INTERNATIONAL AIR 

TRAVELERS

CBP Collaborates with 

Stakeholders to 

Facilitate the Arrivals 

Process, but Could 

Strengthen Reporting 

of Airport Wait Times

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2017

GAO-17-470

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-470, a report to 

congressional requesters

March 2017

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRAVELERS

CBP Collaborates with Stakeholders to 

Facilitate the Arrivals Process, but Could 

Strengthen Reporting of Airport Wait Times

What GAO Found

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), within the Department of Homeland 

Security, and airport and airline stakeholders jointly implement travel and tourism 

initiatives at U.S. international airports to facilitate the arrival of travelers. These 

initiatives include Automated Passport Control self-service kiosks that allow 

eligible travelers to complete a portion of the CBP inspection process before 

seeing a CBP officer, and Mobile Passport Control that allows eligible travelers 

to submit their passport and other information to CBP via an application on a 

mobile device. Various airport-specific factors can affect whether and how CBP 

and stakeholders implement travel and tourism facilitation initiatives at each 

airport. These factors include the size and layout of the airport facility, the 

infrastructure needed to support initiatives, the willingness and ability of the 

airport stakeholders to pay for initiatives or infrastructure to support them, as 

applicable, and stakeholder discretion in how to implement initiatives. CBP has 

two airport travel facilitation goals: (1) improving customer service levels for 

international arrivals and (2) maintaining or reducing wait times—and has 

implemented mechanisms to assess and obtain feedback on the traveler 

experience.

CBP allocates and manages staff using various tools, and stakeholders provide 

resources to help facilitate the traveler entry process. For example, CBP uses its 

Workload Staffing Model to determine the staffing requirements and help make 

allocation decisions for CBP officers at ports of entry, including airports. CBP 

also uses its Enterprise Management Information System to monitor and make 

immediate staffing changes to meet any traveler volume and wait time concerns 

at airports. Airport and airline stakeholders can also enter into agreements to pay 

for CBP officers to work overtime during peak travel hours or outside regular 

operational hours.

CBP monitors airport wait times and reports data on its public website to help 

travelers plan flights, including scheduling connecting flights, but the reported

data have limited usefulness to travelers. Currently, CBP does not report wait 

times by traveler type, such as U.S. citizen or foreign visitor. Rather, CBP reports 

average hourly wait times for all travelers on arriving international flights. By 

reporting wait times for all categories of travelers combined, CBP is reporting

wait times that are lower than those generally experienced by visitors. According 

to GAO’s analysis of CBP wait time data for the 17 busiest airports from May 

2013 through August 2016, the average wait time was 13 minutes for U.S. 

citizens and 28 minutes for visitors, while the combined reported average wait 

time was 21 minutes. Reporting wait times by traveler type could improve the 

usefulness of CBP’s wait time data to travelers by providing them with more 

complete and accurate data on their wait times. This could help inform their flight 

plans and could provide additional transparency to allow CBP to work with 

stakeholders to determine what, if any, changes are needed, to improve the 

traveler experience and better manage wait times.

This is a public version of a For Official Use Only—Law Enforcement Sensitive 

report that GAO issued in February 2017. Information DHS deemed For Official 

Use Only—Law Enforcement Sensitive has been redacted.

View GAO-17-470 . For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512- 8777

or gamblerr@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Over 326,000 passengers and crew 

entered the United States through 241 

international airports on an average 

day in fiscal year 2016, according to 

CBP. In 2007, CBP started its Model 

Ports program to improve the 

international arrivals process for 

travelers to the United States by 

implementing technology to facilitate 

entry and expanding public-private 

partnerships, among other things. GAO 

was asked to review this program and 

subsequent airport travel and tourism 

facilitation initiatives at the 17 busiest 

U.S. international airports associated 

with the president’s National Travel 

and Tourism Strategy.

This report examines (1) how CBP and 

stakeholders have implemented airport 

travel and tourism facilitation initiatives,

(2) how CBP and stakeholders 

manage staff to facilitate the traveler 

entry process, and (3) the extent to 

which CBP has mechanisms to monitor 

and report wait times at U.S.

international airports. GAO collected 

data on the implementation of travel 

and tourism facilitation initiatives and

analyzed CBP officer staffing and wait 

time data at the 17 airports from fiscal 

years 2014 through 2016. GAO also 

visited a nongeneralizable sample of 

11 airports, selected based on traveler 

volume and variety of implemented 

initiatives, among other factors, and 

interviewed CBP, airport, and airline 

officials at 15 of the 17 airports.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that CBP report 

airport wait time data for different 

categories of travelers. CBP concurred 

with the recommendation and identified 

planned actions to address the 

recommendation.
Page i GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Letter 1

Background 7

CBP Has Collaborated with Stakeholders to Facilitate Traveler 

Entry and Implementation of Travel Initiatives Varies by Airport 14

CBP Allocates and Manages Staff Using Various Tools and 

Stakeholders Provide Resources to Help Facilitate the Traveler 

Entry Process 27

CBP Could Take Steps to Improve the Usefulness of Reported 

Airport Wait Time Data and Is Taking Steps to Collect 

Additional Data 36

Conclusions 49

Recommendation for Executive Action 50

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 50

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 51

Appendix II Images of Select Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 

17 Busiest U.S. International Airports 59

Appendix III Implementation of Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 

17 Busiest U.S. International Airports 91

Appendix IV Average Wait Times at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports, 

May 2013 through August 2016 109

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 113

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 116

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Tables

Table 1: Airport Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 31 

Terminals in the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports as 

of the End of Fiscal Year 2016 25

Table 2: Tools Used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to Manage Staff at the 17 Busiest U.S. 

International Airports 31

Table 3: Reimbursable Services Program Fee Agreements at the 

Busiest U.S. International Airports 34

Table 4: GAO Site Visits to Select U.S. International Airports 

in 2016 53

Table 5: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Concourse E, 

as of September 30, 2016 91

Table 6: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Concourse F,

as of September 30, 2016 92

Table 7: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at BostonLogan International Airport (BOS), as of 

September 30, 2016 92

Table 8: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Dallas/Fort 

Worth International Airport (DFW), as of 

September 30, 2016 93

Table 9: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Detroit 

Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) McNamara 

Terminal, as of September 30, 2016 93

Table 10: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Detroit 

Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) North 

Terminal, as of September 30, 2016 94

Table 11: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Newark 

Liberty International Airport (EWR) Terminal B, as of 

September 30, 2016 94

Table 12: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Newark 

Liberty International Airport (EWR) Terminal C, as of 

September 30, 2016 95

Table 13: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Fort 

Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL), as of 

September 30, 2016 95

Table 14: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Honolulu 

International Airport (HNL), as of September 30, 2016 96
Page iii GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 15: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Washington 

Dulles International Airport (IAD) Main Terminal, as of 

September 30, 2016 96

Table 16: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Washington 

Dulles International Airport (IAD) Midfield Terminal, as of 

September 30, 2016 97

Table 17: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at George 

Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), as of 

September 30, 2016 97

Table 18: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1, as of 

September 30, 2016 98

Table 19: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 4, as of 

September 30, 2016 98

Table 20: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 5, as of 

September 30, 2016 99

Table 21: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 7, as of 

September 30, 2016 99

Table 22: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 8, as of 

September 30, 2016 100

Table 23: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 2, as of 

September 30, 2016 101

Table 24: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 5, as of 

September 30, 2016 101

Table 25: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 7, as of 

September 30, 2016 102

Table 26: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los 

Angeles International Airport (LAX) Tom Bradley 

International Terminal, as of September 30, 2016 102

Table 27: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Orlando 

International Airport (MCO) Airside 1, as of 

September 30, 2016 103

Table 28: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Orlando 

International Airport (MCO) Airside 4, as of 

September 30, 2016 103
Page iv GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 29: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Miami 

International Airport (MIA) Terminal D, as of 

September 30, 2016 104

Table 30: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Miami 

International Airport (MIA) Terminal J, as of 

September 30, 2016 104

Table 31: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Chicago 

O’Hare International Airport (ORD), as of 

September 30, 2016 105

Table 32: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Philadelphia 

International Airport (PHL), as of 

September 30, 2016 106

Table 33: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at SeattleTacoma International Airport (SEA), as of 

September 30, 2016 106

Table 34: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at San 

Francisco International Airport (SFO) Terminal A, as of 

September 30, 2016 107

Table 35: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at San 

Francisco International Airport (SFO) Terminal G, as of 

September 30, 2016 107

Table 36: Average Wait Times at the 17 Busiest U.S. International 

Airports from May 2013 through August 2016 (in minutes) 109

Table 37: Average Wait Times during Peak Summer Travel 

Seasons at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from 

May 2013 through August 2016 111

Figures

Figure 1: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air Traveler 

Inspection Process 9

Figure 2: Map of the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports and 

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

Model Ports Program Airports in the United States 13

Figure 3: Description of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at U.S. 

International Airports 15

Figure 4: Timeline of Implementation of Travel and Tourism 

Facilitation Initiatives from 2006 through 2015 17

Figure 5: Modified Egress at Miami International Airport (MIA) 

North Terminal 20
Page v GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 6: Color-coded Signage at Miami International Airport (MIA) 

North Terminal and Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) 21

Figure 7: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosks at Dallas/Fort 

Worth International Airport (DFW) and George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport (IAH) 22

Figure 8: Evolution of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

Air Traveler Inspection Process 24

Figure 9: Description of How U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Uses its Workload Staffing Model (WSM) and 

Other Calculations to Determine Staffing Needs 29

Figure 10: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Airport 

Wait Time Calculation Process 37

Figure 11: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors at 

the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 2013 

through August 2016 41

Figure 12: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors at 

the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 2013 

through August 2016 42

Figure 13: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors 

during Nonpeak and Peak Summer Travel Seasons at 

the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 2013 

through August 2016 43

Figure 14: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors 

during Peak Summer Travel Seasons at the 17 Busiest 

U.S. International Airports from May 2013 through 

August 2016 45

Figure 15: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Airport 

Wait Time Data Collection Gaps 47

Figure 16: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosk at 

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Main 

Terminal 59

Figure 17: Baggage First at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport 

(AUS) 60

Figure 18: Diplomatic Processing Lane at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 7 61

Figure 19: Electronic Signage and Multimedia at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 62

Figure 20: Enhanced Queueing at John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 63

Figure 21: Express Connection Ticket at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW) 64
Page vi GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 22: Global Entry Kiosk at Washington Dulles International 

Airport (IAD) Main Terminal 65

Figure 23: Wayfinding Signage for International to International 

Baggage Program at George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport (IAH) 66

Figure 24: Mobile Passport Control (MPC) Scanner at Newark 

Liberty International Airport (EWR) Terminal B 67

Figure 25: Modified Egress at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

Airport (DTW) 68

Figure 26: One Stop Area at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) 69

Figure 27: Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) Poster at 

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) 

Main Terminal 70

Figure 28: Signing of Reimbursable Services Program Fee 

Agreement (Section 559) at Boston-Logan International 

Airport (BOS) 71

Figure 29: Stakeholder Meeting at Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport (ORD) 72

Figure 30: Variable Message Signage at Chicago O’Hare 

International Airport (ORD) 73

Figure 31: Color-coded Signage at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) 74

Figure 32: Dedicated Crew Lane at George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport (IAH) 75

Figure 33: Expected Wait Time Monitors in U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) Primary Inspection Area at John 

F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 4 76

Figure 34: Expected Wait Time Monitor in U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) Exit Control Area at George 

Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) 77

Figure 35: Global Entry Kiosks at Orlando International Airport 

(MCO) 78

Figure 36: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosks at 

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) 79

Figure 37: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosks at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 80

Figure 38: Two Versions of Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 

Scanners at Miami International Airport (MIA) Terminal J 

and Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) 

Terminal B 81
Page vii GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 39: Variations in Color-coded Signage at Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX) Terminal 2 and Tom Bradley 

International Terminal 82

Figure 40: Variation in Color-coded Lanes and Signage at John F. 

Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminals 1 and 5 82

Figure 41: Variable Message Signage Above Automated Passport 

Control (APC) Kiosks at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) 83

Figure 42: “Global Entry Zone” at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) 84

Figure 43: Global Entry Kiosks at George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport (IAH) 85

Figure 44: “Mobile Passport Control Zone” at Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR) Terminal C 86

Figure 45: Before and After Implementation of Modified Egress at 

Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport (FLL) 87

Figure 46: Variable Message Signage at Hartsfield-Jackson 

Atlanta International Airport (ATL) 88

Figure 47: Wayfinding Signage at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL) 89

Figure 48: Variable Message Signage Monitor at HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) 90

Abbreviations

APC Automated Passport Control 

ATL Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

AUS Austin-Bergstrom International Airport 

BOS Boston-Logan International Airport 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Commerce Department of Commerce 

DFW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DTW Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 

EMIS Enterprise Management Information System 
Page viii GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

EWR Newark Liberty International Airport 

FIS Federal Inspection Service 

FLL Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport 

HNL Honolulu International Airport 

HOU Houston Hobby International Airport 

IAD Washington Dulles International Airport 

IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport 

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport 

LAS McCarran International Airport 

LAX Los Angeles International Airport 

MCO Orlando International Airport 

MIA Miami International Airport 

MPC Mobile Passport Control 

OFO Office of Field Operations 

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport 

PHL Philadelphia International Airport 

POE port of entry 

PSM Professionalism Service Manager 

SEA Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

SFB Orlando Sanford International Airport 

SFO San Francisco International Airport 

SJU San Juan-Luis Munoz Marin International Airport 

State Department of State 

S&T DHS Science and Technology Directorate 

WSM Workload Staffing Model 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 30, 2017

The Honorable Brian Schatz

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the 

Internet

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Tim Scott

United States Senate

On a typical day in fiscal year 2016, over 326,000 passengers and crew 

entered the United States through 241 international airports, according to 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 1 Within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), CBP is the lead federal agency charged with a 

dual mission of keeping terrorists and their weapons, criminals and their 

contraband, and inadmissible aliens out of the country while also 

facilitating the flow of legitimate travel and trade through the nation’s ports 

of entry (POE). 2 CBP’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) is responsible 

for passenger and cargo processing activities related to security, trade, 

immigration, and agricultural inspection at the nation’s POEs, including 

U.S. international airports. 3

In addition to CBP’s focus on security, the agency has, in recent years, 

undertaken specific efforts to facilitate legitimate travel and trade and 

reduce wait times at U.S. international airports, consistent with its security 

mission. In 2007, CBP started its Model Ports program at two airports to 

improve the international arrivals process for travelers to the United 

 1

For the purposes of this report, our scope focuses on CBP efforts associated with air 

travel and does not include CBP’s efforts to process individuals who are traveling to the 

United States via other means, such as pedestrians or vehicles at U.S. land ports of entry 

or via commercial cruise ships. Ports of entry are facilities that provide for the controlled 

entry into or departure from the United States for persons or materials. Specifically, a port 

of entry is any officially designated location (seaport, airport, or land border location) 

where DHS officers or employees are assigned to clear passengers, merchandise, and 

other items; collect duties; and enforce customs laws; and where DHS officers inspect 

persons seeking to enter or depart, or applying for admission into, the United States 

pursuant to U.S. immigration law.

2

See 6 U.S.C. § 211(a) (establishing CBP within DHS), (c) (enumerating CBP’s duties).

3

See id. § 211(g) (establishing and listing duties of OFO within CBP).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

States by using multimedia and signage, implementing technology to 

facilitate entry, and expanding public-private partnerships.4 In addition, 

the model port-of-entry program was established in statute, and $40 

million of CBP’s fiscal year 2008 appropriation was made available for the 

agency to implement the program and hire 200 additional officers at the 

20 busiest U.S. international airports.5

In 2012, the President released the National Travel and Tourism Strategy, 

establishing a goal of attracting and welcoming 100 million international 

visitors annually by the end of 2021. In 2014, the President signed a 

Presidential Memorandum calling on the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) and DHS to establish a national goal and airport-specific 

action plans at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports to enhance the 

 4

The two airports were George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and Washington Dulles 

International Airport (IAD).

5

See Pub. L. No. 110-53, tit. VII, subtit. C, § 725, 121 Stat. 266, 350-51 (classified at 8 

U.S.C. § 1752a, which states that states that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 

establish a model ports-of-entry program to provide a more efficient and welcoming 

international arrival process in order to facilitate and promote business and tourist travel to 

the United States, while also improving security); see Explanatory Statement 

accompanying Division E—Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 

(Pub. L. No. 110-161, div. E, 121 Stat. 1844, 2042-97 (2007)), 153 Cong. Rec. H15741, 

H16081 (daily ed. Dec. 17, 2007). The 20 U.S. international airports that participated in 

the Model Ports program were (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL); 

(2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

(DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); (5) Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7)

Honolulu International Airport (HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) 

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport 

(JFK); (11) McCarran International Airport (LAS); (12) Los Angeles International Airport 

(LAX); (13) Orlando International Airport (MCO); (14) Miami International Airport (MIA); 

(15) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD); (16) Philadelphia International Airport 

(PHL); (17) Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA); (18) Orlando Sanford International 

Airport (SFB); (19) San Francisco International Airport (SFO); and (20) San Juan-Luis 

Munoz Marin International Airport (SJU).
Page 3 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

arrivals process for international travelers to the United States.6 The 

departments released a report in 2015 establishing the new national goal 

and mechanisms to monitor and publicly report on the progress of travel 

and tourism initiatives to facilitate arrivals at these airports.7

Since 2007, the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board and members of 

Congress have raised questions about CBP’s ability to process travelers 

efficiently given CBP staffing levels and recent rapid traveler volume 

growth at international airports.8 In 2016, CBP leaders testified before 

Congress that the agency continues to face significant challenges in 

meeting its staffing goals. According to Commerce’s latest forecast, 

international travel to the United States will continue to experience growth 

through 2020.9 In addition, according to the U.S. Travel and Tourism 

Advisory Board, the President’s overarching goal of welcoming 100 

million international visitors by 2021 would increase current visitation 

levels by 40 percent.

You asked us to review issues related to the Model Ports program and 

subsequent travel and tourism facilitation initiatives at the 17 busiest U.S. 

 6

The 17 U.S. international airports are (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(ATL); (2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); (5) Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7)

Honolulu International Airport (HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) 

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport 

(JFK); (11) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); (12) Orlando International Airport 

(MCO); (13) Miami International Airport (MIA); (14) Chicago O’Hare International Airport 

(ORD); (15) Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); (16) Seattle-Tacoma International 

Airport (SEA); and (17) San Francisco International Airport (SFO). According to CBP 

documentation, these airports were selected based on fiscal year 2013 international travel 

volume. According to Commerce and DHS, these airports welcomed over 73 percent of all 

international travelers to the United States.

7

Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security, Supporting Travel and 

Tourism to Grow Our Economy and Create More Jobs: A National Goal on the 

International Arrivals Process and Airport-Specific Action Plans, Report to the President

(Washington, D.C.: February 2015).

8

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, established in 2003, serves as the 

advisory body to the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the travel and tourism 

industry in the United States. Its members represent a broad cross-section of the industry, 

including transportation services, financial services, and hotels and restaurants, as well as 

a mix of other small and large firms from across the country. 

9

U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Commerce 

Department Releases Six-Year Forecast For International Travel to the United States –

2015-2020 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 26, 2015).
Page 4 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

international airports. This report examines (1) how CBP and 

stakeholders have implemented travel and tourism facilitation initiatives at 

U.S. international airports, (2) how CBP and stakeholders manage staff to 

facilitate the traveler entry process at U.S. international airports, and (3) 

the extent to which CBP has mechanisms to monitor and report wait 

times at U.S. international airports.

This report is a public version of a prior sensitive report that we issued in 

February 2017.10 DHS deemed some of the information in the prior report 

as For Official Use Only—Law Enforcement Sensitive, which must be 

protected from public disclosure. Therefore, this report omits sensitive 

information on CBP officer staffing and the amounts reimbursed to CBP 

under reimbursable services program fee agreements at the busiest U.S. 

international airports. The information provided in this report is more 

limited in scope, in that it excludes such sensitive information, but it 

addresses the same questions as the sensitive report and the overall 

methodology used for both reports is the same.

To examine how CBP and stakeholders have implemented travel and 

tourism facilitation initiatives at U.S. international airports, we collected 

and analyzed information on the implementation of these initiatives at the 

17 busiest U.S. international airports from 2007 through fiscal year 

2016. 11 As we discuss later, these initiatives include Automated Passport 

Control (APC) kiosks, baggage first, diplomatic processing, Global Entry 

kiosks, electronic signage and multimedia, Express Connection, 

International to International baggage program, modified egress, Mobile 

Passport Control (MPC), One Stop, Professionalism Service Managers 

(PSM), enhanced queueing, Reimbursable Services Program fee

agreements, stakeholder meetings, and Variable Message Signage. 12 We 

collected information and interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline 

 10GAO, International Air Travelers: CBP Collaborates with Stakeholders to Facilitate the 

Arrivals Process, but Could Strengthen Reporting of Airport Wait Times, GAO-17-252SU 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2017).

11We selected 2007 given that was when the CBP Model Ports program was first 

implemented at two airports. In this report, the 17 busiest U.S. international airports refers 

to the airports, associated with the president’s National Travel and Tourism Strategy that 

support the highest volume of international travel, some of which are designated by law as 

international airports, while others are designated as landing rights airports.

12These initiatives were identified by OFO officials and documents as being part of the 

Model Ports program, the National Travel and Tourism Strategy, or OFO’s Resource 

Optimization Strategy.
Page 5 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

representatives at 15 of the 17 airports—selected based on traveler 

volume, technology use, and geographic diversity— and conducted site 

visits at 11 of these airports to observe the implementation of initiatives. 13

We used a non-probability sample for our site visit selections and thus 

cannot generalize our findings to all international airports that are part of 

the national initiative; however, the site visits provided insight into how 

these initiatives are working at airports. We also interviewed CBP officials 

at headquarters, officials from eight travel and tourism industry 

associations selected based on the nature of the associations and 

suggestions by CBP and association officials, and the labor union 

representing CBP officers to gain insights on initiatives. 14 We reviewed 

CBP’s reports on its performance goals and measures for the initiatives 

and reviewed performance results, including wait times and traveler 

satisfaction survey results, at the 17 airports for fiscal years 2014 through 

2016.

To examine how CBP and stakeholders manage staff to facilitate the 

traveler entry process at U.S. international airports, we analyzed CBP 

data on CBP officer staffing and funding spent on overtime and 

reimbursable service agreements, if applicable, at the 17 airports for fiscal 

years 2014 through 2016. We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) 

performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and 

completeness, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the 

system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We obtained 

information from selected airports to gain a better understanding of the 

 13From March 2016 through November 2016, we conducted site visits at 11 airports, 

including Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW), Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Fort LauderdaleHollywood International Airport (FLL), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), 

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), 

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Orlando International Airport (MCO), Miami 

International Airport (MIA), Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). During this period, we 

also interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline representatives at 4 airports, 

including Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW), Honolulu International Airport 

(HNL), Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD), and Seattle-Tacoma International 

Airport (SEA).

14The eight travel and tourism industry associations were Airlines for America, Airports 

Council International, American Association of Airport Executives, BrandUSA, Enterprise 

Rent-A-Car, International Air Transport Association, Universal Parks and Resorts, and 

U.S. Travel Association. The National Treasury Employees Union is the labor union 

representing CBP officers.
Page 6 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

various factors that affect staffing and how CBP and stakeholders 

manage staff. We interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline 

representatives at these airports, as well as CBP officials at 

headquarters, the eight travel and tourism industry associations, and the 

labor union representing CBP officers, to gain insights on staffing.

To examine the extent to which CBP has mechanisms to monitor and 

report wait times at U.S. international airports, we analyzed CBP airport 

wait time data for the 17 airports from May 2013 through August 2016. 15

We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) performing electronic 

testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing 

existing information about the data and the system that produced them, 

and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. We also obtained information from selected airports to gain a 

better understanding of the various factors that affect CBP airport wait 

times and interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline representatives 

at these airports. We also interviewed DHS Science and Technology 

Directorate (S&T) officials, CBP officials at headquarters, officials from 

the eight travel and tourism industry associations, and the labor union 

representing CBP officers to gain insights on wait time calculations and 

reporting. We compared this information against CBP performance goals 

and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

16 See 

appendix I for a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 15We selected this time frame to be able to analyze over 3 full years of data, including four 

peak summer travel seasons.

16GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014). 
Page 7 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

According to Commerce and DHS, the United States saw an increase of 

19 million international travelers annually between 2011 and 2015, and 

additional spending by these travelers during this period supported 

280,000 new American jobs. 17 In fiscal year 2015, CBP officers 

processed more than 382 million travelers at air, land, and sea POEs, an 

increase of two percent from 2014. According to CBP, of the 382 million 

travelers who arrived in fiscal year 2015, more than 112 million 

international travelers arrived at U.S. airports, an increase of over five 

percent from 2014. In addition, according to CBP, international air travel

experienced an estimated 28 percent growth from 2009 to 2015.

According to reports from the Executive Office of the President and 

industry stakeholders, wait times for travelers processed by CBP and 

their overall travel experiences can have an impact on U.S. airports and 

airlines in domestic and international markets. Reducing wait times can 

help prevent missed flight connections for travelers, lower airline costs, 

and attract business to airports. Travelers can immediately share their 

experiences with the public through social media platforms, such as 

Twitter and Facebook, and can share compliments or complaints about 

long wait times or negative interactions with CBP officers. This could 

impact their and other travelers’ plans to travel to the United States, 

making the perception of CBP’s operations important to the travel 

industry.

Travelers undergo a multi-step inspection process upon arrival at U.S. 

international airports. After a plane from a foreign airport arrives at a U.S. 

airport terminal, the plane blocks, or parks at a terminal gate, and 

travelers exit the plane into a sterile corridor that may include other gates 

for international arrivals but is generally separate from travelers arriving 

on domestic flights.18 At the end of the sterile corridor, travelers enter the 

Federal Inspection Service (FIS) area, which is a secure area of the 

 17Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security, Supporting Travel 

and Tourism to Grow Our Economy and Create More Jobs: A National Goal on the 

International Arrivals Process and Airport-Specific Action Plans, Report to the President

(Washington, D.C.: February 2015).

18Travelers arriving on domestic flights (i.e., those originating in the United States) do not 

undergo the CBP inspection process. 

Background

Overview of International 

Air Travel Environment

CBP’s Inspection Process 

for International Arrivals
Page 8 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

airport where CBP inspects travelers applying for admission to the United 

States. 19 Once in the FIS area, travelers are generally directed by 

signage and officials from the airport, an airline, or CBP officers who work 

in the FIS area to queue for inspection by CBP. The manner in which 

travelers proceed through the FIS area varies by airport, but generally 

travelers are queued by immigration or citizenship status type, such as 

U.S. citizens, Lawful Permanent Residents, Canadian citizens, and B1/B2 

visa holders. 20

CBP’s international arrivals process incorporates automated technology 

to help expedite travelers at passport control. Travelers must clear 

passport control, also referred to as primary inspection, where CBP 

officers inspect their travel documents and travelers are to declare any 

items required by law before they can be admitted into the United 

States. 21 Travelers whose admissibility cannot be initially determined are 

referred for a more intensive, or secondary, inspection. After passport 

control, travelers enter the baggage claim area to retrieve their checked 

luggage. Once travelers retrieve their luggage, they must pass a final exit 

control checkpoint. At any point during the process, a CBP officer can 

refer a traveler to secondary inspection. In secondary inspection, CBP 

officers can further inspect the traveler’s travel documents and baggage. 

After passing exit control, travelers exit the FIS area into a non-sterile part 

of the airport terminal or to ground or airport transportation. Travelers can 

exit the airport or re-enter the sterile area of the airport through the 

Transportation Security Administration security checkpoint to make a 

connecting flight. 22 Figure 1 shows the inspection process for travelers 

arriving at U.S. international airports.

 19See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a); 8 C.F.R. § 235.1.

20B visitor visas are for persons who seek to enter the United States temporarily under 

nonimmigrant categories for business (visa category B-1) or pleasure (visa category B-2). 

B-1/B-2 visa recipients are initially admitted to the United States for not more than 1 year 

and may be authorized by DHS to extend their stay in increments of up to 6 months each. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(b).

21Travelers must declare any agricultural items, such as produce or meat, and currency 

valued over $10,000 U.S. dollars. See, generally, 19 U.S.C. § 1498; 31 U.S.C. § 5316; 19 

C.F.R. §§ 122.27, 148.12, 148.13, 148.110, 148.111.

22See 49 C.F.R. § 1540.5 (defining terms, including “sterile area,” for purposes of civil 

aviation security regulations).
Page 9 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 1: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air Traveler Inspection Process

In addition to CBP, other government agencies and private entities are 

stakeholders in the international arrivals process at U.S. international 

airports. These stakeholders can include a unit of the local government, 

such as airport authorities, domestic and foreign airlines, terminal 

operators who manage a terminal on behalf of local governments, the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and law enforcement 

agencies, among others. For example, at John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK) in New York, which has five international arrivals terminals, 

three terminals are managed by individual airlines, one terminal is 

managed by a terminal operator, and one terminal is operated by an 

association of four airlines that use the terminal. The entity that manages 

the airport or international arrivals terminal(s) maintains the facility and 

must work with CBP to meet its standards for airport design and operation 

laid out in CBP’s Airport Technical Design Standard, and meet all other 

federal regulations. While CBP maintains control over most aspects of the 

FIS area, it relies on the managing entity for infrastructure changes, 

retractable belts and stanchions used to help queue passengers for 

inspection, and most signage in the FIS area, among other items.

In January 2006, the Department of State (State) and DHS established a 

joint effort to help streamline the international arrivals process and 

facilitate travel for legitimate travelers. In 2007, CBP launched the pilot 

Model Ports program at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and 

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD). Following this effort, the 

program was formalized under the Implementing Recommendations of 

the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which mandated that the Secretary of 

Stakeholders in the 

International Arrivals 

Process

Model Ports Program
Page 10 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Homeland Security establish a model ports of entry program for the 

purpose of providing a more efficient and welcoming international arrivals 

process in order to facilitate and promote business and tourism travel to 

the United States, while also improving security.23 This act required CBP 

to include program elements that would enhance queue management in 

the FIS area leading to primary inspection, assist foreign travelers once 

they have been admitted, and offer instructional videos in English and 

other languages, as deemed appropriate, in the FIS area to explain the 

inspection process and feature welcome videos. 24 In addition, a portion of 

CBP’s fiscal year 2008 appropriation was made available for the agency 

to implement the program at the 20 U.S. airports with the highest number 

of annual foreign visitors as of 2007 and hire 200 additional officers for 

the 20 busiest U.S. international airports.25

In 2008, CBP expanded the Model Ports program to an additional 18 

airports. According to OFO officials, OFO designed the program to 

welcome travelers to the United States and streamline the international 

arrivals process by improving training, signage, and using technology to 

facilitate entry. OFO collaborated with other DHS components, 

interagency government partners, and private and public stakeholders to 

develop and implement solutions that would facilitate travelers. The goals 

of the Model Ports program were to (1) ensure that passengers entering 

the United States were welcomed by CBP officers who treat them with 

respect and understanding; (2) provide the right information to help 

travelers, at the right time and in a hospitable manner; (3) create a calm, 

pleasant waiting area; and (4) streamline the customs process. During the 

Model Ports program, CBP sought to provide international travelers with 

more helpful information on what to expect, how to request help, and 

where to submit their comments or concerns.

Among other things, the Model Ports program implemented a customer 

service professionalism program; improved wait time monitoring and 

reporting; improved diplomatic arrival processes and dedicated diplomatic 

processing lanes; formalized CBP’s coordination with stakeholders 

 23See Pub. L. No. 110-53, tit. VII, subtit. C, § 725, 121 Stat. at 350-51 (classified at 8 

U.S.C. § 1752a). The program was to be initially implemented at the 20 U.S. international 

airports that had the highest number of annual arrivals from abroad as of August 3, 2007. 

See id. § 1752a(a)(2).

24See id. § 1752a(b).

25153 Cong. Rec. at H16081.
Page 11 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

regularly to discuss shared responsibilities; set goals and monitored 

progress; implemented audio and video technology in the queuing area of 

passport control; and developed new signage. CBP worked to enhance 

its queue management techniques and began to implement other traveler 

facilitation programs and technologies, which are discussed later in this 

report. In its final report to Congress on the Model Ports program in 2010, 

CBP highlighted program accomplishments, including employee training, 

recognizing employee exemplary performance, disseminating entry 

requirements to international travelers via CBP’s website, and developing 

the Airport Wait Time Console to allow CBP management to review and 

analyze data on arriving international flights and wait times, among other 

accomplishments. While the program ended in 2010, OFO continued to 

implement the elements of the program as standard practices across all 

U.S. international airports.

In 2012, the President announced the National Travel and Tourism 

Strategy for expanding travel to and within the United States. This 

strategy established a goal of attracting 100 million international visitors to 

the United States annually by 2021 to generate an estimated $250 billion 

on an annual basis. The strategy included instructions for federal 

agencies the strategy identified as taking part in the travel and tourism 

industry, including instructions for monitoring and evaluating results by, 

among other things, developing key performance metrics and 

accountability measures to evaluate progress on goals and identifying 

issues needing corrective action.26 In May 2014, the President issued a 

Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretaries of Commerce and 

Homeland Security to establish a national goal and develop airportspecific action plans to enhance the arrivals process for international 

travelers to the United States. In February 2015, Commerce and DHS 

released a report to the President that defined a national goal to “provide 

a best-in-class international arrivals experience, as compared to global 

competitors, to an ever-increasing number of international visitors while 

maintaining the highest standards of national security.” Commerce and 

DHS developed this goal through consultation with leaders from the 

 26The strategy identified the following lead federal agencies: Army Corps of Engineers, 

Commerce, Department of Agriculture, Department of Interior, Department of Labor,

Department of Transportation, DHS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Small Business Administration, and State.

The National Travel and 

Tourism Strategy
Page 12 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

airline industry, airport authorities, state and local governments, and other 

customer service industry leaders. 27

CBP and Commerce worked to establish the metrics and processes 

necessary to support ongoing improvement directed in the President’s 

strategy. For example, CBP worked with airports, airlines, and industry 

associations to develop airport-specific action plans for the 17 busiest 

U.S. international airports that included steps to drive innovation and 

increase security while streamlining the entry process. As shown in figure 

2, these 17 airports include all Model Ports program airports except 

McCarran International Airport (LAS) in Las Vegas; Orlando Sanford 

International Airport (SFB) in Sanford, Florida; and San Juan-Luis Munoz 

Marin International Airport (SJU) in Puerto Rico; and accounted for over 

73 percent of all international travelers to the United States in 2014. 28

CBP updates the action plans and reports on performance metrics 

quarterly and makes these updates available on its public website. 29 For 

these airports, CBP publishes metrics, such as average monthly travel 

volume and wait times, through terminal-level informational “dashboards.”

In addition, Commerce and DHS established a new interagency task 

force, co-chaired by the Deputy Secretaries of Homeland Security and 

Commerce, to engage with industry stakeholders to identify the key 

factors that drive a traveler’s perception of the international arrivals 

 27Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security, Supporting Travel 

and Tourism to Grow Our Economy and Create More Jobs: A National Goal on the 

International Arrivals Process and Airport-Specific Action Plans, Report to the President

(Washington, D.C.: February 2015). 

28Of the 17 busiest U.S. international airports, some airports are designated by law as 

international airports, while others are designated as landing rights airports. An 

“international airport” is any airport designated as a port of entry for (1) aircraft and 

merchandise thereon, arriving in the United States from outside the country; (2) foreign 

nationals arriving on such aircraft; and (3) quarantine inspection. A “landing rights airport”

is any airport, other than an international or user fee airport, at which flights from a foreign 

area are given permission to land by CBP. See 19 C.F.R. §§ 122.1, 122.11-.15; 8 C.F.R. 

§§ 234.1, 234.4. Aircraft arriving at international airports must, among other things, submit 

an electronic manifest and notice of arrival to CBP prior to landing (19 C.F.R. §§ 122.22, 

122.31, 122.48-.49c; 8 C.F.R. § 234.2), while aircraft arriving at landing rights airports 

must request permission to land from the CBP Port Director or his or her representative in 

addition to submitting an electronic manifest and notice of intended arrival (19 C.F.R. §§ 

122.1(f), 122.14; 8 C.F.R. § 234.1(c)). For both international and landing rights airports, 

CBP has the authority to designate its operating hours for inspection services.

29CBP’s travel and tourism website is available at 

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/travel-tourism (accessed Dec. 21, 2016).
Page 13 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

experience and decision to travel to the United States, among other 

things.

Figure 2: Map of the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports and Legacy U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Model Ports 

Program Airports in the United States
Page 14 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

CBP and airport and airline stakeholders jointly implement a number of 

travel and tourism facilitation initiatives at U.S. international airports. In 

general, to implement these initiatives, CBP develops the requirements or 

standards for initiatives, approves the implementation, determines which 

travelers are eligible to use them, and transmits traveler data to its 

systems that it uses to conduct inspections.

Figure 3 provides a description of CBP airport travel and tourism 

facilitation initiatives being implemented by CBP and stakeholders at U.S. 

international airports as of the end of fiscal year 2016, including initiatives

begun under the Model Ports program.

CBP Has 

Collaborated with 

Stakeholders to 

Facilitate Traveler 

Entry and 

Implementation of 

Travel Initiatives 

Varies by Airport

CBP and Stakeholders 

Jointly Implement Travel 

and Tourism Facilitation 

Initiatives at U.S. 

International Airports
Page 15 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Source: GAO analysis of CBP information; GAO, CBP, Chicago Department of Aviation (photos). | GAO-17-470

Automated Passport Control (APC) 

Program that allows eligible travelers to use a self-service kiosk to scan 

their passport, take a photograph, and answer a series of questions to 

verify biographic and flight information during the CBP inspections 

process. The kiosks issue a receipt to travelers, who bring their receipts 

and their passports to a CBP officer to finalize their inspection.

Baggage first 

New process at Federal Inspection Service (FIS) areas in new terminals 

that allows travelers to claim their checked baggage before completing 

passport control, eliminating the exit control point. None of the 17 busiest 

U.S. international airports have implemented baggage first yet.

Diplomatic processing lanes 

Designated lanes at passport control for diplomats and foreign dignitaries 

to expedite the CBP inspections process. These lanes were first 

established during the Model Ports program.

Electronic signage and multimedia 

Television monitors that display signs and multimedia that detail what 

travelers can expect when they arrive in the FIS area and welcome 

travelers to the United States, among other messages. CBP initially 

installed the television monitors at the 20 Model Ports program airports in 

2006 and 2007. Since then, CBP and airport stakeholders have continued 

to provide television monitors.

Enhanced queuing 

Process by which travelers queue in serpentine lines and are directed to 

the next available booth or kiosk by a queue manager, rather than 

individually selecting a parallel line to complete the CBP inspections 

process. 

Express Connection 

Program that facilitates the processing of travelers with closely scheduled 

connecting flights. Participating airlines identify and direct travelers to 

specially designated booths at passport control to reduce the number of 

missed connections.

Global Entry 

Program that expedites the inspections process for preapproved, low-risk 

travelers. Travelers use self-service kiosks to scan their passports or U.S. 

permanent resident cards, submit their fingerprints, and complete their 

customs declaration.

International to International baggage program 

Pilot program in which airports forward the baggage of travelers en-route 

to a foreign destination to the departing aircraft so that they do not claim 

their baggage in the FIS area. 

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 

Program in which travelers can use an application on their mobile device 

to populate and submit their passport information, customs questions, 

and upload a self-photo prior to entering the FIS area. Travelers scan 

their mobile device with a CBP officer to complete the inspections 

process at passport control. 

Modified egress 

Pilot program that modifies the CBP exit control checkpoint in the FIS 

area. After being inspected at passport control and retrieving their 

baggage, travelers can leave the FIS area unless stopped by a CBP 

officer monitoring the baggage claim area.

One Stop 

Process that expedites the movement of international travelers that are 

either en-route to a foreign destination at an airport that has the 

International to International baggage program or that have no checked 

baggage to claim. These travelers use an expedited lane at passport 

control and a separate exit out of the FIS, allowing them to bypass 

baggage claim and the exit control point.

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) program 

Focuses on professionalism standards and customer service within CBP 

and with the public and external stakeholders at each U.S. international 

airport. Each U.S. international airport has at least one PSM that 

promotes awareness of CBP’s mission and manages and responds to 

compliments, complaints, and other feedback at the airport.

Reimbursable Services Program fee agreements

Subject to certain criteria, CBP is authorized to enter into reimbursable 

service agreements to cover costs, including overtime, associated with 

customs, immigration inspection-related, border security, and agricultural 

processing services at ports of entry.

Stakeholder meetings

At least monthly meetings with all of CBP’s airport stakeholders to 

discuss shared responsibilities, goal setting, and progress monitoring. 

CBP’s airport stakeholders include airline station managers and airport 

managers. These meetings began during the Model Ports program and 

continue today.

Variable Message Signage 

Electronic monitors that provide wayfinding direction and additional 

information to assist travelers in determining how to proceed through the 

FIS area.

Interactive graphic Figure 3: Description of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Travel and Tourism Facilitation 

Initiatives at U.S. International Airports

Move mouse over initiative names to see a photo of the initiative. For noninteractive version, see app. II.
Page 16 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Stakeholders, such as airport and terminal operators, choose which 

initiatives to implement and pay for most of the initiatives and associated 

infrastructure and maintenance costs. For example, CBP provides the 

technical and business requirements for Automated Passport Control 

(APC) kiosks, including requiring stakeholders to coordinate with CBP, 

specifying that they are to communicate and receive secure messages, 

and requiring that they meet language requirements, among others. In 

turn, stakeholders are responsible for any remodeling of the FIS facility, 

purchasing the kiosks, maintaining the kiosks (including replenishing 

paper), and providing the necessary infrastructure, such as Ethernet 

cabling and power connection.

As shown in figure 4, CBP and stakeholders have rolled out the 

implementation of initiatives at U.S. international airports beginning in 

2006 through the present.
Page 17 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 4: Timeline of Implementation of Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives from 2006 through 2015

Note: Figure reflects when initiatives were first implemented and does not reflect expansion to

additional airports.

Various airport-specific factors can affect whether and how airports 

implement travel and tourism facilitation initiatives. These factors include 

the size and layout of the FIS facility, the infrastructure needed to support 

initiatives in the FIS facility, the willingness and ability of the airport 

stakeholders to pay for initiatives or pay for infrastructure to support them, 

and stakeholder discretion in how best to implement initiatives.

Some terminals do not have the appropriate infrastructure, size, or layout 

to support the implementation of initiatives in the FIS facility. For example, 

Various Airport-specific 

Factors Affect the 

Implementation of Travel 

and Tourism Facilitation 

Initiatives
Page 18 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

during our site visits we observed APC kiosks located inside the FIS area 

in some terminals and in sterile corridors at other terminals, based on 

space constraints. We also observed APC kiosks in different 

configurations, including single and multiple columns, due to the size and 

layout of FIS areas and sterile corridors. In addition, according to CBP 

officials, not all airports have the space available to create a separate exit 

for travelers who could utilize One Stop, and the current Airport Technical 

Design Standard, which was established in 2012, does not allow for easy 

transitions to a baggage first concept. Finally, while MPC remains in the 

pilot phase and CBP continues to roll it out among U.S. international 

airports, the initiative requires internet connectivity, meaning the traveler 

needs either data on their cell phone or wireless internet connection. 

Some airports have taken steps to provide free wireless internet access 

to enable MPC to be implemented.30

As previously discussed, airport authorities, airlines, and terminal 

operators have the option of implementing initiatives at the airport or 

terminal depending on the airport. According to stakeholders that we 

spoke with during our site visits, one deciding factor is the willingness and 

ability of the airport stakeholders to pay for initiatives or infrastructure to 

support them, except Global Entry which is paid for by CBP user fees.31

Some of the initiatives, such as APC kiosks, can be costly because they 

require infrastructure changes, hardware investment and maintenance, 

and personnel to support them, while others, such as MPC, are less 

costly because a third-party provides the mobile phone application and 

the airport or terminal operator pays for phone scanners and wireless 

internet access. The airport’s status as a destination or a hub airport can 

also impact stakeholder decisions to invest in these initiatives. A 

destination airport is an airport where most travelers plan to stay in the 

region and do not have a connecting flight. A hub airport is an airport 

where most travelers connect to another airport in the United States or 

abroad to complete their trip. According to officials that we spoke with 

during our site visits, stakeholders generally have an incentive to pay for 

the initiatives at a destination airport so travelers have a welcoming 

experience and choose to spend time at in-airport retailors, while 

stakeholders generally have an incentive to pay for the initiatives at hub 

 30As of the end of fiscal year 2016, MPC had been implemented at 20 airports (including 

some airports that are not included in the 17 busiest U.S. international airports, such as 

Denver International Airport).

31See 8 C.F.R. § 235.12 (Global Entry program).
Page 19 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

airports to ensure that travelers make their connecting flights. For 

example, airlines implement the Express Connection and International to 

International baggage programs at hub airports to assist travelers in 

making their connecting flights, which helps with traveler satisfaction and 

prevents the airlines from incurring rebooking costs.

The implementation of some of the initiatives can also vary by terminal or 

airport. For some initiatives, implementing partners have more discretion 

over how they are implemented, which allows stakeholders to implement 

their own design preferences. For example, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne 

County Airport (DTW) and Miami International Airport (MIA) are piloting 

the modified egress initiative differently. In Detroit, which is a one-level 

FIS facility, travelers exiting the FIS area are slowed by a serpentine flow 

and CBP officers retrieve the baggage of travelers who are referred to 

secondary inspection.32 At Miami North Terminal, which is a two-level FIS 

facility, travelers who are referred to secondary inspection are segregated 

from cleared travelers by Plexiglas barriers immediately after primary 

inspection so that they can proceed to retrieve their own baggage from 

the secure side of the Plexiglas barrier and then self-report at secondary 

inspection, as shown in figure 5.

 32In a one-level FIS facility, all CBP processing activities occur on one level. On a twolevel FIS facility, CBP processing activities are split between two levels. Generally 

passport control or primary inspection occurs on the top level and baggage claim and exit 

control occurs on the lower level.
Page 20 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 5: Modified Egress at Miami International Airport (MIA) North Terminal

Note: The photo on the left shows the Plexiglas barrier in the baggage claim area. The photo on the 

right shows the U.S. Customs and Border Protection exit area. The North Terminal is also known as 

Terminal D.

Another initiative that varies across airports and terminals is the use of 

color-coded signage and queueing, as shown in figure 6. 33 For example, 

three terminals at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) use colorcoded signage, but all use different color schemes to identify different 

traveler types and technology initiatives, and only one of these terminals 

also uses color-coded retractable belts to complement the color-coded 

signage. Similarly, the color scheme at MIA North Terminal, also known 

as Terminal D, is different than the color scheme at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW). Because color-coded signage is not a CBPled initiative, implementing partners have more flexibility to implement this 

initiative how they prefer.

 33Other than official CBP signage, the airport authority or terminal operator is responsible 

for providing all signage and stanchions or retractable belts in the FIS.
Page 21 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 6: Color-coded Signage at Miami International Airport (MIA) North Terminal and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

(DFW)

Note: MIA North Terminal, also known as Terminal D is shown on the left. DFW is shown on the right.

Another example of variation across airports is the different versions of 

the APC kiosks that vary depending on the vendor that the airport 

chooses and in which phase the airport implemented the kiosks, as 

shown in figure 7. In addition to private vendors, airport authorities such 

as Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) and George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport (IAH) have developed their own APC kiosks to 

generate revenue. 34 CBP has rolled out the APC program in four phases 

of eligible users, to include: (1) U.S. citizens, (2) Canadian citizens, (3) 

U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents, and (4) B1/B2 visa holders. 35 As a 

result, APC is at phase four in some airports, while in phase one, two, or 

three at other airports.

 34Regardless of the vendor, all APC kiosks must follow CBP’s APC technical and 

business design standards, discussed above. 

35B visitor visas are for persons who seek to enter the United States temporarily under 

nonimmigrant categories for business (visa category B-1) or pleasure (visa category B-2). 

B-1/B-2 visa recipients are initially admitted to the United States for not more than 1 year 

and may be authorized by DHS to extend their stay in increments of up to 6 months each. 

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(b).
Page 22 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 7: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosks at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW) and George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

Note: The photo on the left was taken at DFW. The photo of the right was taken at IAH.

In addition, according to OFO officials, CBP plans to update its Airport 

Technical Design Standard to include, among other things, a baggage 

first concept for all new airport facilities built in the future. As previously 

discussed, this process allows travelers to claim their checked baggage 

before completing passport control, modifying the CBP exit control 

checkpoint. New facilities at smaller airports, Austin-Bergstrom 

International Airport (AUS) and Houston Hobby International Airport 

(HOU), have incorporated this process into the design. However, this 

update to the Airport Technical Design Standard would not have an 

impact on existing facilities, and due to infrastructure constraints and 

current FIS area configurations with baggage carousels located between 

passport control and exit control, the baggage first concept is not possible 

for many existing facilities. The modified egress pilot program is more 

flexible than the baggage first concept in that it does not require 

significant infrastructure modifications, such as moving the baggage 

carousels before passport control. CBP launched its modified egress pilot 

program for existing facilities to streamline the inspection process, which 

as previously discussed, modifies the CBP exit control checkpoint in the 

FIS area. Five terminals at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports have 
Page 23 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

piloted modified egress, and their implementation varies based on their 

specific infrastructure constraints. Figure 8 below shows the evolution of 

the CBP air traveler inspection process from the current process to 

modified egress to baggage first.
Page 24 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 8: Evolution of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air Traveler Inspection Process

Table 1 includes these additional stakeholder initiatives, such as colorcoded queuing and signage and expected wait time monitors in the FIS, 
Page 25 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

and provides information on the prevalence of airport travel and tourism 

facilitation initiatives at the 31 terminals in the 17 busiest U.S. 

international airports. As of the end of fiscal year 2016, the 31 terminals at 

the 17 busiest U.S. international airports had a total of 1,014 APC kiosks 

and 408 Global Entry kiosks to help facilitate CBP processing of travelers 

for primary inspection, based on CBP data.

Table 1: Airport Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 31 Terminals in the 

17 Busiest U.S. International Airports as of the End of Fiscal Year 2016a

Initiative Number of 

International 

Terminals or Airports

Automated Passport Control (APC) 29 terminals

Baggage first 0 terminalsb

Color-coded queuing and signagec 12 terminals

Dedicated crew lanesc 29 terminals

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 30 terminals

Electronic signage and multimedia 31 terminals

Express Connection 21 terminals

Enhanced queueing 24 terminals

Global Entry 31 terminals

International to International baggage program 10 terminals

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 24 terminals

Modified egress 5 terminalsd

One Stop 8 terminals

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 17 airports

Expected wait time monitor in passport control areac 1 terminale

Expected wait time monitor in exit controlc 1 terminal

Reimbursable services program fee agreement (Section 559) 8 airports

Reimbursable services program fee agreement (Section 560) 3 airports

Stakeholder meetings 17 airports

Variable Message Signage 10 terminals

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. | GAO-17-470

a

According to CBP, the 17 busiest U.S. international airports are (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL); (2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); (5) Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7) Honolulu 

International Airport (HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport (IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); (11) Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX); (12) Orlando International Airport (MCO); (13) Miami International Airport 

(MIA); (14) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD); (15) Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); 

(16) Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA); and (17) San Francisco International Airport (SFO). 

In most cases, the information in the table is provided by number of terminals rather than by number 
Page 26 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

of airports because some airports have more than one international arrivals terminal and may have 

separate terminal operators responsible for infrastructure and other investments.

b

According to CBP officials, baggage first is not possible for many existing facilities due to 

infrastructure constraints and current FIS area configurations with baggage carousels located 

between passport control and exit control. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) and 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) plan to implement it at new FIS facilities in 2018 and 2019 

respectively, according to CBP officials.

c

Denotes the initiative is an airport-driven initiative and not an official CBP initiative.

d

According to CBP officials, CBP is piloting modified egress at select airports because it is in the 

process of evaluating the impact, if any, on enforcement actions. Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW) plans to pilot modified egress in 2017.

e

According to officials from John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 4’s operator, the 

terminal operator, a nongovernmental entity, paid for the expected wait time monitoring system to 

collect wait time data during the entire arrivals process. According to CBP officials, CBP allowed it to 

display monitors that provide expected wait times for passport control to international travelers.

See appendix III for additional information about the implementation of 

initiatives at international arrivals terminals at the 17 busiest U.S. 

international airports.

OFO has developed two internal airport travel facilitation goals: (1) 

improving customer service levels for international arrivals and (2) 

maintaining or reducing wait times. According to CBP, it evaluates 

progress towards its goal of improving customer service levels for 

international arrivals through its traveler satisfaction surveys and 

stakeholder feedback on how CBP can improve the parts of the arrivals 

process that are under CBP’s control, its dashboards for the 17 busiest 

U.S. international airports, online comment cards inputted into CBP’s 

Complaint/Compliment Management System, and input from 

stakeholders. CBP’s most recent traveler satisfaction survey in 2016 

suggested there was an association between reported wait times and 

traveler satisfaction, and the percentage of survey respondents who felt 

their process time was short or reasonable was 96 percent. In addition, 

the 2016 survey report suggested that there was an association between 

perceptions of officer professionalism and traveler satisfaction, and the 

percentage of survey respondents who felt satisfied with CBP officers 

was 96 percent. Further, each airport’s PSM receives and is to review 

comments from the Complaint/Compliment Management System and 

work with CBP officials at headquarters and his or her airport to address 

comments and complaints. Additionally, PSMs can address traveler 

complaints and compliments in person on the scene of an incident that 

has occurred during the CBP inspection process, or through telephone or 

email after the traveler has left the airport.

CBP Has Implemented 

Mechanisms to Assess 

and Obtain Feedback on 

the Traveler Experience
Page 27 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

OFO measures progress towards its goal of maintaining or reducing wait 

times, as we discuss later in this report, by monitoring wait times, holding 

monthly meetings, and conducting studies, among other things.36 OFO 

officials said that they have met its goal to maintain or reduce wait times 

based on OFO’s analysis of wait time data that OFO said shows that its 

wait times decreased more than three percent in 2015 despite a five 

percent increase in traveler volume. In addition, officials said that OFO’s 

analysis of wait time data shows that international arrivals increased by 

six percent in fiscal year 2016 but wait times were about the same as in 

2015. CBP attributes meeting its wait time goal to the implementation of 

technology initiatives such as APC kiosks which expedite passport control 

for eligible travelers.

According to CBP headquarters officials, the agency uses the Workload 

Staffing Model (WSM) to help determine staffing requirements and make 

allocation decisions for CBP officers at POEs, including airports. As part 

of its Resource Optimization Strategy, the WSM is an analytical, datadriven staffing tool designed to inform CBP officer allocation decisions 

 36According to CBP officials, while CBP has a goal of maintaining or reducing wait times, 

the agency does not have a specific wait time goal because it could impair CBP’s primary 

security and safety functions.

CBP Allocates and 

Manages Staff Using 

Various Tools and 

Stakeholders Provide 

Resources to Help 

Facilitate the Traveler 

Entry Process

CBP Uses the Workload 

Staffing Model to Allocate 

Staff to POEs
Page 28 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

regarding current and future officer staffing at POEs. 37 CBP conducts 

WSM calculations annually and publishes its CBP-wide calculation for all 

of its POEs in its annual reports to Congress.38 CBP officials at 

headquarters conduct the calculations for each POE within a field office 

and provide this information to the field office annually when it allocates 

new officers. The port director has discretion to determine how to allocate 

officers among his or her ports within the POE. Headquarters officials do 

not direct port directors on how to manage staffing allocations to the 

ports.

In determining staffing needs at the POEs, the WSM takes into account 

the frequency of all key CBP officer activities; the processing time to 

complete each activity; available hours per officer; port-specific factors 

required to ensure coverage; and future requirements related to new 

facilities, technologies, or service requirements. 39 The estimated process 

time for each POE accounts for different risk factors among the POE, the 

additional workload created when officers send a traveler to secondary 

inspection, and the impact of travel facilitation initiatives, such as APC 

and MPC on processing time. Officials who conduct the calculations must 

also manually enter data to ensure coverage of exit control at airports, for 

which CBP does not track process time or wait time.

 37CBP’s Resource Optimization Strategy has three prongs, which include the WSM; 

business transformation initiatives, which save CBP workload resources (such as APC 

kiosks, which conduct administrative tasks so that officers can focus on security); and 

alternative sources of funding, such as Reimbursable Services Program fee agreements

which are discussed later in this report. CBP developed the WSM in 2006 and continues 

to enhance it each year, according to CBP officials. CBP developed its Resource 

Optimization Strategy in response to conference and committee reports accompanying the 

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L. No. 112-74, div. D, 

125 Stat. 786, 943-85 (2011)), which directed CBP to report on its allocation of CBP 

officers, and update its POE staffing model. See Conference Report, H.R. Rep. No. 112-

331, at 958 (Dec. 15, 2011); H.R. Rep. No. 112-91, at 28 (May 26, 2011); S. Rep. No. 

112-74, at 31 (Sept. 7, 2011).

38Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Resource 

Optimization at Ports of Entry: Fiscal Year 2015 Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: 

May 13, 2015).

39According to OFO officials who manage the WSM, key CBP officer activities include 

functions outside of traveler processing, such as cargo, mail, and enforcement operations. 

CBP uses data it collects over the course of a year from its Enterprise Management 

Information System to inform its WSM calculations. CBP estimates that the total number 

of available hours per CBP officer each year is 1,182 hours, which excludes time for 

training, annual leave, sick leave, and holidays. 
Page 29 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

In addition, CBP officials at headquarters add on allocation of core 

overtime (which is discussed later in this section), projected officers 

needed for new facilities, and changes to account for growth in traveler 

volume and use of business transformation initiatives such as APC. For 

example, when a new FIS facility is built, the field office develops an 

estimate of projected workload to give to CBP headquarters. These addon calculations can increase or decrease the total number of officers 

needed based on the WSM calculation. For example, an airport that is 

opening a new terminal in the next year may need additional officers as a 

result of the add-on calculation, but an airport that implemented APC 

kiosks in the previous year may need fewer officers as a result of the addon calculation. While these additional factors are not included in the WSM 

calculation, officials at headquarters have developed a methodology to 

provide an estimate of additional or fewer officers needed at the POE 

based on prior experience. This is added to the WSM calculation. Figure 

9 describes these calculations.

Figure 9: Description of How U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Uses its Workload Staffing Model (WSM) and Other 

Calculations to Determine Staffing Needs

In 2014, the DHS Office of Inspector General conducted a review of the 

reliability of the WSM in determining the number of CBP officers needed 

to fulfill CBP mission requirements.40 The DHS Office of Inspector 

General found that the WSM had a sound methodology to determine its 

officer staffing needs and to identify staffing shortages, but made 

 40Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s Workload Staffing Model, OIG-14-117 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 

2014).
Page 30 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

recommendations to strengthen the internal controls over the model.41

CBP concurred with the recommendations and plans to complete steps to 

implement them by December 2016.

According to CBP’s Assistant Commissioner for Human Resources 

Management, staffing is one of the most prominent challenges facing the 

agency. CBP needs an additional 2,107 officers for fiscal year 2017 

across all POEs, according to CBP’s Deputy Assistant Commissioner. 

While a portion of CBP’s fiscal year 2014 appropriation was made 

available for hiring at least 2,000 new CBP officers to help address 

staffing needs, the agency has been able to hire and onboard a net 

increase of 1,135 officers due to attrition and hiring challenges, according 

to CBP officials. 42 According to CBP officials, these challenges include 

competition from other federal and state law enforcement agencies and a 

lengthy hiring and onboarding process that includes polygraph tests and 

several months of training. CBP is studying these hiring challenges and 

taking steps to address them. For example, according to CBP’s Assistant 

Commissioner for Human Resources Management, CBP has begun 

initiatives aimed at decreasing the amount of time it takes for an applicant 

to complete the hiring process, increased the number of recruiting events, 

and coordinated with the Department of Defense to recruit qualified 

veterans and individuals separating from military service.

As shown in table 2, OFO supervisors at the airports use a variety of 

tools, overtime, and other strategies to manage staffing daily, weekly, and 

seasonally at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports.

 41DHS Office of Inspector General recommended that CBP (1) establish written 

procedures; (2) develop a systematic process to approve changes and additions and 

periodically evaluate WSM inputs and assumptions; and (3) conduct an independent 

verification and validation of the automated version of the WSM. We did not conduct an 

evaluation of the WSM to determine its usefulness or accuracy as an officer staffing 

allocation tool during this review.

42See Explanatory Statement accompanying Division F—Department of Homeland 

Security Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. F, 128 Stat. 5, 247-89), 160 

Cong. Rec. H475, H928 (daily ed. Jan. 15, 2014). CBP hired and brought onboard over 

2,400 CBP officers during fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016, but the net increase of CBP 

officers is 1,135 due to attrition from separations, retirements, and CBP officers moving to 

non-officer positions within CBP.

CBP Uses Tools, 

Overtime, and Other 

Strategies to Manage Staff 

at Airports
Page 31 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 2: Tools Used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to Manage Staff at the 17 Busiest U.S. International 

Airports

Tool Description

Automated Scheduling 

Tool

The tool is an automated system CBP is piloting at the San Diego International Airport (SAN) that schedules 

and tracks staff for their regular shifts and overtime, and accounts for reimbursable services fees in real-time, 

among other activities. The tool is also available to officers to check their schedules on the online portal, 

request time off or schedule leave, update their contact information, and indicate their availability for overtime. 

According to CBP, it plans to expand the pilot to the Miami International Airport (MIA), Fort LauderdaleHollywood International Airport (FLL), San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and the Buffalo, El Paso and 

San Diego land borders as well as selected sea ports in 2017. CBP also plans to roll it out to all field offices 

within the next 2 years.

Enterprise 

Management 

Information System 

(EMIS)

Office of Field Operations (OFO) officials at the airports use EMIS daily to manage staffing at airports. EMIS 

is an electronic CBP system that collects information for each arriving flight at each airport, including the total 

number of U.S. citizens and visitors on flights, updated information on whether the flight is on-time, delayed, 

or has arrived, and information on CBP’s progress on processing travelers from each flight.

a OFO supervisors 

monitor and review the information in EMIS to make immediate staffing changes to meet any traveler volume 

and wait time concerns at the airport.

Daily staffing rosters OFO supervisors at the airports use daily staffing rosters to schedule officers for regular shifts and overtime, 

keep track of where officers are staffed, and identify which officers are available to work. These rosters allow 

supervisors to move officers from one location to another to meet operational needs.

Overtime CBP is able to use overtime to supplement available officers at airports to meet operational needs, including 

staffing during peak travel hours and to complete enforcement actions. Overtime is a condition of employment 

for all CBP officers. The use of overtime provides supervisors with flexibility because they can schedule 

officers to work a portion of a shift in 15-minute increments rather than scheduling an officer for an entire shift. 

According to CBP, the total amount of overtime funding expended at the ports of entry with the 17 busiest 

U.S. international airports was approximately $76 million in fiscal year 2013, $92.6 million in fiscal year 2014, 

$105 million in fiscal year 2015, and $112 million in fiscal year 2016.b

Summer staffing plans CBP headquarters has required each field office to submit a Peak Summer Management Plan to explain how 

it plans to address the challenges from increased travel volume at airports during the summer. The plans may 

include changes and enhancements to staffing, overtime usage, leave and training schedules, and 

stakeholder coordination, among other requirements. Additionally, OFO supervisors at the airports can limit or 

deny temporary duty, leave, and training during the peak summer travel season.

Temporary duty Officers may be temporarily detailed to meet operational needs at another port or port of entry. According to 

OFO officials, most officers on temporary duty are working at the Southwest land border and CBP is not 

deploying them to airports.

Source: GAO analysis of CBP information. | GAO-17-470

a

OFO officials estimate that EMIS has about a 15 minute lag from real-time.

b

According to CBP, the overtime was used for passenger operations, tactical operations, cargo 

operations, mail operations, and agricultural inspections. According to CBP, fiscal year 2013 

expenditures were low due to sequestration.

In addition to these tools, CBP managers at headquarters and in the field 

must consider several airport-specific factors that affect how they are able 

to manage staff at airports. For example, if an airport is located in a POE 

with more than one port, or more than one international terminal, local 

CBP operations require CBP to split its available staff and staff may 

spend time traveling between ports or terminals. This can affect the total 

number of hours an officer is available to process travelers during his or 
Page 32 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

her shift, which requires managers to plan daily staffing with these 

periods of time in mind. In addition, to supplement staffing during peak 

travel hours, managers may assign officers to work overtime or reassign 

officers where needed. 43 For example, Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

International Airport (FLL) shares its CBP officers with the Fort 

Lauderdale sea port to process cruise ship and other arriving sea traffic. 

Officers drive between the airport and sea port to meet the peak traveler 

volumes at both facilities.

Another factor that can affect how OFO supervisors manage staffing at 

the airports is how often flights from destinations with high-risk profiles 

arrive at the airport. It takes officers longer to inspect travelers arriving on 

these flights due to the higher percentage of travelers that CBP refers to 

secondary inspection and takes adverse actions, such as seizures and 

arrests. As a result, CBP uses more resources for these flights to facilitate 

the flow of legitimate travelers.

Airport and airline stakeholders can pay for CBP officers to work overtime 

during peak travel hours or outside regular operational hours at the 

discretion of port leadership. 44 CBP has reimbursable service agreements 

under the Reimbursable Services Program at 11 airports, as discussed 

previously, to cover the costs of certain CBP services, including 

 43Peak travel hours are defined as the periods of time when the maximum numbers of 

passengers arrive during the day.

44CBP officers officially assigned to perform work in excess of 40 hours per week or 8 

hours in a day are to be compensated at 2 times the hourly rate of their basic pay, subject 

to certain limitations, including a fiscal year cap on aggregate overtime pay. See 19 U.S.C.

§ 267. For fiscal year 2016, the overtime cap was set at $35,000. See Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, div. F, tit. II, 129 Stat. 2242, 2495 (2015).

Stakeholders Provide 

Various Resources to 

Facilitate the Traveler 

Entry Process
Page 33 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

overtime. 45 CBP has entered into reimbursable services agreements with 

stakeholders under Section 560 for services at Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW); George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH); 

and Miami International Airport (MIA). 46 In addition, CBP has entered into 

reimbursable services agreements with stakeholders under Section 559

for services at Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); Fort

Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); Honolulu International 

Airport (HNL); John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX); Orlando International Airport (MCO); 

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); and San Francisco International 

Airport (SFO). 47 Table 3 provides a brief description of these agreements 

at each airport.

 45CBP may enter into reimbursable service and donation agreements under the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, as amended by the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016. 

See Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtit. G, §§ 481-84, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended by Pub. 

L. No. 114-279, § 2(a), 130 Stat. 1413 (classified at 6 U.S.C. §§ 301-301c). Prior to the 

enactment of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, CBP entered into such 

agreements pursuant to section 560 of Division D of the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, div. D, tit. V, § 560, 127 Stat. 198, 

378-80 (Section 560); and section 559 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. F, tit. V, § 559, 128 Stat. 5, 279-85 (previously 

classified, as amended, at 6 U.S.C. § 211 note) (Section 559). While sections 560 and 

559 were repealed by the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, neither subtitle 

G of title 6, U.S. Code, nor section 4 of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, 

affect (1) any agreement entered into pursuant to sections 560 or 559, as in existence on 

December 15, 2016, and any such agreement shall continue to have full force and effect 

on and after such date; or (2) a proposal accepted for consideration by CBP pursuant to 

section 559, as in existence on December 15, 2016. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, 

subtit. G, § 483, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended by Pub. L. No. 114-279, § 2(a), 130 Stat. 

1413 (classified at 6 U.S.C. § 301b).

46Prior to repeal, section 560 provided that by December 31, 2013, CBP may enter into no 

more than 5 reimbursable fee agreements for a period of up to 5 years with requesting 

persons for the provision of CBP customs and immigration inspection-related services and 

any other costs incurred by CBP relating to such services. Further provided that such 

requests may include additional CBP services at existing CBP-serviced facilities (including 

but not limited to payment for overtime), the provision of CBP services at new facilities, 

and expanded CBP services at land border facilities.

47Prior to repeal, section 559 provided that CBP, in collaboration with the GSA 

Administrator, is authorized to conduct a pilot program to permit CBP to enter into 

partnerships with private sector and government entities at ports of entry for customs, 

agricultural processing, border security, and immigration inspection-related services, and 

to accept certain donations. Pursuant to section 559, upon the request of a private sector 

or government entity with which CBP has entered into a partnership, CBP may enter into a 

reimbursable fee agreement with such entity under which CBP will provide certain 

services at a port of entry and the entity will pay a fee to reimburse CBP for the costs 

incurred in providing services.
Page 34 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 3: Reimbursable Services Program Fee Agreements at the Busiest U.S. International Airports 

Airport/Terminal Type of 

Agreement

Partner Fiscal 

Year 

Started

Eligible Services Under Each Agreementa

Boston-Logan International 

Airport (BOS)

Sec. 559 Airport

Authority

2016 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours, 

for inclement weather, or other reasons such as reducing wait 

times or landing flights outside normal operating hours.

Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW) 

Sec. 560 Airport

Authority

2014 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours 

and for inclement weather or other circumstances.

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

International Airport (FLL)

Sec. 559 Local 

government

2015 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours, 

for inclement weather, or other reasons such as reducing wait 

times or landing flights outside normal operating hours.

Honolulu International 

Airport (HNL)

Sec. 559 Local 

government

2016 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours, 

for inclement weather, or other reasons such as reducing wait 

times or landing flights outside normal operating hours.

George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport 

(IAH)

Sec. 560 Airport 

Authority

2014 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours 

and for inclement weather or other circumstances.

John. F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK)

-Terminal 7

-Terminal 8

Sec. 559

British 

Airways

American

Airlines

2016

2016

To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours 

and for inclement weather or other circumstances.

Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX)

Sec. 559 Airport 

Authority

2015 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours 

and to extend terminal hours.

Orlando International 

Airport (MCO)

Sec. 559 Airport 

Authority

2015 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours.

Miami International Airport 

(MIA)

Sec. 560 Airport 

Authority

2014 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours.

Philadelphia International 

Airport (PHL)

Sec. 559 Airport 

Authority

2016 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours, 

for inclement weather, or other reasons such as reducing wait 

times or landing flights outside normal operating hours.

San Francisco International 

Airport (SFO)

Sec. 559 Airport 

Authority

2014 To accommodate traveler volume during peak travel hours, 

for inclement weather, or other reasons such as reducing wait 

times or landing flights outside normal operating hours.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data. | GAO-17-470

a

Reflects the original intent of the program at these specific airports. According to CBP officials, the 

scope of the services stakeholders request from CBP can evolve to meet local needs.

According to CBP, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, CBP processed 

nearly 2.7 million travelers at the 11 airports as a result of reimbursable 

service requests. Additionally, as of July 2016, of the approximately 

195,000 reimbursable service hours worked for all POEs, 77 percent 

were worked at airports. According to OFO officials, reimbursable service 
Page 35 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

agreements do not have an impact on the allocation of overtime from 

CBP headquarters to the POEs. Rather, they represent a commitment to 

provide new or enhanced services and to augment existing services.

Airport and airline stakeholders at airports also provide staffing resources 

associated with some of the initiatives, such as APC kiosks and MPC and 

to support the increasing traveler volume. These staffing resources 

include: (1) ambassadors or assistants that direct travelers to the

appropriate queue, assist travelers using APC kiosks, assist travelers with 

the MPC application, and help travelers to make their connecting flights; 

(2) interpreters to assist CBP officers process travelers who do not speak 

English; and (3) technicians that maintain APC kiosks, including 

replenishing paper and correcting any malfunctions.

Airport and airline representatives at the airports we visited told us that 

they were already providing some of these staff, including airport 

ambassadors and interpreters, before the implementation of CBP’s airport 

travel and tourism facilitation initiatives so that CBP officers could focus 

on processing travelers. These officials said, in recent years, they have 

increased the number of staff they employ in order to facilitate the 

increase in traveler volume and the implementation of initiatives such as 

APC kiosks. According to airport and airline representatives at the 

airports we visited, in recent years CBP has increased its use of publicprivate partnerships, which has resulted in variation of available overtime 

services among airports. Some of these stakeholders said they are 

concerned about their own ability and willingness to provide these 

resources in the future. CBP officials acknowledged the increase in use of 

public-private partnerships in recent years, and told us that they are a 

result of significant increases in traveler volume entering the United 

States.
Page 36 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

According to CBP officials, maintaining or reducing wait times is an 

important CBP travel facilitation goal. As such, CBP monitors and 

manages airport wait times. On a daily basis, CBP collects data at 

airports that it uses to calculate wait times. CBP defines wait time as the 

time interval between the arrival of the aircraft (the block time) and the 

swipe of a passport by the traveler at an APC kiosk, Global Entry kiosk, 

MPC scanner, or by a CBP officer at a passport control booth or podium, 

minus the walk time to the FIS area. 48 Walk time is an estimate of the 

average amount of time it takes an average traveler to walk from the 

aircraft to the FIS entrance. The walk time is facility-dependent and varies 

by airport terminal. 49 CBP electronically collects two data points for wait 

time calculations: the block time and the passport swipe time. CBP 

measures wait time for the primary inspection process only. Figure 10

shows the CBP airport wait time calculation process.

 48Wait times do not include the amount of time that travelers spend being processed or 

inspected by CBP officers at CBP passport control, secondary inspection (if referred), the 

time travelers spend waiting for their checked baggage, or CBP exit control. In the case of 

MPC, travelers swipe their phones, which contain their passport information, at the MPC 

scanner.

49According to CBP, average walk times are reviewed periodically though an automated 

process that examines flights that arrive at a time when the FIS is empty, i.e., no primary 

confirmation activity within 30 minutes and no concurrent aircraft arrivals. At Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX) and Honolulu International Airport (HNL), walk times are 

manually adjusted for gate arrival and additional “walk time” when deplaning occurs on the 

tarmac (LAX) or at remote locations where the passengers need to be bused to locations 

(HNL), as determined based on reports from the port. The arithmetic mean of block-toprimary times for a sampling of passengers on each flight arriving at an empty FIS are 

used to calculate, or verify existing, average walk times.

CBP Could Take 

Steps to Improve the 

Usefulness of 

Reported Airport Wait 

Time Data and Is 

Taking Steps to 

Collect Additional 

Data

CBP Monitors Airport Wait 

Times and Takes Actions 

to Maintain or Reduce 

Wait Times
Page 37 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 10: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Airport Wait Time Calculation Process

Note: According to CBP, Mobile Passport Control (MPC) users are included in wait time calculations. 

The wait times for MPC users start at block time (point 1) although they are able to submit their 

passport control and customs information 4 hours before being processed. In addition, the wait times 

for MPC users end when the phone is swiped at the MPC scanner. Walk time is an estimate of the 

average amount of time it takes an average traveler to walk from the aircraft to the FIS entrance.

According to CBP officials and airport and airline representatives, flight 

arrivals and wait times can vary throughout the course of the day, by day 

of the week, and by season. In addition, various factors can affect wait 

times, including traveler volume exceeding FIS capacity; concurrent or 

overlapping fight arrivals; co-mingling of travelers in the FIS area from 

earlier flights; the number of high-risk travelers; arrivals of large numbers 

of visitors; technology issues such as computer network outages and 

slowdowns and malfunctions in equipment and facilities; unscheduled 

flight diversions due to inclement weather conditions; the implementation 

of initiatives (i.e., APC kiosks, Global Entry kiosks, and MPC); CBP officer 

staffing and airport and airline ambassador staffing; and whether airports 

provide timely interpretation and wheelchair services to travelers. For 

example, when traveler volume exceeds FIS capacity, CBP or airport 

representatives at some airports can hold travelers on the aircraft until 

space in the FIS becomes available or, if available, CBP or airport or 

airline representatives can queue travelers in a waiting room in the sterile 
Page 38 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

corridor before proceeding to the FIS area, such as in Orlando 

International Airport (MCO). 50

In addition, concurrent or overlapping flight arrivals or unscheduled flight 

diversions due to inclement weather conditions could result in co-mingling 

of travelers in the FIS area from previous flights. Co-mingling of travelers 

refers to instances when travelers from one flight may queue in line 

behind travelers from an earlier or later flight, which affects the traveler’s 

individual wait time and can affect the overall wait time for that traveler’s 

flight. Further, the processing of large numbers of visitors may increase 

wait times because they often cannot use technology initiatives that 

expedite primary inspection, such as APC and Global Entry kiosks, and 

take longer to inspect at CBP officer booths than other types of travelers. 

Moreover, wait times could increase if airport or airline representatives do 

not provide timely interpretation or wheelchair services to travelers when 

needed.

CBP has undertaken various efforts to manage, monitor, or reduce airport 

wait times. On a daily basis, CBP port-level supervisors are able to 

monitor airport wait times in near-real time using the Airport Wait Time 

Console, an automated system that provides current, and forecasts 

future, international flight and traveler arrivals data. 51 Using the console, 

CBP is able to monitor the wait time at primary inspection for each 

individual traveler and the combined average wait time for all travelers on 

a flight. This information helps CBP supervisors identify and respond to 

unexpected surges and overloaded queues in the FIS areas that can 

occur due to weather delays, among other reasons. In response to such 

situations, CBP supervisors may decide to open additional primary 

inspection booths, shift staff assignments, or use overtime to help 

manage wait times.52

CBP and stakeholders at all 17 busiest U.S. international airports also 

conduct at least monthly meetings to discuss airport operations and travel 

facilitation issues such as options for modernizing facilities, flight 

 50FIS capacity refers to the maximum number of travelers that can be processed at the 

peak hour of operation.

51According to CBP, the data in the console is updated every 5 minutes.

52CBP POEs must also report wait times exceeding 60 minutes, but less than 100 

minutes, for three consecutive hours, or wait times of 100 minutes or more to the 

Commissioner’s Situation Room in CBP Headquarters.
Page 39 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

schedules, use of available staff and technology, and management of 

wait times. In its monthly airport travel and tourism dashboards for the 17 

airports, OFO reports trends in wait times at each terminal and compares 

wait times among terminals, among other things. According to OFO, it 

publishes the dashboards, in part, to provide transparency and help 

facilitate discussion with airport stakeholders at monthly meetings.

OFO also monitors wait times at the headquarters level through its 

Planning, Program Analysis, and Evaluation Directorate to identify 

patterns or trends of increasing or excessive wait times. At times, OFO 

has sent Operational Review Teams, also referred to as “jump teams,” to 

airports with long wait times, including Boston-Logan International Airport 

(BOS), Honolulu International Airport (HNL), and San Francisco 

International Airport (SFO), to review operations and make 

recommendations to help reduce wait times. For example, in 2015, OFO 

sent a team to review wait times, staffing, and overtime at Honolulu 

International Airport (HNL). The team identified contributing factors 

impacting wait times, including the lack of APC kiosks which delayed 

processing during peak arrival periods, and made recommendations to 

CBP and HNL stakeholders. In February 2016, HNL implemented 32 APC 

kiosks. In May 2016, the CBP acting port director for the Port of Honolulu 

said that he had seen a significant reduction in average wait times, 

excessive wait times, and gate holds at HNL. According to our analysis of 

CBP airport wait time data, wait times decreased an average of 5 minutes 

for U.S. citizens and 12 minutes for visitors in the first 3 months after the 

implementation of APC kiosks at HNL. Similarly, after Operational Review 

Teams visited BOS and SFO, wait times decreased despite an increase 

in traveler volume, according to our analysis of CBP airport wait time 

data.

In response to the National Travel and Tourism Strategy, OFO also 

contracted with a private company to conduct Time and Motion studies 

and full operational analyses of operations at the 17 busiest U.S. 

international airports in 2014 and 2015. The studies encompassed all 

elements involved in the inspection of travelers (processes, infrastructure, 

technology, signage, etc.) from the time travelers disembark the aircraft 

until they exit the FIS. In these studies, the private company provided 

recommendations to each airport for how CBP, the airport, and the 

airlines could improve processes and reduce wait times. According to 

OFO officials, CBP and stakeholders generally reviewed and 

implemented the recommendations at airports. For example, the study of 

the Miami International Airport (MIA) North Terminal in September 2014 

identified operational issues, including congestion in the FIS and egress 
Page 40 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

areas. To reduce congestion, MIA re-positioned APC kiosks from the FIS 

area to the sterile corridor and CBP implemented modified egress.

According to CBP officials, the agency is also continuing to develop its 

new Border Facilities Analytic Modeling and Simulation tool to help airport 

stakeholders design and implement initiatives for new and existing airport 

facilities. The tool allows OFO to run model scenarios to conduct “what-if”

simulations, assess potential initiatives for impacts to operations, and 

evaluate benefits of policy, process, and facility changes postimplementation, among other purposes. For the air entry environment, 

users can enter various inputs on traveler type, volume, and the flow 

process and obtain and visualize customizable outputs, such as flight 

processing times and traveler wait times. As of October 2016, OFO has 

used the tool to help inform the design of the new baggage first terminals 

in Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) and SeattleTacoma International Airport (SEA). According to CBP officials, in the 

future CBP may use the tool to help determine the initiatives that would 

need to be implemented at airports to maintain or reduce wait times.

CBP reports its airport wait time data on its public website to help 

travelers plan flights, including scheduling connecting flights, but the data 

has limited usefulness to travelers. 53 Currently, CBP does not report wait 

times by traveler type, such as U.S. citizen or foreign visitor. 54 Rather, 

CBP reports average hourly wait times for all travelers on arriving 

international flights to clear passport control. By reporting airport wait 

times for all categories of travelers combined, CBP is reporting wait times 

that are lower than those generally experienced by visitors. As shown in 

figure 11, according to our analysis of CBP wait time data for the 17 

busiest U.S. international airports from May 2013 through August 2016, 

the average wait time was 13 minutes for U.S. citizens and 28 minutes for 

visitors, while the reported combined average wait time was 21 minutes.

 53CBP’s airport wait times website is available at http://awt.cbp.gov/ (accessed Feb. 2, 

2017).

54For the purpose of this report, the terms “foreign visitor” or “visitor” refer to a nonimmigrant, international traveler seeking admission to the United States on a temporary 

basis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15); 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(a)(1)-(2).

CBP Reports Airport Wait 

Time Data but Could Take 

Steps to Improve the 

Usefulness of Reported 

Data
Page 41 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 11: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors at the 17 Busiest U.S. 

International Airports from May 2013 through August 2016

Note: The 17 busiest U.S. international airports are (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(ATL); (2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

(DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); (5) Newark Liberty International Airport 

(EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7) Honolulu International Airport 

(HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) George Bush Intercontinental Airport 

(IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); (11) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); 

(12) Orlando International Airport (MCO); (13) Miami International Airport (MIA); (14) Chicago O’Hare 

International Airport (ORD); (15) Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); (16) Seattle-Tacoma 

International Airport (SEA); and (17) San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

As shown in figure 12, the average wait time for visitors was higher than 

the average wait time for U.S. citizens at all 17 airports. For example, at 

John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 from May 2013 

through August 2016, the average wait time was 16 minutes for U.S. 

citizens and 38 minutes for visitors. Wait times are generally higher for 

visitors than U.S. citizens because CBP officer inspection at passport 

control can take longer for visitors than for U.S. citizens and they may not 

be able to use automated technology that expedite the inspection process 

for travelers.
Page 42 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 12: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 2013 

through August 2016
Page 43 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Note: The 17 busiest U.S. international airports are (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(ATL); (2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

(DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW);(5) Newark Liberty International Airport 

(EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7) Honolulu International Airport 

(HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) George Bush Intercontinental Airport 

(IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); (11) Los Angeles International Airport (LAX); 

(12) Orlando International Airport (MCO); (13) Miami International Airport (MIA); (14) Chicago O’Hare 

International Airport (ORD); (15) Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); (16) Seattle-Tacoma 

International Airport (SEA); and (17) San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Our analysis of CBP wait time data for the 17 busiest U.S. international 

airports from May 2013 through August 2016 show similar differences in 

wait times between U.S. citizens and visitors during both peak and 

nonpeak travel seasons. As shown in figure 13, the average wait times 

during the peak summer travel season from June through August each 

year was 14 minutes for U.S. citizens, while the average wait time was 29 

minutes for visitors. Similarly, the average wait time for this same period 

during the nonpeak travel season between September and May each 

year was 12 minutes for U.S. citizens and 27 minutes for visitors.

Figure 13: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors during Nonpeak and 

Peak Summer Travel Seasons at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 

2013 through August 2016

Note: According to CBP, the peak summer travel season consists of the months of June, July, and 

August of each year. The 17 busiest U.S. international airports are (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL); (2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); (5) Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7) Honolulu 

International Airport (HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport (IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); (11) Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX); (12) Orlando International Airport (MCO); (13) Miami International Airport 

(MIA); (14) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD); (15) Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); 

(16) Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA); and (17) San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
Page 44 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

As shown in figure 14, the average wait time for visitors during the peak 

summer travel seasons was higher than the average wait time for U.S. 

citizens at all 17 airports. For example, at Orlando Airside 4 from May 

2013 through August 2016, the average wait times during the summer 

peak travel season for U.S. citizens was 10 minutes and for visitors was 

34 minutes, a difference of 24 minutes. See appendix IV for our detailed 

analysis of CBP airport wait time data.
Page 45 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 14: Average Wait Times for U.S. Citizens and Visitors during Peak Summer Travel Seasons at the 17 Busiest U.S. 

International Airports from May 2013 through August 2016
Page 46 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Note: According to CBP, the peak summer travel season consists of the months of June, July, and 

August of each year. The 17 busiest U.S. international airports are (1) Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL); (2) Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS); (3) Dallas/Fort Worth 

International Airport (DFW); (4) Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW); (5) Newark Liberty 

International Airport (EWR); (6) Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL); (7) Honolulu 

International Airport (HNL); (8) Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD); (9) George Bush 

Intercontinental Airport (IAH); (10) John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK); (11) Los Angeles 

International Airport (LAX); (12) Orlando International Airport (MCO); (13) Miami International Airport 

(MIA); (14) Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD); (15) Philadelphia International Airport (PHL); 

(16) Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA); and (17) San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 

management should use quality information and externally communicate 

the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. 55 In 

addition, OFO’s internal airport travel facilitation goals are improving 

customer service levels for international arrivals and maintaining or 

reducing wait times. CBP’s public reporting mechanism is not currently 

set up to report wait times by traveler type. However, CBP monitors and 

reports wait times by traveler type for internal management purposes. 

CBP officials acknowledged the benefits to travelers of reporting wait time 

data by traveler type and said that it would be feasible to program the 

reporting mechanism to do so. Reporting wait times by traveler type could 

improve the usefulness of CBP’s wait time data to travelers by providing 

them with more complete and accurate data on their wait times to help 

inform their flight plans, including scheduling connecting flights. In 

addition, it could provide additional transparency to allow CBP to work 

with stakeholders to determine how to improve the traveler experience 

and manage wait times.

In February 2016, CBP was required to begin publishing live wait times in 

real time for travelers entering the United States at the 20 busiest U.S. 

international airports on CBP’s public website. 56 CBP faces technology 

challenges in meeting these reporting requirements, but is taking steps to 

be able to collect the data needed to do so. According to CBP officials, to 

meet these new requirements, CBP will need to collect live wait time data 

 55GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).

56Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtit. B, § 411, 116 Stat. 

2135, 2178-79, as amended by the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, 

Pub. L. No. 114-125, tit. VIII, subtit. A, § 802(a), 130 Stat. 122, 208-09 (2016) (classified, 

as amended, at 6 U.S.C. § 211(n)). Wait times are to be determined by calculating the 

time elapsed between an individual’s entry into the CBP inspection area and such 

individual’s clearance by a CBP officer. See 6 U.S.C. § 211(n)(2).

CBP Is Taking Steps to 

Collect More Detailed 

Airport Wait Time Data to 

Meet New Reporting 

Requirements
Page 47 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

for the entire international arrivals process and report wait times in real 

time to its public website. Figure 15 highlights some of the data collection 

challenges CBP faces in meeting these requirements.

Figure 15: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Airport Wait Time Data Collection Gaps

Note: CBP officials said that they may decide to not collect data for baggage claim because it is 

controlled by the airlines.

As the figure shows, while CBP currently collects data needed to 

calculate wait times for primary inspection, CBP does not collect data for 

the remaining parts of the international arrivals process to include 

baggage delivery—a process controlled by the airlines, not CBP. 

Specifically, CBP does not collect wait time data for travelers at the point 

where they enter the FIS area or after their passports are swiped at an 

APC or Global Entry kiosk or by an officer at passport control to include 

the time spent retrieving baggage, queuing for CBP exit control, or exiting 

the FIS. According to CBP officials, the agency currently does not have 

an automated system or technical means to generate time stamps 

electronically at these points in the arrival process.

CBP also faces challenges in reporting wait time data in real time to its 

public website because of the time required to vet the data for accuracy. 

Currently, CBP takes about 2 business days to publish airport wait time 

data because it must electronically test and manually review the data to 

ensure accuracy. Steps taken by CBP include removing data for any 

refugees and asylum seekers, and three percent of travelers with the 
Page 48 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

longest wait times. 57 CBP also manually corrects or excludes anomalies 

that can be caused by inaccurate block times, cancelled flights, and 

travelers who do not make their way to the FIS area immediately after 

deplaning, among other reasons. According to CBP, travelers who do not 

make their way to the FIS area immediately after deplaning may go to the 

restroom, wait for wheelchair services, or do other things that delay their 

arrival to the FIS area. These are important factors to consider in looking 

for ways to improve the usefulness of reported airport wait time data.

CBP is taking steps to overcome these challenges and determine how to 

implement these requirements by, among other things, collaborating with 

the DHS Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to explore, test, and 

evaluate a mix of commercially-available automated technologies for 

collecting wait times at various points in the inspection process. These 

technologies include Bluetooth and Wi-Fi technologies, people counter 

systems, and Radio Frequency Identification technology, among others. 58

The DHS Apex Air Entry/Exit Re-Engineering program is a multi-year 

effort, in part, to improve the international arrivals process. Since 2015, 

S&T and CBP have been developing a Counting and Measuring project at 

S&T’s Maryland Test Facility in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. 59 The project 

is intended to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of commerciallyavailable automated tools to monitor the number, flow, and location of 

travelers to determine the wait times and dwell times of travelers 

throughout FIS areas. Dwell time is the measure of the time a traveler 

spends at each stage of the process (e.g., the time the travelers spends 

in a line versus the time the traveler spends waiting for a bag at baggage 

 57According to CBP officials, the rationale for excluding three percent of travelers with the

longest wait times from wait time calculations is to exclude travelers who have long wait 

times due to factors outside the direct control of CBP, including travelers who do not make 

their way to the FIS area immediately after deplaning, travelers who have to wait behind 

other travelers from concurrent flight arrivals, or travelers who have to wait for wheelchair 

services or other special assistance.

58According to DHS, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi are short-range wireless technologies allowing 

enabled devices to communicate with one another. People counter systems are lowresolution thermal, infrared, vertical imaging systems that use one or more sensors to 

detect the movement of heat sources or shapes caused by people moving through an 

area. Radio Frequency Identification technology wirelessly transmits a unique identifier 

from a tag to a reader through a data circuit to back-end computer systems to retrieve 

personally identifiable information about the traveler.

59According to S&T, the Maryland Test Facility is a 25,000 square-foot, controlled 

laboratory and scenario-based testing environment to evaluate biometric technologies and 

operational processes under simulated airport entry and exit conditions.
Page 49 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

claim). The project is also intended to provide accurate and real-time

projected wait time information to travelers as they enter the FIS. S&T 

and CBP previously planned to operationally test the project at 

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) for 3 months starting in April 

2017. 60 However, CBP is in the process of designating a new test 

location. The operational test will go forward once CBP, S&T, and an 

airport agree on the new location. Given that as of March 2017, CBP had 

not yet begun operational testing of the project, it is too early to tell the 

extent to which these efforts will help CBP to assess wait times and meet 

the new statutory airport wait time reporting requirements.

As an agency that has an important role in implementing the National 

Travel and Tourism Strategy to attract and welcome international visitors 

to the United States, CBP’s ability to provide useful wait time data that 

allows travelers to plan their flights to U.S. international airports is 

essential to enhancing their travel experience to the United States. Long 

wait times may result in travelers missing connecting flights or having 

negative experiences of traveling to U.S. international airports. CBP 

reports wait times on a public website to help travelers estimate possible 

wait times when planning their next flight, including scheduling a 

connecting flight. However, the data has limited usefulness to visitors 

because CBP reports wait times for all categories of travelers combined. 

Given the differences in wait times between, for example, U.S. citizens 

and visitors, reporting wait times for different categories of travelers could 

improve the usefulness of CBP’s wait time data by providing travelers 

with more complete and accurate data on their wait times to help inform 

their flight plans, including scheduling connecting flights. It could also 

better position CBP to be able to determine if it is meeting its airport travel 

facilitation goals.

 60According to S&T, the schedule for the Counting and Measuring operational test at 

Dulles airport is dependent on external partner activities such as airport partner installation 

of network cabling to connect sensor systems. S&T initiated its Counting and Measuring 

project in December 2015 as part of the Apex Air Entry/Exit Re-Engineering program. 

Although the program has concluded, research, development, test and evaluation for 

Counting and Measuring project, including operational test and evaluations scheduled in 

2017, will continue under the S&T Port of Entry People Screening Portfolio in the 

Screening Inspection Facilitation Transformation projects.

Conclusions
Page 50 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

To improve the usefulness of airport wait time data that CBP currently 

reports on its public website, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security direct the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection to report airport wait time data for different categories of 

travelers.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS for its review and comment. 

DHS provided written comments, which are noted below and reproduced 

in full in appendix V, and technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

DHS concurred with our recommendation regarding reporting wait time 

data for different categories of travelers and described the actions it plans 

to take in response. Specifically, DHS stated that CBP’s Office of Field 

Operations will enhance the Real Time Wait Time Reporting Tool to 

improve CBP’s ability to report timely and accurate wait time data in a 

usable format to include different passenger categories. If implemented 

effectively, these planned actions should address the intent of our 

recommendation.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VI.

Rebecca Gambler

Director, Homeland Security and Justice

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

The objectives of this report were to examine (1) how U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and stakeholders implemented airport travel and 

tourism facilitation initiatives at U.S. international airports; (2) how CBP 

and stakeholders manage staff to facilitate the traveler entry process at 

U.S. international airports; and (3) the extent to which CBP has 

mechanisms to monitor and report wait times at U.S. international 

airports.

To address the first objective, we identified CBP’s airport travel and 

tourism facilitation initiatives from the Model Ports program since 2007. 1

These initiatives include Automated Passport Control (APC) kiosks, 

baggage first, diplomatic arrival processes and diplomatic processing 

lanes, electronic signage and multimedia, enhanced queueing, Express 

Connection, Global Entry kiosks, International to International baggage 

program, Mobile Passport Control (MPC), modified egress, One Stop, 

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) program, Reimbursable 

Services Program, stakeholder meetings, and Variable Message 

Signage. We collected and analyzed information on the implementation of 

these initiatives at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports as of the end 

of fiscal year 2016, according to CBP.

To examine how CBP and airport and airline stakeholders implemented 

these initiatives from 2007 through 2016, we reviewed CBP reports, 

including the Model Ports Program Report to Congress in 2010 and the 

Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security’s 

(DHS) 2015 report to the President that defines a national goal to “provide 

a best-in-class arrivals experience.” 2 We also reviewed CBP’s most 

recent version of its Airport Technical Design Standard; business 

requirements for APC kiosks; internal assessments and reports on 

initiatives such as Global Entry and MPC; and internal memorandums 

 1

CBP started its Model Ports program to improve the international arrivals process for 

travelers to the United States by implementing technology to facilitate entry and expanding 

public-private partnerships, among other things.

2

Department of Commerce and Department of Homeland Security, Supporting Travel and 

Tourism to Grow Our Economy and Create More Jobs: A National Goal on the 

International Arrivals Process and Airport-Specific Action Plans, Report to the President

(Washington, D.C.: February 2015), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, Model Ports of Entry: Fiscal Year 2010 Report to Congress 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2010).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

from the Model Ports program which directed officials at airports to test 

initiatives such as enhanced queueing and diplomatic processing lanes. 3

To examine how CBP obtains feedback on the traveler experience, we 

reviewed CBP’s reports on its performance goals and measures, 

including its Traveler Satisfaction Survey Reports for the surveys it 

conducted in 2012, 2015, and 2016.4 We also reviewed CBP’s standard 

operating procedures for the Complaint/Compliment Management System 

and the directive that established policy and responsibilities of the PSM 

program. We interviewed CBP officials at headquarters, officials from 

eight travel and tourism industry associations selected based on the 

nature of the associations and suggestions by CBP and association 

officials, and the National Treasury Employees Union, the labor union 

representing CBP officers, to gain insights on initiatives. 5

As shown in table 4, to obtain the perspectives of local CBP officials and 

stakeholders on the implementation of initiatives, we collected information 

and interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline representatives at 15 

of the 17 airports and conducted site visits at 11 of these airports to 

observe airport operations.

 3

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Automated 

Passport Control: Business Requirements, Version 16 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 4, 2014). 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Office of 

Policy, Global Entry Trusted Traveler Program: Global Entry Twelve Month Pilot Review

(Washington, D.C.: March 2010). Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, Mobile Passport Control (MPC) Assessment: Miami International 

Airport – Terminal D (Washington, D.C.: June 2015). The other agency documents are not 

publicly available.

4

According to OFO, it did not conduct surveys between 2012 and 2015 due to budget 

constraints.

5

We met with officials from the following industry associations: Airlines for America, 

Airports Council International-North America, American Association of Airport Executives, 

Brand USA, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, International Air Transport Association, Universal 

Parks and Resorts, and U.S. Travel Association. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 4: GAO Site Visits to Select U.S. International Airports in 2016 

Airport Month Method of information 

collection

Highest-ranking U.S. 

Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) 

official GAO met with 

during site visit

Number of airlines 

GAO met with during 

site visit

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL)

August Interviews and site visita Acting Port Director 1

Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW)

July Interviews and site visit Acting Port Director 9

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne 

County Airport (DTW)

June Interviews Acting Port Director 3

Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR)

July Interviews and site visit Acting Port Director 3

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

International Airport (FLL)

June Interviews and site visit Port Director 6

Honolulu International Airport 

(HNL)

May Interviews Acting Port Director 9

Washington Dulles 

International Airport (IAD)

March Interviews and site visit Port Director 3

George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport (IAH)

July Interviews and site visit Port Director 2

John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK)

July Interviews and site visit Acting Port Director 8b

Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX)

July Interviews and site visitc Acting Port Director 2d

Orlando International Airport 

(MCO)

June Interviews and site visit Port Director 10

Miami International Airport 

(MIA)

June Interviews and site visit Acting Port Director 3

Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport (ORD)

May Interviews Port Director 7

Philadelphia International 

Airport (PHL)

March Interviews and site visit Assistant Port Director 0e

Seattle-Tacoma International 

Airport (SEA)

April Interviews Port Director 2

Source: GAO. | GAO-17-470

a

GAO visited the airport in person and conducted interviews with officials via teleconference.

b

GAO also met with a consortium of airlines that represent airlines at John F. Kennedy International 

Airport Terminal 4.

c

GAO visited the airport in person and conducted interviews with officials via teleconference.

d

GAO also met with a consortium of airlines that represent airlines at Los Angeles Terminal 2, 

Terminal 3, and Tom Bradley International Terminal.

e

GAO attempted to meet with airline representatives, but they declined.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

We obtained perspectives from airport authorities, airlines, terminal 

operators, and Office of Field Operations (OFO) officials at the 15 

selected airports—including Port Directors or Acting Port Directors, 

Assistant Port Directors, and Professionalism Service Managers, among 

others—on how CBP and stakeholders have implemented initiatives to 

facilitate the international arrivals process to the United States and factors 

that affect the implementation of initiatives. At the 11 site visits, we 

observed OFO officers conducting inspections of international travelers 

and received demonstrations on how airports employ technology 

initiatives, such as APC and MPC, and viewed multimedia and signage, 

among other activities.

We selected a non-probability sample based on traveler volume, traveler 

wait times, technology employment, and geographic diversity. We 

selected airports with the highest traveler volume, longest wait times, and 

most technology employment as well as the lowest traveler volume, 

shortest wait times, and least technology employment to provide a range 

of traveler experiences at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports. We 

considered traveler volume because, as we have previously reported, 

traveler volume is one of three key factors that affect traveler wait time. 6

We considered wait time because it has a role in the experience of 

travelers arriving at U.S. international airports, according to CBP’s 

Traveler Satisfaction Surveys. We considered the extent to which airports 

have employed technology, including APC kiosks and MPC, because 

these initiatives can impact the wait times and experiences of travelers 

arriving at U.S. international airports. We considered geographic diversity 

to study a full spectrum of issues that impact airports, including security 

risk factors based on the origin of arriving flights, among others. The 

information we collected from these site visits cannot be generalized to all 

U.S. international airports. However, because we selected these airports 

based on a variety of factors, they provided us with a diversity of insights 

about the experience of international travelers arriving at the 17 busiest 

U.S. international airports.

To address the second objective, we identified CBP’s Workload Staffing 

Model (WSM) and various tools and strategies that CBP uses to manage 

its staff nationally and locally. To examine how CBP determines its 

staffing needs for officers at the ports of entry (POE) with the 17 busiest 

 6

GAO, International Air Passengers: Staffing Model for Airport Inspections Personnel Can 

Be Improved, GAO-05-663 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2005).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. international airports, we reviewed CBP’s WSM calculations; 

additional staffing calculations (add-ons) completed by officials at CBP 

headquarters that the WSM cannot calculate, including forthcoming 

implementation of initiatives or new facilities; and the authorized staffing 

level for fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016.7 We assessed the reliability 

of these data by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors in 

accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing existing information about the 

data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency 

officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of describing the staffing process. We 

reviewed CBP’s internal statement of policy and intent for the use of the 

WSM; Resource Optimization Strategy and subsequent reports to 

Congress; and three reviews of the WSM, including a review by a 

government consulting firm in 2010, an internal review by a DHS Program 

Analysis and Evaluation team in 2012, and a DHS Office of Inspector 

General review in 2014. 8 However, we did not conduct an evaluation of 

the WSM to determine its usefulness or accuracy as an officer staffing 

allocation tool during this review.

To assess how CBP manages its available staff, we reviewed CBP’s total 

overtime expenditures for the POEs with the 17 busiest U.S. international 

airports for fiscal years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 and reviewed CBP’s 

internal documentation. This included Time and Motion studies CBP 

conducted with a private contractor in 2014 and 2015 for each of the 17 

busiest U.S. international airports, summer peak travel staffing plans for 

each of the 17 airports, local airport staffing rosters, Reimbursable 

Services Program fee agreements and weekly usage reports, and 

 7

Ports of entry are facilities that provide for the controlled entry into or departure from the 

United States for persons or materials. Specifically, a port of entry is any officially 

designated location (seaport, airport, or land border location) where DHS officers or 

employees are assigned to clear passengers, merchandise, and other items; collect 

duties; and enforce customs laws; and where DHS officers inspect persons seeking to 

enter or depart, or applying for admission into, the United States pursuant to U.S. 

immigration law.

8

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Resource 

Optimization at Ports of Entry (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 2013), Department of 

Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Resource Optimization at Ports 

of Entry: Fiscal Year 2014 Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2014); 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Resource 

Optimization at Ports of Entry: Fiscal Year 2015 Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: 

May 13, 2015); and Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection’s Workload Staffing Model, OIG-14-117 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 24, 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

national and local collective bargaining agreements. 9 We assessed the 

reliability of CBP data on funding spent on overtime and reimbursable 

service agreements, if applicable, at the 17 busiest U.S. international 

airports from fiscal years 2014 through 2016 by (1) performing electronic 

testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing 

existing information about the data and the system that produced them, 

and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. We collected information and interviewed CBP officials and airport 

and airline representatives at the 15 selected airports and conducted site 

visits at 11 airports to gain a better understanding of the various factors 

that affect staffing and how CBP and stakeholders manage staff. We 

interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline representatives at these 

airports, as well as CBP officials at headquarters, officials from eight 

travel and tourism industry associations, and the labor union representing 

CBP officers, to gain insights on how CBP manages staffing nationally 

and locally airports, and to gain insights on staffing challenges.

To address the third objective, we reviewed CBP’s process for collecting, 

monitoring, and reporting airport wait time data. We collected and 

analyzed CBP airport wait time data for the 17 airports from May 2013 

through August 2016.10 We assessed the reliability of these data by (1) 

performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and 

completeness, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and the 

 9

CBP may enter into reimbursable service and donation agreements under the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002, as amended by the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016. 

See Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, subtit. G, §§ 481-84, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended by Pub. 

L. No. 114-279, § 2(a), 130 Stat. 1413 (classified at 6 U.S.C. §§ 301-301c). Prior to the 

enactment of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, CBP entered into such 

agreements pursuant to section 560 of Division D of the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, div. D, tit. V, § 560, 127 Stat. 198, 

378-80 (Section 560); and section 559 of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-76, div. F, tit. V, § 559, 128 Stat. 5, 279-85 (previously 

classified, as amended, at 6 U.S.C. § 211 note) (Section 559). While sections 560 and 

559 were repealed by the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, neither subtitle 

G of title 6, U.S. Code, nor section 4 of the Cross-Border Trade Enhancement Act of 2016, 

affect (1) any agreement entered into pursuant to sections 560 or 559, as in existence on 

December 15, 2016, and any such agreement shall continue to have full force and effect 

on and after such date; or (2) a proposal accepted for consideration by CBP pursuant to 

section 559, as in existence on December 15, 2016. See Pub. L. No. 107-296, tit. IV, 

subtit. G, § 483, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended by Pub. L. No. 114-279, § 2(a), 130 Stat. 

1413 (classified at 6 U.S.C. § 301b).

10We selected this time frame to be able to analyze over 3 full years of data, including four 

peak summer travel seasons.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We reviewed CBP 

internal documents, including Time and Motion studies CBP conducted 

with a private contractor in 2014 and 2015 for each of the 17 busiest U.S. 

international airports; standard daily, monthly, quarterly, and annual 

airport wait time and volume reports that officials at CBP headquarters 

use to monitor trends in airport wait times; after-action reports from 

Operational Review Teams, also referred to as “jump teams,” sent to 

airports experiencing excessive wait times; and an internal memorandum 

on passenger wait time mitigation strategies for the summer travel 

season. We reviewed CBP’s wait time calculation method, including its 

algorithm for automatically excluding refugees, asylum seekers, and three 

percent of travelers with the longest wait times from each flight, as well as 

CBP’s manual process for excluding additional travelers from its wait time 

calculations that it reports on its public website. 11 We reviewed legislation 

requiring CBP to publish its airport wait time information on its public 

website and CBP’s annual reports to Congress on airport wait times in 

response to legislative requirements. We also collected information and 

interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline representatives at the 15 

airports selected and conducted site visits at 11 airports to gain a better 

understanding of the various factors that affect CBP airport wait times and 

interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline representatives at these 

airports. We also interviewed DHS Science and Technology Directorate 

(S&T) officials, CBP officials at headquarters, officials from eight travel 

and tourism industry associations, and the labor union representing CBP 

officers to gain insights on wait time calculations and reporting. We 

compared this information against CBP performance goals and Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

12

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to March 2017 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

 11According to CBP officials, the rationale for excluding three percent of travelers with the 

longest wait times from wait time calculations is to exclude travelers who have long wait 

times due to factors outside the direct control of CBP, including stragglers who do not 

make their way directly to the Federal Inspection Service area immediately after 

deplaning, travelers who have to wait behind other travelers from concurrent flight arrivals, 

or travelers who have to wait for wheelchair services or other special assistance.

12GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 58 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 59 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

This appendix presents images of select travel and tourism facilitation 

initiatives at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports. Figures 16 to 30

illustrate U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) travel and tourism 

facilitation initiatives. Figures 31 to 34 illustrate stakeholder travel and 

tourism facilitation initiatives. Figures 35 to 40 illustrate examples of 

variation in CBP and stakeholder initiatives across airports or across 

terminals at an airport. Figures 41 to 48 illustrate additional examples of 

initiatives at airports.

Images of CBP Select Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives

Figure 16: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosk at Washington Dulles 

International Airport (IAD) Main Terminal

Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17

Busiest U.S. International Airports
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 60 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Note: The APC program allows eligible travelers to use a self-service kiosk to complete a portion of 

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspection process before seeing a CBP officer at 

primary inspection.

Figure 17: Baggage First at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS)

Note: Baggage first is a new process at Federal Inspection Service areas in new terminals that allows 

travelers to claim their checked baggage before completing U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

passport control, modifying the exit control point.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 61 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 18: Diplomatic Processing Lane at John F. Kennedy International Airport 

(JFK) Terminal 7

Note: The lane is intended to expedite diplomats and foreign dignitaries through the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection primary inspection process. APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, is 

an economic forum whose primary goal is to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in 

the Asia-Pacific region. The United States is one of 21 APEC member economies. The U.S. APEC 

Business Travel Card Program is a voluntary program to facilitate travel for U.S. citizens engaged in 

verified business in the APEC region and U.S. government officials engaged in APEC business.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 62 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 19: Electronic Signage and Multimedia at John F. Kennedy International 

Airport (JFK) Terminal 1

Note: This television monitor displays signs and multimedia explaining what travelers can expect 

when they arrive in the Federal Inspection Service area, among other messages.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 63 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 20: Enhanced Queueing at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) 

Terminal 1

Note: Travelers queue in serpentine lines and are directed to the next available booth or kiosk by a 

queue manager, rather than individually selecting a parallel line to complete the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection inspection process.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 64 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 21: Express Connection Ticket at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

(DFW)

Note: Express Connection is a program that allows participating airlines to help expedite the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection primary inspection process for travelers with closely scheduled 

connecting flights.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 65 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 22: Global Entry Kiosk at Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Main 

Terminal

Note: Global Entry is a membership program that expedites the U.S. Customs and Border Protection

(CBP) inspection process for pre-approved, low risk travelers by allowing them to use self-service 

kiosk to complete a portion of the process before seeing a CBP officer at primary inspection.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 66 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 23: Wayfinding Signage for International to International Baggage Program 

at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

Note: The program allows airlines to forward the baggage of travelers en-route to a foreign 

destination to the departing aircraft so that they do not claim their baggage in the Federal Inspection 

Service area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 67 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 24: Mobile Passport Control (MPC) Scanner at Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR) Terminal B

Note: The MPC program expedites the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspection 

process for eligible travelers by allowing them to submit their passport and other information to CBP 

via an application on a mobile device before seeing a CBP officer at primary inspection.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 68 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 25: Modified Egress at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW)

Note: Modified egress is a pilot program that modifies the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

exit control checkpoint in the Federal Inspection Service (FIS) area. After being inspected at primary 

inspection and retrieving their baggage, travelers can leave the FIS area unless stopped by a CBP 

officer monitoring the baggage claim area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 69 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 26: One Stop Area at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Note: At DFW, One Stop is referred to as Carry E-Z©. It expedites the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection inspection process for travelers that have no checked baggage to claim by allowing them 

to bypass baggage claim and exit control processing.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 70 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 27: Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) Poster at Washington Dulles 

International Airport (IAD) Main Terminal

Note: Travelers that have compliments, complaints, or other feedback about their experience during 

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspection process can contact the PSM whose 

picture, name, and telephone number appear in posters at each U.S. international airport. PSMs 

focus on professionalism standards and customer services within CBP and with public and external 

stakeholders at each U.S. international airport.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 71 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 28: Signing of Reimbursable Services Program Fee Agreement (Section 559) 

at Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS)

Note: The agreement allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection to support requests for expanded 

services, including customs, immigration, and agricultural processing; salaries for additional staff; and 

overtime expenses.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 72 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 29: Stakeholder Meeting at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD)

Note: U.S. Customs and Border Protection and airport and airline stakeholders, including airline 

station managers and airport managers, meet at least monthly to discuss shared responsibilities, set 

goals, and monitor progress.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 73 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 30: Variable Message Signage at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD)

Note: This electronic monitor provides wayfinding directions and additional information to assist 

travelers in determining how to proceed through the Federal Inspection Service area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 74 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Images of Select Stakeholder Travel and Tourism Facilitation 

Initiatives

Figure 31: Color-coded Signage at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Note: The signage is color-coded by traveler type to help travelers queue in the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection inspection area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 75 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 32: Dedicated Crew Lane at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

Note: The lane is intended to help expedite the U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspection 

process for airline crew members. APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, is an economic 

forum whose primary goal is to support sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the AsiaPacific region. The United States is one of 21 APEC member economies. The U.S. APEC Business 

Travel Card Program is a voluntary program to facilitate travel for U.S. citizens engaged in verified 

business in the APEC region and U.S. government officials engaged in APEC business.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 76 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 33: Expected Wait Time Monitors in U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Primary Inspection Area at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) 

Terminal 4

Note: These monitors display expected wait times for travelers in the CBP primary inspection area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 77 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 34: Expected Wait Time Monitor in U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Exit Control Area at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

Note: This monitor displays expected wait times for travelers in the CBP exit control area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 78 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Examples of Variation in Initiatives at Airports

Figure 35: Global Entry Kiosks at Orlando International Airport (MCO)

Note: This photo shows two versions of the Global Entry kiosk. The kiosk on the right was out of 

service. Global Entry is a membership program that expedites the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) inspection process for pre-approved, low risk travelers by allowing them to use selfservice kiosk to complete a portion of the process before seeing a CBP officer at primary inspection.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 79 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 36: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosks at Philadelphia International 

Airport (PHL)

Note: The two kiosks on the right-hand side have a bar for small children or short adults to step up 

and hold the kiosk while having their pictures taken. The APC program allows eligible travelers to use 

a self-service kiosk to complete a portion of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

inspection process before seeing a CBP officer at primary inspection.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 80 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 37: Automated Passport Control (APC) Kiosks at John F. Kennedy

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1

Note: The APC program allows eligible travelers to use a self-service kiosk to complete a portion of 

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspection process before seeing a CBP officer at 

primary inspection.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 81 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 38: Two Versions of Mobile Passport Control (MPC) Scanners at Miami International Airport (MIA) Terminal J and 

Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Terminal B

Note: The photo on the left was taken at MIA Terminal J, also known as South Terminal. It shows a 

standing scanner in front of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) primary inspection booth. 

The photo on the right was taken at EWR Terminal B. It shows a countertop scanner at a CBP 

primary inspection booth. The MPC program expedites the CBP inspection process for eligible 

travelers by allowing them to submit their passport and other information to CBP via an application on 

a mobile device before seeing a CBP officer at primary inspection.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 82 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 39: Variations in Color-coded Signage at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 2 and Tom Bradley 

International Terminal

Note: The photo on the left was taken at Terminal 2. The photo on the right was taken at Tom Bradley 

International Terminal. The signage is color-coded by traveler type to help travelers queue in the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection inspection area.

Figure 40: Variation in Color-coded Lanes and Signage at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminals 1 and 5

Note: The photo on the left was taken at Terminal 1. The photo on the right was taken at Terminal 5. 

The lanes and signage are color-coded by traveler type to help travelers queue in the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection inspection area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 83 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Additional Examples of Initiatives at Airports

Figure 41: Variable Message Signage Above Automated Passport Control (APC) 

Kiosks at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Note: These electronic monitors help direct travelers to the next available APC kiosk.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 84 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 42: “Global Entry Zone” at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Note: This area is designed to highlight the Global Entry program in the middle of the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection inspection area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 85 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 43: Global Entry Kiosks at George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

Note: This area is designed to highlight the Global Entry program at the entrance of the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection inspection area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 86 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 44: “Mobile Passport Control Zone” at Newark Liberty International Airport 

(EWR) Terminal C

Note: This area in the sterile corridor leading to the entrance of the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection inspection area is designed to encourage travelers to use the Mobile Passport Control 

program.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 87 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 45: Before and After Implementation of Modified Egress at Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport (FLL)

Note: The photo on the left was taken on June 14, 2016, before the implementation of modified 

egress on September 28, 2016. Modified egress is a pilot program that modifies the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) exit control checkpoint in the Federal Inspection Service (FIS) area. 

After being inspected at primary inspection and retrieving their baggage, travelers can leave the FIS 

area unless stopped by a CBP officer monitoring the baggage claim area. The photo on the right was 

taken on October 31, 2016. It shows various infrastructure changes to implement modified egress 

including the placement of Plexiglas barriers and checkpoint podiums, and reconfiguration of queue 

stanchions and ribbons.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 88 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 46: Variable Message Signage at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport (ATL)

Note: The combination of these electronic monitors above U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

primary inspection booths provide wayfinding directions and additional information to assist travelers 

in determining how to proceed through the Federal Inspection Service area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 89 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 47: Wayfinding Signage at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(ATL)

Note: This sign provides wayfinding directions to assist travelers in determining how to proceed 

through the Federal Inspection Service area.
Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 90 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Figure 48: Variable Message Signage Monitor at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL)

Note: This electronic monitor provides wayfinding directions and additional information to assist 

travelers in determining how to proceed through the Federal Inspection Service area.
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 91 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

In the following tables, we identify the extent to which U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) and stakeholders have implemented travel and 

tourism facilitation initiatives at the 17 busiest U.S. international airports, 

as of September 30, 2016. 1 CBP’s travel and tourism facilitation initiatives 

at U.S international airports include Automated Passport Control (APC), 

baggage first, dedicated diplomatic processing lanes, electronic signage 

and multimedia, enhanced queueing, Express Connection, Global Entry, 

International to International baggage program, Mobile Passport Control 

(MPC), modified egress, One Stop, Professionalism Service Managers 

(PSM), Reimbursable Services Program fee agreements, stakeholder 

meetings, and Variable Message Signage. In addition, airports have 

implemented additional travel and tourism facilitation initiatives at U.S. 

international airports including color-coded queueing with retractable belts 

and signage, dedicated crew lanes, and electronic wait time monitoring 

systems in primary inspection or exit control areas.

Table 5: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL) Concourse E, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 38 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 115 monitors

Enhanced queueing

Global Entry 10 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

 1

The tables include initiatives that CBP has identified as best practices for facilitating 

travel at U.S. international airports. CBP initiatives are listed under “CBP Initiatives”, and 

additional initiatives that airports have implemented are listed under “Additional Initiatives.”

The information is provided by terminal because airports may have more than one 

international arrivals terminal. CBP officials said that travel and tourism facilitation 

initiatives are not being implemented at Miami International Airport (MIA) Central Terminal 

because travelers are generally not processed at the terminal. Rather, they said that 

travelers are processed at North or South terminals.

Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17

Busiest U.S. International Airports
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 92 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 6: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL) Concourse F, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 36 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 70 monitors

Enhanced queueing

Global Entry 16 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 7: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Boston-Logan International 

Airport (BOS), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 40 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 10 monitors

Enhanced queueing

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 16 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 1 in 

exit control

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Color-coded queueing and signage 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 93 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 8: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport (DFW), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 51 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 5 monitors

Enhanced queueing

Express Connection 10 airlines participate

Global Entry 20 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 7 in 

exit control

One Stopa

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

560)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage 

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Color-coded queueing and signage 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

One Stop is referred to locally as Carry E-Z.

Table 9: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne 

County Airport (DTW) McNamara Terminal, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 30 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 16 monitors

Enhanced queueing

Express Connection 1 airline participates

Global Entry 13 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Modified egress
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 94 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 10: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne 

County Airport (DTW) North Terminal, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 2 monitors

Global Entry 2 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 11: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR) Terminal B, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 6 monitors

Express Connection 17 airlines participate

Global Entry 12 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 4 scanners in primary inspection and 2 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 95 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 12: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Newark Liberty International 

Airport (EWR) Terminal C, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 20 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 5 monitors

Express Connection 1 airline participates

Global Entry 12 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 1 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 13: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

International Airport (FLL), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 30 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 5 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Global Entry 6 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 3 scanners in primary inspection and 2 in 

exit control

Modified egress

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 96 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 14: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Honolulu International 

Airport (HNL), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 32 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 13 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection 1 airline participates

Global Entry 4 kiosks

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 1 alternate at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queueing and signage

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 15: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Washington Dulles 

International Airport (IAD) Main Terminal, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC)a 36 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 to 3 lanes

Electronic signage and multimedia 24 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Global Entry 30 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 3 scanners in primary inspection and 2 at 

exit control 

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 1 alternate at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Automated Passport Control is referred to locally as Passport Express.
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 97 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 16: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Washington Dulles 

International Airport (IAD) Midfield Terminal, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC)a 16 kiosks

Electronic signage and multimedia 4 monitors

Global Entry 16 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 1 scanner in primary inspection

Modified egress

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 1 alternate at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Automated Passport Control is referred to locally as Passport Express.

Table 17: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at George Bush Intercontinental 

Airport (IAH), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 50 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 8 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 40 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 1 scanner in primary inspection, 2 in exit 

control, and 1 in secondary inspection 

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 1 alternate at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

560)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Expected wait time monitor at exit control

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 98 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 18: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 45 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connectiona 23 airlines participate

Global Entry 12 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 1 scanner in primary inspection and 1 in 

exit control 

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at terminal

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage 

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queueing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Express Connection is referred to locally as Quick Connect.

Table 19: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 4, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 70 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 3 lanes

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connectiona 20 airlines participate

Global Entry 25 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 3 scanners in primary inspection and 2 in 

exit control 

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 2 primary PSMs at terminal

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 99 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Expected wait time monitor in primary 

inspectionb

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Express Connection is referred to locally as Quick Connect.

b

Expected wait time monitor in primary inspection is referred to locally as the Queue Management 

System.

Table 20: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 5, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 40 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Global Entry 10 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 1 scanner in primary and 1 in exit control 

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at terminal

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queueing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 21: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 7, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 14 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 2 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connectiona 11 airlines participate

Global Entry 7 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 3 scanners in primary inspection and 2 in 

exit control 
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 100 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at terminal

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

559)

1 agreement at terminal

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Express Connection is referred to locally as Quick Connect.

Table 22: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport (JFK) Terminal 8, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 16 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 2 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connectiona 8 airlines participate

Global Entry 11 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 1 in 

exit control 

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at terminal

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

559)

1 agreement at terminal

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Express Connection is referred to locally as Quick Connect.
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 101 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 23: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX) Terminal 2, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 24 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 8 kiosks

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 24: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX) Terminal 5, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 18 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 6 kiosks

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 102 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 25: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX) Terminal 7, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable

Automated Passport Control (APC) 28 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 8 kiosks

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 26: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX) Tom Bradley International Terminal, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 100 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 10 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 22 kiosks

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 103 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 27: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Orlando International Airport 

(MCO) Airside 1, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable

Automated Passport Control 

(APC)

11 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing 

lanes

1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 3 monitors

Enhanced queuing 

Global Entry 4 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 1 scanner in primary inspection and 1 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager 

(PSM)

1 primary PSM at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 28: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Orlando International Airport 

(MCO) Airside 4, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control 

(APC)

19 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing 

lanes

1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 5 monitors

Enhanced queuing 

Global Entry 4 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 1 scanner in primary inspection and 1 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager 

(PSM)

1 primary PSM at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 104 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 29: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Miami International Airport 

(MIA) Terminal D, as of September 30, 2016a

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 80 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 12 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection 1 airline participates

Global Entry 24 kiosks

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 3 scanners in primary inspection

Modified egress

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 3 primary PSMs at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

560)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage 

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Terminal D is also known as North Terminal.

Table 30: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Miami International Airport 

(MIA) Terminal J, as of September 30, 2016a

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 28 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 10 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Global Entry 4 kiosks
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 105 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

International to International baggage 

program

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection

Modified egress

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 3 primary PSMs at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

560)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Terminal J is also known as South Terminal.

Table 31: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport (ORD), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control 

(APC)

68 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing 

lanes

2 lanes

Electronic signage and multimedia 153 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 24 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 8 in exit 

control

One Stop

Professionalism Service Manager

(PSM)

1 primary PSM at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Variable Message Signage

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 106 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 32: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Philadelphia International 

Airport (PHL), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control (APC) 24 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing lanes 1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 78 monitors

Enhanced queueing 

Express Connection All airlines participate

Global Entry 12 kiosks

Professionalism Service Manager (PSM) 1 primary PSM at airport

Reimbursable Services Program (section 

559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

Table 33: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at Seattle-Tacoma International 

Airport (SEA), as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control 

(APC)

26 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing 

lanes

1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 39 monitors

Express Connection 13 airlines participate

Global Entry 12 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 1 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager 

(PSM)

1 primary PSM and 2 alternates at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 107 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 34: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at San Francisco International 

Airport (SFO) Terminal A, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control 

(APC)

12 kiosksa

Dedicated diplomatic processing 

lanes

1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 5 monitors

Express Connection 23 airlines participate

Global Entry 6 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 1 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager 

(PSM)

1 primary PSM and 1 alternate at airport

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470

a

Terminal representatives said that they plan to have 40 APC kiosks in the terminal by December 

2016.

Table 35: Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at San Francisco International 

Airport (SFO) Terminal G, as of September 30, 2016

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Automated Passport Control 

(APC)

12 kiosks

Dedicated diplomatic processing 

lanes

1 lane

Electronic signage and multimedia 6 monitors

Express Connection 15 airlines participate

Global Entry 12 kiosks

Mobile Passport Control (MPC) 2 scanners in primary inspection and 1 in exit 

control

Professionalism Service Manager 

(PSM)

1 primary PSM and 1 alternate at airport
Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and 

Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports

Page 108 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) Initiatives

Number, if applicable 

Reimbursable Services Program 

(section 559)

1 agreement at airport

Stakeholder meetings

Additional Initiatives

Color-coded queuing and signage

Dedicated crew lane

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. | GAO-17-470
Appendix IV: Average Wait Times at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports, May 2013 

through August 2016

Page 109 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

This appendix provides additional information on the average airport wait 

times for foreign visitors and U.S. citizens at the 17 busiest U.S. 

international airports from May 2013 through August 2016. 1 In the 

following tables, we report U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

airport wait time data for visitors and U.S. citizens at the 17 busiest U.S. 

international airports from May 2013 through August 2016. 2

Table 36: Average Wait Times at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 2013 through August 2016 (in minutes) 

Airport Terminal(s) Average wait 

times for 

visitors

Average wait 

times for U.S. 

citizens

Difference in 

average wait 

times between 

visitors and U.S. 

citizens

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

(ATL) 

Concourse E 16.86 6.75 10.11

Concourse F 22.40 7.80 14.60

Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS) Terminal E 29.69 16.11 13.58

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Terminal D 24.30 10.71 13.59

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 

(DTW)

McNamara Terminal 23.47 11.00 12.47

North Terminal 28.52 17.27 11.25

Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Terminal B 25.17 14.35 10.82

Terminal C 23.64 11.67 11.97

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport 

(FLL)

Terminal 4 30.39 12.48 17.91

Honolulu International Airport (HNL) Main Terminal 19.30 8.87 10.43

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Main and Midfield 

Terminalsa 21.42 9.06 12.36

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) International Arrivals 

Building

29.71 13.12 16.59

John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 37.88 16.15 21.73

Terminal 4 27.92 12.47 15.45

Terminal 5b 20.27 9.57 10.70

Terminal 7 30.26 14.16 16.10

Terminal 8 33.29 15.28 18.01

1

For the purpose of this report, the terms “foreign visitor” or “visitor” refer to a 

nonimmigrant, international traveler seeking admission to the United States on a 

temporary basis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15); 8 C.F.R. § 214.1(a)(1)-(2).

2

We selected this time frame to be able to analyze over three full years of data, including 

four peak summer travel seasons.

Appendix IV: Average Wait Times at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports, May 2013 

through August 2016
Appendix IV: Average Wait Times at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports, May 2013 

through August 2016

Page 110 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Airport Terminal(s) Average wait 

times for 

visitors

Average wait 

times for U.S. 

citizens

Difference in 

average wait 

times between 

visitors and U.S. 

citizens

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 2 28.53 17.54 10.99

Terminal 5 28.38 14.13 14.25

Terminal 7 20.74 8.32 12.42

Tom Bradley International 

Terminal

27.24 13.32 13.92

Orlando International Airport (MCO) Airside 1 26.37 9.99 16.38

Airside 4 30.58 9.10 21.48

Miami International Airport (MIA) Central Terminalc 9.73 5.12 4.61

North Terminald 32.83 15.93 16.90

South Terminale 30.06 12.84 17.22

Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Terminal 5 26.43 11.00 15.43

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Terminal A 26.92 13.33 13.59

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) South Satellite 21.24 8.75 12.49

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Terminal A 35.84 19.16 16.68

Terminal G 32.92 15.48 17.44

Total average wait times 28.02 12.53 15.49

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) airport wait time data. | GAO-17-470

a

According to CBP officials, the agency reports wait time data at the airport level. Travelers that arrive 

at the airport are sent in two separate directions upon arrival, either connecting at the Midfield 

Terminal or terminating at the Main Terminal for CBP processing. Because travelers from the same 

flight are split between two terminals, the wait time data is calculated at the airport level.

b

CBP provided wait times since November 2014.

c

According to CBP officials, travelers are generally not processed at Central Terminal.

d

North Terminal is also known as Terminal D.

e

South Terminal is also known as Terminal J.
Appendix IV: Average Wait Times at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports, May 2013 

through August 2016

Page 111 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Table 37: Average Wait Times during Peak Summer Travel Seasons at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports from May 

2013 through August 2016a

Airport Terminal(s) Average wait 

times for 

visitors

Average wait 

times for U.S. 

citizens

Difference in 

average wait 

times between 

visitors and U.S. 

citizens

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) Concourse E 20.63 7.53 13.10

Concourse F 26.02 8.75 17.27

Boston-Logan International Airport (BOS) Terminal E 34.03 17.90 16.13

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) Terminal D 27.42 13.54 13.88

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW) McNamara 

Terminal

25.35 11.69 13.66

North Terminal 30.88 22.15 8.73

Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) Terminal B 26.21 15.17 11.04

Terminal C 26.28 12.30 13.98

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Terminal 4 31.25 13.58 17.67

Honolulu International Airport (HNL) Main Terminal 18.72 9.57 9.15

Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) Main and Midfield 

Terminalsb 22.21 9.32 12.89

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) International 

Arrivals Building

31.39 15.55 15.84

John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) Terminal 1 38.66 16.59 22.07

Terminal 4 30.20 14.35 15.85

Terminal 5c 19.67 11.23 8.44

Terminal 7 30.04 14.62 15.42

Terminal 8 32.08 16.00 16.08

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Terminal 2 26.96 16.29 10.67

Terminal 5 27.69 13.86 13.83

Terminal 7 21.82 9.40 12.42

Tom Bradley 

International 

Terminal

28.20 13.29 14.91

Orlando International Airport (MCO) Airside 1 28.80 11.01 17.79

Airside 4 33.87 9.79 24.08

Miami International Airport (MIA) Central Terminald 10.35 5.65 4.70

North Terminale 33.11 16.80 16.31

South Terminalf 28.22 13.23 14.99

Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) Terminal 5 29.33 12.00 17.33

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) Terminal A 29.83 15.02 14.81
Appendix IV: Average Wait Times at the 17 

Busiest U.S. International Airports, May 2013 

through August 2016

Page 112 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Airport Terminal(s) Average wait 

times for 

visitors

Average wait 

times for U.S. 

citizens

Difference in 

average wait 

times between 

visitors and U.S. 

citizens

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) South Satellite 26.61 9.34 17.27

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Terminal A 37.46 18.97 18.49

Terminal G 34.18 15.25 18.93

Total average wait 

times

29.29 13.55 15.74

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) airport wait time data. | GAO-17-470

a

According to CBP, the peak summer travel season consists of the months of June, July, and August 

of each year.

b

According to CBP officials, the agency reports wait time data at the airport level. Travelers that arrive 

at the airport are sent in two separate directions upon arrival, either connecting at the Midfield 

Terminal or terminating at the Main Terminal for CBP processing. Because travelers from the same 

flight are split between two terminals, the wait time data is calculated at the airport level.

c

CBP provided wait times since November 2014.

d

According to CBP officials, travelers are generally not processed at Central Terminal.

e

North Terminal is also known as Terminal D.

f

South Terminal is also known as Terminal J.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 113 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 114 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 115 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 116 GAO-17-470 International Air Travelers

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kirk Kiester (Assistant Director), 

Luis E. Rodriguez (Analyst-in-Charge), Dominick Dale, Michele Fejfar, 

Timothy Guinane, Eric Hauswirth, Stephanie Heiken, Susan Hsu, James 

McCully, Sasan J. “Jon” Najmi, and Minette Richardson, made significant 

contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101687)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.