International Air Travelers: CBP Collaborates with Stakeholders to Facilitate the Arrivals Process, but Could Strengthen Reporting of Airport Wait Times
Published: 2017-03-30T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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).  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).  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.
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 States by using multimedia and signage, implementing technology to  facilitate entry, and expanding public-private partnerships. 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.
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  arrivals process for international travelers to the United States.  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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.  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.  We  collected information and interviewed CBP officials and airport and airline  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.   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.  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  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.   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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Overview of International Air Travel Environment
paragraphs: 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.  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.
section_title: CBP’s Inspection Process for International Arrivals
paragraphs: 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. At the end of the sterile corridor, travelers enter the  Federal Inspection Service (FIS) area, which is a secure area of the  airport where CBP inspects travelers applying for admission to the United  States.  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.
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.  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.  Figure 1 shows the inspection process for travelers  arriving at U.S. international airports.
section_title: Stakeholders in the International Arrivals Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Model Ports Program
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.  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.
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  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.
section_title: The National Travel and Tourism Strategy
paragraphs: 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.  In May 2014, the President issued a  Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretaries of Commerce and  Homeland Security to establish a national goal and develop airport- specific 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  airline industry, airport authorities, state and local governments, and other  customer service industry leaders.
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.   CBP updates the action plans and reports on performance metrics  quarterly and makes these updates available on its public website.  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  experience and decision to travel to the United States, among other  things.
section_title: CBP Has Collaborated with Stakeholders to Facilitate Traveler Entry and Implementation of Travel Initiatives Varies by Airport
subsections: section_title: CBP and Stakeholders Jointly Implement Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at U.S. International Airports
paragraphs: 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.
Move mouse over initiative names to see a photo of the initiative. For noninteractive version, see app. II.
Mobile Passport Control (MPC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Electronic monitors that provide wayfinding direction and additional  information to assist travelers in determining how to proceed through the  FIS area.
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.
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.
section_title: Various Airport-specific Factors Affect the Implementation of Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives
paragraphs: 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,  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.
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.   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  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. 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.
Another initiative that varies across airports and terminals is the use of  color-coded signage and queueing, as shown in figure 6.  For example,  three terminals at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) use color- coded 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 CBP- led initiative, implementing partners have more flexibility to implement this  initiative how they prefer.
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.  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.  As a  result, APC is at phase four in some airports, while in phase one, two, or  three at other airports.
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  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.
Table 1 includes these additional stakeholder initiatives, such as color- coded queuing and signage and expected wait time monitors in the FIS,  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.
See appendix III for additional information about the implementation of  initiatives at international arrivals terminals at the 17 busiest U.S.  international airports.
section_title: CBP Has Implemented Mechanisms to Assess and Obtain Feedback on the Traveler Experience
paragraphs: 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.
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.  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.
section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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, data- driven staffing tool designed to inform CBP officer allocation decisions  regarding current and future officer staffing at POEs.  CBP conducts  WSM calculations annually and publishes its CBP-wide calculation for all  of its POEs in its annual reports to Congress. 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.  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.
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 add- on 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 add- on 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.
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. 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  recommendations to strengthen the internal controls over the model.   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.  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.
subsections: section_title: CBP Uses Tools, Overtime, and Other Strategies to Manage Staff at Airports
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.  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.
section_title: Stakeholders Provide Various Resources to Facilitate the Traveler Entry Process
paragraphs: 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.  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  overtime.  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).  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).  Table 3 provides a brief description of these agreements  at each airport.
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  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 public- private 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.
section_title: CBP Could Take Steps to Improve the Usefulness of Reported Airport Wait Time Data and Is Taking Steps to Collect Additional Data
subsections: section_title: CBP Monitors Airport Wait Times and Takes Actions to Maintain or Reduce Wait Times
paragraphs: 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.  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.  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.
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  corridor before proceeding to the FIS area, such as in Orlando  International Airport (MCO).
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.  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.
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  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  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 post- implementation, 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 Seattle- Tacoma 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.
section_title: CBP Reports Airport Wait Time Data but Could Take Steps to Improve the Usefulness of Reported Data
paragraphs: 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.  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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.  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.
section_title: CBP Is Taking Steps to Collect More Detailed Airport Wait Time Data to Meet New Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: 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.  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  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.
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  longest wait times.  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.   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.  The project  is intended to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of commercially- available 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  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.  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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.   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.”  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  from the Model Ports program which directed officials at airports to test  initiatives such as enhanced queueing and diplomatic processing lanes.
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. 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.
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.
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.   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  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.  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.  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  national and local collective bargaining agreements.  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. 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 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.  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Images of Select Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Implementation of Travel and Tourism Facilitation Initiatives at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports
paragraphs: 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.  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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Average Wait Times at the 17 Busiest U.S. International Airports, May 2013 through August 2016
paragraphs: 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.  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.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.