducted at foreign ports of origin in 

cooperation with host nations under CSI.

Description

CBP officials located at foreign ports participating under agreements between the host nations and 

CSI request examinations on containers that have been identified as higher-risk. This measure is 

the percent of requested container examinations resolved or conducted by foreign Customs officials 

meeting CBP examination standards and requirements divided by the total number of examinations 

requested by CBP CSI officials. The measure is an indication of the extent to which potential higherrisk cargo is satisfactorily inspected before it leaves the foreign port of origin. It also reflects the 

cooperation of foreign Customs officials who are not required by law to complete examinations, but 

do so by arrangement through the Declaration of Principles between CBP and the host country.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A N/A N/A 95.1% 97% 93%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Not Met—The FY 2009 target of 97% was initially set slightly higher than a limited sampling 

of data from FY 2008. Detailed analysis of the complete set of FY 2008 data supports a target for this 

measure of 95%. Actual examination rates depend on host country logistics, procedures, and NII 

equipment at each port. For FY 2009, relatively low examination rates at the ports of Shenzhen and 

Shanghai, China have significantly impacted CSI’s overall examination rates and have caused the CSI 

examination average to significantly decrease below expected standards.

Recommended 

Action

CSI is working with DOS to address the issues encountered at the ports of Shenzhen and Shanghai 

with the Chinese government.

Data Source Automated Targeting System (ATS).

Performance Summary
83

Performance Measure—Percent of worldwide, U.S.-destined containers processed through CSI ports.

Description

The percentage of worldwide, U.S.-destined containers (tracked via their respective bills of lading) 

processed through CSI ports as a deterrence action to detect and prevent terrorist weapons of mass 

destruction/effects (WMD/WMEs) and other potentially harmful materials from leaving foreign 

ports bound for U.S. ports. Processing may include any of the following:

•	 U.S.-destined cargo manifest/bills of lading data reviewed using the Automated Targeting 

System (ATS);

•	 Further research conducted;

•	 Collaboration with host country and intelligence representatives; and

•	 Physical examination of the container.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 73% 82% 86% 86.1% 86% 86.1%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—During FY 2009, the CSI Program continued to maintain operations at 58 of the largest 

international shipping ports, through which 86.1% of the worldwide total of U.S.-destined containers 

was processed.

Data Source Shipping volume processed through the ports (bills of lading), Port Import Export Reporting 

Service (PIERS).

Performance Measure—Number of trade accounts with access to ACE functionality to manage trade 

information.

Description The extent to which ACE is made available to and used by members of the trade community 

(importers, brokers, carriers, etc.) to process and manage trade-related information.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator 1%* 3,737** 11,950 15,465 15,500 17,014

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—Trade accounts target continues to grow showing continued trade interest in using ACE.

Data Source

Cargo Systems Program Office.

*Performance measure was previously reported as percent of trade accounts with access to ACE 

functionality to manage trade information.

**FY 2006 actual has been restated as a number.

Performance Section

Performance Summary
84 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Cross-Cutting Enabler—Promote achievement and a results-driven culture through an effective management 

infrastructure that fosters the highest standards of integrity.

Performance Measure—Percent of network availability.

Description

The percentage of network availability to users. The CBP network provides the basis for linking all IT 

systems for communications and access to mission critical systems. High levels of system availability 

are needed to accomplish CBP’s mission.

Key Highlights

Fiscal Year FY 2005 

Actual

FY 2006 

Actual

FY 2007 

Actual

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Target

FY 2009 

Results

Target/Actual 

Indicator N/A 99.9% 99.4% 99.7% 98% 99.068%

Explanation 

of FY 2009 

Results

Target Met—Due to the shut down of eHealth, monitoring tool results provided for 4th quarter and 

averaged into FY09 are only estimates. Unable to provide this information due to elimination of 

the monitoring tool. Currently, there is not a new process in place for obtaining this data. Work is 

underway to resolve the situation and resume the collection of data.

Data Source Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) data source is directly retrieved from managed device 

every five minutes.

Performance Summary
Financial Section
86 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

No mission in the Federal Government is more important than U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s (CBP), as the men and women of CBP work continuously to protect our 

Nation from dangerous people and dangerous goods that would cause harm to our way 

of life. We balance this responsibility with the need to facilitate the flow of legitimate 

travelers and goods into the United States.

Sound, reliable financial management is important to CBP for many reasons. Most of 

our agency’s resources come from the U.S. Treasury, and we are accountable to Congress 

and the American taxpayer to explain how we use the money appropriated to us. As 

part of our responsibilities, we also collected $29 billion in revenue this year, and we 

must be sound custodians of this revenue. Finally, our responsibilities are substantial 

and our budget is finite, and so we must have sound financial management for informed decision making so that 

we make the best use of our resources.

Transparency and accountability are common objectives these days, associated with financial management and 

government operations, and especially the use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

funds. At CBP, we welcome this accountability. During Fiscal Year 2009, CBP received $680 million in ARRA funds 

for infrastructure investment. ARRA allocated funds for the procurement and deployment of non-intrusive inspection (NII) systems and tactical communications equipment and radios; the expedited development and deployment of border security technology on the Southwest border; and the planning, management, design, alteration 

and construction of CBP-owned border land ports of entry. Our use of these funds will not only make our Nation 

more secure, but will also help to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

A benchmark of financial management success is to obtain an audit opinion from a third party which concludes 

that our financial statements are fairly presented and conform to generally accepted accounting principles. Once 

again for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, CBP has received such an opinion—an unqualified opinion on its full set of financial statements. The unqualified opinion on our financial statements is another positive reflection that CBP continues to demonstrate discipline and accountability in the execution of our fiscal stewardship responsibilities.

Solid financial management relies on several critical elements, most notably a capable workforce, guided by practices and processes and supported by sound financial management systems. We have a solid foundation in each of 

these areas, and continue to build upon them each year. The workforce under the CFO’s office grew by 15% during 

2009, helping us keep up with our growing mission operations. We strengthened our processes, most notably in 

the area of internal controls testing. And our enterprise resource planning system, SAP, continues to provide the 

current, up-to-the-minute financial information necessary for CBP operational personnel and managers to make 

accurate, informed decisions.

I can provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of Section 2 (Management Controls) and Section 4 (Financial 

Management Systems) of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act have been achieved, with the exception of 

the material weaknesses and instances of nonconformance identified in the Management Discussion and Analysis 

Message from the CFO
87

section of this report. We have room for improvement. We are correcting issues identified by internal management 

evaluations, as well as auditor-identified weaknesses. Recurring issues in custodial revenue management need to 

be resolved, and emerging challenges such as managing and accounting for more complex property, plant, and 

equipment must be addressed in the upcoming year. CBP is committed to addressing all of our financial management challenges by continuing to implement corrective measures that improve our oversight and accountability.

In addition to addressing our identified areas of weakness, the agency is also anticipating that the next few years 

will look different than our most recent years gone by. Over the past few years, CBP has been in a state of rapid, 

consistent expansion. We have strengthened our control over the U.S. borders through additional law enforcement 

staff, the application of technology and assets, and physical infrastructure.

Going forward, we foresee a period of relative resource stabilization. Current outyear budget estimates project no 

real growth for the agency. Furthermore, our operations are funded by some of the revenue which we collect. Most 

of this revenue is derived from international passenger travel, which has declined during the recession. While our 

security responsibilities have not diminished, the funding available to pay for border enforcement declines.

This change in resource outlook only further emphasizes our need for sound stewardship. To this end, we fully 

embrace Secretary Napolitano’s Efficiency Review Initiative, which is aimed at improving efficiency and streamlining decision making through a series of agency-wide initiatives. We continue to strengthen the agency’s acquisition 

and program management abilities, to help us obtain the operational capabilities we need to meet our mission, 

within cost and schedule. A final area of emphasis during the upcoming year is our continued strengthening of 

internal controls over financial reporting, and supporting the larger departmental effort to have these controls 

audited in compliance with the DHS Financial Accountability Act.

I would like to thank the men and women that make up this organization for the hard work they do every day. 

While processes and systems are important, first and foremost, CBP and the Office of Administration rely on our 

employees to get the job done. How we continue to grow, improve, and remain successful is our collective challenge. Our goals remain to provide timely, reliable, and useful financial management information to Congress and 

the American public, and to enable the managers across CBP to make smart business decisions.

Eugene H. Schied, Chief Financial Officer

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

October 23, 2009

Message from the CFO

Financial Section
88 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Financial Statements

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

(in Thousands)

2009 2008

ASSETS (Note 2) 

Intragovernmental:

Fund Balance with Treasury (Note 3) $ 7,555,179 $ 7,806,781

Accounts Receivable 30,134 17,856

Receivables Due from Treasury – Refund and Drawback (Note 5) -- 151,177

Advances and Prepayments (Note 11) 253,799 219,366

Total Intragovernmental 7,839,112 8,195,180

Cash and Other Monetary Instruments (Note 4) 5,192 6,926

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 5) 180,498 177,644

Taxes, Duties and Trade Receivables, Net (Note 6) 1,873,702 2,078,012

Inventory and Related Property, Net (Note 7) 113,772 102,725

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9) 5,205,655 3,508,097

Advances and Prepayments (Note 11) 731 329

TOTAL ASSETS $ 15,218,662 $ 14,068,913

Stewardship PP&E (Note 10)

LIABILITIES (Note 12)

Intragovernmental:

Accounts Payable $ 322,866 $ 373,478

Other

Due to the Treasury General Fund 1,960,419 2,389,646

Accrued FECA Liability (Note 12) 149,144 138,021

Other Unfunded Employment Liabilities (Note 12) 872 --

Employee Benefits and Taxes 79,479 62,540

Advances From Others 15,354 15,070

Total Intragovernmental 2,528,134 2,978,755

Accounts Payable 556,589 741,144

Environmental & Disposal Liabilities (Note 12 and 14) 13,334 12,769

Other

Accrued Payroll and Benefits (Note 13) 1,299,412 1,214,595

Refunds Payable (Note 15) 125,743 130,020

Injured Domestic Industries (Note 15) 612,674 395,478

Liabilities for Antidumping/Countervailing Duties 108,391 164,104

Software License Agreements (Note 12 and 16) 16,894 32,737

Legal Contingent Liabilities (Note 17) 73,002 59,592

TOTAL LIABILITIES $ 5,334,173 $ 5,729,194

Commitments and Contingencies (Note 17)

NET POSITION:

Unexpended Appropriations 4,748,349 4,759,210

Cumulative Results of Operations – Earmarked Funds (Note 18) 992,257 1,057,216

Cumulative Results of Operations – Other Funds 4,143,883 2,523,293

TOTAL NET POSITION $ 9,884,489 $ 8,339,719

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET POSITION $ 15,218,662 $ 14,068,913 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
89

Financial Statements

Financial Section

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost

For the Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

(in Thousands)

2009 2008

Office of Field Operations Border Security Inspections and 

Trade Facilitation at Ports of Entry 

Gross Cost $ 6,173,067 $ 5,873,813

Less: Earned Revenue 209,174 204,201

Net Program Costs 5,963,893 5,669,612

Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry

Gross Cost 3,891,284 3,646,021

Less: Earned Revenue 131,856 126,753

Net Program Costs 3,759,428 3,519,268

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology

Gross Cost 107,631 --

Less: Earned Revenue 3,647 --

Net Program Costs 103,984 --

Automation Modernization

Gross Cost 335,920 --

Less: Earned Revenue 11,383 --

Net Program Costs 324,537 --

Air and Marine Operations

Gross Cost 531,201 425,667

Less: Earned Revenue 17,999 14,798

Net Program Costs 513,202 410,869

Total Gross Cost 11,039,104 9,945,501

Less: Total Earned Revenue 374,060 345,752

Net Cost of Operations (Note 19 and 20) $ 10,665,044 $ 9,599,749

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
90 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Financial Statements

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Consolidated Statement of Changes In Net Position

For the Year Ended September 30, 2009

(In Thousands)

FY 2009

Earmarked Funds All Other Funds Consolidated 

Total

Cumulative Results of Operations:

Beginning Balances $ 1,057,216 $ 2,523,293 $ 3,580,509

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Used -- 9,198,712 9,198,712

Non-exchange Revenue (Note 21) 2,242,845 5,429 2,248,274

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement (Note 21) (1,360,013) 1,595,308 235,295

Other -- (47,267) (47,267)

Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange):

Donations and Forfeitures of Property -- 3,917 3,917

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement -- 104,146 104,146

Imputed Financing -- 477,598 477,598

Total Financing Sources 882,832 11,337,843 12,220,675

Net Cost of Operations (947,791) (9,717,253) (10,665,044)

Net Change (64,959) 1,620,590 1,555,631

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 992,257 $ 4,143,883 $ 5,136,140

Unexpended Appropriations:

Beginning Balance -- 4,759,210 4,759,210

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Received (Note 23) -- 9,293,210 9,293,210

Appropriations Transferred In/Out -- (19,128) (19,128)

Other Adjustments -- (86,231) (86,231)

Appropriations Used -- (9,198,712) (9,198,712)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources -- (10,861) (10,861)

Total Unexpended Appropriations -- 4,748,349 4,748,349

Net Position $ 992,257 $ 8,892,232 $ 9,884,489

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
91

Financial Statements

Financial Section

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Consolidated Statement of Changes In Net Position

For the Year Ended September 30, 2008

(In Thousands)

FY 2008

Earmarked Funds All Other Funds Consolidated 

Total

Cumulative Results of Operations:

Beginning Balances $ 1,027,476 $ 1,619,414 $ 2,646,890

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Used -- 7,254,124 7,254,124

Non-exchange Revenue (Note 21) 2,671,195 5,332 2,676,527

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement (Note 21) (1,612,164) 1,808,747 196,583

Other -- (19,644) (19,644)

Other Financing Sources (Non-Exchange):

Donations and Forfeitures of Property -- 14,002 14,002

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement -- 131,719 131,719

Imputed Financing -- 280,057 280,057

Total Financing Sources 1,059,031 9,474,337 10,533,368

Net Cost of Operations (1,029,291) (8,570,458) (9,599,749)

Net Change 29,740 903,879 933,619

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 1,057,216 $ 2,523,293 $ 3,580,509

Unexpended Appropriations:

Beginning Balance -- 4,124,660 4,124,660

Budgetary Financing Sources:

Appropriations Received (Note 23) -- 7,929,110 7,929,110

Appropriations Transferred In/Out -- 15,292 15,292

Other Adjustments -- (55,728) (55,728)

Appropriations Used -- (7,254,124) (7,254,124)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources -- 634,550 634,550

Total Unexpended Appropriations -- 4,759,210 4,759,210

Net Position $ 1,057,216 $ 7,282,503 $ 8,339,719
92 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Financial Statements

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

(in Thousands)

2009 2008

Budgetary Resources:

Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1: $ 2,549,010 $ 2,894,905

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 370,546 485,599

Budget Authority

Appropriation (Note 23) 13,186,312 11,972,974

Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections

Earned

Collected 1,597,806 1,612,125

Change in Receivables From Federal Sources 10,788 (5,886)

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received (123) 125

Without Advance From Federal Sources (91,511) (34,201)

Expenditure Transfers From Trust Funds 3,154 3,093

Subtotal 14,706,426 13,548,230

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net 320,603 333,663

Permanently not Available (278,581) (86,880)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 17,668,004 $ 17,175,517

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred: (Note 22)

Direct $ 13,075,506 $ 12,862,976

Reimbursable 1,526,522 1,763,531

Subtotal 14,602,028 14,626,507

Unobligated Balance:

Apportioned 64,021 7,892

Unobligated Balance not Available 3,001,955 2,541,118

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 17,668,004 $ 17,175,517

Change in Obligated Balances:

Obligated Balance, Net

Unpaid Obligations, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 5,377,713 $ 4,069,728

Uncollected Customer Payments From Federal Sources, 

Brought Forward, October 1 (280,699) (320,785)

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 5,097,014 3,748,943

Obligations Incurred, Net 14,602,028 14,626,507

Gross Outlays (15,039,987) (12,832,924)

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual (370,546) (485,599)

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments From Federal Sources 80,723 40,087

Obligated Balance, Net End of Period

Unpaid Obligations 4,569,207 5,377,713

Uncollected Customer Payments From Federal Sources (199,975) (280,699)

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, End of Period 4,369,232 5,097,014

Net Outlays:

Gross Outlays 15,039,987 12,832,924

Offsetting Collections (1,600,837) (1,615,343)

Distributed Offsetting Receipts (2,300,029) (2,633,691)

Total Net Outlays $ 11,139,121 $ 8,583,890

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
93

Financial Statements

Financial Section

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Consolidated Statements of Custodial Activity

For the Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

(in Thousands)

2009 2008

Revenue Activity (Note 27):

Sources of Cash Collections:

Duties $ 22,633,329 $ 27,319,994

User Fees 1,165,389 1,514,337

Excise Taxes 2,554,916 2,457,352

Fines and Penalties 61,311 70,770

Interest 17,839 24,038

Miscellaneous 9,739 9,537

Total Cash Collections 26,442,523 31,396,028

Accrual Adjustments (+/-) (395,310) 128,194

Total Custodial Revenue $ 26,047,213 $ 31,524,222

Disposition of Collections:

Transferred to Others:

Treasury General Fund Accounts $ 17,345,045 $ 20,947,673

U.S. Department of Agriculture 7,697,785 8,257,729

Other Federal Agencies 29,629 22,980

Government of Puerto Rico 1,744 12,089

Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands -- 1,613

Refunds and Drawbacks (Note 27) 1,367,487 1,295,705

Non-federal Other -- 856,938

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred (394,477) 129,495

Total Disposition of Custodial Revenue 26,047,213 31,524,222

Net Custodial Activity $ -- $ --

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.
94 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

1. Significant Accounting Policies

Reporting Entity

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was created on March 1, 2003, and is a component of the U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). CBP is the unified border agency whose priority mission is the prevention of terrorist and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. In addition to its priority mission, CBP works to protect 

America and its citizens by carrying out its traditional missions more effectively using innovative approaches. 

These traditional missions include enforcing United States trade, immigration and other laws at the borders. 

Trade-related mission activities include protecting American businesses from theft of their intellectual property 

and unfair trade practices; regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import duties; enforcing 

trade laws related to admissibility; regulating trade practices to collect the appropriate revenue; and maintaining 

export controls. Other traditional missions include controlling the borders by apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally; stemming the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband; protecting 

agriculture and economic interests from harmful pests and diseases; processing all people, vehicles and cargo 

entering the United States; and coordinating with the Department of Defense and others to protect the National 

Capital Region.

Substantially all of duty, tax, and fee revenues collected by CBP are remitted to various general fund accounts 

maintained by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Treasury 

further distributes these revenues to other federal agencies in accordance with various laws and regulations. CBP 

transfers the remaining revenue (generally less than one percent of revenues collected) directly to other federal 

agencies, the Government of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Refunds of revenues collected from import/

export activity are recorded in separate accounts established for this purpose and are funded through a permanent 

indefinite appropriation. These activities reflect the non-entity or custodial responsibilities that CBP, as an agency 

of the Federal Government, has been authorized by law to enforce.

During Fiscal Year 2009, CBP received funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This funding 

is for the procurement and deployment of non-intrusive inspection systems, tactical communications equipment 

and radios; expedited development and deployment of border security technology on the Southwest border; and 

for planning, management, design, alteration and construction of CBP owned land border ports of entry. This 

funding is available for obligation during FY 2009 and FY 2010.

Basis of Accounting and Presentation

These financial statements have been prepared from CBP accounting records in conformity with generally accepted 

accounting principles (GAAP). GAAP for federal entities are the standards prescribed by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board, which was designated the official accounting standard-setting body of the Federal 

Government by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The statements consist of the Consolidated 

Notes to Financial Statements
Financial Section 95

Balance Sheet, the Consolidated Statement of Net Cost, the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position, the 

Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources, and the Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity. All statements 

are prepared in accordance with OMB Circular A-136.

These financial statements should be read with the understanding that CBP is a component of a sovereign entity; 

for which budgetary resources cannot be liquidated without the enactment of an appropriation, and that payment 

of liabilities other than for contracts can be abrogated by the sovereign entity.

These financial statements, with respect to the Consolidated Balance Sheet, the Consolidated Statement of Net 

Cost and the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position, are reported using the accrual basis of accounting. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized 

when a liability is incurred without regard to receipt or payment of cash. The Combined Statement of Budgetary 

Resources is reported using the budgetary basis of accounting. Budgetary accounting facilitates compliance with 

legal constraints and controls over the use of federal funds. It generally differs from the accrual basis of accounting in that obligations are recognized when new orders are placed, contracts awarded and services received that 

will require payments during the same or future period. CBP non-entity revenue and refunds are reported on the 

Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity using a modified cash basis. With this method, revenue from cash 

collections are reported separately from receivable accruals and cash disbursements are reported separately from 

payable accruals.

In accordance with OMB Circular A-136, intra-CBP transactions and balances have been eliminated from the 

Consolidated Balance Sheet, Consolidated Statement of Net Cost, and the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net 

Position. As provided for by OMB Circular A-136, the Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources is presented on 

a combined basis; therefore, intra-CBP transactions and balances have not been eliminated from this statement. 

Earmarked Funds

The Statement of Federal Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 27, Identifying and Reporting Earmarked Funds, requires 

CBP to separate dedicated collections into two categories, earmarked and fiduciary activity. See Note 18, Earmarked 

Funds, for specific required disclosures related to CBP’s earmarked funds.

CBP has program management responsibility for the following earmarked funds:

Appropriation Title

70X5087 CBP - Immigration User Fees

70X5695 Customs User Fees Account

70X5089 Land Border Inspection Fees

70X5451 Enforcement Fines Account

70X5543 International Registered Traveler

70X5694 Small Airport User Fees

70X8870 Harbor Maintenance Fee Collections

Notes to Financial Statements
96 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Assets and Liabilities

Intragovernmental assets and liabilities result from activity with other federal agencies. All other assets and liabilities result from activity with parties outside the Federal Government, such as domestic and foreign persons, organizations or governments.

Fund Balance with Treasury, Cash and Other Monetary Assets

Entity Fund Balance with Treasury are the amounts remaining as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 from which 

CBP is authorized to make expenditures and pay liabilities resulting from operational activity, except as restricted 

by law. Non-entity Fund Balance with Treasury represents funds available to pay refunds and drawback claims of 

duties, taxes, fees, and other non-entity amounts to be distributed to the Treasury General Fund and other Federal 

accounts in a future period.

A timing difference occurs when cash is received and applied to a specific revenue type in one period, and the 

deposit occurs in a future period. Monetary instruments are held by CBP in lieu of an importer/broker filing a 

surety bond. Corresponding liabilities are recorded for amounts expected to be allocated in future periods to federal agencies.

Advances and Prepayments

Intragovernmental advances and prepayments consist of amounts paid to federal agencies prior to CBP receipt of 

goods and services. Advances and prepayments to the public consist primarily of prepaid rent.

Accounts Receivable

Intragovernmental accounts receivable represent amounts due from federal agencies. These receivables are expected 

to be fully collected. Accounts receivable from reimbursable services and user fees represent amounts due from 

non-federal sources for services performed. By law, collections of these receivables can be credited to the appropriation accounts from which the related costs were paid. These receivables are net of amounts deemed uncollectible 

which are determined by considering the debtor’s current ability to pay, payment record, as well as the probable 

recovery of amounts from secondary sources, such as sureties, and an analysis of aged receivable activity. The user 

fee receivable is based on a calculated estimate using historical user fee receivables.

Title 19 of the United States Code, chapter 1, section 58c, authorizes CBP, formerly known as the United States 

Customs Service, to collect user fees for services provided in connection with the processing of commercial air 

and commercial vessel passengers, loaded or partially loaded railroad cars carrying passengers or commercial 

flights arriving into the customs territory as defined in general note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (some exceptions apply).

Notes to Financial Statements
Financial Section 97

Notes to Financial Statements

Receivables accrue for commercial airline and commercial vessel fees on a quarterly basis and the payments are 

due to CBP within thirty-one days after the close of the calendar quarter in which the fees are collected. Railroad 

car fees accrue on a monthly basis and the payments are due to CBP on or before the date that is 60 days after the 

applicable month.

Title 8 of the United States Code, chapter 12, subchapter II, part IX, section 1356 authorizes CBP, to collect immigration user fees for inspection or pre-inspection of passengers arriving at a port of entry in the United States (as 

defined in Title 8, chapter 12, subchapter I, section 1101) aboard a commercial aircraft and commercial vessel 

(some exceptions apply). Receivables accrue for commercial airline and commercial vessel user fees on a quarterly 

basis. Payment is due any time within thirty-one days after the quarter in which the fees are collected, except the 

July and August fees collected from airline passengers shall be made ten days before the end of the fiscal year. The 

first quarter payment shall include any collections made in the preceding quarter that were not remitted with the 

previous payment.

Receivable Due from Treasury and Due to the Treasury General Fund

The Receivable Due from Treasury represents amounts to be provided by Treasury to fund accrued liabilities of 

duty, tax and/or fee refunds and drawbacks. Due to the Treasury General Fund is the offsetting liability to nonentity collections and non-entity receivables.

Taxes, Duties and Trade Receivables

Accounts receivable consist of duties, user fees, fines and penalties, refunds and drawback overpayments, and 

interest associated with import/export activity, which have been established as a specifically identifiable, legally 

enforceable claim which remain uncollected as of year-end. These receivables are net of amounts deemed uncollectible which were determined by considering the debtor’s payment record and willingness to pay, the probable 

recovery of amounts from secondary sources, such as sureties, and an analysis of aged receivable activity. CBP’s 

non-entity receivables are described in more detail in Note 6, Taxes Duties and Trade Receivables, Net.

Inventory and Related Property

Inventory and Related Property consist of aircraft and marine operating materials and supplies to be used in CBP’s 

operations. Aircraft parts and materials are recorded at average unit cost, and marine parts and materials are 

recorded using the First-In-First-Out valuation method. Both methods approximate actual acquisition costs. When 

ultimately used in CBP operations, an operating expense is recorded.
98 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

Seized and Forfeited Property

Prohibited seized and forfeited property results primarily from CBP criminal investigations and passenger/cargo 

processing. Seized property is not considered an asset of CBP and is not reported as such in CBP’s financial statements; however, CBP has a stewardship responsibility until disposition of the seized items are determined. Nonprohibited seized property, including monetary instruments, real property and tangible personal property of 

others in the actual or constructive possession of CBP will be transferred to the Treasury Forfeiture Fund and is not 

presented in the accompanying CBP Consolidated Balance Sheet or Note 8, Seized and Forfeited Property.

Forfeited property is property for which the title has passed to the U.S. Government. As noted above, non-prohibited forfeited property or currency becomes assets of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. However, prohibited forfeited 

items, such as counterfeit goods, narcotics, or firearms, are held by CBP until disposed or destroyed. In accordance with Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 3, Accounting for Inventory and Related 

Property, analysis of changes in seized and forfeited property of prohibited items are disclosed in Note 8, Seized 

and Forfeited Property.

General Property, Plant and Equipment

CBP capitalizes property, plant and equipment with an acquisition value of $50 thousand or greater, and a useful 

life of 2 years or greater. The property, plant, and equipment assets acquired by CBP from the former Immigration 

and Naturalization Service as part of the formation of the Department of Homeland Security were capitalized if 

the acquisition value was $25 thousand or greater.

Expenditures for normal repairs and maintenance are charged to expense as incurred. Expenditures greater than 

$50 thousand for improving or rebuilding an asset and increases an asset’s useful life are capitalized.

Depreciation and amortization are computed using the straight line method over the estimated useful lives of the 

assets ranging from 2 to 30 years for equipment and software, 2 to 30 years for leasehold improvements, and 6 

to 40 years for buildings, structures and land improvements. Amortization of capitalized software begins on the 

date of acquisition if purchased or when the module or component has been successfully tested if contractor or 

internally developed.

Commercial/Travel Payable

A liability is recorded for an accounts payable accrual from commercial/travel activities. A portion of this liability 

is determined using a calculated estimate. This estimate is based on a ratio developed using historical subsequent 

disbursements and undelivered orders and applying the ratio to the undelivered orders as of September 30, 2009 

and 2008.
Financial Section 99

Notes to Financial Statements

Other Non-Entity Items in CBP Custody

CBP has the authority, in accordance with provisions of the Federal Crime Code and Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedures, to retain property within its custody for evidentiary purposes. Because this property is not seized 

under seizure and forfeiture laws, it cannot become property of the U.S. Government and is intended to be 

returned to the owner at some future date. This evidence is not disclosed in the financial statements or a related 

note as the amount is not significant, but does represent a fiduciary responsibility of CBP.

Accrued Annual, Sick and Other Leave and Compensatory Time

Annual leave, compensatory time and other leave time are accrued when earned. The accrual is presented as a 

component of the payroll and benefits liability in the Consolidated Balance Sheet and is adjusted for changes in 

compensation rates and reduced for annual leave taken. Sick leave is not accrued when earned, but is expensed 

when taken. For additional information see Note 13, Accrued Payroll and Benefits.

Pension Costs, Other Retirement Benefits and Other Post-Employment Benefits

Most CBP employees hired prior to January 1, 1984 participate in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). CBP 

contributes 7 percent of base pay for regular employees, and 7.5 percent for law enforcement agents. Employees 

hired after December 31, 1983 are automatically covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) and 

Social Security. A primary feature of FERS is that it offers a savings plan to which CBP automatically contributes 1 

percent of base pay and matches any employee contributions up to an additional 4 percent of base pay. For most 

employees hired after December 31, 1983, CBP also contributes the employee’s matching share for Social Security. 

For the FERS basic benefit CBP contributes 11.2 percent of base pay for regular employees and 24.9 percent for law 

enforcement agents. The pay base for determining CBP contributions, to CSRS and FERS for inspectors and canine 

officers include regular pay and up to a maximum of $17.5 thousand in certain overtime earnings for FY 2009 and 

2008. CBP recognizes the full costs of its employees’ pension benefits; however, the liability associated with these 

costs is recognized by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Similar to Federal retirement plans, OPM, rather than CBP, reports the liability for future payments to retired 

employees who participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the Federal Employees Group 

Life Insurance Program.

A liability for other post-employment benefits, which includes all types of benefits to former or inactive (but not 

retired) employees, their beneficiaries, and covered dependents, is also recognized. For additional information see 

Note 13, Accrued Payroll and Benefits.
100 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

Workers’ Compensation

A liability is recorded for actual and estimated future payments to be made for workers’ compensation pursuant 

to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). The actual liability is presented as a component of intragovernmental other liabilities and the actuarial liability is presented as Federal Employee and Veterans Benefits in the 

accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet. The FECA program is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL), which initially pays valid claims and subsequently seeks reimbursement from federal agencies employing 

the claimants. Reimbursement to DOL on payments made usually occurs approximately two years subsequent to 

the actual disbursement. Budgetary resources for this intragovernmental liability are made available to CBP as part 

of its annual appropriation from Congress in the year in which the reimbursement takes place.

Additionally, the actuarial liability due to the public includes the expected liability for death, disability, medical 

and miscellaneous costs for approved compensation cases. The liability is determined using a method that utilizes 

historical benefit payment patterns related to a specific incurred period to predict the ultimate payments related 

to that period. Based on information provided by DOL, DHS allocates the actuarial liability to its components and 

department offices based on the payment history for the components and department offices. The accrued liability 

is not covered by budgetary resources and will require future funding.

Unexpended Appropriations

Unexpended appropriations represent the amount of CBP unexpended appropriated spending authority as of fiscal 

year-end that is unliquidated or is unobligated and has not lapsed, been rescinded or withdrawn.

Cumulative Results of Operations

Cumulative Results of Operations primarily represent the excess of user fee revenues over related expenses. It 

also reflects the net investment in Property, Plant and Equipment, Inventory and Related Property held for use, 

and transfers in of equipment, materials and supplies from other federal agencies without reimbursement. Also, 

included as a reduction in Cumulative Results of Operations, are liabilities incurred, which will require funding 

from future appropriations, such as accumulated annual and other leave earned but not taken, accrued workers’ 

compensation and contingent liabilities. The portion of Cumulative Results of Operations attributable to earmarked 

funds is shown separately on both the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position and the Consolidated 

Balance Sheet. For additional information see Note 18, Earmarked Funds.

Revenue, Financing Sources and Expense Recognition

CBP entity activities are financed principally through appropriations, exchange revenue and non-exchange revenue. Appropriations used are recognized as a financing source when expenses are incurred or assets are purchased. 

Exchange revenues from reimbursable services and intragovernmental reimbursable activity are recognized as 
Financial Section 101

Notes to Financial Statements

earned when the goods or services are provided and reflect the full cost of the goods or services provided. Nonexchange revenue from user fees is recognized as earned in accordance with the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act of 1985, as amended. CBP may retain the user fee revenues and expend them as authorized 

by law for CBP inspector overtime and other activities directly related to the services to which the fees relate. An 

imputed financing source is also recognized to offset costs incurred by CBP but funded by another federal source, 

generally in the period in which the cost was incurred. Expenses are recognized when goods or services are 

received, when inventory is used, or assets are depreciated or amortized.

The FY 2009 and 2008 activities reported on the Consolidated Statements of Net Cost contain all resource costs 

assigned from CBP cost centers. All field operational cost centers were surveyed for time spent in the Passenger 

Processing, Trade Compliance, Outbound Operations and field Mission Support activities. For enforcement operational cost centers, the time spent in the activities was extracted from the Customs Electronic Data Warehouse. 

Time reported by the field and enforcement operational cost centers is also used to assign mission support and 

overhead costs to “front-line” activities.

Non-entity Revenue is recognized when the cash CBP is entitled to collect on behalf of the Federal Government 

is received. Primarily, these revenue collections result from current fiscal year activities. The significant types of 

revenues collected and related disbursements are described below:

•	 Duties: amounts collected on imported goods.

•	 User fees: amounts collected for certain services as provided by law.

•	 Excise taxes: amounts collected on imported distilled spirits, wines and tobacco products, and other miscellaneous taxes collected on behalf of the Federal Government.

•	 Fines and penalties: amounts collected for violations of laws and regulations.

•	 Refunds: payments made to importers/exporters are primarily identified when the import entries are liquidated, a process in which CBP makes final determination of duties, taxes, fees and interest owed on each 

entry and compares it to the estimated amount previously determined and paid by the importer/broker. 

Interest is included in the refund generally for the period of time between when the estimated amounts were 

received from the importer/broker and the time the entry is liquidated. When a refund is identified prior to 

liquidation, the refund from this remittance is funded from the duty, tax or fee collections rather than from 

the Refunds and Drawback Account.

•	 Drawback: a remittance, in whole or in part, of duties, taxes or fees. Drawback typically occurs when the 

imported goods on which duties, taxes or fees have been previously paid are subsequently exported from the 

United States or destroyed prior to entering the commerce of the United States. Depending on the type of 

claim, the claimant has up to six or eight years from the date of importation to file for drawback.

A financing source for refunds and drawback is recognized when payment is made. The financing source, representing the permanent, indefinite appropriation account used to fund the disbursement, is recorded as a decrease 

in the amount transferred to Treasury General Fund Accounts reported on the Statement of Custodial Activity.
102 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

An accrual adjustment is included to adjust cash collections and refund disbursements with the net increase or 

decrease of accrued Non-entity Accounts Receivables, net of uncollectible amounts and refunds payable. CBP will 

also take into custody, without risk or expense, merchandise termed “general order property” which for various 

reasons cannot legally enter into the commerce of the United States. CBP’s sole responsibility for the general order 

property is to ensure the property does not enter into U.S. commerce. If general order property remains in CBP 

custody for a prescribed period of time, without payment of all estimated duties, storage and other charges, the 

property is considered unclaimed and abandoned and can be sold by CBP at public auction. Auction sales revenue 

in excess of charges associated with the sale or storage of the item is remitted to the Treasury General Fund. In 

some cases, CBP incurs charges prior to the sale and funds these costs from entity appropriations. Regulations 

permit CBP to offset these costs of sale before returning excess amounts to Treasury. Proceeds from the sale of 

general order property totaled $4.2 million and $4.5 million for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, 

respectively. Excess amounts returned to the Treasury General Fund totaled $275 thousand and $372 thousand for 

the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Use of Estimates

Management has made certain estimates and assumptions in the reporting of assets, liabilities and note disclosures 

in the Consolidated Balance Sheet, the Consolidated Statement of Net Cost, the Consolidated Statement of Changes 

in Net Position, the Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources, the Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity 

and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from these estimates. Significant estimates include: yearend accruals of accounts payable, contingent legal and environmental liabilities, accrued workers’ compensation, 

allowance for doubtful accounts receivable, retirement and post-retirement benefits assumptions and certain nonentity receivables and payables related to custodial activities.

Taxes

CBP, as a federal component, is not subject to federal, state or local income taxes and accordingly, no provision for 

income taxes has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements.
Financial Section 103

Notes to Financial Statements

2. Non-Entity Assets

Non-entity assets as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, consist of the following (in thousands):

2009 2008

Intragovernmental:

Fund Balance with Treasury (Note 3) $ 934,204 $ 858,130

Receivables Due from Treasury (Note 5) -- 151,177

Total Intragovernmental 934,204 1,009,307

Public

Accounts Receivable, Net 368 1,237

Cash and Other Monetary Instruments (Note 4) 2,962 6,336

Taxes Duties and Trade Receivables, Net (Note 6) 1,873,702 2,078,012

Property, Plant and Equipment, Net -- 2,097

Total Public 1,877,032 2,087,682

Total Non-entity Assets 2,811,236 3,096,989

Total Entity Assets 12,407,426 10,971,924

Total Assets $ 15,218,662 $ 14,068,913

Non-entity Fund Balance with Treasury as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 includes approximately $104.6 million 

and $144.7 million (in deposit fund) in duties collected by CBP for unliquidated anti-dumping/countervailing 

duties and $696.8 million and $705.3 million for Injured Domestic Industries as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, 

respectively. These assets offset accrued liabilities as of September 30, 2009 and 2008.

Non-entity Fund Balance with Treasury consists of special and deposit funds, permanent appropriations, and 

miscellaneous receipts that are available to pay non-entity liabilities. Non-entity Receivables Due from Treasury 

represent an estimate of duty, tax, and/or fee refunds and drawbacks that will be reimbursed by a permanent and 

indefinite appropriation account. Taxes Duties and Trade receivables from the public represent amounts due from 

importers for goods and merchandise imported to the United States and, upon collection, will be available to pay 

the accrued intragovernmental liability Due to the Treasury General Fund, which equaled $2.0 billion and $2.4 

billion as of September 30, 2009 and 2008.
104 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

3. Fund Balance with Treasury

Fund Balance with Treasury as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following (in thousands):

2009 Entity Non-Entity Totals

Trust Funds $ 5,589 $ -- $ 5,589

Special Funds 866,842 696,784 1,563,626

General Funds 5,747,091 132,842 5,879,933

Deposit Funds 1,453 104,578 106,031

Totals $ 6,620,975 $ 934,204 $ 7,555,179

2008 Entity Non-Entity Totals

Trust Funds $ 4,987 $ -- $ 4,987

Special Funds 950,817 705,263 1,656,080

General Funds 5,990,578 8,210 5,998,788

Deposit Funds 2,269 144,657 146,926

Totals $ 6,948,651 $858,130 $ 7,806,781

Trust funds are both receipt accounts and expenditure accounts that are designated by law as a trust fund. The 

entity trust fund balances result from CBP authority to use the proceeds from general order items sold at auction to 

offset specific costs incurred by CBP relating to their sale, and to use available funds from the Harbor Maintenance 

Fee Trust Fund to offset administrative expenses related to the collection of the Harbor Maintenance Fee.

Special funds are receipt funds used for specific purposes. Entity amounts comprising the special fund balances 

result from CBP authority to assess and collect passenger and conveyance-related user fees, CBP authority to assess 

and collect fees associated with services performed at certain small airports or other facilities, and CBP authority 

to retain amounts needed to offset costs associated with collecting duties, taxes, and fees for the Government of 

Puerto Rico. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, CBP User Fees Account contained approximately $732.4 million 

and $767.7 million, respectively; CBP Services at Small Airports account contained approximately $14.7 million 

and $12.8 million, respectively; Refunds, Transfers and Expenses of Operation of Puerto Rico account contained 

approximately $31 million and $39.3 million, respectively; and Immigration user fees of $84 million and $128.5 

million, respectively. Non-entity fund balance includes monies received in connection with antidumping and 

countervailing duty orders and findings to qualifying Injured Domestic Industries of $696.8 million and $705.3 

million as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

General funds consist of amounts appropriated annually by Congress to fund the operations of CBP. The non-entity 

general fund balance represents permanent, indefinite appropriations to pay refunds and drawback claims of 

duties, taxes, or fees. The balance is presented as a non-entity balance because the refund and drawback payments 

are associated with CBP custodial activity of collecting revenue on behalf of the Federal Government.

The entity deposit fund balance represents amounts received as an advance that are not accompanied by an order. 

Once the order is received the deposit fund balance is decreased. Deposit funds represent amounts received as an 

advance that are not accompanied by an order and include non-entity collections.
105

Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Section

Status of Fund Balance with Treasury as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following 

(in thousands):

2009 Entity Non-Entity Totals

Unobligated Balance

Available $ 63,840 $ -- $ 63,840

Unavailable 2,305,172 696,783 3,001,955

Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 4,242,775 126,457 4,369,232

Non-Budgetary FBWT 9,188 110,964 120,152

Totals $ 6,620,975 $ 934,204 $ 7,555,179

2008 Entity Non-Entity Totals

Unobligated Balance

Available $ 7,892 $ 858,130 $ 866,022

Unavailable 1,116,847 -- 1,116,847

Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 5,104,904 -- 5,104,904

Restricted Unobligated Funds 719,008 -- 719,008

Totals $ 6,948,651 $ 858,130 $ 7,806,781

FY08 amounts reported as Unobligated Balance Unavailable and Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed will not 

match amounts reported on the Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources due to CBP reporting all Non-entity 

Fund Balance with Treasury amounts as Unobligated Balance Available. Effective for FY09 the non-entity Fund 

Balance with Treasury amounts were classified as Unobligated Balance Unavailable, Obligated Balance not yet 

Disbursed and Non-budgetary FBWT.

Portions of the Unobligated Balance Unavailable include amounts appropriated in prior fiscal years that are not 

available to fund new obligations. However, it can be used for upward and downward adjustments for existing 

obligations in future years.

The Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed represents amounts designated for payment of goods or services ordered, 

but not received, or goods and services received but for which payment has not yet been made.

CBP returned to Treasury $192.4 million and $31.2 million for indefinite no-year authority and retained $126.9 million and $1.7 million in authority for obligations pursuant to public law during both the years ending September 

30, 2009 and 2008.

In accordance with Public Law 101-510, CBP is required to automatically cancel obligated and unobligated balances 

of appropriated funds five years after a fund expires. Obligations that have not been paid at the time an appropriation is canceled may be paid from an unexpired appropriation that is available for the same general purpose. As 

of September 30, 2009, CBP canceled $86.2 million from FY 2004 annual appropriations, of which $21.8 million 

was deobligated. As of September 30, 2008, CBP canceled $28.1 million from FY 2003 annual appropriations, of 

which $31.4 million was deobligated. Based on historical activity CBP estimates obligations related to canceled 

appropriations that will be paid from future appropriations, would not exceed $1 million in any fiscal year.
106 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

4. Cash and Other Monetary Instruments

Cash and Other Monetary Instruments as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, consist of the following 

(in thousands):

2009 Entity Non-Entity Totals

Imprest Funds $ 181 $ -- $ 181

Undeposited Collections 2,049 2,362 4,411

Monetary Instruments -- 600 600

Totals $ 2,230 $ 2,962 $ 5,192

2008 Entity Non-Entity Totals

Imprest Funds $ 147 $ -- $ 147

Undeposited Collections 443 5,636 6,079

Monetary Instruments -- 700 700

Totals $ 590 $ 6,336 $ 6,926

Undeposited collection balances represent timing differences between when cash relating to duties, taxes, fees, and 

other trade related collections are received and the deposit occurs in a future period. Cash can either be distributed 

to the General Fund, other federal agencies, other governments, or returned to the importer/broker. The monetary 

instruments represent instruments importers/brokers provide to CBP in lieu of obtaining surety bonds.

5. Accounts Receivable, Net

Receivables Due from Treasury – Refund and Drawback

Non-entity Receivables Due from Treasury represent an estimate of duty, tax and/or fee refunds and drawbacks 

that will be reimbursed by a permanent and indefinite appropriation account and will be used to pay estimated 

duty refunds and drawbacks of $0 million and $151.2 million, as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

Accounts Receivable with Public, Net

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008 Accounts receivable with the public includes reimbursable service receivables 

totaling $8.2 million and $5.6 million respectively, and are considered fully collectible; Customs user fee receivables total $98.8 million and $103.4 million, and are net of uncollectible amounts totaling $2.3 million and $2.8 

million respectively; Immigration user fee receivables totals $73.5 million and $68.6 million, and are net of uncollectible amounts totaling $15.1 million and $23.1 million respectively.

Notes to Financial Statements
107

6. Taxes, Duties and Trade Receivables, Net

Receivables as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 are as follows (in thousands):

2009

Receivable Category Gross Receivable Amounts 

Uncollectible

Total Net 

Receivables

Duties $ 1,649,664 $ (146,167) $ 1,503,497

Excise Taxes 105,481 (5,774) 99,707

User Fees 117,151 (6,971) 110,180

Fines/Penalties 521,194 (471,846) 49,348

Interest 291,084 (251,234) 39,850

Anti-dumping/Countervailing Duties 420,950 (349,904) 71,046

Refunds and Drawback 448 (374) 74

Totals $ 3,105,972 $ (1,232,270) $ 1,873,702

2008

Receivable Category Gross Receivable Amounts 

Uncollectible

Total Net 

Receivables

Duties $ 1,841,687 $ (127,777) $ 1,713,910

Excise Taxes 98,978 (5,830) 93,148

User Fees 144,799 (4,416) 140,383

Fines/Penalties 773,692 (732,576) 41,116

Interest 222,699 (198,717) 23,982

Anti-dumping/Countervailing Duties 310,097 (244,700) 65,397

Refunds and Drawback 453 (377) 76

Totals $ 3,392,405 $ (1,314,393) $ 2,078,012

CBP assesses duties, taxes and fees on goods and merchandise brought into the United States from foreign countries. 

At the time importers bring merchandise into the United States, they are required to file CBP entry documents. 

Generally, within 10 working days after CBP releases the merchandise into the U.S. commerce, the importer is to 

submit an entry document with payment of estimated duties, taxes and fees. CBP allows periodic monthly payment 

that requires payment of estimated duties, taxes and fees on the 15th work day of the month following release. A 

receivable of $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion was recorded for 844,316 entries and 923,774 entries for merchandise 

released into commerce on or before September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. There were an additional 3,012 

entries and 3,900 entries for merchandise released into commerce on or before September 30, 2009 and 2008, 

respectively, for which a receivable amount could not be determined because the entry summary documentation 

describing the type, quantity, and value of the merchandise had not been received from the importers. It is CBP’s 

policy to track and demand payment of unpaid estimated duties, taxes and fees receivable amounts by establishing 

a liquidated damage case which generally results in a fine and penalty type receivable.

A fine or penalty is established when a violation of import/export law is discovered. CBP assesses a liquidated 

damage or penalty for these cases to the maximum extent of the law. After receiving the notice of assessment, the 

importer or surety has 60 days to either file a petition requesting a review of the assessment or make payment of 

the assessed amount. Until this process has been completed, CBP records an allowance on fines and penalties of 

approximately 90.5 percent of the total assessment based on historical experience of fines and penalties mitigation 

Financial Section

Notes to Financial Statements
108 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

and collection. Duties and taxes receivable are non-entity assets for which there is an offsetting liability due to the 

Treasury General Fund.

7. Inventory and Related Property, Net

Operating Materials and Supplies

Operating Materials and Supplies consist of parts and materials to repair and maintain CBP aircraft and vessels 

used in enforcement activities. CBP defines operating materials and supplies categorized as “Excess, Obsolete, and 

Unserviceable” to consist of items that are no longer useable on CBP aircraft as well as items that are useable on 

CBP aircraft after repair. CBP does not currently hold operating materials and supplies in reserve for future use.

Operating Materials and Supplies as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consist of the following (in thousands):

2009 2008

Aircraft

Items Held for Use $ 94,166 $ 86,167

Excess, Obsolete, and Unserviceable Items 7,616 8,305

Total Aircraft 101,782 94,472

Vessels 11,990 8,253

Totals $ 113,772 $ 102,725

8. Seized and Forfeited Property

This schedule is presented for material categories of prohibited (non-valued) seized and forfeited property only. 

These items are retained and ultimately destroyed by CBP and are not transferred to the Department of the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund or other federal agencies. The ending balance for firearms includes only those seized items that 

can actually be used as firearms. Illegal drugs are presented in kilograms and a portion of the weight includes 

packaging, which often cannot be reasonably separated from the weight of the drugs since the packaging must be 

maintained for evidentiary purposes. Firearms and pornography are presented in number of cases.

Notes to Financial Statements
109

Analysis of Changes in Prohibited (Non-Valued) Seized Property, September 30, 2009

Category Unit of 

Measurement

Balance 

October 1 New Seizures Remissions New Forfeitures Adjustments (1)

Balance 

September 30

Illegal Drugs

Cannabis 

(marijuana) Kilograms 1,037 1,062,594 0 (1,065,252) 2,784 1,163

Cocaine Kilograms 215 26,012 0 (26,428) 375 174

Heroin Kilograms 8 1,556 0 (1,558) (1) 5

Ecstasy Kilograms 33 1,147 0 (1,146) 0 34

Steroids Kilograms 145 326 0 (364) (10) 97

Firearms Number 

of Cases 873 1,651 (303) (784) (58) 1,379

Pornography Number 

of Cases 43 74 (3) (58) 0 56

(1) Adjustments are caused by changes during the year to the beginning balances of cases. An example includes changes in 

the quantity from the amount reported in the beginning balance, or a discontinuance of a case prior to forfeiture. Also, a prior 

year case can change legal status or property type. For example, a case considered forfeited could be re-opened and changed 

to seized status or a drug property type may change on a case.

Analysis of Changes in Prohibited (Non-Valued) Seized Property, September 30, 2008

Category Unit of 

Measurement

Balance 

October 1 New Seizures Remissions New Forfeitures Adjustments (1)

Balance 

September 30

Illegal Drugs

Cannabis 

(marijuana) Kilograms 3,254 691,151 0 (694,570) 1,202 1,037 

Cocaine Kilograms 186 19,924 0 (19,876) (19) 215 

Heroin Kilograms 20 5,866 0 (5,878) 0 8 

Ecstasy Kilograms 33 1,114 0 (1,145) 31 33 

Steroids Kilograms 136 393 (10) (378) 4 145 

Firearms Number 

of Cases 1,130 1,444 (870) (742) (89) 873 

Pornography Number 

of Cases 76 96 (5) (87) (37) 43 

(1) Adjustments are caused by changes during the year to the beginning balances of cases. An example includes changes in 

the quantity from the amount reported in the beginning balance, or a discontinuance of a case prior to forfeiture. Also, a prior 

year case can change legal status or property type. For example, a case considered forfeited could be re-opened and changed 

to seized status or a drug property type may change on a case.

Financial Section

Notes to Financial Statements
110 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Analysis of Changes in Prohibited (Non-Valued) Forfeited Property, September 30, 2009

Category Unit of 

Measurement

Balance 

October 1

(1)

New Forfeitures Transfers Destroyed Adjustments

(1)

Balance 

September 30

Illegal Drugs

Cannabis 

(marijuana) Kilograms 116,600 1,065,252 (1,833) (525,453) (528,514) 126,052 

Cocaine Kilograms 35,374 26,428 (212) (24,057) (18,496) 19,037 

Heroin Kilograms 7,066 1,558 (48) (1,374) (4,932) 2,270 

Ecstasy Kilograms 1,575 1,146 0 (1,145) (159) 1,417 

Steroids Kilograms 42 364 0 (368) 1 39 

Firearms Number 

of Cases 408 784 (773) (7) 0 412 

Pornography Number 

of Cases 27 58 0 (70) 1 16 

(1) Adjustments are caused by changes during the year to the beginning balances of cases. An example includes changes in 

the quantity from the amount reported in the beginning balance. Also, a prior year case can change legal status or property 

type. For example, a case considered forfeited could be re-opened and changed to seized status or a drug property type may 

change on a case.

Analysis of Changes in Prohibited (Non-Valued) Forfeited Property, September 30, 2008

Category Unit of 

Measurement

Balance 

October 1 New Forfeitures Transfers Destroyed Adjustments (1)

Balance 

September 30

Illegal Drugs

Cannabis 

(marijuana) Kilograms 172,395 694,570 (1,943) (508,918) (239,504) 116,600 

Cocaine Kilograms 21,564 19,876 (281) (20,803) 15,018 35,374 

Heroin Kilograms 6,592 5,878 (11) (1,790) (3,603) 7,066 

Ecstasy Kilograms 1,867 1,145 (100) (1,231) (106) 1,575 

Steroids Kilograms 13 378 0 (355) 6 42 

Firearms Number 

of Cases 348 742 (732) (8) 58 408 

Pornography Number 

of Cases 29 87 0 (112) 23 27 

(1) Adjustments are caused by changes during the year to the beginning balances of cases. An example includes changes in 

the quantity from the amount reported in the beginning balance. Also, a prior year case can change legal status or property 

type. For example, a case considered forfeited could be re-opened and changed to seized status or a drug property type may 

change on a case.

Notes to Financial Statements
111

9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net

Property, Plant and Equipment as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consist of the following (in thousands):

2009

Categories Useful Life 

(in years) Acquisition Cost

Accumulated 

Depreciation/

Amortization

Net

Book Value

Land and Land Rights N/A $ 129,271 $ -- $ 129,271

Improvements to Land 6–40 1,219,088 (73,446) 1,145,642

Construction in Progress N/A 1,438,094 -- 1,438,094

Buildings, Other Structures and Facilities 6–40 952,375 (158,300) 794,075

Equipment:

ADP Equipment 5 396,135 (253,796) 142,339

Aircraft 12–20 1,005,541 (568,922) 436,619

Vessels 5–30 32,217 (14,400) 17,817

Vehicles 3–8 410,141 (290,310) 119,831

Other Equipment 5–15 1,003,938 (627,115) 376,823

Assets Under Capital Lease 2–10 9,485 (9,485) --

Leasehold Improvements 2–30 306,620 (85,054) 221,566

Internal Use Software 5 822,768 (624,137) 198,631

Internal Use Software-in Development N/A 184,947 -- 184,947

Totals $ 7,910,620 $ (2,704,965) $ 5,205,655 

2008

Categories Useful Life 

(in years) Acquisition Cost

Accumulated 

Depreciation/

Amortization

Net

Book Value

Land and Land Rights N/A $ 82,687 $ -- $ 82,687

Improvements to Land (a) 6–40 379,500 (70,715) 308,785

Construction in Progress (b) N/A 999,957 -- 999,957

Buildings, Other Structures and Facilities 6–40 837,013 (137,872) 699,141

Equipment:

ADP Equipment 5 329,937 (206,702) 123,235

Aircraft 12–20 890,104 (526,562) 363,542

Vessels 5–30 22,727 (13,965) 8,762

Vehicles 3–8 383,477 (285,091) 98,386

Other Equipment 5–15 863,518 (499,428) 364,090

Assets Under Capital Lease 2–10 9,568 (9,568) --

Leasehold Improvements 2–30 216,964 (61,385) 155,579

Internal Use Software 5 694,877 (543,889) 150,988

Internal Use Software-in Development N/A 152,945 -- 152,945

Totals $ 5,863,274 $ (2,355,177) $ 3,508,097

(a) Increase from FY 2008 relates to the completion of fence segments on the U.S. southern border.

(b) Includes $1.1 billion related to the construction of tactical infrastructure and virtual fencing along the U.S. southern border.

Financial Section

Notes to Financial Statements
112 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

10. Stewardship PP&E

CBP’s Stewardship PP&E is comprised of heritage assets located in the United States, including the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. CBP aggregates its personal property heritage assets as collection of documents and artifacts and 

reflects its multi-use heritage assets as number of physical units. Information related to heritage assets at September 

30 consisted of the following:

2009

Categories Beginning 

Balance Additions Withdrawals Adjustments Total

Collection-type Assets*

Documents -- -- -- 1 1

Artifacts -- -- -- 1 1

Multi-use Heritage Assets 4 -- -- -- 4

Total Stewardship PP&E 4 -- -- 2 6

* CBP did not report collection-type assets prior to FY 2009.

CBP possesses a wide range of documents and artifacts which are unique due to historical, cultural, artistic, or 

architectural significance. These assets are used to preserve and to provide education on CBP’s history and tradition. Documents consist of dated tariff classifications, CBP regulations, ledgers of Collectors of Customs, and 

Custom pamphlets. Artifacts include antique scales, dated pictures of Customs Inspectors, aged tools used to sample 

imported commodities such as wood bales and bulk grain, and dated Customs uniforms, badges, and stamps.

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, CBP maintains four customs houses, designated as multi-use heritage assets, 

located in Puerto Rico valued at $534 thousand which are fully depreciated. All multi-use heritage assets are 

reflected on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Deferred maintenance and condition information for heritage assets 

are presented in the required supplementary information.

11. Advances and Prepayments

Intragovernmental advances and prepayments as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, totaling $253.8 million and 

$219.4 million respectively, consist primarily of advances to UNICOR for vehicle purchases.

Advances and prepayments with the public as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, totaling $0.7 million and $0.3 

million respectively, consist of employee travel and salary advances and prepaid rent.

Notes to Financial Statements
113

12. Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources

Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, consist of the following 

(in thousands):

2009 2008

Intragovernmental:

Accrued FECA Liability $ 149,144 $ 138,021

Other Unfunded Employment Liability 872 --

Total Intragovernmental 150,016 138,021

Public:

Accrued Payroll and Benefits:

Accrued Leave (Note 13) 329,376 295,380

Actuarial FECA Liability (Note 13) 715,033 681,664

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 14) 13,334 12,769

Legal Contingent Liabilities 73,002 46,559

Software License Agreements (Note 16) 16,894 32,737

Total Public 1,147,639 1,069,109

Total Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 1,297,655 1,207,130

Total Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources or Non-Entity Assets 4,036,518 4,522,064

Total Liabilities $ 5,334,173 $ 5,729,194

Liabilities not covered by budgetary or other resources represent amounts owed in excess of available appropriated 

or other amounts. The liquidation of liabilities not covered by budgetary or other resources is dependent on future 

congressional appropriations.

13. Accrued Payroll and Benefits

The payroll and benefits liability as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 consists of the following (in thousands):

2009 2008

Accrued Funded Payroll and Benefits $ 255,003 $ 237,551

Accrued Unfunded Leave 329,376 295,380

Actuarial FECA Liability 715,033 681,664

Totals $ 1,299,412 $ 1,214,595

Actuarial workers compensation liability claims incurred for the benefit of CBP employees under FECA are administered by DOL and are ultimately paid by CBP. Future workers’ compensation estimates are generated from an 

application of actuarial procedures developed by the DOL.

Financial Section

Notes to Financial Statements
114 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

14. Environmental & Disposal Liabilities

CBP is required to remediate contamination in accordance with Federal laws in order to protect human health and 

the environment. These laws include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, and the Clean Air Act.

Estimated environmental liabilities include expected future cleanup costs and those associated with site characterization, sampling, risk assessment, removal of contamination sources, treatment, containment, and monitoring. 

CBP records the estimated cost of environmental liabilities that are probable and measurable to the current operating period. For those probable sites where future liability is unknown or no reasonable estimate of the cost to clean 

up a particular site could be made, the cost of studies necessary to evaluate response or remediation requirements 

is reported.

CBP’s environmental cleanup liability as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 was $13.3 million and $12.8 million, 

respectively. There were no material changes in total estimated cleanup costs due to changes in law or technology. 

Notable changes in estimated liabilities include:

•	 Estimates of liability are presented in FY 2009 dollars and have been appropriately escalated to account 

for inflation.

•	 CBP implemented the accounting requirements of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 

Technical Bulletin 2006-1: Recognition and Measurement of Asbestos-Related Cleanup Costs, (September 28, 2006). 

This reference requires estimating asbestos-related cleanup costs for both non-friable and friable asbestoscontaining materials.

•	 Small arms firing ranges are considered a probable liability and are included in CBP’s total environmental 

financial liability.

•	 The estimate for environmental remediation increased in the fourth quarter of FY 2009 due to changes in 

regulatory requirements, in remediation technology and long term monitoring requirements.

Notes to Financial Statements
115

15. Other Liabilities

CBP considers $85.5 million of the accrued FECA Liability due after September 30, 2010 as non-current. CBP considers all remaining Other Liabilities as current.

Other Public Liabilities include the following:

Refunds Payable

Refunds Payable consists of amounts owed for refunds of duty and other trade related activity and drawback 

claims. These liabilities, all considered current year liabilities, are principally funded from the Refunds and 

Drawback account.

CBP accrues a liability for refunds and drawback claims approved at year-end, but paid subsequent to year-end. 

Payments made to importers/exporters are primarily identified when the import entry is liquidated, a process in 

which CBP makes a final determination of duties, taxes and fees owed on the entry. Due to non-liquidation of the 

entries, the amount to be refunded is undetermined. Therefore, a historical calculated average was used to determine a ratio for estimating the payable to be recorded. Using this average, CBP has estimated $39.1 million and 

$39.9 million as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, as a payable.

The September 30, 2009 and 2008, accrued liability consists of the following (in thousands):

2009 2008

Refunds $ 77,491 $ 72,921

Drawback Claims 48,252 57,099

Totals $ 125,743 $ 130,020

Injured Domestic Industries

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 (P.L. 106-387, Title X), enacted in FY 2001, calls for 

CBP to collect and disburse monies received in connection with antidumping and countervailing duty orders and 

findings to qualifying IDI. Antidumping duties are collected when it is determined that a class or kind of foreign 

merchandise is being released into the U.S. economy at less than its fair value to the detriment of a U.S. industry. Countervailing duties are collected when it is determined that a foreign government is providing a subsidy 

to its local industries to manufacture, produce, or export a class or kind of merchandise for import into the U.S. 

commerce to the detriment of a U.S. industry. Due to the repeal of the CDSOA in the Deficit Reduction Omnibus 

Reconciliation Act of 2005, only duties collected prior to October 1, 2007 will eventually be distributed to affected 

U.S. companies, pursuant to rulings by the U.S. Department of Commerce. During FY 2009 and 2008, CBP 

liquidated $612.7 million and $395.5 million, respectively in antidumping/countervailing duties and recorded 

the liability.

Financial Section

Notes to Financial Statements
116 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

16. Leases

Software License Agreements

CBP has a software license fee agreement for a mainframe software license. The liability associated with this software license agreement is reflected on the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheet based upon the present value 

of the future minimum license agreement payments. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, the aggregate capitalized 

cost of the agreement still subject to lease is $152.2 million. This agreement is included in capitalized software.

As of September 30, 2009 (in thousands): 2009

Summary of Assets Acquired through 

Capital Lease: Acquisition Cost Accumulated Depreciation Net Book Value

Personal Property (Software & Equipment) $ 161,726 $ (137,233) $ 24,493

As of September 30, 2008 (in thousands): 2008

Summary of Assets Acquired through 

Capital Lease: Acquisition Cost Accumulated Depreciation Net Book Value

Personal Property (Software & Equipment) $ 161,814 $ (122,560) $ 39,254

Future minimum payments for cancelable commercial off-the-shelf license agreement and the present value of the 

minimum license agreement payments as of September 30, 2009, are as follows (in thousands):

Fiscal Year 2009

2010 $ 17,981

Total Future Minimum License 17,981

Less: Imputed Interest (1,087)

Total Net Present Value of Software License Agreements $ 16,894

The net present value of the cancelable software license agreement is expected to be funded from future sources.

Operating Leases

CBP leases various facilities and equipment under leases accounted for as operating leases. The leased items consist 

of offices, warehouses, vehicles and other equipment. Much of the office space occupied by CBP is either owned by 

the Federal Government or is leased by the General Services Administration (GSA) from commercial sources. CBP 

is not committed to continue to pay rent to GSA beyond the period occupied providing proper advance notice to 

GSA unless the rental agreement is non-cancelable. It is expected that CBP will continue to occupy and lease office 

space from GSA in future years.

The following schedule, by years, shows the future minimum rental payments required under operating leases 

that have initial or remaining non-cancelable lease terms in excess of one year, as of September 30, 2009 

(in thousands):
Financial Section 117

Notes to Financial Statements

Fiscal Year Facilities

2010 $ 55,567

2011 55,490

2012 55,331

2013 45,581

2014 35,699

Beyond 2014 245,498

Total Future Lease Payments $ 493,166

17. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Contingent Liabilities

CBP is party to various administrative proceedings, legal actions, and claims brought by or against it. Any financially unfavorable administrative or court decision will normally be funded from either: (1) CBP appropriation for 

refunds and drawback for trade litigation issues; (2) various claims and judgment funds maintained by Treasury; 

or (3) CBP salary and expense appropriation.

The range of estimated contingent liabilities for all probable and estimable litigation related claims as of September 

30, 2009 and 2008 were $73 million to $189 million and $59.6 million to $148.9 million, respectively. Asserted 

and pending legal claims for which loss is reasonably possible range from an estimated $374 million to $503 million and $517.7 million to $658.6 million as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. As of September 30, 

2009, CBP had 9 cases considered reasonably possible for which no estimate could be made.

Duty and Trade Refunds

There are various other trade issues resolved by other federal agencies, such as the Department of Commerce, 

which may result in refunds of duties, taxes and fees from the Refunds and Drawback Account. Until such time as a 

decision is reached by the other federal agencies, CBP does not have sufficient information to estimate a contingent 

liability amount. All known refunds as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 have been recorded.

Loaned Aircraft

CBP is generally liable to the Department of Defense for damage or loss to aircraft on loan. CBP had 16 aircraft loaned from Department of Defense with an acquisition value of $94.4 million, as of September 30, 2009 

and 2008.
118 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

18. Earmarked Funds

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation (COBRA)

In April 1986, the President signed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985, which 

authorized the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect user fees for certain services. The law initially 

established processing fees for air and sea passengers, commercial trucks, rail cars, private vessels and aircraft, 

commercial vessels, dutiable mail packages, and CBP broker permits. An additional fee category, contained in tax 

reform legislation, for processing barges and bulk carriers for Canada and Mexico, was added later that year. The 

collection of the COBRA fees for CBP services began on July 7, 1986.

In addition to the collection of user fees, other changes in CBP procedures were enacted due to the COBRA statute. 

Most importantly, provisions were included for providing non-reimbursable inspectional overtime services and 

paying for excess pre-clearance costs from the COBRA user fee collections.

The Customs and Trade Act of 1990 amended the COBRA legislation to provide for the hiring of inspectional 

personnel, the purchasing of equipment, and the covering of related expenses with any surplus monies available, after overtime and excess pre-clearance costs are satisfied. Expenditures from the surplus can only be used 

to enhance the service provided to those functions for which fees are collected. This legislation took effect on 

October 1, 1990.

19 USC Section 58c contains the Fees for certain Customs services. The authority to use these funds is contained 

in the annual Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

Immigration User Fees (IUF)

Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 738), making continuing appropriations for FY 1987 (the “1987 Act”) (Public Laws 

99-500 and 99-591), established the Immigration User Fee Account (IUFA) [requiring] the [collection] of a $5 

fee charged to each passenger arriving in the United States from foreign locations aboard commercial aircraft and 

commercial vessels except passengers whose journeys originated in the United States, Canada, Mexico, a territory or possession of the United States, or an adjacent island. The 1987 Act directed the [INS] Service, beginning 

in FY 1987, to collect an immigration user fee for each passenger arriving in the United States by commercial 

air or sea conveyance (with limited exceptions). This law was codified in 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1356, section 286, the 

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

In 1993, Congress amended section 286 of the INA by raising the immigration user fee from the original $5 to $6 

with the passage of Public Law 103-121. In 2002, in Public Law 107-77, Congress increased the immigration user 

fee from $6 to $7.
Financial Section 119

Notes to Financial Statements

Also in Public Law 107-77, Congress amended section 286(e) of the INA to authorize the Attorney General to 

charge and collect a user fee from certain previously exempt commercial vessel passengers. Prior to the enactment 

of this law, commercial vessel passengers whose journeys originated in Canada, Mexico, a State, territory or possession of the United States, or an adjacent island, were statutorily exempt from paying the Immigration User Fee 

prescribed by section 286(d) of the INA. While these vessel passengers were exempt from paying the fee, the [INS] 

Service was still required to provide inspection services.

The IUFA was also established as a repository for fines imposed to prevent unauthorized landing and unlawful 

bringing of aliens in to the United States, penalties for document fraud, 31 Act overtime, and liquidated damages 

and expenses collected. All deposits into the IUFA are available until expended.

In FY 2003 with the formation of the DHS, CBP collects and shares the revenue from the immigration user fees 

with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CBP maintains approximately 83% of the user fee, while the 

other 17% is turned over to ICE.

The following tables present condensed data relating to CBP earmarked funds (disclosed in note 1) as of and for 

the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):

2009

Balance Sheet COBRA IUF All Others Total

Assets

Fund Balance with Treasury $ 732,406 $ 84,035 $ 19,372 $ 835,813

Taxes Duties & Trade Receivables, Net 65,290 -- 24 65,314

Other Assets 99,085 75,232 3,961 178,278

Total Assets $ 896,781 $ 159,267 $ 23,357 $ 1,079,405

Liabilities and Net Position

Liabilities $ 85,280 $ -- $ 1,868 $ 87,148

Cumulative Results of Operations 811,501 159,267 21,489 992,257

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 896,781 $ 159,267 $ 23,357 $ 1,079,405

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Cost $ 398,997 $ 519,022 $ 34,667 $ 952,686

Less: Earned Revenue (57) -- 4,952 4,895 

Net Cost of Operations $ 399,054 $ 519,022 $ 29,715 $ 947,791

Statement of Change in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 847,236 $ 196,863 $ 13,117 $ 1,057,216

Net Costs of Operations (399,054) (519,022) (29,715) (947,791)

Non-Exchange Revenue 1,618,895 585,862 38,088 2,242,845

Net Transfers In/Out (1,255,577) (104,436) -- (1,360,013)

Change in Net Position (35,736) (37,596) 8,373 (64,959)

Net Position End of Period $ 811,500 $ 159,267 $ 21,490 $ 992,257
120 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

2008

Balance Sheet COBRA IUF All Others Total

Assets

Fund Balance with Treasury $ 767,723 $ 128,248 $ 15,585 $ 911,556

Taxes Duties & Trade Receivables, Net 75,530 -- 31 75,561

Other Assets 103,964 68,615 719 173,298

Total Assets $ 947,217 $ 196,863 $ 16,335 $ 1,160,415

Liabilities and Net Position

Liabilities $ 99,980 $ -- $ 3,219 $ 103,199

Cumulative Results of Operations 847,237 196,863 13,116 1,057,216

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 947,217 $ 196,863 $ 16,335 $ 1,160,415

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Cost $ 375,535 $ 615,007 $ 41,340 $ 1,031,882

Less: Earned Revenue 57 -- 2,534 2,591 

Net Cost of Operations $ 375,478 $ 615,007 $ 38,806 $ 1,029,291

Statement of Change in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 787,717 $ 229,670 $ 10,089 $ 1,027,476

Net Costs of Operations (375,478) (615,007) (38,806) (1,029,291)

Non-Exchange Revenue 1,925,373 703,988 41,834 2,671,195

Net Transfers In/Out (1,490,376) (121,788) -- (1,612,164)

Change in Net Position 59,519 (32,807) 3,028 29,740

Net Position End of Period $ 847,236 $ 196,863 $ 13,117 $ 1,057,216

19. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue

Intragovernmental costs represent exchange transactions made between two reporting entities within the Federal 

Government and are presented separately from costs with the public (exchange transactions made between the 

reporting entity and a non-federal entity). Intragovernmental exchange revenue is disclosed separately from 

exchange revenue with the public. The criteria used for this classification requires that the intragovernmental 

expenses relate to the source of goods and services purchased by the reporting entity and not to the classification of related revenue. With intragovernmental costs, the buyer and seller are both federal entities. If a federal 

entity purchases goods or services from another federal entity and sells them to the public, the exchange revenue would be classified as “with the public,” but the related costs would be classified as intragovernmental. 

The purpose of this classification is to enable the Federal Government to provide consolidated financial statements, and not to match public and intragovernmental revenue with costs that are incurred to produce public and 

intragovernmental revenue.

In FY 2008 CBP identified costs and revenue by three programs. Effective with FY 2009, CBP added two programs: 

“Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology” and “Automation Modernization.”

The Consolidated Statements of Net Cost reflects intragovernmental and public cost and exchange revenue as summarized below for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):
Financial Section 121

Notes to Financial Statements

2009 2008

Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation at Ports of Entry

Intragovernmental Costs $ 1,813,756 $ 1,550,794

Public Costs 4,359,311 4,323,019

Total Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation at 

Ports of Entry Costs 6,173,067 5,873,813

Less: Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 141,322 142,013

Less: Public Earned Revenue 67,852 62,188

Total Border Security Inspections and Trade Facilitation at 

Ports of Entry Revenue 209,174 204,201

Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry

Intragovernmental Costs 1,143,328 962,616

Public Costs 2,747,956 2,683,405

Total Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry Costs 3,891,284 3,646,021

Less: Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 89,084 88,151

Less: Public Earned Revenue 42,772 38,602

Total Border Security and Control Between Ports of Entry Revenue 131,856 126,753

Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology

Intragovernmental Costs 31,624 --

Public Costs 76,007 --

Total Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Costs 107,631 --

Less: Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 2,464 --

Less: Public Earned Revenue 1,183 --

Total Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure and Technology Revenue 3,647 --

Automation Modernization

Intragovernmental Costs 98,699 --

Public Costs 237,221 --

Total Automation Modernization Costs 335,920 --

Less: Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 7,690 --

Less: Public Earned Revenue 3,693 --

Total Automation Modernization Revenue 11,383 --

Air and Marine Operations

Intragovernmental Costs 156,076 112,384

Public Costs 375,125 313,283

Total Air and Marine Operations Costs 531,201 425,667

Less: Intragovernmental Earned Revenue 12,161 10,291

Less: Public Earned Revenue 5,838 4,507

Total Air and Marine Operations Revenue 17,999 14,798

Net Cost of Operations $ 10,665,044 $ 9,599,749
122 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

20. Sub-Organization Program Costs/

Program Costs by Segment

CBP is the unified border agency whose priority mission is the prevention of terrorism and terrorist weapons 

from entering the United States. CBP meets these responsibilities by: (1) enforcing the laws governing the flow of 

merchandise or commerce across the borders of the United States; (2) assessing and collecting duties, taxes, and 

fees on imported and other goods and services; and (3) enforcing drug-related and other laws and regulations 

of the United States on behalf of federal agencies and/or in conjunction with various state, local agencies, and 

foreign countries.

Operating costs are summarized in the Consolidated Statement of Net Cost by mission or major line of activity, as 

applicable to the reporting period. The net cost of operations is the gross (i.e., total) cost incurred by CBP, less any 

exchange (i.e., earned) revenue.

In FY 2008 CBP identified costs and revenue by three programs and one goal. Effective with FY 2009, CBP 

added two programs and two goals. The two new programs are “Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and 

Technology” and “Automation Modernization”. The two new goals are “Protect our Nation from Dangerous 

Goods” and “Protect Critical Infrastructure”. The FY 2008 Statement of Net Cost comparison and Schedule of Net 

Cost by Program and Responsibility Segment do not reflect the FY 2009 programs/goals breakout.
Financial Section 123

Notes to Financial Statements

For the year ended September 30, 2009 (in thousands):

2009

Schedule of Net Cost 

by Program and 

Responsibility Segment

Protect our 

Nation from 

Dangerous 

People

Protect our 

Nation from 

Dangerous 

Goods

Protect Critical 

Infrastructure

Intra-Entity 

Eliminations

Consolidated 

Total

Border Security Inspections 

and Trade Facilitation at 

Ports of Entry

Gross Costs:

Passenger Processing $ 1,624,706 $ 1,915,053 $ -- $ 377,056 $ 3,162,703

Trade Compliance -- 2,506,867 -- 267,032 2,239,835

Anti-Terrorism 117,374 620,230 -- 78,570 659,034

Outbound -- 124,787 -- 13,292 111,495

Total Gross Costs 1,742,080 5,166,937 -- 735,950 6,173,067

Less: Earned Revenue 238,309 706,815 -- 735,950 209,174

Net Program Costs $ 1,503,771 $ 4,460,122 $ -- $ -- $ 5,963,893

Border Security and Control 

Between Ports of Entry

Gross Costs $ 4,355,201 $ -- $ -- $ 463,917 $ 3,891,284

Less: Earned Revenue 595,773 -- -- 463,917 131,856

Net Program Costs $ 3,759,428 $ -- $ -- $ -- $ 3,759,428

Border Security Fencing, 

Infrastructure and 

Technology

Gross Costs $ 120,463 $ -- $ -- $ 12,832 $ 107,631

Less: Earned Revenue 16,479 -- -- 12,832 3,647

Net Program Costs $ 103,984 $ -- $ -- $ -- $ 103,984

Automation Modernization

Gross Costs $ 2,471 $ 366,949 $ 6,548 $ 40,048 $ 335,920

Less: Earned Revenue 338 50,197 896 40,048 11,383

Net Program Costs $ 2,133 $ 316,752 $ 5,652 $ -- $ 324,537

Air and Marine Operations

Gross Costs $ 594,531 $ -- $ -- $ 63,330 $ 531,201

Less: Earned Revenue 81,329 -- -- 63,330 17,999

Net Program Costs $ 513,202 $ -- $ -- $ -- $ 513,202

Net Cost of Operations $ 5,882,518 $ 4,776,874 $ 5,652 $ 10,665,044
124 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

For the year ended September 30, 2008 (in thousands):

2008

Schedule of Net Cost 

by Program and Responsibility Segment

Protect our 

Nation from 

Dangerous People

Intra-Entity 

Eliminations Consolidated Total

Border Security Inspections and Trade 

Facilitation at Ports of Entry

Gross Costs:

Passenger Processing $ 3,425,181 $ 405,727 $ 3,019,454

Trade Compliance 2,432,375 288,125 2,144,250

Outbound 111,691 13,230 98,461

Anti-Terrorism 693,836 82,188 611,648

Total Gross Costs 6,663,083 789,270 5,873,813

Less: Earned Revenue 993,471 789,270 204,201

Net Program Costs $ 5,669,612 $ -- $ 5,669,612

Border Security and Control Between 

Ports of Entry

Gross Costs $ 4,135,940 $ 489,919 $ 3,646,021

Less: Earned Revenue 616,672 489,919 126,753

Net Program Costs $ 3,519,268 $ -- $ 3,519,268

Air and Marine Operations

Gross Costs $ 482,865 $ 57,198 $ 425,667

Less: Earned Revenue 71,996 57,198 14,798

Net Program Costs $ 410,869 $ -- $ 410,869

Net Cost of Operations $ 9,599,749 $ -- $ 9,599,749

21. Non-Exchange Revenues and Transfers In/Out Without 

Reimbursement

Non-exchange Revenue represents amounts collected from user fees that CBP may retain and expend as authorized 

by law. Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement are amounts of funds collected and transferred from CBP receipt 

accounts to expenditure accounts within CBP and to other federal agencies.
Financial Section 125

Notes to Financial Statements

22. Apportionment Categories of Obligations Incurred: 

Direct vs. Reimbursable Obligations

Apportionment categories are determined in accordance with the guidance provided in OMB Circular A-11, 

Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget. Category A represents resources apportioned for calendar 

quarters. Category B represents resources apportioned for: other time periods, activities, projects, objectives or any 

combination thereof (in thousands).

FY Ended September 30, 2009 Apportionment 

Category A

Apportionment 

Category B

Exempt from 

Apportionment Total

Obligations Incurred - Direct $ 7,665,023 $ 4,189,531 $ 1,220,952 $ 13,075,506

Obligations Incurred - Reimbursable 1,408,850 117,672 -- 1,526,522

Total Obligations Incurred $ 9,073,873 $ 4,307,203 $ 1,220,952 $ 14,602,028

FY Ended September 30, 2008 Apportionment 

Category A

Apportionment 

Category B

Exempt from 

Apportionment Total

Obligations Incurred - Direct $ 6,532,724 $ 5,357,264 $ 972,988 $ 12,862,976

Obligations Incurred - Reimbursable 1,622,088 141,443 -- 1,763,531

Total Obligations Incurred $ 8,154,812 $ 5,498,707 $ 972,988 $ 14,626,507

23. Appropriations

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, the Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources consist of appropriations 

totaling $13.2 billion and $12 billion, respectively. This differs from the Consolidated Statements of Changes in 

Net Position as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, which consist of appropriations received totaling $9.3 billion 

and $7.9 billion, respectively. This difference is due to CBP’s non-entity activity, which as of September 30, 2009 

and 2008 consists of $1.6 billion and $1.4 billion, respectively, for Refund and Drawback activity as well as $2.3 

million and $2.7 billion, respectively, for user/inspection fees and subsidy activity, which are not reported on the 

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position.

Permanent indefinite appropriations refer to the appropriations that result from permanent public laws, which 

authorize CBP to retain certain receipts. The amount appropriated depends upon the amount of the receipts rather 

than on a specific amount. CBP has a permanent and indefinite appropriation, which is used to disburse tax and 

duty refunds and duty drawbacks. Although funded through an appropriation, refund and drawback activity is, in 

most instances, reported as a custodial activity. Refunds are custodial revenue-related activity in that refunds are a 

direct result of importer overpayments of duties, taxes and fees. Federal tax revenue received from taxpayers is not 

available for use in the operation of CBP and is not reported on the Consolidated Statements of Net Cost. Likewise, 

the refunds of overpayments are not available for use by CBP in its operations. Refunds and drawback disbursements totaled $1.4 billion and $1.3 billion for fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, and are presented as 

a use of custodial revenue on the Consolidated Statements of Custodial Activity. This appropriation is not subject to 
126 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

budgetary ceilings established by Congress. CBP’s refund payable at year-end is not subject to funding restrictions. 

Refund payment funding is recognized as appropriations are used.

24. Legal Arrangements Affecting the Use of 

Unobligated Balances

Unobligated balances, whose period of availability has expired, are not available to fund new obligations. Expired 

unobligated balances are available to pay for current period adjustments to obligations incurred prior to expiration. 

For a fixed appropriation account, the balance can be carried forward for five fiscal years after the period of availability ends. For a no-year account, the unobligated balance is carried forward indefinitely until (1) specifically 

rescinded by law; or (2) the head of the agency concerned or the President determines that the purposes for which 

the appropriation was made have been carried out and disbursements have not been made against the appropriation for two consecutive years.

Included in the cumulative results of operations for special funds is $1 billion at September 30, 2009, that represents CBP’s authority to assess and collect user fees relating to merchandise and passenger processing, to assess 

and collect fees associated with the services performed at certain small airports or other facilities, retain amounts 

needed to offset costs associated with collecting duties, and taxes and fees for the government of Puerto Rico. 

These special fund balances are restricted by law and in their use to offset specific costs incurred by CBP. Part of 

the passenger fees in the COBRA User Fee Account, totaling approximately $784 million, as of September 30, 2009 

is restricted by law in its use to offset specific costs incurred by CBP and are available to the extent provided in 

Department Appropriations Acts.

The entity trust fund balances result from CBP’s authority to use the proceeds from general order items sold at 

auction to offset specific costs incurred by CBP relating to their sale, to use available funds in the Salaries and 

Expense Fund to offset specific costs for expanding border and port enforcement activities, and to use available 

funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to offset administrative expenses related to the collection of the 

Harbor Maintenance Fee.

Notes to Financial Statements
127

25. Explanation of Differences Between the SBR and the 

Budget of the US Government

The table below documents the material differences between the FY 2008 Combined Statement of Budgetary 

Resources and the actual amounts reported for FY 2008 in the Budget of the United States Government. Since the 

FY 2009 financial statements are reported prior to the Budget of the United States Government, CBP is reporting 

for FY 2008 only. Typically, the Budget of the United States Government with the FY 2009 actual data is published 

in February of the subsequent year. Once published, the FY 2009 actual data will be available at OMB web site, 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb. (in thousands):

2008 Budgetary 

Resources

Obligations 

Incurred

Distributed 

Offsetting 

Receipts

Net Outlays

Combined Statement of 

Budgetary Resources $ 17,175,517 $ 14,626,507 $ 2,633,691 $ 8,583,890

Differences:

Expired Appropriation not Included in 

President’s Budget (268,394) (42,400) -- --

Refunds & Drawbacks not Included in 

President’s Budget (968,851) (968,851) -- (968,983)

Injured Domestic Industries not Included 

in President’s Budget (20X5688) (969,824) (264,561) -- (264,561)

Offsetting Receipts not Included in the 

Treasury Annual Report -- -- (31,846) 2,633,691

Miscellaneous (32,612) -- -- --

Total Differences (2,239,681) (1,275,812) (31,846) 1,400,147

Budget of the US Government $ 14,935,836 $ 13,350,695 $ 2,601,845 $ 9,984,037

26. Undelivered Orders at the End of Period

An undelivered order exists when a valid obligation has occurred and funds have been reserved, but the goods or 

services have not been delivered and have not been prepaid. Undelivered orders for the period ended September 

30, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):

2009 2008

Unpaid $ 3,537,361 $ 4,364,976

Upward/Downward Adjustment of Prior Period (335,308) (426,722)

Total Undelivered Orders at the End of Period $ 3,202,053 $ 3,938,254

Financial Section

Notes to Financial Statements
128 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Notes to Financial Statements

27. Custodial Revenues

Custodial Revenue consists of duties, user fees, fines and penalties, refunds and drawback overpayments and 

interest associated with import/export activity which have been established as a specifically identifiable, legally 

enforceable claim and remain uncollected as of year-end. These receivables are net of amounts deemed uncollectible which were determined by considering the debtor’s payment record and willingness to pay, the probable 

recovery of amounts from secondary sources, such as sureties and an analysis of aged receivable activity. Primarily, 

revenue collections result from current fiscal year activity.

Disbursements from the Refunds and Drawback account for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 

(in thousands):

2009 2008

Refunds $ 658,989 $ 620,407

Drawback 708,498 675,298

Total $ 1,367,487 $ 1,295,705

Amounts refunded during FY 2009 and 2008 identified by entry year consist of the following (in thousands):

Entry Year 2009 Entry Year 2008

2009 $ 754,711 2008 $ 815,098

2008 176,069 2007 162,254

2007 70,855 2006 54,267

2006 41,892 2005 26,350

Prior Years 323,960 Prior Years 237,736

Total $ 1,367,487 Total $ 1,295,705

The total amounts of antidumping and countervailing duties vary from year to year, depending on decisions from 

Department of Commerce. Antidumping and countervailing duty refunds (included in total refunds presented 

above) and associated interest refunded for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, consisted of the 

following (in thousands):

2009 2008

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Refunds $ 29,313 $ 16,122

Interest 747 775

Total $ 30,060 $ 16,897
Financial Section 129

Notes to Financial Statements

28. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations to Budget

The following table presents CBP’s reconciliation of net cost of operations to budgetary accounts for the years 

ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 (in thousands):

2009 2008

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Obligations Incurred $ 14,602,028 $ 14,626,507

Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 1,890,660 2,060,855

Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 12,711,368 12,565,652

Less: Offsetting Receipts 2,300,029 2,633,691

Net Obligations 10,411,339 9,931,961

Other Resources

Donations and Forfeiture of Property 3,917 14,002

Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement 104,146 131,719

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 477,598 280,057

Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 585,661 425,778

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities $ 10,997,000 $ 10,357,739

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of Operations

Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services and Benefits 

Ordered, but not yet Provided (607,718) 1,109,123

Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods 9,139 38,813

Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts that do not Affect Net Cost 

of Operations

Other (2,269,464) (2,631,100)

Resources that Finance the Acquisition of Assets or Liquidation of Liabilities 2,229,214 1,409,249

Tax Revenue Refunds and Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated 

Resources that do not Affect Net Cost of Operations 1,478,856 1,420,212

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of Operations $ 840,027 $ 1,346,297

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 10,156,973 $ 9,011,442

Components of the Net Cost of Operations that will not Require or 

Generate Resources in the Current Period

Components Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods

Increase in Annual Leave Liability and Environmental Liability $ 34,561 $ 46,196

Change in Actuarial FECA Liability and Other 44,492 78,034

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that will Require or 

Generate Resources in Future Periods $ 79,053 $ 124,230

Components not Requiring or Generating Resources

Depreciation and Amortization $ 454,479 $ 457,452

Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities 5,111 9,595

Other (30,572) (2,970)

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that will not Require or 

Generate Resources $ 429,018 $ 464,077

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations that will not Require or 

Generate Resources in the Current Period $ 508,071 $ 588,307

Net Cost of Operations $ 10,665,044 $ 9,599,749
130 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Required Supplementary Information

Deferred Maintenance

Deferred maintenance is maintenance that was not performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be 

performed, and has been delayed until a future period. Maintenance includes preventive maintenance, normal 

repairs, replacement of parts and structural components, and other activities needed to preserve the asset so that it 

will continue to provide acceptable service and achieve its useful life.

An assessment of “fair” means the facility/equipment condition meets minimum standards but requires additional 

maintenance or repair to prevent further deterioration, increase operating efficiency and to achieve normal life 

expectancy. An assessment of “good” means the facility/equipment condition is above minimum standards, but 

requires preventative maintenance or normal repairs to maintain the design intent of the building or equipment 

so that it continues to provide acceptable service and achieves the expected useful life. Deferred maintenance on 

property, plant and equipment as measured by condition assessment survey, is comprised of (in thousands):

2009

Condition 

Assessment

Deferred 

Maintenance

Building and Structures Poor to Good $ 96,048

Vehicles Good 30

Multi-Use Heritage Assets Poor to Good 2,080

Collections (documents and artifacts) Poor to Good --

Totals $ 98,158

2008

Condition 

Assessment

Deferred 

Maintenance

Building and Structures Poor to Good $ 87,134

Vehicles Good 13

Multi-Use Heritage Assets Poor to Good 2,179

Totals $ 89,326

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR)

The total Budgetary Resources of $17.7 billion for FY 2009 includes new budget authority, unobligated balances 

at the beginning of the year and transferred in/out, spending authority from offsetting collections, recoveries of 

prior year obligations and adjustments.
Financial Section 131

Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

Schedule of Budgetary Resources by Major Fund Type

As of September 30, 2009 (in thousands): Appropriated 

Funds Trust Funds Other Funds Totals

Budgetary Resources 

Unobligated Balances Brought Forward, October 1 $ 978,500 $ 3,802 $ 1,566,708 $ 2,549,010

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations 347,846 1,215 21,485 370,546

Budget Authority:

Appropriations 9,293,211 3,917 3,889,184 13,186,312

Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections:

Earned

Collected 1,569,793 -- 28,013 1,597,806

Change in Receivable From Federal Sources 6,527 -- 4,261 10,788

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:

Advance Received (123) -- -- (123)

Without Advance From Federal Sources (91,514) -- 3 (91,511)

Expenditure Transfers From Trust Funds 3,154 -- -- 3,154

Subtotal 10,781,048 3,917 3,921,461 14,706,426

Non-Expenditure Transfers, Net 1,578,358 3,154 (1,260,909) 320,603

Permanently Not Available (86,230) -- (192,351) (278,581)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 13,599,522 $ 12,088 $ 4,056,394 $ 17,668,004

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 10,546,314 $ 7,022 $ 2,522,170 $ 13,075,506

Reimbursable 1,498,697 -- 27,825 1,526,522

Total Obligations Incurred 12,045,011 7,022 2,549,995 14,602,028

Unobligated Balance:

Apportioned 64,021 -- -- 64,021

Unobligated Balance not Available 1,490,490 5,066 1,506,399 3,001,955

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 13,599,522 $ 12,088 $ 4,056,394 $ 17,668,004

Change in Obligated Balances

Obligated Balance, Net

Unpaid Obligations Brought Forward, October 1 $ 5,285,429 $ 1,185 $ 91,099 $ 5,377,713

Uncollected Customer Payments From Federal 

Sources Brought Forward, October 1 (280,680) -- (19) (280,699)

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 5,004,749 1,185 91,080 5,097,014

Obligations Incurred, Net 12,045,011 7,022 2,549,995 14,602,028

Gross Outlays (12,601,875) (6,469) (2,431,643) (15,039,987)

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (347,847) (1,215) (21,484) (370,546)

Change In Uncollected Customer Payments From 

Federal Sources 84,987 -- (4,264) 80,723

Obligated Balance, Net End of Period

Unpaid Obligations 4,380,717 523 187,967 4,569,207

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments From 

Federal Sources (195,692) -- (4,283) (199,975)

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, 

End of Period 4,185,025 523 183,684 4,369,232

Net Outlays

Gross Outlays 12,601,875 6,469 2,431,643 15,039,987

Less: Offsetting Collections (1,572,824) -- (28,013) (1,600,837)

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts -- -- (2,300,029) (2,300,029)

Total Net Outlays $ 11,029,051 $ 6,469 $ 103,601 $ 11,139,121
132 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

Schedule of Budgetary Resources by Major Fund Type

As of September 30, 2008 (in thousands): Appropriated 

Funds Trust Funds Other Funds Totals

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balances Brought Forward, October 1 $ 1,465,499 $ 413 $ 1,428,993 $ 2,894,905

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations 470,178 3,913 11,508 485,599

Budget Authority:

Appropriations 7,929,110 4,136 4,039,728 11,972,974

Spending Authority From Offsetting Collections:

Earned

Collected 1,592,357 -- 19,768 1,612,125

Change in Receivable From Federal Sources (5,553) -- (333) (5,886)

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders:

Advance Received 125 -- -- 125

Without Advance From Federal Sources (33,249) (87) (865) (34,201)

Expenditure Transfers From Trust Funds 3,093 -- -- 3,093

Subtotal 9,485,883 4,049 4,058,298 13,548,230

Non-Expenditure Transfers, Net 1,826,278 3,093 (1,495,708) 333,663

Permanently Not Available (55,729) -- (31,151) (86,880)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 13,192,109 $ 11,468 $ 3,971,940 $ 17,175,517

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred:

Direct $ 10,468,629 $ 7,665 $ 2,386,682 $ 12,862,976

Reimbursable 1,744,980 -- 18,551 1,763,531

Total Obligations Incurred 12,213,609 7,665 2,405,233 14,626,507

Unobligated Balance:

Apportioned 7,892 -- -- 7,892

Unobligated Balance not Available 970,608 3,803 1,566,707 2,541,118

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 13,192,109 $ 11,468 $ 3,971,940 $ 17,175,517 

Change in Obligated Balances

Obligated Balance, Net

Unpaid Obligations Brought Forward, October 1 $ 3,982,203 $ 5,577 $ 81,948 $ 4,069,728

Uncollected Customer Payments From Federal 

Sources Brought Forward, October 1 (319,481) (88) (1,216) (320,785)

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net 3,662,722 5,489 80,732 3,748,943

Obligations Incurred, Net 12,213,609 7,665 2,405,233 14,626,507

Gross Outlays (10,440,205) (8,144) (2,384,575) (12,832,924)

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations (470,178) (3,913) (11,508) (485,599)

Change In Uncollected Customer Payments From 

Federal Sources 38,802 87 1,198 40,087

Obligated Balance, Net End of Period

Unpaid Obligations 5,285,430 1,184 91,099 5,377,713

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments From 

Federal Sources (280,680) (--) (19) (280,699)

Total, Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net, 

End of Period 5,004,750 1,184 91,080 5,097,014

Net Outlays

Gross Outlays 10,440,205 8,144 2,384,575 12,832,924

Less: Offsetting Collections (1,595,575) -- (19,768) (1,615,343)

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts -- -- (2,633,691) (2,633,691)

Total Net Outlays $ 8,844,630 $ 8,144 $ (268,884) $ 8,583,890
Financial Section 133

Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited)

Custodial Activity

Substantially all duty, tax and fee revenues collected by CBP are remitted to various General Fund accounts maintained by Treasury and U.S Department of Agriculture. Treasury further distributes these revenues to other federal 

agencies in accordance with various laws and regulations. CBP transfers the remaining revenue (less than one percent of revenues collected) directly to other federal agencies, the Governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. Refunds of revenues collected from import/export activities are recorded in separate accounts established 

for this purpose and are funded through permanent indefinite appropriations. These activities reflect the nonentity, or custodial, responsibilities that CBP, as an agency of the Federal government, has been authorized by law 

to enforce.

CBP reviews selected documents to ensure all duties, taxes and fees owed to the Federal government are paid and 

to ensure regulations are followed. If CBP determines that duties, taxes, fees, fines or penalties are due in addition 

to estimated amounts previously paid by the importer/violator, the importer/violator is notified of the additional 

amount due. CBP regulations allow the importer/violator to file a protest on the additional amount due for review 

by the Port Director. A protest allows the importer/violator the opportunity to submit additional documentation 

supporting their claim of a lower amount due or to cancel the additional amount due in its entirety. During the 

protest period, CBP does not have a legal right to importer/violator’s assets, and consequently CBP recognizes 

accounts receivable only when the protest period has expired or an agreement is reached. For FY 2009 and 2008 

CBP had the legal right to collect $1.9 billion and $2.1 billion of receivables. In addition, there were $2.2 billion 

and $2 billion representing records still in the protest phase for FY 2009 and 2008 respectively. CBP recognized 

as write-offs $397.4 million and $311 million of assessments that the Department has statutory authority to collect at September 30, 2009 and 2008, but has no future collection potential. Most of this amount represents fines, 

penalties and interest.
134 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Other Accompanying Information

Revenue Gap

The Entry Summary Compliance Measurement (ESCM) program collects objective statistical data to determine the 

compliance level of commercial imports with U.S. trade laws, regulations and agreements, and is used to produce 

a dollar amount for Estimated Net Undercollections, and a percent of Revenue Gap. The Revenue Gap is a calculated estimate that measures potential loss of revenue owing to noncompliance with trade laws, regulations, and 

trade agreements using a statistically valid sample of the revenue losses and overpayments detected during ESCM 

entry summary reviews conducted throughout the year. For FY 2008 and 2007, the Revenue Gap was $396 and 

$412 million, respectively. The preliminary estimated Revenue Gap for FY 2009 is $250 million. As a percentage, the preliminary Revenue Gap for FY 2009 represents less than 1% of all collectable revenue for the year, the 

lowest it has been in over five years. The estimated over-collection and under-collection amounts due to noncompliance for FY 2009 were $40 million and $290 million, respectively. The overall trade compliance rate for 

FY 2008 and FY 2007 is 97.6, and 97.8 percent respectively. The preliminary overall compliance rate for FY 2009 is 

98.5 percent.

The final overall trade compliance rate and estimated revenue gap for FY 2009 will be issued in February 2010.

Petitioned and Protested Schedule

An analysis of the changes in petitioned and protested assessed amounts during FY 2009 and 2008 is as follows 

(in thousands):

2009

Balance 

October 1

Additional 

Assessments

Protest in Favor 

of Debtor

Net Reduction 

Administrative 

Process

Additional 

Receivable

Balance 

September 30

Duties $ 247,155 $ 126,233 $ (5,365) $ (105,568) $ -- $ 262,455 

Taxes 300 8,664 (28) (391) -- 8,545

Fees 692 2,038 (32) (1,490) -- 1,208

Fines/Penalties 1,222,143 896,041 (416,676) (199) (458,649) 1,242,660

Interest 174,003 78,445 (4,945) (45,992) -- 201,511

Antidumping/

Countervailing 

Duty

366,400 252,889 (10,350) (166,610) -- 442,329

Refunds and 

Drawback 5,722 12,411 (600) (5,339) -- 12,194

Totals $ 2,016,415 $ 1,376,721 $ (437,996) $ (325,589) $ (458,649) $ 2,170,902
Financial Section 135

Other Accompanying Information (Unaudited)

2008

Balance 

October 1

Additional 

Assessments

Protest in Favor 

of Debtor

Net Reduction 

Administrative 

Process

Additional 

Receivable

Balance 

September 30

Duties $ 220,610 $ 229,995 $ (10,149) $ (103,110) $ (90,191) $ 247,155

Taxes 48 744 (8) (414) (70) 300

Fees 3,778 2,799 (102) (5,601) (182) 692

Fines/Penalties 2,076,989 818,467 (905,125) (47) (768,141) 1,222,143

Interest 123,108 135,453 (8,276) (23,524) (52,758) 174,003

Antidumping/

Countervailing 

Duty

302,130 299,785 (36,594) (60,090) (138,831) 366,400

Refunds and 

Drawback 10,669 9,429 (660) (12,064) (1,652) 5,722

Totals $ 2,737,332 $ 1,496,672 $ (960,914) $ (204,850) $ (1,051,825) $ 2,016,415

CBP reviews selected entry documentation to determine whether importer payment estimates of duties, taxes and 

fees were accurate or whether additional supplemental amounts are owed and should be billed. CBP regulations 

allow the importer 90 days (or 180 days for entries on or after 12/18/04) from the bill date in which to file a protest to be reviewed by the Port Director and an application requesting further review of the protest by CBP Office 

of Regulations and Rulings challenging the assessment of supplemental duties, taxes and fees. If the Port Director 

denies the protest and application for further review, the protestor has an additional 60 days from the denial date 

for a review of the application by the Commissioner of CBP. Consequently, CBP recognizes accounts receivables 

only when the protested period has elapsed or when a protest decision has been rendered in CBP favor.

Additionally, importers and their sureties also have the option to petition for relief after receipt of CBP notice that 

a fine or penalty has been assessed when a violation of law or regulation is discovered. The importer or surety has 

60 days to file a petition for relief or make payment of the assessed amount. If a petition is received and CBP finds 

there are extenuating circumstances such as an incorrect assessment, which warrants mitigation, relief is granted 

as prescribed by CBP mitigation guidelines and directives. Consequently, CBP recognizes accounts receivables only 

when the petition period has elapsed or when a petition decision has been rendered.
136 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Other Accompanying Information (Unaudited)

Accounts Receivable with Public, Net

An aging of Accounts Receivables with the Public as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 is as follows 

(in thousands):

Aged Period

2009 < or = 90 days 91 days –1 year 1–2 years 2–3 years 3+ years Total

Reimbursable Services $ 498 $ 2,206 $ 569 $ 1,046 $ 3,911 $ 8,230

User Fees 145,615 4,136 21,973 1,009 16,935 189,668

Gross Receivables 146,113 6,342 22,542 2,055 20,846 197,898

Less Uncollectible 

Amounts (--) (--) (3,391) (25) (13,984) (17,400)

Net Receivables $ 146,113 $ 6,342 $ 19,151 $ 2,030 $ 6,862 $ 180,498

Aged Period

2008 < or = 90 days 91 days –1 year 1–2 years 2–3 years 3+ years Total

Reimbursable Services $ 433 $ 3,245 $ 1,465 $ 77 $ 345 $ 5,565

User Fees 145,237 31,401 3,770 1,421 16,112 197,941

Gross Receivables 145,670 34,646 5,235 1,498 16,457 203,506

Less Uncollectible 

Amounts (--) (10,308) (1,862) (783) (12,909) (25,862)

Net Receivables $ 145,670 $ 24,338 $ 3,373 $ 715 $ 3,548 $ 177,644

Taxes Duties and Trade Receivables, Net

An analysis of the changes in accounts receivable during FY 2009 and 2008 is as follows (in thousands):

2009

Receivable 

Category

Balance 

October 1

Receivable 

Recorded During 

the Fiscal Year

Collections Write-offs Adjustments Balance 

September 30

Duties $ 1,841,687 $ 12,241,022 $(11,463,503) $ (5,027) $ (964,515) $ 1,649,664

Excise Taxes 98,978 1,937,532 (1,871,670) (--) (59,359) 105,481

Fees 144,799 1,186,052 (1,171,393) (--) (42,307) 117,151

Fines/

Penalties 773,692 31,008,832 (63,943) (392,346) (30,805,041) 521,194

Interest 222,699 65,936 (5,243) (8) 7,700 291,084

Antidumping/ 

Countervailing 

Duty

310,097 282,184 (169,209) (--) (2,122) 420,950

Refunds/

Drawback 453 1,033 (897) (--) (141) 448

Totals $ 3,392,405 $ 46,722,591 $ (14,745,858) $ (397,381) $ (31,865,785) $ 3,105,972

Less: 

Uncollectible 

Amounts 1,314,393 1,232,270

Net 

Receivables $ 2,078,012 $ 1,873,702
Financial Section 137

Other Accompanying Information (Unaudited)

2008

Receivable 

Category

Balance 

October 1

Receivable 

Recorded During 

the Fiscal Year

Collections Write-offs Adjustments Balance 

September 30

Duties $ 1,648,851 $ 13,706,210 $ (12,708,037) $ (2,996) $ (802,341) $ 1,841,687

Excise Taxes 126,752 1,814,198 (1,773,158) (7) (68,807) 98,978

Fees 132,452 1,816,214 (1,779,521) (11) (24,335) 144,799

Fines/

Penalties 1,115,645 1,540,038 (72,596) (276,929) (1,532,466) 773,692

Interest 190,338 97,651 (12,257) (16,524) (36,509) 222,699

Antidumping/ 

Countervailing 

Duty

311,135 379,391 (257,010) (14,515) (108,904) 310,097

Refunds/

Drawback 2,062 10,566 (10,076) (-) (2,099) 453

Totals $ 3,527,235 $19,364,268 $ (16,612,655) $(310,982) $ (2,575,461) $ 3,392,405

Less: 

Uncollectible 

Amounts 1,590,361 1,314,393

Net 

Receivables $ 1,936,874 $ 2,078,012

An aging of accounts receivables as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 is as follows (in thousands):

Aged Period

2009 < or = 90 days 91 days –

1 year 1–2 years 2–3 years 3+ years Total

Duties $ 1,498,220 $ 35,217 $ 7,106 $ 4,478 $ 104,643 $ 1,649,664

Excise Taxes 99,003 41 13 2 6,422 105,481

User Fees 109,454 348 88 25 7,236 117,151

Fines/Penalties 39,986 156,664 86,435 52,987 185,122 521,194

Interest 24 26,352 18,665 9,501 236,542 291,084

Antidumping/ 

Countervailing Duty 24 121,574 45,523 20,556 233,273 420,950

Refunds and Drawback -- 140 15 53 240 448

Gross Receivables 1,746,711 340,336 157,845 87,602 773,478 3,105,972

Less: Uncollectible 

Amounts 53,037 286,817 130,892 73,759 687,765 1,232,270

Net Receivables $ 1,693,674 $ 53,519 $ 26,953 $ 13,843 $ 85,713 $ 1,873,702

Aged Period

2009 < or = 90 days 91 days –

1 year 1–2 years 2–3 years 3+ years Total

Duties $ 1,701,888 $ 17,175 $ 13,103 $ 13,604 $ 95,917 $ 1,841,687

Excise Taxes 92,916 23 11 20 6,008 98,978

User Fees 134,865 298 49 9,304 283 144,799

Fines/Penalties 52,740 79,570 123,987 104,600 412,795 773,692

Interest 6 19,040 6,789 23,307 173,557 222,699

Antidumping/ 

Countervailing Duty 12,704 63,644 16,600 43,646 173,503 310,097

Refunds and Drawback -- 24 181 21 227 453

Gross Receivables 1,995,119 179,774 160,720 194,502 862,290 3,392,405

Less: Uncollectible 

Amounts 53,735 139,127 142,466 156,989 822,076 1,314,393

Net Receivables $ 1,941,384 $ 40,647 $ 18,254 $ 37,513 $ 40,214 $ 2,078,012
138 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Other Accompanying Information (Unaudited)

CBP Collections by Category (Dollars in thousands)

Duties

2005

(Unaudited)

2006

(Unaudited)

2007

(Unaudited)

2008

(Unaudited)

2009

(Unaudited)

Consumption Entries $ 23,213,476 $ 24,787,051 $ 26,477,180 $ 27,543,807 $ 22,759,054

Warehouse Withdrawals 107,477 90,832 80,858 76,910 61,638

Mail Entries 2,687 2,696 4,015 4,223 3,132

Passenger Baggage Entries 3,985 4,386 4,528 3,888 3,217

Crew Baggage Entries 11 9 9 8 5

Military Baggage Entries 2 2 1 1 2

Informal Entries 55,680 57,415 56,026 54,537 47,596

Vessel Repair Entries 38,687 15,742 22,938 43,315 39,240

Other Duties 44,552 37,853 57,122 41,277 33,237

Total Duties 23,466,557 24,995,986 26,702,677 27,767,966 22,947,121

Miscellaneous

Violations of CBP Law 54,227 49,797 56,434 69,993 59,709

Testing, Inspecting & Grading 56 46 34 5,114 39

Miscellaneous Taxes 18,659 19,803 19,726 20,082 19,413

USDA Collections 91,070 94,359 115,168 112,319 110,425

Harbor Maintenance Fee 1,047,843 1,206,414 1,261,681 1,467,405 1,125,008

Fees 5,419 7,107 6,695 8,134 8,397

User Fee Account 1,600,365 1,702,043 2,436,087 2,633,600 2,258,027

Unclaimed Funds 1,124 991 479 372 276

Recoveries 3 2 2 9 7

Interest 9,760 8,604 13,229 23,987 30,623

Other CBP Receipts 9,645 17,246 17,382 15,325 22,331

Total Miscellaneous 2,838,171 3,106,412 3,926,917 4,356,340 3,634,255

Internal Revenue Taxes 2,255,482 2,345,992 2,537,098 2,372,762 2,468,617

Total Collections $ 28,560,210 $30,448,390 $ 33,166,692 $ 34,497,068 $ 29,049,993

These schedules will not equal amounts reported on the Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity due to certain deposit fund collections, which are not considered custodial collections, being reported on the Consolidated 

Balance Sheet, and other adjustments. Also, entity collections which are not reported on the Consolidated Statement 

of Custodial Activity are included in this schedule.
Financial Section 139

Other Accompanying Information (Unaudited)

CBP Collections by Major Processing Port Locations (Dollars in thousands)

2005

(Unaudited)

2006

(Unaudited)

2007

(Unaudited)

2008

(Unaudited)

2009

(Unaudited)

Boston $ 457,696 $ 478,550 $ 490,841 $ 473,272 $ 399,974

Buffalo-Niagara Falls 201,428 210,888 211,699 219,508 242,514

Ogdensburg 120,864 141,628 155,739 150,884 119,537

Portland, Maine 59,397 57,673 59,000 62,549 55,795

Providence 74,624 83,238 92,454 80,518 75,706

St. Albans 47,311 44,687 42,897 32,817 43,030

Baltimore 584,537 584,719 586,224 637,952 544,222

Philadelphia 586,956 639,201 650,157 588,607 456,252

Newark 4,179,939 4,362,201 4,552,031 4,642,846 4,036,961

JFK Airport 1,300,376 1,220,472 1,234,035 1,216,836 863,404

Charleston 1,145,999 1,175,442 1,030,435 1,002,353 820,601

Miami 798,307 752,711 733,596 634,894 520,283

San Juan 15,381 123,132 110,913 108,981 106,167

St. Thomas 113,244 14,819 16,074 17,145 15,301

Savannah 1,108,911 1,265,007 1,438,061 1,550,580 1,408,693

Tampa 409,229 473,650 506,870 516,533 358,532

Wilmington 267,769 290,312 314,993 328,933 267,905

Norfolk 629,274 674,041 685,494 709,807 634,642

NFC Indianapolis/Washington 703,182 914,086 1,518,378 1,941,618 1,107,891

Mobile 125,715 157,920 142,869 196,619 157,615

New Orleans 885,110 936,744 1,055,211 1,145,196 942,917

Dallas/Ft Worth 378,052 418,128 444,678 460,147 409,354

El Paso 126,113 146,472 196,930 173,202 140,143

Houston 611,527 773,047 805,245 909,631 764,115

Laredo 337,921 370,216 395,215 411,218 371,492

Port Arthur 35,092 28,144 32,604 33,725 33,665

Nogales 82,636 77,832 82,999 82,410 73,703

Los Angeles 6,788,238 7,258,249 8,138,181 8,387,589 7,468,426

San Diego 237,419 259,000 303,717 294,529 218,071

Anchorage 84,913 103,998 110,296 116,518 106,594

Honolulu 42,089 39,670 39,955 43,013 32,732

Portland 369,471 395,707 454,523 443,190 318,839

San Francisco 800,687 945,986 1,084,934 1,161,110 1,035,916

Seattle 1,143,720 1,157,762 1,274,972 1,264,836 1,122,774

Chicago 1,412,668 1,436,691 1,560,159 1,664,181 1,407,416

Cleveland 1,114,677 1,245,447 1,385,583 1,528,043 1,293,102

Detroit 552,711 546,870 538,879 563,036 446,972

Milwaukee 32,630 33,230 36,056 37,766 24,687

Minneapolis 132,869 168,568 180,724 198,610 170,645

Pembina 16,434 17,631 18,982 23,635 23,254

St. Louis 304,816 271,647 287,356 282,539 273,758

Great Falls 140,278 152,974 166,733 159,692 136,393

Total Revenues Collected $ 28,560,210 $30,448,390 $ 33,166,692 $ 34,497,068 $ 29,049,993

These schedules will not equal amounts reported on the Consolidated Statement of Custodial Activity due to certain deposit fund collections, which are not considered custodial collections, being reported on the Consolidated 

Balance Sheet, and other adjustments. Also, entity collections which are not reported on the Consolidated Statement 

of Custodial Activity are included in this schedule.
140 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA)

CBP performed sample payment testing on these programs. The Custodial Refund and Drawback payment testing yielded an estimated improper payment amount of $6.4 million of the $1.2 billion, or .9 percent, disbursed 

during fiscal year 2008. The Custodial CDSOA and Payment to Wool and Cotton Manufacturers payment testing 

yielded an estimated improper payment amount of $0 of the $293 million, disbursed during fiscal year 2008. 

The Custodial Refund and Drawback Program error rate exceeded the threshold of 2.5 percent of the population 

tested. Based on the results of sample testing, corrective actions plans are required due to estimated error amount 

being above $10 million. The corrective action plan used to resolve the material weakness relating to Drawback 

will resolve the program errors.

Recovery Auditing

CBP contracted the audit recovery work for disbursements made during fiscal year 2008. The results of the recovery audit efforts continue to identify negligible recovery amounts. The recovery audit results are reported below:

Amount Subject 

to Review for CY 

Reporting

Actual Amount 

Reviewed and 

Reported CY

Amounts 

Identified 

for 

Recovery 

CY

Amounts 

Recovered 

CY

Amounts 

Identified 

for Recovery 

PY

Amounts 

Recovered 

PY

Cumulative 

Amounts 

Identified 

for Recovery 

(CY + PY)

Cumulative 

Amounts 

Recovered 

(CY + PY)

$2,232,120,059 $2,232,120,059 $17,607 $9,116 $269,844 $221,563 $287,451 $230,679

In addition, CBP identified amounts for recovery during the Improper Payment Information Act (IPIA) review of 

FY 2008 Custodial Program disbursements. The IPIA results are as follows (dollars in thousands):

Amounts Identified 

as Improper 

Payments

Amounts Identified 

for Recovery

Amounts 

Recovered

Custodial Refund and Drawback $ 6,413 $ 6,084 $ 6,084

Custodial CDSOA, Cotton, and Wool -- -- --

Totals $ 6,413 $ 6,084 $ 6,084

Recoveries for Custodial Refund and Drawback Program payments are restricted by regulations governing collections of duty, taxes, and fees associated with trade-related activity.

(in millions) 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012

Program PY 

Outlays PY % PY $ CY Outlays CY IP % CY IP $

CY + 

1 est. 

Outlays

CY + 1 

IP %

CY + 1 

IP $

CY + 

2 est. 

Outlays

CY + 2 

IP %

CY + 2 

IP $

CY + 

3 est. 

Outlays

CY + 3 

IP %

CY + 3 

IP $

Refund & 

Drawback $1,245 0.91 $11 $1,418 .07 $1 $1,350 .07 $1 $1,350 .07 $1 $1,350 .07 $1

CDSOAWool-Cotton $ 293 0.00 $ 0 $ 237 0.00 $0 $ 250 0.00 $0 $ 225 0.00 $0 $ 200 0.00 $0

$1,537 $1,655 $1,600 $1,575 $1,550

Note: The law that enacted CDSOA was repealed effective October 1, 2007, which will result in lower refund amounts beginning 

in 2010. Litigation may reduce disbursements for 2009.

Other Accompanying Information (Unaudited)
Financial Section 141

This page intentionally left blank.
142 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report on Major Management Challenges

The DHS OIG’s report on Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security, 

OIG–10–16, dated November 13, 2009, and the agency’s progress addressing these challenges are addressed at the 

DHS consolidated level and are incorporated into the DHS Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Financial Report.

Independent Auditor’s Report

The independent audit of CBP’s consolidated financial statement was conducted by KPMG LLP, and follows in 

its entirety.

Auditor Reports
143

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 

February 2, 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR: David V. Aguilar 

 Acting Deputy Commissioner 

 United States Customs and Border Protection 

FROM: Richard L. Skinner 

 Inspector General

SUBJECT: Independent Auditors’ Report on U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s FY 2009 Financial Statements

The attached report presents the results of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

consolidated financial statement audits for fiscal years (FY) 2009 and 2008. We

contracted with the independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP to perform the 

audits. KPMG LLP concluded that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended September 30, 2009, and 

September 30, 2008, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with U.S. 

generally accepted accounting principles. 

The FY 2009 independent auditors’ report also contains observations and 

recommendations related to internal control weaknesses that were considered significant

deficiencies and were required to be reported in the financial statement audit report. The

six significant deficiencies in internal controls are presented below; the first three

significant deficiencies are considered to be material weaknesses. 

Significant Deficiencies

A. Financial Reporting 

B. Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E) 

1. Secure Border Initiative 

2. Improper Settlement of Assets from Construction in Progress 

3. Management Oversight of PP&E and Transactions 

C. Drawback of Duties, Taxes, and Fees 

D. Inactive Obligations 

E. Entry Process 

1. In-Bond Program

2. Entry Summary Compliance Measurement 

3. Bonded Warehouse and Foreign Trade Zones 

Financial Section
144 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report - 2 -

F. Information Technology

KPMG LLP is responsible for the attached independent auditors’ report dated January 6, 

2010, and the conclusions expressed in the report. We do not express opinions on 

financial statements or internal control or conclusions on compliance with laws and 

regulations.

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing 

copies of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, we 

will post a copy of the report on our website. 

We extend our appreciation to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer and field offices for the cooperation and courtesies extended to 

our and KPMG LLP’s staff during the audit. Should you have any questions, please call 

me, or your staff may contact Anne L. Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, 

at 202-254-4100. 

Attachment
145

Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General

Independent Auditors' Report on

U.S. Custom and Border Protection's

FY 2009 Financial Statements

OIG-10-51 February 2010
146 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528 

 February 2, 2010 

Preface

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

The attached report presents the results of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

financial statement audits for fiscal years (FY) 2009 and 2008. We contracted with the 

independent public accounting firm KPMG LLP to perform the audits. The contract 

required that KPMG LLP perform its audits according to generally accepted government 

auditing standards and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the 

Government Accountability Office. KPMG LLP concluded that the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the years ended 

September 30, 2009 and 2008, are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity 

with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The FY 2009 auditors’ report 

discusses three material weaknesses and three significant deficiencies in internal control.

KPMG LLP is responsible for the attached auditors’ report, and the conclusions 

expressed in the report. We do not express opinions on the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s financial statements or provide conclusions on compliance with laws and 

regulations.

The recommendations herein have been discussed in draft with those responsible for 

implementation. We trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and 

economical operations. We express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to 

the preparation of this report.

Richard L. Skinner 

Inspector General 
147

KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036 

Independent Auditors’ Report 

Inspector General

U.S. Department of Homeland Security:

Commissioner 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), a Component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (the Department), as of September 30,

2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of net cost, changes in net position, custodial

activity, and combined statements of budgetary resources (hereinafter referred to as “consolidated financial

statements”) for the years then ended. The objective of our audits was to express an opinion on the fair 

presentation of these consolidated financial statements. In connection with our fiscal year 2009 audit, we 

also considered CBP’s internal control over financial reporting and tested CBP’s compliance with certain 

provisions of applicable laws, regulations, and contracts that could have a direct and material effect on 

these consolidated financial statements.

Summary 

As stated in our opinion on the consolidated financial statements, we concluded that CBP’s consolidated

financial statements as of and for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, are presented fairly, in all

material respects, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting resulted in identifying certain deficiencies 

that we consider to be material weaknesses, item letters A, B, and C, and other deficiencies that we 

consider to be significant deficiencies, item letters D, E, and F, as follows:

A. Financial Reporting 

B. Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E)

1. Secure Border Initiative 

2. Improper Settlement of Assets from Construction in Progress

3. Management Oversight of PP&E and Transactions

C. Drawback of Duties, Taxes, and Fees 

D. Inactive Obligations 

E. Entry Process 

1. In-Bond Program

2. Entry Summary Compliance Measurement

3. Bonded Warehouse and Foreign Trade Zones 

F. Information Technology

The results of our tests of compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, and contracts disclosed

no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported herein under Government

Auditing Standards and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements 

for Federal Financial Statements, as amended.

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S.

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

Financial Section
148 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

The following sections discuss our opinion on CBP’s consolidated financial statements; our consideration

of CBP’s internal control over financial reporting; our tests of CBP’s compliance with certain provisions of 

applicable laws, regulations, and contracts; and management’s and our responsibilities.

Opinion on the Financial Statements 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (the Department) as of September 30, 

2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of net cost, changes in net position, and custodial 

activity, and the combined statements of budgetary resources for the years then ended. 

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material 

respects, the financial position of CBP as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and its net costs, changes in net

position, custodial activity, and budgetary resources for the years then ended, in conformity with U.S. 

generally accepted accounting principles. 

As discussed in Notes 19 and 20 to the consolidated financial statements, CBP changed its method of 

presenting its cost programs in fiscal year 2009 to align with the Department’s new goals per the 2008-

2013 DHS Strategic Plan. As such, the fiscal year 2009 consolidated statement of net cost and related note 

disclosures are not comparable to the fiscal year 2008 consolidated statement of net cost and related note 

disclosures.

The information in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Required Supplementary Information

(RSI) sections is not a required part of the consolidated financial statements, but is supplementary

information required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. We have applied certain limited

procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement

and presentation of this information. However, we did not audit this information and, accordingly, we

express no opinion on it. As a result of such limited procedures, we believe that the RSI is not in

conformity with accounting standards because the RSI presents the Statement of Budgetary Resources by

major fund type instead of by major budget account. 

The information in the Commissioner’s Message, Performance Section, Message from the Chief Financial

Officer, Other Accompanying Information, Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report on Major

Management Challenges, and Acronyms, as reflected in the Performance and Accountability Report Fiscal

Year 2009’s accompanying table of contents are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not

required as part of the consolidated financial statements. This information has not been subjected to

auditing procedures and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 

Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in

the Responsibilities section of this report and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in the internal 

control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. 

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow

management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or 

detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a 

combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important 

enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. A material weakness is a deficiency, or

combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material 

misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a 

timely basis. 
Financial Section 149

In our fiscal year 2009 audit, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting 

that we consider to be material weaknesses, described in Exhibit I, and other deficiencies that we consider 

to be significant deficiencies, described in Exhibit II. Exhibit III presents the status of prior year material 

weaknesses and significant deficiencies. We also noted certain additional deficiencies involving internal

control over financial reporting and its operation that we will report to the management of CBP in a

separate letter. 

Compliance and Other Matters 

The results of our tests of compliance as described in the Responsibilities section of this report disclosed no

instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported herein under Government 

Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 07-04.

* * * * * * *

Responsibilities

Management’s Responsibilities. Management is responsible for the consolidated financial statements; 

establishing and maintaining effective internal control; and complying with laws, regulations, and contracts

applicable to CBP. 

Auditors’ Responsibilities. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the fiscal year 2009 and 2008 

consolidated financial statements of CBP based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with

auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial 

audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United 

States; and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. Those standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 require that we plan 

and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements 

are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial 

reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the 

purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of CBP’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Accordingly, we express no such opinion. 

An audit also includes: 

Examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated

financial statements; 

Assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and 

Evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. 

We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In planning and performing our fiscal year 2009 audit, we considered CBP’s internal control over financial

reporting by obtaining an understanding of CBP’s internal control, determining whether internal controls

had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of controls as a basis for 

designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the consolidated financial

statements. We did not test all controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982. The objective of our audit was not to express an opinion on the

effectiveness of CBP’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion 

on the effectiveness of CBP’s internal control over financial reporting. 
150 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether CBP’s fiscal year 2009 consolidated financial

statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of CBP’s compliance with certain 

provisions of laws, regulations, and contracts, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material

effect on the determination of the consolidated financial statement amounts, and certain provisions of other

laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. We limited our tests of compliance to the 

provisions described in the preceding sentence, and we did not test compliance with all laws, regulations,

and contracts applicable to CBP. However, providing an opinion on compliance with laws, regulations, and

contracts was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

______________________________

CBP’s response to the findings identified in our audit are presented in Management’s Response to the

Independent Auditor’s Report. We did not audit CBP’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion

on it.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of CBP’s management, DHS’ management, the

DHS’ Office of Inspector General, OMB, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the U.S.

Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. 

January 6, 2010
Financial Section 151

EXHIBIT I 

Material Weaknesses 

A. Financial Reporting

Background:

In recent years, CBP’s operations and capital expenditures have increased substantially, particularly along 

the Southwest Border states. However, CBP did not invest in an accounting and financial reporting 

infrastructure in proportion to its growth in mission. The accounting system, processes, and staffing level 

that exists is absorbing an increased workload, creating an environment where financial statement errors 

are more likely to occur, especially in areas that are new to CBP, such as construction of the virtual and 

physical fence along the Southwest Border. 

Condition:

We noted that CBP: 

Did not detect misstatements in its September 30, 2009 financial statements. Specifically, CBP

misstated gross cost and earned revenue by $1.3 billion in its Statement of Net Cost. In addition, in 

Note 19, Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue, CBP incorrectly reported $2.9 billion of

costs with the public as intragovernmental costs and $46.2 million of intragovernmental earned revenue

as earned revenue with the public. Furthermore, Note 22, Apportionment Categories of Obligations

Incurred, was misstated by $142 million. These errors were subsequently corrected prior to publishing

the financial statements; 

Did not add sufficient resources or infrastructure within the Office of Administration or in the operating 

divisions to supplement its current accounting and financial reporting personnel, and consequently has

been unable to adequately monitor inputs and operational activities to ensure proper and timely

accounting and reporting consideration;

Did not timely develop and effectively communicate policies and procedures to properly account for

and report significant new activities that occur outside of the Office of Administration;

Did not have an annual risk assessment and/or focus group process that maintained its effectiveness to

timely identify and address new accounting standards, and/or the application of existing standards to

new operations, that may have a material impact on financial reporting on an ongoing basis throughout

the year;

Did not timely address the impact of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS)

No. 29, Heritage Assets and Stewardship Land (SFFAS No. 29), fully effective for reporting periods

beginning after September 30, 2008, and OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements,

on its financial statements. Although CBP hired a historian to manage its historical items, the Office of

Administration did not have the resources to dedicate to this area, and therefore did not coordinate 

obtaining timely, relevant information for financial reporting. CBP did not fully analyze SFFAS No. 

29 until the external auditor requested an evaluation of the impact of SFFAS No. 29; and

Did not prepare a comparative FY 2008 Statement of Net Cost and related notes. DHS changed

reporting goals during FY 2008 to align them with its Strategic Plan. In order to be consistent with

DHS reporting, CBP changed the presentation of its FY 2009 financial statements to report more detail.

However, CBP did not initially consider the presentation of comparative FY 2008 information for the

newly presented programs. CBP later determined that it is unable to prepare comparative FY 2008 

financial statements due to limitations in its cost accounting system.
152 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT I 

Criteria:

OMB Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for Internal Control, defines internal control and 

provides guidance to Federal managers on improving the accountability and effectiveness of Federal

programs and operations by establishing, assessing, correcting, and reporting on internal control. In 

particular, management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control to achieve the 

objectives of effective and efficient operations, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations. The documentation for internal control, all transactions, and other significant events

should be readily available for examination. Further, relevant, reliable, and timely information should be

communicated to relevant personnel at all levels within an organization. It is also crucial that an agency 

communicate with outside organizations. In addition, the Circular states that management should identify

both internal and external risks, and analyze those risks for their potential effect on the entity. 

SFFAS No. 29 states, “Entities with heritage assets should reference a note on the balance sheet that

discloses information about heritage assets, but no asset dollar amount should be shown,” and specifies the

disclosure requirements related to Stewardship Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E).

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1, Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting,

states that financial reporting “should help report users make relevant comparisons among similar federal

reporting units, such as comparisons of the costs of specific functions or activities. Comparability implies 

that differences among financial reports should be caused by substantive differences in the underlying 

transactions or organizations rather than by the mere selection of different alternatives in accounting 

procedures or practices.” 

OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, addresses which elements of an agency’s

Annual Financial Statements must be presented on a comparative basis: “The basic statement identified 

above [which includes the Statement of Net Cost], and the related notes, should present balances and

amounts for the current year and the prior year...The MD&A should include comparisons of the current

year to the prior year and should provide an analysis of the agency’s overall financial position and results 

of operations to assist users in assessing whether that financial position has improved or deteriorated as a 

result of the year’s activities.” 

Cause/Effect: 

CBP did not perform an adequate review to detect material misstatements in its financial statements. CBP

did not make sufficient investments in its accounting and financial reporting infrastructure, including

human resources, and did not identify and establish policies and procedures to account for substantial new

operations. In addition, CBP does not have a formalized, continuous, and comprehensive communication 

process to timely identify and address changes to accounting standards that are important to financial

reporting. Consequently, CBP and the external auditor have identified several errors in the financial

statements that occurred throughout the year, some of which related to the prior year. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Update and reinforce its policies and procedures for assembling the financial statements to include

standard reviews, approvals, and edit checks;
Financial Section 153

EXHIBIT I 

2. Conduct a human resource and finance organizational assessment to identify accounting and finance

infrastructure improvements that should be made to ensure that the Office of Administration and

operational units have the resources to establish necessary policies, procedures and controls in 

operational units, and to ensure effective monitoring of transactions and events to ensure accurate 

financial reporting;

3. Develop and timely communicate policies and procedures to ensure that key financial reporting issues

are addressed before, or at the same time, that significant new operations are undertaken. Such policies

and procedures should ensure that CBP identify both changes in operations and changes in accounting 

standards; and

4. Enhance the annual risk assessment and/or focus group process to ensure continued effectiveness and 

relevance in identifying new accounting standards, and/or the application of existing standards to new 

operations timely. 

B. Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E) 

1. Secure Border Initiative 

Background:

CBP has acquired substantial new technology, facilities, and other assets in recent years 

through purchase and construction. Since FY 2004, CBP’s capital assets have increased from

$1.5 billion to $5.2 billion as of September 30, 2009, an increase of approximately 3.5 times in 

size. One of the largest components of this growth is the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), which 

is a comprehensive multi-year plan to secure America’s borders and reduce illegal migration. 

SBI includes two main components: the Facilities Management and Engineering (FM&E) 

Tactical Infrastructure (TI) and the SBI Network (SBInet). To properly account for this level

and complexity of capital expenditure, CBP has had to implement new accounting policies,

procedures, and processes, and apply technical accounting standards not previously used by 

CBP, such as full-costing of construction projects. We noted several findings related to new 

operations, specifically related to PP&E, which demonstrate that financial management has not

kept pace with this significant growth. 

Condition:

We noted that CBP: 

Did not timely address the accounting impact and the procedures necessary to capture all

capitalized costs associated with the SBInet. These procedures included communicating 

with and providing training to program office personnel about necessary accounting

information, determining a base unit of a depreciable asset, determining a methodology for

recording the construction in progress (CIP) percentage of completion, and determining a

methodology for recording overhead costs. CBP did not investigate a majority of these 

issues until FY 2009, nearly a year after the project began. As a result of this untimely

communication, CBP expensed approximately $163 million in FY 2008 and an additional

$30 million in FY 2009 that should have been capitalized as CIP as of September 30, 2008;

Did not have a fully integrated system to account for assets acquired related to the SBInet

program. In addition, neither CBP nor its contractor are tracking all accountable property
154 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT I 

because several assets were tracked together as a group rather than individual assets and

other assets were recorded in various sub-contractors’ systems, but not CBP’s systems; 

Over-depreciated assets related to the FM&E TI physical fence by approximately $30

million because CBP did not timely adjust the useful life for the steel fence and instead 

applied the same six-year useful life that had been applied to previous wire fences. Upon 

analysis, CBP determined that this useful life should be twenty years. This analysis was 

completed prior to the issuance of the FY 2008 financial statements; however, the offices 

that coordinated the analysis did not timely communicate the analysis to the Office of 

Administration to adjust the financial statements; and 

Did not thoroughly review the accuracy of amounts reported by project managers for the

FM&E TI CIP percentage of completion (POC) accrual in some instances, and therefore 

had an estimated net understatement of CIP of $18 million. Furthermore, CBP did not

detect calculation errors in the CIP POC at both March 31 and June 30, 2009. 

Criteria:

OMB Circular No. A-123 defines internal control and provides guidance to Federal managers 

on improving the accountability and effectiveness of Federal programs and operations by

establishing, assessing, correcting, and reporting on internal control. In particular, management 

is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control to achieve the objectives of 

effective and efficient operations, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations. The documentation for internal control, all transactions, and other 

significant events should be readily available for examination. Further, relevant, reliable, and 

timely information should be communicated to relevant personnel at all levels within an 

organization. It is also crucial that an agency communicate with outside organizations. In

addition, the Circular states that management should identify both internal and external risks, 

and analyze those risks for their potential effect on the entity. 

SFFAS No. 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, states that: 

- PP&E consists of tangible assets, including land, that meet the following criteria: they

have estimated useful lives of 2 years or more; they are not intended for sale in the 

ordinary course of operations; and they have been acquired or constructed with the 

intention of being used, or being available for use by the entity;

- All PP&E shall be recorded at cost. Cost shall include all costs incurred to bring the 

asset to a form and location suitable for its intended use; and 

- Depreciation expense is calculated through the systematic and rational allocation of the 

cost of general PP&E, less its estimated salvage/residual value, over the estimated useful

life of the general PP&E. 

Cause/Effect: 

CBP’s substantial growth, especially in the purchase and construction of capital assets, has 

required greater capacity of human and system resources, including resources outside of the 

Office of Administration. As a result, accounting for new operations, such as the

construction of FM&E TI and SBInet, are not considered in a timely manner, causing errors

or misapplication of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in financial 

reporting. These financial statement errors and/or inconsistencies with GAAP may go 
Financial Section 155

EXHIBIT I 

undetected, in some cases until subsequent years or until questioned by an auditor.

Furthermore, CBP did not establish a thorough plan before beginning the SBInet project to

account for the assets and costs necessary to implement these projects. For instance, CBP

did not prepare detailed instructions regarding the level it would track each asset acquired

and how those assets related to the capitalized units recorded in the financial statements.

Therefore, CBP is unable to track the location of each asset as it is replaced, repaired, or 

moved due to its lack of a fully integrated property system. This may reduce CBP’s ability 

to accurately account for capital improvements as compared to repair and maintenance

expenses. This deficiency is also related to the conditions described in Section A, Financial

Reporting.

Recommendations: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Conduct an assessment of the resources in the Office of Administration dedicated to 

PP&E to determine whether the accounting function has appropriate structure and 

personnel in these areas to match the breadth and depth of its rapidly growing operations 

and make changes, as appropriate; 

2. Develop policies and procedures to ensure that key financial reporting issues are 

addressed in a timely manner. Such policies and procedures should ensure that CBP

identify both changes in operations and changes in accounting standards. This 

recommendation is also related to Section A, Financial Reporting;

3. Conduct a critical assessment of agency-wide communication and make immediate

changes to ensure that significant financial-related events outside of the Office of 

Administration are timely communicated to the Office of Administration for proper and 

timely accounting and reporting consideration; and 

4. Develop policies and procedures to track all SBInet assets within its financial system of 

record in order to integrate the tracking of CBP’s SBInet property with its core financial

system. 

 2. Improper Settlement of Assets from Construction in Progress 

Condition:

During FY 2009, we noted weaknesses related to the untimely capitalization of completed CIP 

assets to completed fixed assets. Specifically, we noted 61 instances in which assets were

moved untimely from CIP to fixed assets. In addition, we noted eight instances in which CBP 

did not properly complete its formalized process for the settlement of assets placed into service 

and three instances in which the amount allocated to the final asset from CIP did not agree to 

the supporting documentation. As of September 30, 2009, CBP recorded an additional $22

million in accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense to correct for the identified 

errors.
156 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT I 

Criteria:

SFFAS No. 6 requires that “PP&E shall be recognized when title passes to the acquiring entity 

or when the PP&E is delivered to the entity or to an agent of the entity. In the case of

constructed PP&E, the PP&E shall be recorded as construction work in process until it is 

placed in service, at which time the balance shall be transferred to general PP&E.” In addition, 

it states that “All general PP&E shall be recorded at cost. Cost shall include all costs incurred 

to bring the PP&E to a form and location suitable for its intended use.” 

OMB Circular No. A-123 states, “Management is responsible for developing and maintaining

effective internal control. Effective internal control provides assurance that significant 

weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control, that could adversely affect the 

agency’s ability to meet its objectives, would be prevented or detected in a timely manner.” In

addition, “management should identify internal and external risks that may prevent the 

organization from meeting its objectives. When identifying risks, management should take into

account relevant interactions within the organization as well as with outside organizations.”

Cause/Effect: 

CBP did not process and record the transfer of completed assets from CIP to in-use assets (i.e., 

settlement of assets) in a timely manner and does not have a formal, robust process to 

periodically review assets recorded as CIP and determine if they have been placed in service.

As a result, CIP, PP&E, depreciation expense, and accumulated depreciation may be misstated 

at any point during the fiscal year. 

Recommendation: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Establish and implement a standardized process that is integrated with its financial system

of record in order to facilitate the timely recording of assets placed into service; and

2. Develop policies and procedures to require that program offices and/or project managers

periodically review their listing of assets recorded as CIP and determine if any of these

assets have been placed in service. 

3. Management Oversight of PP&E and Transactions 

Condition:

We noted that CBP:

Did not properly perform and/or document several physical annual inventories related to 

real and personal property; 

Recorded certain asset additions in duplicate, for an amount other than the amount 

invoiced, or using the incorrect general ledger account; 

Did not consistently follow its procedures for recording asset retirement transactions 

because CBP did not record certain transactions timely; disposed of assets prior to the 
Financial Section 157

EXHIBIT I 

completion of the appropriate disposal authorization form; and recorded transactions 

without supporting documentation;

Did not properly account for it operating materials and supplies as of March 31, 2009.

Specifically, materials held for repair were recorded twice and certain equipment was 

improperly classified as operating materials and supplies. In addition, CBP records

operating materials and supplies at replacement cost, rather than historical cost; and 

Did not consistently record PP&E transactions based on its classification and/or transaction

code structure. 

Criteria:

SFFAS No. 6 states that: 

- PP&E consists of tangible assets, including land, that meet the following criteria: they

have estimated useful lives of 2 years or more; they are not intended for sale in the 

ordinary course of operations; and they have been acquired or constructed with the 

intention of being used, or being available for use by the entity;

- PP&E shall be recognized when title passes to the acquiring entity or when the PP&E is 

delivered to the entity or to an agent of the entity. In the case of constructed PP&E, the

PP&E shall be recorded as construction work in process until it is placed in service, at

which time the balance shall be transferred to general PP&E; 

- All PP&E shall be recorded at cost. Cost shall include all costs incurred to bring the 

asset to a form and location suitable for its intended use; 

- In the period of disposal, retirement, or removal from service, general PP&E shall be 

removed from the asset accounts along with associated accumulated

depreciation/amortization. Any difference between the book value of the PP&E and 

amounts realized shall be recognized as a gain or a loss in the period that the general 

PP&E is disposed of, retired, or removed from service; and

- Depreciation expense is calculated through the systematic and rational allocation of the 

cost of general PP&E, less its estimated salvage/residual value, over the estimated useful

life of the general PP&E. 

SFFAS No. 3, Accounting for Inventory and Related Property, states “Valuation Under the 

Consumption Method. Operating materials and supplies shall be valued on the basis of

historical cost.” 

OMB Circular No. A-123 states that “Management is responsible for developing and

maintaining effective internal control. Effective internal control provides assurance that 

significant weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control, that could adversely affect 

the agency’s ability to meet its objectives, would be prevented or detected in a timely manner.” 

Cause/Effect:

CBP’s guidance for performing and documenting PP&E inventories was neither clearly stated 

nor consistently followed. CBP does not have sufficient policies and procedures or did not 

enforce policies and procedures related to the review of PP&E transactions for accuracy, 

classification, and timeliness. CBP did not perform a proper review of purchase requisitions to 
158 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT I 

determine whether the costs incurred should be capitalized or expensed. As a result, CBP’s 

PP&E balance may be misstated by the recording of transactions, which are incorrect,

unsupported, or untimely.

Recommendation:

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Refine and reinforce guidance for the performance and documentation of PP&E 

inventories;

2. Develop, document, and communicate policies and procedures for classifying, recording,

and reviewing all PP&E transactions. These procedures should include agreeing the

transaction to supporting documentation, ensuring that the transactions are recorded timely,

and reviewing the transaction type and general ledger accounts in which the transactions 

are recorded to ensure that the financial statements are materially correct and presented in 

accordance with GAAP; 

3. Emphasize the need to record asset disposals in accordance with established policy; 

4. Provide sufficient accounting training to all relevant personnel who process PP&E

transactions; and 

5. Develop, document, and communicate policies and procedures for the proper establishment

and review of purchase requisitions as either capital assets or expenses. 

C. Drawback of Duties, Taxes and Fees 

Background:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

(Department or DHS), continued to perform an important revenue collection function for the U.S. 

Treasury. CBP collected approximately $26.4 billion in import duties, taxes and fees in fiscal year 2009 on

merchandise arriving in the United States from foreign countries.

Drawback is a remittance, in whole or in part, of duties, taxes, or fees previously paid by an importer.

Drawback typically occurs when the imported goods on which duties, taxes, or fees have been previously

paid are subsequently exported from the United States or destroyed prior to entering the commerce of the 

United States. Depending on the type of drawback claim, the claimant has up to eight years from the date 

of importation to file for drawback. The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004

(Public Law 108-429) created a limited timeframe for liquidating claims; the new process is known as

deemed-liquidation by CBP. In response to the new timeframe for liquidation of drawback claims, CBP

implemented policies and procedures that require the payment of claims in an accelerated timeframe. 

Condition:

We noted the following weaknesses related to internal controls over drawback of duties, taxes, and fees 

paid by the importer: 
Financial Section 159

EXHIBIT I 

The Automated Commercial System (ACS) lacked automated controls to detect and prevent excessive

drawback claims and payments, necessitating inefficient manual processes that do not effectively 

compensate for the lack of automated controls. ACS did not have the capability to compare, verify, and 

track essential information on drawback claims to the related underlying consumption entries or export

documentation upon which the drawback claim was based. For example, ACS did not contain 

electronic edit checks that would identify duplicate claims for export of the same merchandise; 

ACS lacked controls to prevent the overpayment of drawback claims at the summary line level;

Drawback review policies did not require drawback specialists to review all or a statistically valid 

sample of prior drawback claims against the underlying consumption entries (UCE) to determine 

whether, in the aggregate, an excessive amount was claimed. CBP does not have absolute assurance 

that a selected import entry is not being over claimed by different drawback claims; 

Drawback review policy and procedures allow drawback specialists, with supervisory approval, to 

judgmentally decrease the number of ACS selected UCEs randomly selected for review, thus 

decreasing the review’s effectiveness. Further, CBP’s sampling methodology for selecting UCEs is not

considered to be statistically valid; and

The period for document retention related to a drawback claim is only three years from the date of 

payment. However, there are several situations that could extend the life of the drawback claim well

beyond three years.

Cause/Effect:

Much of the drawback process is manual, placing an added burden on limited resources. CBP uses a 

sampling approach to compare, verify, and match consumption entry and export documentation to

drawback claims submitted by importers. However, system and procedural limitations decrease the 

effectiveness of this approach. The inherent risk of fraudulent claims or claims made in error is high, which

increase the risk of erroneous payments.

Criteria:

Under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), management must implement costeffective controls to safeguard assets and ensure reliable financial reporting. Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB)’s Revised Implementation Guidance for the Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act states that financial systems should “routinely provide reliable financial information uniformly across 

the Federal government following professionally-accepted accounting standards” to support management

of current operations. The Federal Systems Integration Office (FSIO) publications and OMB Circular No. 

A-127, Financial Management Systems, outline the requirements for Federal systems. FSIO’s Core

Financial System Requirements states that the core financial system must maintain detailed information by

account sufficient to provide audit trails and to support billing and research activities. OMB Circular No.

A-127 requires that the design of financial systems should eliminate unnecessary duplication of a

transaction entry. Whenever appropriate, data needed by the systems to support financial functions should 

be entered only once and other parts of the system should be updated through electronic means consistent

with the timing requirements of normal business/transaction cycles. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-123, Management’s Responsibility for

Internal Control, states that “management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls
160 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT I 

to achieve the objectives of effective and efficient operations, reliable financial reporting, and compliance 

with applicable laws and regulations.”

Recommendations: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Implement effective internal controls over drawback claims as part of any new system initiatives, 

including the ability to compare, verify, and track essential information on drawback claims to the 

related underlying consumption entries and export documentation for which the drawback claim is

based, and identify duplicate or excessive drawback claims;

2. Implement automated controls to prevent overpayment of a drawback claim; and 

3. Develop a system or process to eliminate the need for statistical sampling of UCE and prior related 

drawback claims. In addition, until this system or process is implemented, we recommend that CBP

explore other statistical approaches for selecting UCEs and prior related drawback claims under the 

current ACS environment.

CBP Response: 

See management’s response included in the attached letter. 
Financial Section 161

EXHIBIT II 

Other Significant Deficiencies

D. Inactive Obligations 

Background:

CBP issued Directive 1220-011B, Quarterly Review of Unliquidated Obligations, during fiscal year

2006, which requires each Office under CBP to review their obligations quarterly in order to properly

identify those amounts that require deobligation. The review must be reported to CBP’s National Finance

Center (NFC) each quarter. On June 11, 2009, CBP Directive 1220-011B was superseded by CBP

Directive 1220-011C, Reviews of Unliquidated Obligations and Open Goods/Service Receiving 

Records, which requires all obligation and open goods receipt and service entry sheet records to be

reconciled to supporting documentation at the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, i.e., December 31,

March 31, June 30, and September 30. Additionally, a semi-annual review of specific populations of

obligations must be performed and the status for each record identified.

Condition:

CBP is not enforcing its policies and procedures to monitor and deobligate or close-out its obligations in a

timely manner. We conducted a review of inactive obligations at June 30, 2009 and identified $51.7 

million that potentially required deobligation. CBP initiated a review of open obligations that was 

completed in fourth quarter fiscal year 2009 from which invalid obligations were identified for

deobligation. CBP was unable to process all deobligations at the detail level prior to September 30, 2009, 

and therefore, recorded an on-top adjustment for inactive obligations in the amount of $114 million.

Through additional testing of undelivered orders (UDOs) as of September 30, 2009, we noted 23 invalid 

UDO balances.

Furthermore, CBP is not properly enforcing its policies and procedures for timely receipt of certification

letters and deobligation of expired contracts. We noted as of December 31, 2008, 16 offices that

submitted certification letters to certify the review of all open obligations to the Director of the National 

Finance Center, 10 of these submissions were later than 30 days after the end of the quarter. During our 

procedures performed over contracts as of March 31, 2009, we noted that CBP did not close three expired

contracts in the financial system because funds were not deobligated. 

Criteria:

U.S. Code Title 31 Section 1501 states that “an amount shall be recorded as an obligation of the United

States Government only when supported by documentary evidence of (1) a binding agreement between an

agency and another person (including an agency) that is (a) in writing, in a way and form and for a 

purpose authorized by law; and (b) executed before the end of the period of availability...” Section 1554,

Audit, control and reporting states, "The head of each agency shall establish internal controls to assure

that an adequate review of obligated balances is performed to support the certification required by section 

1108(c) of this title." 

CBP Directive 1220-011C states that “All obligation and open goods receipt and service entry sheet 

records must be reconciled to supporting documentation at the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, i.e.,

December 31, March 31, June 30, and September 30. Additionally, a semi-annual review of specific

population of obligations must be performed and the status for each record identified. This is done to
162 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT II 

reasonably assure that only valid obligations remain open and open goods receipt and service entry sheet 

records are accurate.” 

CBP Directive 1220-011B states that “Financial Plan Holder will review the following Systems, 

Applications, and Products (SAP) reports each fiscal quarter to reconcile their obligations to supporting

records.” This directive also requires that “Each Assistant Commissioner will prepare a certification 

letter to the Director, National Finance Center, stating that he/she has reviewed all open obligations. The 

certification letter will be prepared at the end of each fiscal year quarterly review, and is due no later than 

30 days after the end of the quarter. For the fourth quarter, year-end deadlines are to be followed.” 

Cause/Effect: 

CBP is not properly enforcing its policies and procedures to monitor all open obligations on a periodic

basis to determine if amounts require deobligation. As a result, undelivered orders and related account

balances may be overstated at any point during the fiscal year. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Re-emphasize and reinforce compliance with Directive Nos. 1220-011B and 1220-011C to ensure

that obligations are being reconciled to supporting documentation on a quarterly basis (and

deobligated, if necessary) and reviewed for validity on a semi-annual basis. In addition, monitor the 

timely receipt of quarterly certification letters and semi-annual reports; 

2. Re-emphasize and reinforce compliance with 31 USC 1501 and 31 USC 1554 and all other

applicable laws and regulations; and

3. Develop and implement procedures in order to deobligate invalid obligations in a timely manner,

which may include periodic validation of inactive obligations. 

E. Entry Process 

1. In-Bond Program

Background:

General In-Bond Process 

An in-bond entry occurs when an importer brings an item through one port; however, the item 

generally does not officially enter U.S. commerce until it reaches the intended port of

destination. An in-bond also allows foreign merchandise arriving at one U.S. port to be

transported through the U.S. and be exported from another U.S. port without the payment of

duty.

Compliance Audit and In-Bond

In 1998, CBP implemented an audit system within the Automated Commercial System (ACS). It

serves as a compliance measurement system, which utilizes random examinations and port audit

reviews to ensure compliance. This audit system was designed to ensure bonded carrier 

compliance with their bond obligations. The audit system uses TINMAN to select ports to 
Financial Section 163

EXHIBIT II 

perform physical examinations at the time of arrival and departure and to perform post audit 

reviews of carrier activity. Once each week, ports throughout the U.S. are assigned post audits

and physical examinations to perform based on a GAO-approved algorithm.

In-Bond Shipments Overdue for Export (M02) Report 

The M02 report is a monthly list of in-bond shipments overdue for export. Items on this report

are in-bond movements transmitted by importers or brokers via Automated Manifest System

(AMS), Automated Broker Interface (ABI), or paper not yet exported in the required time

limit. Review of the M02 report is designed to identify cargo that has not been exported and 

therefore may have physically, but not formally entered into U.S. commerce, thus 

circumventing the assessment and payment of duties and fees. 

Monthly List of In-Bond Shipments Overdue (M07) Report

On a bi-monthly basis, each port is required to review and reconcile a list of In-Bond

Shipments Overdue included in the M07 report. Data on paperless and conventional in-bond

movements transmitted by AMS participants, as well as in-bond information input via INBE

appears in this report. In-bonds are considered overdue if they have not arrived at the 

destination port within 30 days from departure. Review of the M07 report is designed to 

identify cargo that has not been entered into the U.S. at the original port of entry 

communicated to CBP, thus possibly entering the U.S. commerce and circumventing the

assessment and payment of duties and fees. 

Condition:

We noted the following weaknesses exist over the in-bond program: 

Ports are required to submit a summary of post audits conducted and the associated

results to HQ; however, due to ACS system limitations, HQ cannot prepare an oversight 

report to determine if ports have completed all required audits. The SINS function code

generates a report that is designed to provide this information, but it currently does not 

accurately list the history of all in-bonds selected for audit and is not consistent with the 

listing of incomplete TINMAN audits on the INES report. 

The M02 report does not track air in-bonds. CBP is currently creating the M19 report to 

track air in-bonds, but the M19 report was not available in fiscal year 2009. 

The requirement for ports to review the M07 report (pertaining to Immediate Transport 

in-bonds) was not issued until February 2009, and was therefore not in operation for all

of the fiscal year.

There is no formal requirement for ports to maintain documentation evidencing the

performance of and results from post-audits and physical examinations. 

There is no formal requirement for ports to document the resolution of items on the M02

and M07 reports. Documentation evidences that the resolution was appropriate and

allows for proper oversight of the completion of these reports. 

CBP does not perform a formal analysis to ensure there is not a potentially significant 

loss of revenue through the in-bond process, as a result of goods entering the commerce 

of the U.S. without formal entry. 

CBP did not consistently monitor and document its review of the M02 and M07 reports

and query ACS and document completion of TINMAN audits on a timely basis. 
164 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT II 

Criteria:

According to Title 19 Section 18.2(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the carrier’s

“failure to surrender the in-bond manifest or report the arrival of bonded merchandise within 

the prescribed period shall constitute an irregular delivery and the initial bonded carrier shall

be subject to applicable penalties.” 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-123, Management’s

Responsibility for Internal Control, states that “management is responsible for establishing 

and maintaining internal controls to achieve the objectives of effective and efficient 

operations, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”

Cause/Effect: 

In recent years, the in-bond program has implemented several new directives and a new 

handbook to address the performance of the program at the port level; however, there is not a

documentation requirement at the national level related to the M02 and M07 reports.

Additionally, ports are not completely or properly monitoring the post audit in-bond process 

due to staffing levels at the port level and an increased focus on other CBP programs. Current

ACS system limitations also limit the ability of CBP to accurately monitor the in-bond 

process, both at the headquarters and port levels. 

The inability to effectively monitor the in-bond process and verify the arrival of in-bond 

merchandise at the port level leads to a potential loss in revenue. In addition, the lack of an

automatic compilation and analysis of audit results at the national level makes it difficult for 

CBP to efficiently and fully determine the effectiveness of in-bond audits, common in-bond 

errors, and weaknesses in the overall in-bond process. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Ensure that the following functionalities are included in CBP’s information systems:

Consistent information to track the status of TINMAN audits; 

A robust M19 report to track air in-bonds; 

Compilation of the results of all TINMAN audits performed during the year; 

An analysis function to evaluate importers’ compliance with regulations and overall

effectiveness of the in-bond process; 

2. Increase HQ oversight of the in-bond process by: 

Analyzing the summary of post-audits conducted and associated results; 

Providing increased training to port personnel on the in-bond process, to include 

performing TINMAN audits and working monitoring reports;

3. Ensure all ports perform TINMAN audits timely, as required;

4. Develop or re-emphasize formal requirements for all ports to: 
Financial Section 165

EXHIBIT II 

Continue to run and work the M07 report throughout the year to track overdue

Immediate Transportation in-bonds;

Run and work the M19 report to track open air in-bonds, once implemented;

Maintain documentation evidencing the performance of and results from post-audits

and physical examinations;

Maintain documentation related to the resolution of items on the M02, M07, and,

once implemented, M19 reports. Documentation of these items will allow for

effective management oversight of the use of these tools; 

5. Annually analyze the in-bond program to ensure there is not a significant potential loss of

revenue relating to in-bonds. 

2. Entry Summary Compliance Measurement

Background:

Entry Summary Compliance Measurement (ESCM) is the primary method by which CBP

measures risk in the areas of cargo security, trade compliance, and revenue collection. CBP

utilizes the ESCM to measure the effectiveness of its control mechanisms deployed and its 

execution in collecting revenues rightfully due the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The 

ESCM program is a key performance indicator used to determine if CBP’s internal controls 

are operating effectively as they pertain to ensuring compliance with laws and regulations.

The Compliance Measurement program is also used to determine the revenue gap that is 

reported in the “Other Accompanying Information” in the financial statements. 

Condition:

We noted the following weaknesses related to ESCM: 

A memorandum entitled “Compliance Measurement for FY 2009 – Change of Policy on 

120-Day ISDA Input Requirement” dated March 17, 2009, rescinded the requirement to

input initial remarks into ACS using the “ISDA” function code within 60 days and final 

remarks within 120 days. Instead, the memo suggests a 120 day deadline but only 

requires a final input date of January 31, 2010, for final remarks for FY 2009 Import 

Specialists’ review. This formal annual deadline does not provide for timely, effective,

and continuous monitoring of ESCM. 

In FY 2008, guidance from the Commercial Targeting and Enforcement Directorate

suspended the requirement for ESCM Coordinators at the ports to perform random 

reviews of non-anomalous lines. This suspension was not replaced by any other data

query or tool in FY 2009. 

Through corroborative inquiry at the eleven statistically-selected ports of entry, we noted 

that the Compliance Measurements Accuracy Tracking Systems (CMATS) tool was not 

operational in the first six months of 2009 and had numerous delays in version releases in

the 3rd quarter of FY 2009. CBP did not have oversight of ESCM through use of any

other tools when CMATS was not operational at two of the eleven ports tested. 
166 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT II 

The CMATS tool operates off the Customs Automated Port Profile (CAPPS) database,

which is a monthly cumulative compilation of all CBP examinations. However, since the

CAPPS database is generally released the third week of each month, there is a time lag

between the information in the CMATS report and the discrepant entries that have

previously been resolved.

Up until FY 2006, the National Targeting and Control Branch (NTCB) performed port

audits to identify errors during the performance of an ESCM review. Since FY 2006, 

CBP-HQ has relied on the Self-Inspection Program (SIP) to determine how the ports are 

performing ESCM examinations; however, the SIP worksheets do not provide the

equivalent information that was provided by the twenty-five point audit report utilized in 

the NTCB port audits. Despite revisions to the ESCM SIP worksheets, SIP alone does

not provide for a sufficient review of ESCM. 

CBP has not fully implemented the Mission Action Plan (MAP) CBP-MAP-08-17 

because CBP is in the process of developing a statistically-valid random sample of 

ESCM reviews to be completed at the port level each month. In addition, CBP is in the

process of developing tracking mechanisms to be updated by headquarters on a quarterly

basis to ensure that ports are in compliance with ESCM guidelines and requirements.

These elements described in CBP-MAP-08-17 were not fully implemented or revised to 

reflect changes in the planned actions as of September 2009. 

Criteria:

Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 7, Accounting for

Revenue and Other Financing Sources and Concepts for Reconciling Budgetary and 

Financial Accounting, Section 69.2 - Available information on the size of the tax gap, states, 

“Collecting entities should provide any relevant estimates of the annual tax gap that become

available as a result of federal government surveys or studies. The tax gap is defined as taxes

or duties due from non-compliant taxpayers or importers. Amounts reported should be

specifically defined, e.g., whether the tax gap includes or excludes estimates of taxes due on

illegally earned revenue.”

OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, Section II.5.3, Tax

Burden/Tax Gap, states, “Preparers of statements of entities that collect taxes may consider

presenting the information described below, if the information is readily available and the

preparers believe the information will enhance the usefulness of the statements. Refer to

SFFAS No. 7 for further guidance.

A perspective on the income tax burden. This could take the form of a summary of the latest

available information on the income tax and on related income, deductions, exemptions, and

credits for individuals by income level and for corporations by value of assets. 

Available information on the size of the tax gap. Collecting entities should provide any 

relevant estimates of the annual tax gap that become available as a result of Federal surveys

or studies.” 

OMB Circular No. A-123 states that “management is responsible for establishing and

maintaining internal controls to achieve the objectives of effective and efficient operations, 

reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.” 
Financial Section 167

EXHIBIT II 

Cause/Effect: 

Policies and procedures have not been developed and/or implemented to ensure the reliability

and accuracy of ESCM input results. The self-inspection worksheet to be completed by the 

ports does not require a sufficient level of review to be considered a mitigating control. The 

CMATS tool was not operating sufficiently to provide effective, consistent review of ESCM 

entries at the port level.

Incomplete guidelines may result in an inappropriate review of ESCM entries. With 

inadequate oversight of the ESCM data, CBP may have an inaccurately projected revenue 

gap.

Recommendations:

We recommend that CBP implement the following to improve ESCM:

1. Require CM Coordinators at ports to perform reviews on a timely and continuous basis; 

2. Establish criteria, reporting, and tracking mechanisms at Headquarters for reviewing all 

ESCM entries. Headquarters should use these tracking mechanisms to perform additional

oversight over the ESCM process, at least on a quarterly basis; 

3. Modify the CMATS tool to exclude errors and anomalies relating to untimely input of

ISDA remarks, and instead require CM Coordinators to run a single, standardized data 

query at least on a monthly basis of open ISDA remarks to ensure efficient and accurate 

ESCM reviews; and

4. Develop and utilize analysis tools to measure outstanding and completed ESCM reviews 

and utilize the analysis tool at the port level to ensure that Import Specialists complete 

ESCM reviews in a timely yet achievable manner. This can be achieved by re-instating 

the 120-day requirement with provisions for an appropriate allowance for acceptable 

deviations from the requirement. The allowance can be in the form of a benchmark based 

on past data.

3. Bonded Warehouse and Foreign Trade Zones 

Background:

Bonded Warehouses (BWs) are facilities under CBP’s supervision used to store merchandise 

that has not made entry into the U.S. Commerce. BWs are used to provide a place for storing 

goods in the U.S. for up to 5 years. The goods that are stored in such warehouses are secured

by the bond on the warehouse. Goods are entered into the BW by submission of the CBP

Entry Summary Form 7501.

Foreign Trade Zones (FTZs) are secure areas under CBP supervision considered outside of

the CBP territory. Authority for establishing these facilities is granted by the Foreign Trade

Zones Board under the Foreign Trade Zones Act of 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u).

Foreign and domestic merchandise may be moved into zones for operations not otherwise
168 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT II 

prohibited by law, including storage, exhibition, assembly, manufacturing, and processing. 

Goods are admitted into an FTZ using CBP Form 214.

Condition:

We noted the following internal control weaknesses related to the BW and FTZ processes: 

While CBP has developed national databases within the Automated Commercial

Environment (ACE), which contain an inventory of all BWs and FTZs, such databases

have not been tested for completeness. In addition, these databases are not currently used

to document the assessed risk of each BW or FTZ, compliance reviews scheduled, or the 

results of compliance reviews. Furthermore, there are no requirements for HQ or the 

Field Offices to compare this database to the compliance review schedules submitted by

the ports to ensure that all compliance reviews are being performed. 

The BW and FTZ Compliance Review Manuals did not have specific guidance, in the 

form of a questionnaire or checklist, for determining the risk assessment of a BW or FTZ.

The Compliance Review Manuals stated that a risk assessment should be performed by 

“analyzing and combining the findings of compliance reviews, security surveys,

compliance measurement data, informed and enforced compliance, historical data, and

other risk factors listed in this handbook.” However, there is no standard guidance on 

how a port should specifically evaluate this data for each BW or FTZ; the relative 

importance/priority of each data source; and how a port should analyze these sources and

any deficiencies noted to determine the assessed risk, in order to help ensure consistency

in how ports evaluate risk.

In FY 2009, HQ implemented an electronic survey that it completes at the end of the 

fiscal year to determine the status of the BW and FTZ programs; however, the survey did 

not conclude on the effectiveness of compliance reviews. In addition, the survey did not 

contain detailed descriptions of common discrepancies identified in those compliance 

reviews, risks presented by those discrepancies, or techniques for mitigating those risks. 

As part of our testwork at ten ports with BW and FTZ facilities, we noted the following 

specific findings related to BW and FTZ internal controls:

o The risk assessment for one FTZ at one port was not performed;

o The risk assessment for one BW at one port was marked as low risk; however, the 

errors noted in the compliance review documentation more accurately reflect a 

medium risk.

Criteria:

Under the Code of Federal Regulations, CBP’s supervisory authority over bonded

warehouses and foreign trade zones is outlined in Title 19, Section 19.4(a), “...the port 

director may authorize a Customs officer to supervise any transaction or procedure at the 

bonded warehouse facility. Such supervision may be performed through periodic audits of

the warehouse proprietor's records, quantity counts of goods in warehouse inventories, spot 

checks of selected warehouse transactions or procedures or reviews of conditions of 

recordkeeping, storage, security, or safety in a warehouse facility.” Title 19, Section 146.3 
Financial Section 169

EXHIBIT II 

states, (a), “Customs officers will be assigned or detailed to a zone as necessary to maintain

appropriate Customs supervision of merchandise and records pertaining thereto in the zone, 

and to protect the revenue.” (b), “Supervision may be performed through a periodic audit of

the operator’s records, quantity count of goods in a zone inventory, spot check of selected 

transactions or procedures, or review of recordkeeping, security, or conditions of storage in a 

zone.”

OMB Circular No. A-123 states that “management is responsible for establishing and

maintaining internal controls to achieve the objectives of effective and efficient operations, 

reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.”

Cause/Effect: 

CBP does not have comprehensive guidance related to the determination and documentation 

of risk assessments. CBP does not have formal, comprehensive guidance related to the 

monitoring of the BW and FTZ programs by HQ and the Field Offices throughout the year. 

At the time of testwork, CBP did not have a comprehensive information system to document 

risk assessments, track both scheduled and completed compliance reviews, and perform HQ

and Field Office monitoring and analysis of the BW and FTZ programs.

CBP cannot effectively monitor the BW/FTZ program if a complete population of all BWs

and FTZs is not compiled. The lack of specific guidance for determining risk assessment 

leads to inconsistent procedures in assessing risk at the port level. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend that CBP: 

1. Continue to develop standardized procedures for HQ or field office oversight to ensure

compliance review schedules are being reviewed, and that all ports are aware of updates

and changes to the program and can consistently execute all requirements presented in the

compliance review manuals and handbooks; 

2. Continue the current implementation of national databases of all BWs and FTZs within 

ACE and SharePoint and develop procedures to ensure their completeness. Develop 

functionality for these databases to document risk assessments, compliance reviews, and 

their results; 

3. Continue to develop and implement standard procedures for conducting risk assessments 

for all BWs and FTZs. The standard procedures should include a questionnaire or

checklist, which lists the areas of risk to evaluate, the relative importance of each area,

and examples of possible high risk indicators;

4. Create a standard format for compliance review schedules to be utilized by all ports for 

transmission to CBP-HQ; 

5. Utilize and enhance its electronic port survey system to provide more detailed and timely 

information on the BWH and FTZ programs to enable meaningful analysis by HQ;
170 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

EXHIBIT II 

6. Using the information received from the more detailed port survey system or through 

other means, prepare an analysis of common discrepancies identified in compliance 

reviews, risks presented by those discrepancies, and techniques for mitigating those risks; 

7. Increase HQ and field office oversight to ensure that compliance reviews are being

conducted properly and timely in accordance with the Compliance Review Handbooks; 

and

8. Continue to offer and enhance annual training to CBP BW/FTZ personnel to provide

updates and changes to the program, and reinforce requirements over the program. 

F. Information Technology

Background:

Controls over information technology (IT) and related financial systems are essential elements of 

financial reporting integrity. Effective general controls in an IT and financial systems environment are 

typically defined in five key control areas: security management, access control, configuration 

management, segregation of duties and contingency planning. In addition to reliable controls, financial

management system functionality is important to program monitoring, increasing accountability of

financial and program managers, providing better information for decision-making, and increasing the 

efficiency and effectiveness of services provided by the Federal government.

Condition:

During FY 2009, CBP took corrective actions to address prior year IT control deficiencies. However,

during FY 2009, we continued to find control deficiencies related to IT general and application controls. 

The key deficiency from a financial reporting perspective relates to information security. Collectively, 

the IT control deficiencies limit CBP’s ability to ensure that critical financial and operational data is 

maintained in such a manner to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Because of the sensitive 

nature of the issues identified, we will issue a separate restricted distribution report that discusses the 

control deficiencies in more detail. 

Criteria:

The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), passed as part of the E-Gov Act of 2002,

mandates that Federal entities maintain IT security programs in accordance with OMB and the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. OMB Circular No. A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources,

and various National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines describe specific essential 

criteria for maintaining effective general IT controls. In addition, OMB Circular No. A-127, Financial

Management Systems, prescribes policies and standards for executive departments and agencies to follow 

in developing, operating, evaluating, and reporting on financial management systems.

Recommendation: 

We recommend that CBP improve the application and general controls over its financial systems to 

ensure adequate security and protection of the information systems.

CBP Response: 

See management’s response included in the attached letter. 
Financial Section 171

EXHIBIT III

Status of Prior Year Material Weaknesses and Significant Deficiencies 

Prior Year Condition

As Reported at

September 30, 2008 Status as of September 30, 2009 

Financial Reporting – 

Property, Plant, and 

Equipment (PP&E)

Significant deficiency: Several 

weaknesses existed related to PP&E such

as accounting for the Secure Border 

Initiative and the untimely transfer of 

construction in progress to fixed assets.

Material Weakness:

Weaknesses continue to exist 

related to the Secure Border 

Initiative and untimely transfer of 

construction in progress to fixed 

assets. In conjunction with 

additional deficiencies in control 

findings A-B, financial reporting 

and PP&E are both identified as 

a material weakness in fiscal year 

2009.

Drawback of Duties, Taxes

and Fees 

Material weakness: ACS lacked controls 

to detect and prevent excessive drawback 

claims and payments, requiring inefficient 

manual processes to compensate and the

drawback review policies did not require

drawback specialists to review all related 

drawback claims. 

Continue as a material 

weakness: Weaknesses continue

to exist related to the drawback 

process in fiscal year 2009. See 

control finding letter C. 

Financial Reporting – 

Inactive Obligations 

Significant deficiency: Weaknesses in

CBP’s policies and procedures related to

the timely deobligation of inactive 

obligations. 

Continue as a significant 

deficiency: Weaknesses 

continue to exist related to the 

timely deobligation of inactive 

obligations. See control finding 

letter D.

Entry Process – In Bond Significant deficiency: Several 

weaknesses existed related to in-bond such 

as the lack of official guidance and training 

to address the monitoring of in-bond 

shipments at the port level, lack of CBPHQ review of the in-bond program, and the 

overall inability to determine the 

effectiveness of the in-bond program for 

CBP in its entirety. 

Continue as a significant 

deficiency: Although

improvements were made,

weaknesses still remain during 

fiscal year 2009. See control 

finding letter E, section 1.

Entry Process – Entry 

Summary Compliance 

Measurement

Significant deficiency: Several 

weaknesses existed related to Entry 

Summary Compliance Measurement, such 

as inconsistent procedures followed at the 

ports, lack of NTCB (formally NASD) port 

audits, and little review or analysis on the 

ESCM data to ensure that it was input 

correctly.

Continue as a significant 

deficiency: Although

improvements were made,

weaknesses still remain during 

fiscal year 2009. See control 

finding letter E, section 2.

Entry Process – Bonded 

Warehouse and Foreign

Trade Zones 

Significant deficiency: Several 

weaknesses existed related to BW/FTZ,

such as the lack of official guidance and 

training to address the monitoring of 

BW/FTZ, and lack of management review 

Continue as a significant 

deficiency: Weaknesses continue 

to exist related to the bonded 

warehouse and foreign trade zone

process during fiscal year 2009.
172 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Exhibit III 

Prior Year Condition

As Reported at

September 30, 2008 Status as of September 30, 2009 

of the BW/FTZ surveys. See control finding letter E, 

section 3.

Information Technology Significant deficiency: Weaknesses

were noted in entity-wide security,

system access, segregation of duties, 

service continuity, and system software 

change management. 

Continue as a significant 

deficiency: Weaknesses continue 

to exist related to IT general and 

application controls during fiscal

year 2009. See control finding

letter F.

Non-compliance with the 

Federal Information 

Security Management Act

Instance of non-compliance: CBP was not

in substantial compliance with FISMA. 

FISMA requires the head of each agency to

be responsible for 1) providing information 

security protections commensurate with the 

risk and magnitude of the harm resulting 

from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, 

disruption, modification, or destruction of 

(i) information collected or maintained and 

(ii) information systems used or operated; 

2) complying with the requirements of the 

Act and related policies, procedures,

standards, and guidelines, including (i)

information security standards under the 

United States Code, Title 40, Section 11331

and (ii) information security standards and 

guidelines for national security systems; 

and 3) ensuring that information security 

management processes are integrated with 

agency strategic and operational planning 

processes. 

Compliance is determined at 

the Department level. 

Non-compliance with the 

Federal Financial

Management Improvement 

Act of 1996

Instance of non-compliance: CBP was 

not in substantial compliance with FFMIA, 

which requires that an agency’s financial 

management systems substantially comply 

with Federal financial management systems 

requirements, applicable Federal 

accounting standards, and the United States 

Government Standard General Ledger at 

the transaction level. We noted instances of 

non-compliance with FFMIA in relation to 

Federal financial management systems 

requirements and the United States 

Government Standard General Ledger at 

the transaction level.

Compliance is determined at 

the Department level. 
Financial Section 173
174 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Appendix A 

Report Distribution

Department of Homeland Security

Secretary

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff for Operations 

Chief of Staff for Policy 

Deputy Chiefs of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Chief Financial Officer 

Chief Information Officer 

Customs and Border Protection

Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection 

Chief Financial Officer 

Chief Information Officer 

Office of Management and Budget

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate
Financial Section 175

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

 DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

 Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

 245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

 Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller. 
176 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
177

ABTC Agricultural/Biological 

Terrorism Countermeasures

ACE Automated Commercial Environment

ACS Automated Commercial System

ADPI AZ Denial Prosecution Initiative

AEO Authorized Economic Operator

AFB Air Force Base

AgRA Agricultural Resource Atlas

AIS Automated Identification System

AMOC Air Marine Operations Center

AMOR Air and Marine Operations 

Reporting System

AOR Area of Responsibility

APATS Air Program Administration 

Tracking System

APIS Advance Passenger 

Information System

APTL Agricultural Program Trade Liaisons

ARO Admissibility Review Office

ARRA American Recovery & Reinvestment 

Act of 2009

ATEP Alien Transfer and Exit Program

ATS Automated Targeting System

AZ Operation Arizona Denial

BCC Border Crossing Card

BICs Border Intelligence Centers

BPETS Border Patrol Enforcement 

Tracking System

BSI Border Security Initiative

CAMITS Customs Automated Maintenance 

Inventory System

CAR Checkpoint Activity Report

CARMAC Computerized Aircraft Reporting and 

Material Control System

CBIG Carribean Border Interagency Group

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CDC Center for Disease Control

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CIS Citizenship and Immigration Services

CLP Carrier Liaison Program

COAC Commercial Operations 

Advisory Committee

COBRA Consolidated Omnibus Budget 

Reconciliation Act

COMPSTAT Comparative Statistics

COP Common Operating Picture

COS Chief of Staff

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

CSI Container Security Initiative

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

CTB Customs Tariff Bureau

Acronyms

Acronyms
178 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Acronyms

C-TPAT Customs Trade Partnership 

Against Terrorism

CTTP Consolidated Trusted Traveler Program

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DIA Defense Intelligence Agency

DOC Department of Commerce

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

DOS Department of State

ECB External Communication Branch

EDL Enhanced Driver Licenses

EEO Equal Employment Opportunitiy

eGIS Enterprise Geopatial 

Information Services

ENFORCE Enforcement Case Tracking

ER Expedited Removal

ESTA Electronic System for 

Travel Authorization

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAST Free and Secure Trade

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FBWT Fund Balance with Treasury

FCB Field Communication Branch

FDA Food & Drug Administration

FDAU Fraudulent Document Analysis Unit

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

FERS Federal Employees’ Retirement System

FFMIA Federal Financial Management 

Improvement Act

FISMA Federal Information Security 

Management Act of 2002

FLETC Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial 

Integrity Act

FOB Forwarding Operating Bases

FPO Fraud Prevention Officer

FPP Fraud Prevention Program

FY Fiscal Year

FYHSP Future Year Homeland 

Security Program

GAAP Generally Accepted 

Accounting Principles

GAO Government Accountability Office

GOM Government of Mexico

GPRA Government Performance and 

Results Act

GPS Global Positioning System

GSA General Service Administration

HRM Human Resources Management

IA Internal Affairs
179

Acronyms

Acronyms

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System

IAP Immigration Advisory Program

IBET Integrated Border Enforcement Teams

ICAD Intelligence Computer 

Assisted Detection

ICB Information Coordination Branch

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICS International Container Security

IDENT Automated Biometric 

Identification System

ILU International Liaison Unit

INA Immigration and Nationality Act

IT Information Technology

IUF Immigration User Fees

IUFA Immigration User Fees Account

LPOE Land Ports of Entry

LPR License Plate Reader

MID Management Inspection Division

MLU Mexican Liaison Units

MOIR Memoranda of Information Received

MPC Mobile Processing Center

MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangement

MSS Mobile Surveillance System

NAS National Airspace System

NCIC National Crime Information Center

NII Non-Intrusive Inspection

NLETS National Law Enforcement 

Telecommunication System

NPSAT National Post Seizure Analysis Team

NTCC National Targeting Center-Cargo

NTCP National Targeting Center-Passenger

OASISS Operation Against Smugglers Initiative 

on Safety and Security

OAM Office of Air and Marine

OBP Office of Border Patrol

OBT Outbound Policy and Programs

OCA Office of Congressional Affairs

OCC Office of Chief Counsel

OEO Office of Equal Opportunity

OF Office of Finance

OFO Office of Field Operations

OGA Other Government Agencies

OIG Office of Inspector General

OIOC Office of Intelligence 

Operation Coordination

OIT Office of Information and Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OMR Operations Management Reports

OPA Office of Public Affairs
180 U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Performance and Accountability Report

Acronyms

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OPP Office of Policy and Planning

OPSG Operation Stonegarden

ORBBP Operational Requirements Based 

Budget Program

OT Office of International Trade

OTD Office of Training and Development

OTM Other Than Mexican

OTR Office of Trade Relations

PAP Partnership Action Plan

PAR Performance and Accountability Report

PART Performance Assessment Rating Tool

PIERS Port Import Export Reporting Service

PMA President’s Management Agenda

POE Port of Entry

PRD Personal Radiation Detectors

RCMP Royal Canadian Mounted Police

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

RIID Radiation Isotope 

Identification Devices

RIOS Radio Interoperability System Monitor

RPM Radiation Portal Monitor

SAFE Safety and Accountability for Every Port 

Act legislation

SCSSs Supply Chain Security Specialists

SAP Systems, Applications, and Products

SAR Search and Rescue

SBI Secure Border Initiative 

SENTRI Secure Electronic Network for Traveler 

Rapid Inspection

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial 

Accounting Standards

SFI Secure Freight Initiative

SIP Self-Inspection Program

SIRS Self-Inspection Reporting System

SLT State, Local, and Tribal

SLTD Stolen/Lost Travel Document

SMF Strategic Management Framework

SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol

SRT Special Response Team

SSH Sensitive Systems Handbook

TAS Tax Administration Service

TASPO Targeting and Analysis Systems 

Program Office

TDY Temporary Duty

TECS The Enforcement 

Communication System

TI Tactical Infrastructure

TIDE Terrorist Identifies 

Datamart Environment

TSA Transportation Security Agency
181

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

USBP United States Border Patrol

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

US PASS U.S. Passenger Accelerated 

Service System

US-VISIT U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status 

Indicator Technology

VSC Video Spectral Comparator

VWP Visa Waiver Program

WADS Work Accomplishment Data System

WASSPT Wide Area Sensor Surveillance 

Planning Tool

WHTI Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

WMD/Es Weapons of Mass Destruction/Effects

ZBF Z-backscatter Fords

Acronyms


Office of Finance

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue

Room 950, National Place

Washington, DC 20229

Please visit the U.S. Customs and Border Protection web site at

www.cbp.gov

To report suspicious activity, call

1–800–BE ALERT

December 2009