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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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. 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.