This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-274R
entitled 'Observations on Implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative' which was released on January 22, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 20, 2007:
The Honorable Loretta Sanchez:
Chairwoman:
Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John M. McHugh:
The Honorable Louise M. Slaughter:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Observations on Implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative:
Securing the nation's borders has taken on added importance since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For years, millions of
citizens of the United States, Canada, and Bermuda could enter the
United States from certain parts of the Western Hemisphere using a wide
variety of documents, including a driver's license issued by a state
motor vehicle administration or a birth certificate, or in some cases
for U.S. and Canadian citizens, without showing any documents. In the
heightened national security environment following September 11, we
have previously reported that documents like driver's licenses and
birth certificates can easily be obtained, altered, or counterfeited
and used by terrorists to travel into and out of the country.[Footnote
1] To help provide better assurance that border officials have the
tools and resources to establish that people are who they say they are,
as called for in the 9/11 Commission report,[Footnote 2] section 7209
of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as
amended, requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation
with the Secretary of State, to develop and implement a plan that
requires a passport or other document or combination of documents that
the Secretary of Homeland Security deems sufficient to show identity
and citizenship for U.S. citizens and citizens of Bermuda, Canada, and
Mexico when entering the United States from certain countries in North,
Central, or South America.[Footnote 3]
The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) and the Department of
State's (State) effort to specify acceptable documents and implement
document requirements at 326 air, land, and sea ports of entry is
called the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI).[Footnote 4] On
January 23, 2007, DHS implemented WHTI document requirements at air
ports of entry.[Footnote 5] DHS is required by law to implement WHTI
document requirements at the land and sea ports of entry on the earlier
of two dates: June 1, 2009, or 3 months after DHS and State certify
that certain implementation requirements have been met.[Footnote 6]
Some members of Congress have expressed concerns about whether DHS
would be prepared to implement WHTI document requirements before June
1, 2009, in a manner that does not disrupt cross-border travel even if
the agencies made the required certifications. The consolidated
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008--which includes the DHS
appropriation--contains language to prevent WHTI document requirements
from being implemented before June 1, 2009.[Footnote 7] As of December
19, 2007, the consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008 had
been passed by Congress but not signed by the President.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component within DHS, is
the lead agency in charge of inspecting travelers seeking to enter the
United States at air, land, and sea ports of entry. CBP has created a
WHTI program office within CBP's Office of Field Operations to manage
efforts to propose acceptable documents, implement document
requirements, and oversee technological upgrades. In fiscal year 2008,
DHS requested about $252 million for WHTI implementation, including
approximately $166 million for related technological upgrades--to
develop new software and to deploy that software and new hardware at 13
of the highest-volume U.S. land ports of entry. According to DHS,
implementation of the WHTI document requirements and related
technological upgrades will support its strategic goal of facilitating
legitimate trade and travel while enforcing all U.S. trade,
immigration, drug, consumer protection, intellectual property, and
agricultural laws and regulations at the borders. According to DHS, the
technological upgrades are designed to improve customer service by
avoiding a more time-intensive and intrusive inspection process that
would result from meeting WHTI document requirements without this
technology.
In May 2006, we reported our observations on steps taken and challenges
faced by DHS and State in implementing WHTI in five main areas: (1)
proceeding through the rule-making process, (2) making a decision about
what documents individuals will need when they enter the United States,
(3) carrying out a cost-benefit study, (4) resolving technical and
programmatic issues, and (5) managing implementation of the
program.[Footnote 8] This letter provides updated information in those
five areas.
To address these five objectives, we reviewed documents related to
implementing the WHTI document requirements at air, land, and sea ports
of entry, as well as related plans for technological upgrades in
vehicle lanes at the land ports of entry. These documents included the
final rule making for WHTI documents at air ports of entry, the notice
of proposed rule making for WHTI documents at land and sea ports of
entry, the notice of proposed rule making for the passport card, the
regulatory assessment for the land and sea notice of proposed rule
making, and the draft programmatic environmental assessment for the
land and sea notice of proposed rule making. We considered information
presented in the programmatic environmental assessment related to
projected effects of WHTI document requirements and related
technologies on wait times at the border, but we did not evaluate the
methods used to derive those projections. In addition, we examined
memoranda of agreement and the corresponding business plans between DHS
and Washington and Vermont--two states developing enhanced driver's
licenses that are expected to be acceptable under WHTI. We also
analyzed the public comments submitted by organizations in response to
DHS's and State's land and sea notice of proposed rule making and DHS's
regulatory assessment to identify specific concerns, such as possible
economic effects of the rule and the timeline for document
requirements, that stakeholders submitted for DHS and State to consider
when drafting a final rule. We did not assess the comments for merit,
nor did we evaluate the methods or data any of the commenters used to
draw conclusions. During our review, we interviewed DHS officials,
including those from the WHTI program office, the Screening
Coordination Office, and the CBP Office of Information and Technology.
We also interviewed officials from State's Bureau of Consular Affairs.
We asked these DHS and State officials about current requirements for
crossing the border, how those requirements may change under WHTI, the
status of the rule-making process for WHTI land and sea and the
passport card, the impact of WHTI on existing border-crossing programs,
and other WHTI implementation issues such as CBP staffing, training,
communication, and funding needs. We also visited land ports of entry
and/or interviewed CBP officers and supervisors in the field at the
land ports of Alexandria Bay, New York; Buffalo, New York; Fort
Covington, New York; Ogdensburg, New York; Blaine, Washington; Laredo,
Texas; San Ysidro, California; Otay Mesa, California; and Calexico,
California. We asked these officials about the current procedures for
crossing the border, technology that is currently in place at these
ports of entry, plans DHS has to install new technology at these ports
of entry, effects that are anticipated from changing current inspection
procedures and implementing the new documentary requirements, the
strategy for communicating the new requirements to the public, and any
unique operational challenges of these ports of entry that may be
affected by WHTI. At the ports of entry we visited, we observed the
inspection areas, as well as other port facilities, in order to
understand how the changes expected under WHTI may affect the current
operational procedures at these ports of entry. We chose these ports of
entry, based on geographic location and size of the port, to provide
examples of the operational environment of CBP officers. Because we
selected a nonprobability sample of ports to visit, we cannot
generalize our work from these ports of entry to all land ports of
entry.
Whereas we focused our 2006 review on the U.S.-Canadian land border, we
expanded our scope in this work review to include the U.S.-Mexican land
border. We also considered WHTI implementation at air and sea ports of
entry, but placed a particular emphasis on the land environment,
because, according to DHS data, about three-quarters of all travelers
enter the United States through the nation's 163 land ports of entry,
and because volume and infrastructure concerns likely will present more
complex implementation challenges at the land ports. Our work was
conducted from May 2007 through November 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Since May 2006, DHS and State have taken important actions toward
implementing WHTI document requirements. We reported in May 2006 that
DHS and State had not made decisions about what documents would be
acceptable, had not begun the rule-making process to finalize those
decisions, and were in the early stages of studying costs and benefits.
In addition, DHS and State needed to choose a technology to use with
the new passport card--which State is developing specifically for WHTI.
DHS also faced an array of implementation challenges, including
training staff and informing the public. Since our 2006 work, DHS and
State have taken the following actions in the five main areas:
* Proceeding through the Rule-Making Process. DHS and State finalized
the rule-making process for document requirements at air ports of
entry. The agencies also published a notice of proposed rule making for
document requirements at land and sea ports of entry and anticipate
finalizing the requirements in late fall 2007.
* Deciding on Acceptable Documents.
By publishing a final rule for document requirements at air ports of
entry, DHS and State have established acceptable documents for air
travelers. The notice of proposed rule making for land and sea proposes
acceptable documents. DHS plans to implement document requirements at
land and sea ports of entry as early as summer 2008.
* Performing a Cost-Benefit Study.
DHS has performed a cost-benefit study as required by the rule-making
process. Data limitations prevented DHS from quantifying the precise
effect that WHTI will have on wait times--a substantial source of
uncertainty in its analysis. DHS plans to do baseline studies at
selected ports before WHTI implementation so that it can compare the
effects of WHTI document requirements on wait times after the
requirements are implemented.
* Resolving Technical and Programmatic Issues. DHS and State have
selected technology to be used with the passport card. To support the
card and other documents that use the same technology, DHS is planning
technological upgrades at land ports of entry. These upgrades are
intended to help reduce traveler wait times and more effectively verify
identity and citizenship. DHS has outlined a general strategy for the
upgrades at the 39 highest volume land ports, beginning in January 2008
and continuing over roughly the next 2 years.
* Managing Implementation.
DHS has developed general strategies for implementing WHTI--including
staffing and training. According to DHS officials, they also plan to
work with a contractor on a public relations campaign to communicate
clear and timely information about document requirements. In addition,
State has approved contracting with a public relations firm to assist
with educating the public, particularly border resident communities
about the new passport card and the requirements of WHTI in general.
As DHS moves toward calendar year 2008, it faces challenges deploying
technology and staffing and training officers to use it. In the absence
of a fiscal year 2008 appropriation, funding for the contract has been
uncertain. According to DHS officials, they are exploring options for
funding a contract award, using available funds, if an appropriation is
not immediately forthcoming.[Footnote 9] However, DHS has not yet
determined when and to what extent funds will be available. As of
December 2007, lacking certainty about how it will fund the contract
award and when it will publish the final rule, DHS could not provide a
specific date by which it will select a contractor and begin devising
specific milestones and deadlines for the testing and deployment of new
hardware. Although DHS has devised a strategy for training officers to
use the new technology, part of its delivery is tied to the yet
undetermined milestones for hardware deployment. In addition to
specific deadlines and milestones for testing and deploying hardware,
DHS intends to have the contractor determine the plan and procedures
for testing the technology and a separate contractor to devise specific
goals, objectives, and schedules for conducting a public outreach
campaign. Therefore, these plan details will not be in place until DHS
makes contract awards and the contractors selected prepare the plans.
DHS generally agreed with our observations and said that WHTI is a
major implementation effort that has continued to evolve and progress,
even as we conducted our review. DHS noted that some aspects of WHTI
implementation plans cannot be finalized until it has issued the final
rule for WHTI land and sea document requirements. DHS officials said
that the department is taking all appropriate actions within its legal
authority to fully implement WHTI as soon as feasible, given the
security imperative driving the initiative. DHS stated that it has
drafted specific plans that are ready to be implemented when the final
rule for land and sea document requirements has been published. We
acknowledge that DHS has taken a number of actions to prepare for
testing and deploying technologies and managing the implementation of
other WHTI activities. However, as key elements of planning for program
management and execution remain uncertain, we continue to believe that
DHS faces challenges deploying technology, and staffing and training
officers to use it.
Background:
The Immigration and Nationality Act,[Footnote 10] its implementing
regulations,[Footnote 11] and CBP policies and procedures for traveler
inspection at all ports of entry require officers to establish, at a
minimum, the nationality of individuals and whether they are eligible
to enter the country. All travelers attempting to enter the country
through ports of entry undergo primary inspection, which is a
preliminary screening procedure to identify those legitimate travelers
who can readily be identified as admissible. At land ports of entry,
the primary inspection process in vehicle lanes begins with screening
the vehicle and automatically capturing the license plate information
of a vehicle using a license plate reader (where installed). License
plate readers automatically read front and rear license plates of
vehicles as they enter the primary inspection area, with the data
simultaneously queried--that is, checked against CBP and law
enforcement databases. Officers are to examine travelers' documentation
of citizenship, such as passports, or in some cases for U.S. or
Canadian citizens, officers may accept an oral declaration of
citizenship if they are satisfied that the traveler is a U.S. or
Canadian citizen. Visitors arriving as pedestrians enter an equivalent
primary inspection area, generally inside a CBP building. Persons whose
admissibility cannot be readily determined, persons selected as part of
a random selection process, or persons suspected of violations of
customs, agriculture, or other laws are subjected to a more detailed
review called a secondary inspection in a different area of the port.
The current document requirements for travelers entering the United
States by sea or land generally depend on the nationality of the
traveler and whether or not the traveler is entering the United States
from certain countries within the Western Hemisphere.[Footnote 12]
Currently, U.S. citizens arriving at land or sea ports of entry from
these Western Hemisphere countries can present a wide variety of
documents to border officials to establish their right to enter the
United States. In addition, in some cases, border officials may admit
U.S. citizens with no documentation at all--if the official is
satisfied by the traveler's oral declaration of citizenship. In most
cases, Canadian citizens and citizens of the British Overseas Territory
of Bermuda are also not currently required to present a passport and
visa when entering the United States as nonimmigrant visitors by sea or
land from certain parts of the Western Hemisphere,[Footnote 13] but
must satisfy border officials of their identity, citizenship, and
admissibility and present any proof of citizenship in their
possession.[Footnote 14] Under these conditions, CBP officers at the
ports of entry must assess the validity of thousands of documents that
differ in appearance, information, and security features. For example,
CBP officials at one port of entry we visited noted that there are 16
variations of the Florida driver's license currently in use. According
to DHS and State, the wide range of documents that can be presented
creates the danger that non-U.S. citizens could fraudulently present
themselves as U.S. citizens.
Balancing border security with the facilitation of free movement of
admissible people and legitimate goods is a challenge, particularly on
the land border, which presents complex operational challenges. One
reason land borders are more challenging is that CBP officers there
lack advance traveler manifest information from commercial carriers,
like the information they have at air and sea ports, to prescreen
travelers. Another reason is the tremendous amount of traffic that must
be processed by CBP officers in a short amount of time because the
majority of people entering the U.S. cross a land border. For example,
in fiscal year 2005 over 319 million border crossings by travelers were
processed at official ports of entry located along about 7,500 miles of
land border. During the primary inspection process, most travelers at
the land border physically hand over documentation such as a driver's
license and birth certificate, or a passport, to prove their identity
and citizenship. The CBP officer may check the information contained in
the documents against CBP and law enforcement databases and watch lists
to determine whether any derogatory information exists. To the extent
possible, officers are required to query law enforcement databases for
all travelers in a vehicle. When an individual presents a driver's
license for inspection, if the CBP officer queries the document, the
information on the license must be hand-typed into the computer,
because it cannot be machine read at CBP primary inspection stations.
According to one DHS study, under the current conditions the total
median time for the primary inspection process is approximately 45
seconds.[Footnote 15] However, wait times at the border can be
influenced by a variety of factors that are associated with, but not
directly related to, document requirements. For example, the physical
layout of the ports, the volume and type of traffic that typically
crosses the border at a given port, and the frequency with which CBP
officers query documents against law enforcement databases maintained
by CBP and other law enforcement agencies are all factors that can
influence wait times.
The streamlined travel documentation requirements of WHTI are intended
to enhance security at the nation's ports of entry while facilitating
legitimate trade and travel. However, streamlining and implementing new
document requirements for citizens of the United States, Canada,
Mexico, and Bermuda is one initiative in DHS's multiple activities
designed to enhance border security at and between official ports of
entry. Since DHS began operations in 2003, we have issued more than 65
reports and testimonies about multiple efforts to secure the U.S.
border. These activities are interdependent in that successfully
enhancing security in one area may lead people who intend to unlawfully
enter the United States to attempt exploitation of other avenues of
unlawful entry. The security enhancement potential from WHTI-related
activities discussed in this letter applies solely to the official
ports of entry--primarily in the vehicle lanes for primary inspection
at land borders. Among reviews related to border security, we have
ongoing work examining CBP's Secure Border Initiative, we recently
released a report about CBP's traveler inspections[Footnote 16] and
have recently testified about vulnerabilities along the border at
unmanned and unmonitored locations.[Footnote 17]
Proceeding through the Rule-Making Process:
In May 2006, we reported that DHS and State were to publish three rules
in the Federal Register--(1) for WHTI air and sea document
requirements, (2) for WHTI land document requirements, and (3) for
implementing a new passport card to be issued by State. At the time of
our May 2006 report DHS and State had not entered the first phase of
rule making for any these three areas. (See appendix I for a general
overview of the rule-making process.)
Since our May 2006 report, DHS and State published a final rule
announcing the document requirements, with limited exceptions, for air
ports of entry on November 24, 2006, and implemented them in January
2007. Under the final rule, U.S. citizens and nonimmigrant citizens of
Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda traveling by air between the United States
and Canada, Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and
Bermuda are required to present a valid passport or other WHTI-
compliant documentation, as specified in the final rule, to enter, or
depart from, the United States. Whereas DHS and State originally
intended to combine document requirements for air and sea ports of
entry, they decided to instead combine document requirements for sea
ports of entry with the requirements for land ports of entry. DHS and
State did so because they had recently proposed allowing the new
passport card to be used at seaports and needed to delay implementation
until the card would be available for use there, and because recent
legislation had required them to certify to Congress that they would be
implementing the new requirements at sea and land ports at the same
time.
With regard to travel via land and sea ports of entry, on June 26,
2007, DHS and State published a notice of proposed rule making to
propose WHTI land and sea document requirements and to seek public
comments on the requirements in advance of issuing a final rule. In the
notice of proposed rule making, DHS outlined proposed WHTI document
requirements for U.S. citizens and nonimmigrant aliens, operational and
security considerations at the border, and special rules for specific
groups of travelers (such as children under 16).
During the public comment period on the proposed land and sea rule, DHS
and State received 600 submissions from the public, which, according to
DHS, included over 1,350 separate comments. According to the Director
of the WHTI program office, that office has completed a draft of its
response to the comments, which, as of November 2007, was being
reviewed at DHS. We analyzed the 600 stakeholder submissions and found
that 323 were from stakeholders who identified themselves with various
organizations and 277 were from individual stakeholders who were not
affiliated with organizations. These stakeholders commented on issues
such as concerns about the implementation timeline, support for the
passport card and enhanced driver's licenses, support for WHTI
alternative processes for select populations--such as children under 16
and children traveling in organized groups--and support for the
continued use of trusted traveler programs to cross the border. DHS and
State officials have not provided a specific date when they will
publish the final rule for WHTI land and sea document requirements, but
DHS officials have stated that they expect the final rule to be issued
in late fall 2007. DHS has announced its intention to implement the
WHTI document requirements at land and sea ports in summer 2008. The
exact implementation date is to be established in the final rule or in
a separate notice in the Federal Register.
With regard to the passport card, State published a notice of proposed
rule making in the Federal Register in October 2006 and sent a draft
final rule to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in
October 2007. The notice describes the issuance process and proposed
use of the passport card, which would be an alternative form of a
passport used only by U.S. citizens to demonstrate citizenship and
identity when crossing U.S. land borders and when traveling by sea
between the United States and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, or
Bermuda. State has proposed to issue the passport card for less than
one half the cost of a traditional passport book and expects to begin
issuing the cards to the public in spring 2008.
Making Decisions about Document Requirements:
In May 2006, we reported that to implement WHTI document requirements,
DHS and State needed to decide what alternative documents, if any, will
be acceptable in lieu of a passport. DHS and State finalized these
document decisions for air ports of entry by publishing the final WHTI
air rule. The rule established that United States citizens and
nonimmigrant aliens from Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico entering the
United States at air ports of entry would generally be required to
present a valid passport.[Footnote 18]
WHTI land and sea document requirements will be finalized when DHS and
State publish a final rule in the Federal Register for this purpose.
According to the notice of proposed rule making for land and sea, U.S.
citizens age 16 years and older would be required to present a
traditional passport, the new passport card, or a trusted traveler
document.[Footnote 19] Under the proposed rule, Canadian citizens and
citizens of Bermuda arriving by land or sea would be required to show a
passport, and Canadian citizens would also be able to show valid
trusted traveler cards. There are limited circumstances in which
travelers would not have to show one of these documents. For example,
U.S. and Canadian citizens age 15 years and younger and U.S. and
Canadian citizens ages 16 to 19 who are traveling with parental
permission with their school or other organized group would be allowed
to present a birth certificate, or, in the case of U.S. citizens, other
evidence of citizenship.[Footnote 20] The proposed rule would not
change the documentation requirements for most Mexican nationals, who
are generally required to present a passport and visa or a Border
Crossing Card when attempting to enter the United States.[Footnote 21]
In describing how DHS intends to implement land and sea document
requirements, the notice of proposed rule making also announced DHS's
intention to discontinue allowing travelers entering the U.S. by land
or sea and claiming to be U.S. or Canadian citizens, to prove their
citizenship using only an oral declaration--that is, without showing
travel documents--on January 31, 2008. After DHS ends oral declaration
and until the WHTI document requirements are fully implemented, all
U.S. and Canadian citizens would be required to show one of the
documents described in the proposed rule or a government-issued photo
identification, such as a driver's license, and proof of citizenship
such as a birth certificate. According to CBP officials at the ports of
entry we visited, they do not expect the end of oral declaration to
represent a significant operational change for them, because the
majority of people crossing at their ports already present documents
rather than attempt entry by oral declaration alone.
The land and sea proposed rule also provides for future consideration
of alternative documents issued by states, tribes, bands, provinces,
territories, or foreign governments if developed in accordance with
agreements between those entities and DHS. The notice of proposed rule
making specifically includes, as an example of these, a pilot program
in which DHS has entered into an agreement with the State of Washington
to develop an enhanced driver's license. This license would be
available to U.S. citizens who are also residents of Washington through
its Department of Licensing and would be accepted at any land border
crossing. Similar agreements have been signed by DHS with Arizona,
Vermont, and New York. According to CBP officials, DHS is in
discussions about forming enhanced driver's license programs with other
states, including Michigan and Texas. Enhanced driver's licenses issued
by these states are to denote citizenship and work with the
technologies that CBP uses to electronically verify other WHTI
documents. For each state that decides to pursue development of an
enhanced driver's license, DHS stated that it plans to specifically and
individually evaluate the states' processes for issuing driver's
licenses to approve them for WHTI purposes. For example, according to
the director of the WHTI office, in order for a state to produce an
enhanced driver's license, DHS requires that the license be produced at
one centralized facility, which helps ensure the security of the card.
Moreover, the director said that DHS requires controls to enhance
security around the issuance process such as requiring employees who
can issue enhanced driver's licenses to be U.S. citizens, to pass a
background check, and to receive document fraud and interviewing
technique training.
WHTI is intended to simplify and facilitate the job of CBP officers at
ports of entry by reducing the large number of documents that are
currently presented and by making them easier to verify, thereby
providing more reliable evidence of identity and citizenship to enhance
security. Adding documents for programs like the enhanced driver's
license after the publication of the final rule would expand this
number again. CPB officials told us they are not concerned about the
effect of adding enhanced driver's licenses to the set of documents
acceptable for WHTI, because no matter how many states and Canadian
provinces decide to develop them, there would still be many fewer
documents under WHTI than the thousands that are currently in use. More
important, they say, is that DHS plans to deem documents sufficient to
establish identity and citizenship only when they have (1) minimum
physical security features to help officers to verify the documents by
physical inspection and (2) features that work in concert with
technological upgrades they are designing to improve officers' ability
to electronically verify the information from the document.
Carrying Out a Cost-Benefit Study:
In May 2006, we reported that decisions about documentation for
crossing the border may need to be preceded by a comprehensive and
publicly disclosed cost-benefit study, because the economic impact of
WHTI may be $100 million or more in any single year. We noted that at
that time DHS was in the early stages of studying costs and benefits,
but much more work would be needed.
In accordance with the federal requirements, DHS submitted for Office
of Management and Budget review and for public comment, regulatory
assessments along with the proposed WHTI rules for air and for land and
sea. These regulatory assessments present the costs and benefits of the
proposed documentary requirements for U.S. citizens, along with the
costs and benefits of several alternatives considered during the rule-
making process.
In laying out its analyses in the regulatory assessment for the land
environment, DHS acknowledged that its estimates are subject to
substantial uncertainty. Among other things contributing to uncertainty
was DHS's inability to quantify the effects of proposed document
alternatives on the time travelers have to wait in lines at the border
for a primary inspection. Uncertainty arises because, for example,
longer wait times at the border represent an increase in the cost of
travel, which may lead people to make fewer trips. Conversely, shorter
wait times represent a decrease in the cost of travel, which may lead
people to make more trips. The regulatory assessment described data
limitations that prevented DHS from quantifying the effect of wait
times. For example, the authors of the regulatory assessment noted that
they had identified data that described traffic crossing the border at
land ports of entry, but none of these was extensive enough or current
enough to allow them to estimate traffic volume at individual border
crossing points. According to DHS, it has designed methods to evaluate
changes in wait times that result from WHTI and related technological
upgrades. DHS has begun to collect baseline data for this effort and
plans to evaluate effects at 10 to15 high-volume ports after full
implementation of the WHTI document requirements and full deployment of
related technological upgrades. As of November 2007, DHS had conducted
baseline studies at ports in Detroit, Michigan; Nogales, Arizona; and
Blaine, Washington.
Stakeholders responded to the regulatory assessment by submitting
comments during the public comment period required for the rule-making
process. Of the 323 submissions from organizations responding to the
proposed rule, we identified 13 that specifically cited concerns with
how the regulatory assessment was conducted. Of these, 12 argued that
DHS had underestimated the general impact of WHTI on the economies of
Canada and the United States or on individuals and small business
owners. For example, 1 of these 12 stakeholders offered alternative
data from a 2007 study to calculate lost spending resulting from
Canadians who chose not to cross the U.S. border rather than obtaining
the required documents. This comment asserted that if these data were
used, this lost spending estimate would be roughly four times higher
than the result published in the regulatory assessment. We have not
evaluated the methods or data employed by this study or the reliability
of its outcomes. The final regulatory assessment is to be published
along with the final rule, and DHS is to consider all public comments.
DHS officials told us that they will not comment on any considerations
related to their ongoing rule-making process.
Resolving Technical and Programmatic Issues:
In May 2006, we reported that if DHS and State were to proceed with
developing a card form of the U.S. passport specifically for crossing
land and sea borders, they would still need to make key decisions about
the card. Specifically, we noted that DHS and State had taken steps to
identify the passport card as a lower-cost alternative form of a
passport but had not resolved what type of technology to use to allow
it to be electronically read. Under consideration were two forms of the
same technology that would store data on a tag on the passport card.
The data could then be read and transmitted to the CBP officer using
wireless communication. One form of this technology would require that
cards be in close proximity to the device that would read them, and the
other would allow the cards to be read from a distance of as much as 30
feet away.
Since that time, DHS and State have proposed to proceed with the
passport card using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology
that would allow cards to be read from as much as 30 feet
away.[Footnote 22] This technology is a newer version of technology
already used for CBP's trusted traveler programs. The technology is
designed to allow information to be transmitted to the CBP officer
before the vehicle reaches the inspection station. CBP has estimated
that if all travelers were to present documents with this technology in
lanes containing the RFID readers, thus reducing the time required to
query databases and watch lists, inspection times would be lower than
when travelers present a mix of documents that officers must either
swipe through a machine reader or hand type the salient information
into the computer on a keyboard. The State-issued passport card, DHS-
issued trusted traveler cards, and any enhanced driver's licenses
developed by states or provinces are expected to use RFID technology.
Since our May 2006 report, in the course of drafting the proposed rule
and related studies for the land and sea document requirements, as well
as making its fiscal year 2008 budget request, DHS has more clearly
articulated its plans to employ new WHTI document requirements in
conjunction with upgrades in technology in vehicle lanes at land ports
of entry. These plans are designed to use technology to help CBP
balance border security with free movement of admissible people and
legitimate goods. According to CBP, to reach the full security benefit
of WHTI, documents must be queried against its databases and validated
at the ports of entry. Moreover, CBP has noted that in recent years,
its increased scrutiny of travelers at ports of entry has led to an
increase in the time travelers spend waiting in lines at the border for
primary inspections. CBP, therefore, has sought technological solutions
to enable it to more effectively validate approved WHTI travel
documents for every traveler while avoiding more time-intensive
inspection processes at land ports of entry. According to CBP
officials, these technology upgrades are vital to balancing CBP's
security and facilitation missions.
DHS has reported that regardless of the technology used to read the
documents, there could be some increases in traffic wait times at
higher-volume ports of entry as officers and travelers adjust to new
document requirements, particularly on the northern border. By the same
token, it reported that over time, it expects standardized document
requirements and technologies that electronically read documents to
result in decreases in wait times and RFID technology to provide the
most improvement to traffic flow and wait times.
Key aspects of CBP's technology upgrade plans include the following:
* replacing the current primary processing interface--the software that
manages database queries in the vehicle primary lanes--with a new
interface that will work with all WHTI-acceptable documents and will
help officers better validate document information;
* installing hardware in all vehicle lanes at the highest-volume land
ports of entry to facilitate use of the RFID technology that is to be
used to read information on trusted traveler documents, the new
passport card, and any enhanced driver's licenses currently under
development;
* upgrading current license plate readers with new versions that read
plates more accurately and are to work with the new primary processing
interface to link travelers to a specific vehicle at the time of
crossing; and:
* replacing the current workstation monitors with new monitors that are
to more efficiently and effectively display the information available
through the new primary processing interface.
CBP officials told us that they plan to begin deployment of the new
primary processing interface (software) in February 2008. To test and
deploy the new hardware, CBP plans to work with a primary contractor
and has issued a request for proposal, which, among other things, would
require this contractor to establish a specific timeline and deployment
schedule for implementation. As of December 19, 2007, DHS has not yet
awarded a contract. Although the specific timeline for implementation
remains uncertain, CBP has developed and articulated a general strategy
for deploying and implementing the technology upgrades in 469 vehicle
lanes at the 39 highest-volume ports of entry over approximately the
next 2 years. In its fiscal year 2008 budget request, DHS requested
funding to develop, manage, and deploy the technology upgrades at 13
high-volume ports of entry. First, it plans to install and test the new
primary processing interface at two land ports of entry in Nogales,
Arizona, and Blaine, Washington, in February 2008 and test it for at
least 90 days. Then, CBP expects that the contractor it selects will
have the new hardware in place and operational at these two ports
sometime in April 2008. When both hardware and software are in place at
the two initial ports, CBP plans to test the entire technology package
for a minimum of 45 days. During this testing, CBP officials say they
will resolve any technological and human-factors issues that may arise-
-for example, studying how officers interact with the new workstations
to ensure that the configuration does not slow processing or increase
injury risk. After testing and evaluation, CBP then plans to implement
and deploy the technologies--hardware and software together--at 11 more
high volume ports of entry, in fiscal year 2008. Third, in future
years, it plans to move the efforts to additional ports, until the 39
highest-volume ports--representing 95 percent of all land border
crossings--have the technology upgrades. Finally, over time, CBP plans
to install the new primary processing interface and upgrade the license
plate readers at the land ports that are not included in the 39 highest-
volume ports.
To achieve their full benefit, RFID-enabled documents must be paired
with RFID readers at the ports of entry. Although RFID readers will not
be installed at all of the 39 highest-volume ports by DHS's planned
WHTI implementation that could be as early as summer 2008, there is,
according to DHS, an alternative technology available in all vehicle
lanes at land ports of entry that allows documents with a specific kind
of data strip to be hand swiped through an electronic document reader.
The passport, passport card, trusted traveler documents, and any
enhanced driver's licenses currently under development already have or
are expected to have this kind of data strip.[Footnote 23] (See
appendix II for a list of the primary documents proposed to be
acceptable under WHTI and their circumstances of use.) According to
CBP, in the absence of RFID readers in vehicle lanes, its officers will
swipe RFID-enabled documents through electronic readers--at smaller
ports not slated to receive the technology and at ports among the 39
that have not yet received the upgrades when DHS implements the WHTI
document requirements. In addition, because the RFID technology in
traditional U.S. passports is not compatible with the RFID technology
CBP plans to install at land ports, officers will continue to swipe
U.S. passports through an electronic reader as the standard method for
electronically reading them.
Although CBP has noted that hand swiping documents through electronic
readers is more efficient than typing information into a computer on a
keyboard, it has also noted that it takes more time to read documents
than it would if the planned RFID technology were installed. Moreover,
CBP has stated that swiping the documents does not provide the benefit
of information that has been wirelessly transmitted to the officers in
advance of vehicles approaching the primary inspection booths. CBP says
this benefit of RFID technology allows officers to be aware of
derogatory data before encountering travelers and to focus more
attention on inspecting vehicles. DHS has not determined how many ports
must have operational RFID technology before implementing the document
requirements. However, according to CBP officials, the technology is
important for balancing border security with facilitation of trade and
travel, and they would like to complete the upgrades at least at the
first 10 ports before the document requirements are implemented.
Aside from deploying the technological upgrades, CBP is faced with
making logistical decisions about how to use the technology and the new
document requirements within its standard inspection policies and
procedures. For example, CBP headquarters or each port director will be
able to decide whether to dedicate specific lanes exclusively for RFID-
enabled documents, such as passport cards, that can be read before the
vehicle approaches the primary inspections booth, rather than lanes
that are dedicated to handling both RFID-enabled cards and other
documents. At larger ports, port directors have already dedicated lanes
for people who present trusted traveler documents that currently use
this kind of technology. Another example of a decision CBP is facing
concerns how to implement its inspection processes in light of the new
technological features. For example, for documents that transmit
information to the officer in advance of the traveler's arrival at the
inspection booth, CBP is confronted with determining whether it is
necessary, from a security standpoint, to physically inspect those
documents or if a visual match between travelers and their onscreen
images would be sufficient to assess the validity of the documents.
Managing Program Implementation:
In May 2006, we reported that even after DHS and State finalize the
WHTI document requirements, DHS would face challenges implementing the
program and that failing to overcome these challenges may hinder DHS's
ability to achieve the goal of improving security while facilitating
commerce and travel. Our report noted that DHS still had much more work
remaining in developing (1) an implementation plan, (2) training
programs for DHS staff, (3) awareness programs for the public, (4)
bilateral coordination with Canada, and (5) budget estimates to support
these initiatives.
Since our May 2006 report, CBP has developed general strategies in each
of the areas to help manage its implementation of WHTI document
requirements at land and sea ports of entry. Specifically, as
previously discussed, DHS's plans for implementing the new document
requirements at land and sea ports are first to end the use of oral
declaration on January 31, 2008, and then implement the WHTI document
requirements at a date established through the rule-making process--
currently expected to be as early as the summer of 2008. With regard to
implementing new technologies, the request for proposal for managing
the hardware installation requires the contractor to develop specific
program management and project execution plans that contain milestones
and deadlines. Given the uncertainty surrounding the timing of and
funding for this contract award, some details of the implementation
plan for deployment of the new technologies--particularly the
deployment timeline--are still unknown.
The WHTI program office has developed a training strategy to inform CBP
staff of the new tasks, tools, policies, and procedures that will
support WHTI. According to the strategy, DHS will make Web-based
training available to all CBP officers and, based on the implementation
schedule of new technologies, will begin to offer customized training
to CBP officers at each port of entry in conjunction with technology
deployment.
The WHTI program office also plans to carry out a public information
campaign about the document requirements, using CBP's public affairs
office and additional contractor support. CBP has outlined the roles
and responsibilities of the contractor in a request for proposal and
expects to make a contract award in January 2008. Among other things,
the contractor is to provide program management support to the CBP
public affairs office and develop a communications strategic plan. This
plan will define the specific goals and objectives and establish the
implementation schedule of the communication strategy for educating the
public about the WHTI document requirements. In addition to DHS's
public outreach plans, State has approved contracting with a public
relations firm to assist with educating the public, particularly border
resident communities about the new passport card and the requirements
of WHTI in general. One key challenge of managing public information is
communicating clear and timely messages about these documents, whose
costs and availability may be uncertain and changing. For example,
multiple states are in different stages of developing an enhanced
driver's license program, but it is not clear when the licenses will be
available or what other states might participate at a later date. If
DHS implements the WHTI document requirements in summer 2008,
Washington may be the only state with an available enhanced driver's
license.
Our May 2006 report also noted that DHS and State face challenges in
developing bilateral coordination with Canada as they implement WHTI.
According to DHS and State officials, they meet in bilateral working
groups with their Canadian counterparts, including meetings with
Canadian stakeholders that the DHS Offices of Screening Coordination
and International Affairs coordinate, meetings between CBP and the
Canada Border Services Agency, and meetings between State and the
Passport Canada office. In addition, CBP officers at one port of entry
we visited noted that they are in contact with their Canadian
counterparts and that they discuss potential inspection changes that
result from WHTI. Finally, the WHTI program office and State's Bureau
of Consular Affairs told us they are currently in discussions with
Canadian officials regarding the development of WHTI-acceptable
alternatives to a Canadian passport, such as an enhanced driver's
license produced by the Canadian provinces and a Canadian version of
the passport card.
In May 2006, we reported that DHS had not requested funds for WHTI in
its 2007 budget request and had not developed budget estimates. In
fiscal year 2008, DHS's budget request included about $252 million for
WHTI implementation, with specific funding requests for program
management, communication and outreach, software development and
enhancement, deployment and implementation of technologies, and
infrastructure upgrades. In addition, DHS requested fiscal year 2008
funding for staffing increases related to WHTI. In connection with the
request, CBP developed a strategy to hire additional officers to
prepare for, among other things, the anticipated increase in the number
of secondary inspections that may occur because of individuals
attempting to cross the border without acceptable documentation.
Although DHS has requested these funds to support WHTI implementation
during fiscal year 2008, as of December 19, 2007, DHS's fiscal year
2008 appropriation was awaiting signature by the President. According
to CBP officials, the extent to which they can hire additional officers
and fund the contracts that are to support many of the implementation
efforts remains uncertain until DHS receives its 2008 allocation.
Agency Comment and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of
State and Homeland Security. DHS and State provided technical comments,
which we incorporated, as appropriate. In a December 17, 2007, letter,
DHS also provided written comments, which are summarized below and
included in their entirety in appendix III.
In its comments, DHS generally agreed with our observations and said
that the program is a major implementation effort that has continued to
evolve and progress, even as we conducted our review. DHS noted that
some aspects of WHTI implementation plans cannot be finalized until it
has issued the final rule for WHTI land and sea document requirements.
DHS officials said that the department is taking all appropriate
actions within its legal authority to fully implement WHTI as soon as
feasible, given the security imperative driving the initiative. DHS
stated that it has drafted specific plans that are ready to be
implemented when the final rule for land and sea document requirements
has been published. DHS noted that it has issued a request for proposal
(RFP) for the testing and deployment of RFID and license-plate-reader
technology, which according to DHS is specific in terms of
requirements, including requirements that the contractor develop final
testing protocols and schedules following contract award. DHS further
stated that it has developed a comprehensive plan for training officers
to use the new software and a training strategy for the new document
requirements and related changes in policies and procedures. In
addition, DHS noted that it has prepared a comprehensive RFP to award a
public affairs contract that discusses WHTI communication and outreach
goals, and DHS anticipates future advertising and outreach efforts as
funds become available. Finally, DHS noted that the WHTI program office
plans to rely on its operational experience to develop and issue
guidance to support CBP officers when DHS ends the practice of oral
declaration.
We acknowledge that DHS has taken a number of actions to prepare for
testing and deploying technologies and managing the implementation of
other WHTI activities. Where appropriate, we revised our draft report
to more fully recognize the actions that DHS is planning to take when
the rule for WHTI document requirements at land and sea ports of entry
is finalized. Nevertheless, we continue to believe that DHS faces
challenges deploying technology, and staffing and training officers to
use it. Although DHS has issued the RFP for the testing and deployment
of RFID and license plate reader technology, the funding for and timing
of the contract award are uncertain. Because the project schedule is to
be determined after the contract is awarded, neither we nor DHS can
predict with any precision when to expect the highest volume ports to
receive the new technologies associated with WHTI. It will be
particularly challenging for DHS to deploy these technologies to 13 of
the highest volume ports during fiscal year 2008, as planned for in its
fiscal year 2008 budget request. CBP officials told us they expect to
complete installation of the new hardware at the two test ports
sometime in April 2008. The technology is then to be tested and
modified, as appropriate, for a minimum of 45 days. Even if DHS
encounters no serious setbacks before or during the deployment and
operational testing, it would not be ready to begin deployment to the
remaining 11 ports slated to receive the technology in fiscal year 2008
before June 2008. Any slippage in the deployment schedule would also
affect other DHS initiatives, including those related to officer
training at the ports of entry.
With regard to public outreach efforts, while the RFP contains some of
the general concepts to be covered by the contractor's strategic
communications plan, it leaves it to the contractor to define the
specific goals and objectives and establish the implementation schedule
for the public relations campaign. Therefore, a specific plan for
public outreach will not be completed and implemented until a contract
is awarded, the contractor prepares the communications plan called for
in the RFP, and DHS approves the contractor's plan.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State and interested
congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also make copies
available to others on request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or
stanar@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Other key contributors to this report were John Mortin,
Assistant Director; Chuck Bausell; Frances Cook; Michelle Cooper; Karen
Febey; Danielle Fox; Kathryn Godfrey; Mary Catherine Hult; Richard
Hung; and Amanda Miller.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: General Overview of the Federal Rule-Making Process:
This appendix provides an overview of the steps in the rule-making
process for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866
and the potential time involved for some of the steps.
Step 1: Agency (or agencies, if a joint rule) completes development of
the notice of proposed rule making (NPRM), which includes the proposed
rule and supplemental information.[Footnote 24]
Step 2: Agency submits the draft NPRM and supporting materials,
including any required cost-benefit analysis, to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
Step 3: OMB reviews the draft NPRM and supporting materials and
coordinates review of the proposed rule by any other agencies that may
have an interest in it.
Step 4: OMB notifies the agency in writing of the results of its
review, including any provisions requiring further consideration by the
agency, within 90 calendar days after the date of submission to
OMB.[Footnote 25]
Step 5: OMB resolves disagreements or conflicts, if any, between or
among agency heads or between OMB and any agency; if it cannot do so,
such disagreements or conflicts are resolved by the President or by the
Vice President acting at the request of the President.
Step 6: Once OMB notifies the agency that it has completed its review
without any requests for further consideration, the agency reviews the
NPRM and publishes it for public comment in the Federal Register.
Step 7: Agency is to give the public a meaningful opportunity to
comment on the proposed rule, which generally means a comment period of
not less than 60 days.
Step 8: Once the comment period has closed, the agency reviews the
comments received, makes appropriate revisions to the proposed rule,
and prepares a notice of the final rule, including supplemental
information with responses to comments received.[Footnote 26]
Step 9: Agency submits draft notice and final rule, including updated
supporting materials or cost-benefit analysis, to OMB for review.
Step 10: OMB reviews the draft notice, final rule, and supporting
materials; coordinates review by any other agencies that may have an
interest in the rule; and notifies the agency of the results within 90
calendar days after the date of submission to OMB.[Footnote 27]
Step 11: Once OMB notifies the agency that it has completed its review
without any requests for further consideration, the agency reviews the
rule one more time and generally publishes the final rule and
supplemental information in the Federal Register at least 60 days
before the new rule takes effect.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Primary Documents Proposed Under WHTI for Land and Sea and
Circumstances of Use:
Document: Passport;
Population allowed to use document: All travelers (with visa if
required);
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land/sea crossing;
Length of validity: Varies;
Radio frequency identification: {A};
Machine readable zone: [Check].
Document: Passport card;
Population allowed to use document: U.S. citizens;
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land/sea crossing
arriving from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean. Available
spring 2008;
Length of validity: 10 years;
Radio frequency identification: [Check];
Machine readable zone: [Check].
Document: NEXUS;
Population allowed to use document: U.S. and Canadian citizens approved
to receive the document;
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land and sea crossings
when card holder is not bringing commercial goods into the country;
Length of validity: 5 years;
Radio frequency identification: [Check];
Machine readable zone: [Check].
Document: SENTRI;
Population allowed to use document: U.S. citizens approved to receive
the document;
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land and sea crossings
when card holder is not bringing commercial goods into the country;
Length of validity: 5 years;
Radio frequency identification: [Check];
Machine readable zone: [Check].
Document: FAST;
Population allowed to use document: Approved U.S. and Canadian
commercial transport drivers;
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land crossings when
transporting commercial goods;
Length of validity: 5 years;
Radio frequency identification: [Check];
Machine readable zone: [Check].
Document: Merchant Mariner Document;
Population allowed to use document: U.S. citizen merchant mariners;
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land/sea crossing when
on official mariner business;
Length of validity: Document is being phased out over the next 5 years;
Radio frequency identification: [Empty];
Machine readable zone: [Empty].
Document: Military I.D.;
Population allowed to use document: U.S. citizens and aliens who are
members of U.S. armed forces or NATO;
When and where document can be used: At any U.S. land/sea crossing, but
only when entering on official military orders;
Length of validity: Varies;
Radio frequency identification: [Empty];
Machine readable zone: [Empty].
Source: GAO Analysis of DHS and State data.
[A] The passport contains radio frequency identification technology,
but is not compatible with the technology DHS is installing to read
documents in vehicle lanes.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]
December 17, 2007:
Mr. Richard Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: U.S. Government Accountability
Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report, GAO Draft
Letter Report "Observations on Implementing the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative" (GAO-08-274R). We generally agree with your
observations and appreciate the approach you took toward a program
still in development.
As your report acknowledges, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative
(WHTI) is a major implementation effort that has continued to evolve
and progress even as your review took place. You note that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proceeding by a Notice and
Comment Rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). It is
therefore necessary that the Final Rule designating acceptable
documents be issued before steps can be finalized to implement that
Final Rule. As noted in our technical comments, DHS is taking all
appropriate actions within its legal authority to fully implement WHTI
as soon as feasible, given the security imperative driving the
initiative.
Your letter notes areas that have not been completed including public
notice, training and other aspects of implementation. For instance,
plans that are described as not having been "developed" have generally
been drafted but cannot yet be finalized. DHS has taken all appropriate
steps to prepare these documents in conjunction with the issuance of
the Final Rule. While the APA structures limit our ability to provide
you with such drafts, we have endeavored to do so for subjects, such as
facilitative technology choices, which are not contingent on the
completion of the rulemaking.
In our technical comments to the report, we do specify that DHS has
developed plans for testing and deploying technologies. DHS issued a
Request for Proposal (RFP) for WHTI Radio Frequency Identification
Technology (RFID) and License Plate Reader (LPR) infrastructure which
is specific in terms of the requirements for testing and deploying the
WHTI technologies to the land border. The information technology
deployment planning and schedule will be solidified following contract
award. Government and contractor representatives will complete an
integrated baseline review of the entire project effort within 30 days
of contract award. The detailed test plans will verify/validate
contractor performance and lead to government acceptance of the work.
Validation of contractor performance is a clear deliverable under the
contract. The WHTI Vehicle Primary Client (WHTI VPC) will be tested
separately in a laboratory environment, by means of independent tests
including operational tests at the land border.
The end-to-end WHTI technical solution including RFID, LPR and WHTI
client applications will be tested in a controlled Government test lane
facility prior to operational deployment and testing. Operational
deployment will be limited to two border crossings. This implementation
will allow a minimum of 45 days to fully test and evaluate the WHTI
technical solution before deployment begins to the other land ports.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would like to clarify that there is
a comprehensive training plan for the roll out of the WHTI vehicle
primary client technology in February 2008. The WHTI Program Management
Office (PMO) also has worked with the training and development teams to
put together an extensive training strategy for the new WHTI
documentary requirements and associated operational policy. Training
requirements related to the WHTI RFID/LPR infrastructure will be
minimal by comparison to the new WHTI vehicle primary client. CBP will
deploy the new vehicle primary client in February 2008 to Blaine and
Nogales, in advance of the new RFID/LPR infrastructure. Operational
testing and evaluation will continue for approximately 90 days.
CBP has prepared a comprehensive RFP to award a public affairs
contract. This RFP goes into great detail regarding the WHTI
communication and outreach goals. This RFP was prepared consistent with
available funding and has been released for the purpose of soliciting
proposals. CBP anticipates future advertising and public outreach
efforts will occur as additional funds become available.
Lastly, in addition to the GAO statements regarding the reports from
the field about the possible effect of the related elimination of oral
declarations alone, CBP would add that the WHTI program office will
rely on its operational experience in processing travelers entering the
United States by land to issue field guidance. That field guidance will
ensure that this change is implemented in a manner that will minimize
delays while achieving the security benefit underlying WHTI.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft
letter report and provide clarifications.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Stephen J. Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Counterfeit Documents Used to Enter the United States from
Certain Western Hemisphere Countries Not Detected, GAO-03-713T
(Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2003).
[2] U.S. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States, The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington: GPO, 2004).
[3] Pub. L. No. 108-458, § 7209, 118 Stat. 3638, 3823 (2004), amended
by Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L.
No. 109-295, § 546, 120 Stat. 1355, 1386-87 (2006). This provision
applies to citizens of Bermuda, Canada, and Mexico entering the United
States as nonimmigrant visitors.
[4] Ports of entry are government-designated locations where DHS
inspects persons and goods to determine whether they may be lawfully
admitted into the country. A land port of entry may have more than one
border crossing point where DHS inspects travelers for admissibility
into the United States.
[5] See Documents Required for Travelers Departing from or Arriving in
the United States at Air Ports of Entry from within the Western
Hemisphere, 71 Fed. Reg. 68,412 (Nov. 24, 2006).
[6] These requirements include (1) National Institute of Standards and
Technology certification that DHS and State have selected a card
architecture that meets or exceeds the security standards set by the
International Organization for Standardization, (2) sharing the
technology used for the passport card with the governments of Canada
and Mexico, (3) submitting a detailed justification to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations concerning the fee that will be
charged to individuals by the U.S. Postal Service for the passport
card, (4) developing an alternative procedure for groups of children
entering the United States under adult supervision and with parental
consent, (5) ensuring that the infrastructure needed to process the
passport cards has been installed at ports of entry, (6) training CBP
officers at those ports of entry to use the new technology, (7)
ensuring that the passport card is available to U.S. citizens, and (8)
establishing a single date for implementing the program at sea and land
ports of entry.
[7] H.R. 2764, 110th Cong. § 545 (as amended and passed by Senate, Dec.
18, 2007 and by House, Dec. 19, 2007).
[8] GAO, Observations on Efforts to Implement the Western Hemisphere
Travel Initiative on the U.S. Border with Canada, GAO-06-741R
(Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2006).
[9] As previously noted, the fiscal year 2008 DHS appropriation was
passed by Congress on December 19, 2007 but not yet signed by the
President.
[10] See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)
[11] See 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(a), (b), and (f)(1).
[12] The Western Hemisphere countries addressed in this report are
those in North, South, or Central America, and associated islands and
waters. These islands are Bermuda and the islands located in the
Caribbean Sea, except Cuba.
[13] A nonimmigrant alien is an international traveler that wishes to
enter the United States on a temporary basis for tourism, medical
treatment, business, temporary work, study, or other similar reasons.
[14] As previously mentioned, in some cases Canadian citizens may be
admitted with an oral declaration of citizenship alone.
[15] See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Western Hemisphere Travel
Initiative in the Land and Sea Environments Draft Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (Washington, D.C.: June 2007).
[16] GAO, Border Security: Despite Progress, Weaknesses in Traveler
Inspections Exist at Our Nation's Ports of Entry, GAO-08-219
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 5, 2007).
[17] GAO, Border Security: Security Vulnerabilities at Unmanned and
Unmonitored U.S. Border Locations, GAO-07-884T (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
27, 2007).
[18] The only exceptions to the passport requirement for air travel
would be for United States citizens who are members of the U.S. armed
forces traveling on active duty, travelers who present a merchant
mariner document traveling in conjunction with maritime business, and
travelers who present a NEXUS Air card--NEXUS is one of three trusted
traveler programs designed to expedite security processing for low risk
travelers who apply and are granted membership.
[19] The trusted traveler programs--NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST--are
designed to streamline border inspection for pre-approved, low-risk
travelers and commercial drivers. The NEXUS program is a joint program
between the United States and Canada. After passing a security-based
vetting process and paying an application fee, Mexican, Canadian, and
U.S. citizens in these programs are eligible for expedited passage into
the United States when traveling in designated trusted traveler lanes.
[20] In addition, members of the U.S. military traveling under official
orders may show a Military Identification Card, U.S. Merchant Mariners
traveling in conjunction with official maritime business may show a
merchant mariner document, and U.S. citizen cruise line passengers
whose voyages begin and end in the United States or its territories
would be allowed to present a photo identification and birth
certificate or other evidence of citizenship.
[21] The Border Crossing Card permits limited travel, without
additional documentation 25 miles inside the border of the United
States (75 miles if entering through certain ports of entry in Arizona)
for fewer than 30 days.
[22] RFID is an automated data-capture technology that can be used to
electronically identify and store information contained on a tag.
Identification capabilities are provided using wireless communication
to transmit information. The information being transmitted is a single
identifying number that will allow the CBP database to find an
individual's personal information. This technology is similar in
function to the EZ-PASS system in use at highway toll stations.
[23] Some documents included in the proposed rule that will be
acceptable in limited and specific circumstances currently lack the
ability to be electronically read at land ports of entry (e.g.,
merchant mariner documents and birth certificates).
[24] An agency may also begin this process with an advance notice of
proposed rule making that seeks comments and suggestions from the
public on the potential content of a forthcoming NPRM, but this step is
not required by law or executive order in most cases.
[25] Executive Order 12866 provides that, for rules governed by a
statutory deadline, the agency shall, to the extent practicable,
schedule rule making proceedings so as to permit sufficient time for
OMB review. It also provides that when an agency is obligated by law to
act more quickly than normal review procedures allow, the agency shall
comply with the requirements to submit the proposed rule and required
supporting materials to OMB, "to the extent practicable."
[26] If the final rule is materially different from the proposed rule,
possibly because of new issues raised or other important legal or
substantive developments during the comment period, an agency may
decide to publish it as a proposed rule instead with a second comment
period. This approach helps the agency provide sufficient notice and
opportunity for public comment on how the rule addresses the new issues
or developments, but it delays implementation of the final rule.
[27] This time period is reduced to 45 days if OMB has previously
reviewed the rule and supporting information and there has been no
material change in the facts and circumstances upon which the rule is
based.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: