CUSTOMS AND 

BORDER 

PROTECTION

Automated Trade 

Data System Yields 

Benefits, but 

Interagency 

Management 

Approach Is Needed

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2018

GAO-18-271

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-271, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2018

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION

Automated Trade Data System Yields Benefits, but 

Interagency Management Approach Is Needed

What GAO Found

Since renewing efforts to implement the Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) in 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has deployed a 

number of key ACE activities, processes, and functions that it terms core 

capabilities. After several delays, CBP reported that it had finished implementing 

these capabilities—other than a capability for revenue collections—in February 

2018. CBP expects to decide how to proceed with collections by the end of 

March 2018, according to agency officials.

Three Stages of Import Processing

The 22 agencies CBP identified as requiring documentation to clear or license 

cargo are all authorized to access ACE, although GAO found considerable 

variation in their use of the system for import processing. For example, the Food 

and Drug Administration has integrated its systems with ACE and uses ACE data 

to review imports under its jurisdiction and target public health risks. In contrast, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service has not yet integrated ACE into its operations.

ACE users at CBP and partner agencies and in the trade community told GAO 

that using ACE has reduced costs by making trade processing more efficient and 

has strengthened enforcement of trade laws and regulations. CBP has 

developed metrics for itself and the trade community and estimated savings that 

could result from the increased efficiency of some processes in ACE. CBP also 

reported efforts to expand its metrics to capture more ACE benefits—for 

example, to estimate the value of increased efficiencies for partner agencies.

CBP has not yet established an approach for the management of ACE after 

February 2018. The agency plans to enhance ACE to address shortcomings 

ACE users have identified—such as difficulty in transmitting messages and 

required information —but has not established a process for prioritizing all 

suggested enhancements. CBP also has not identified funding for continued 

ACE development, including enhancements, after fiscal year 2018. CBP is 

leading an interagency effort to develop an ACE management approach that 

includes processes for prioritizing enhancements and sharing costs, but this 

approach has not been finalized. Federal guidance calls for establishing the 

organizational structure necessary to operate effectively and for examining 

efforts as needed to adopt coordinated approaches. Until processes for 

prioritizing ACE enhancements and sharing costs are finalized, agencies and the 

trade community will not realize the system’s full potential benefits.

View GAO-18-271. For more information, 

contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-

8612 or gianopoulosk.gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

CBP began work on ACE in 1994 to 

update the agency’s existing electronic 

trade processing system. In 2006, 

Congress broadened this effort by 

mandating creation of a “single portal” 

International Trade Data System to, 

among other things, efficiently regulate 

the flow of commerce and more 

effectively enforce laws and 

regulations relating to international 

trade. Performance problems halted 

implementation of ACE from 2010 to 

2013. In 2014, the President set a 

deadline of December 31, 2016, for 

completing the system.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade 

Enforcement Act of 2015 included a 

provision for GAO to report on issues 

related to ACE implementation. In this 

report, GAO examines (1) CBP efforts 

to complete core ACE capabilities 

since 2013; (2) agencies’ access to

ACE and use of the system to process 

imports; (3) any cost savings and trade 

enforcement benefits from using ACE; 

and (4) the approach that will be used 

to manage ACE after core capabilities 

are completed. GAO reviewed 

information from 22 agencies as well 

as importers, exporters, and brokers 

and interviewed agency and trade 

community representatives.

What GAO Recommends

The Secretary of Homeland Security 

should ensure that the Commissioner 

of CBP, in collaboration with partner 

agencies, finalizes an interagency 

approach to managing ACE that 

includes processes for prioritizing 

enhancements and sharing system 

costs. CBP concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation.
Page i GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Letter 1

Background 4

CBP Has Implemented Core ACE Capabilities but Delayed 

Completion Several Times 8

Partner Agencies That Clear or License Cargo Have Access to 

ACE, but Extent of Use Varies 11

ACE Users Report Cost Savings and Enforcement Benefits 20

Approach to Managing ACE after Implementation of Core 

Capabilities Has Not Been Established 28

Conclusions 39

Recommendation for Executive Action 39

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II Partner Agency Participation in ACE 45

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 56

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 58

Tables

Table 1: Agencies with Responsibility for Clearing or Licensing 

Cargo That Have Signed Memorandums of 

Understanding with CBP 11

Table 2: Five Selected Agencies’ Use of CBP’s Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE) as Reported by CBP 14

Table 3: Prioritized Enhancements to CBP’s Automated 

Commercial Environment as of September 2017 32

Table 4: Participation in the Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) by CBP Partner Agencies That Require 

Documentation to Clear or License Cargo 46

Table 5: Participation in the Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE) by CBP Partner Agencies That Do Not Require 

Documentation to Clear or License Cargo 52

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Figures

Figure 1: CBP and Other Agency Roles at Three Stages of Import 

Processing 5

Figure 2: Timeline Summarizing CBP Efforts to Develop and 

Deploy Core Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 

Capabilities since 2013 10

Figure 3: Numbers of Unaddressed Suggested Enhancements to 

CBP Automated Commercial Environment, by Source, 

2001-2017 30

Figure 4: Estimated Annual Funding Requirements for CBP’s 

Automated Commercial Environment, Fiscal Years 2019-

2022 36

Abbreviations

ACE Automated Commercial Environment

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

ITDS International Trade Data System

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PGA partner government agency

SAFE Port Act Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006

TFTEA Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 14, 2018

Congressional Committees

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—an agency of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—enforces the customs and 

trade laws of the United States.1 According to CBP, the agency 

processes about $3 trillion in trade and collects about $44 billion in 

revenue each year from import duties, taxes, and fees. CBP carries out 

its work in coordination with a variety of other U.S. government agencies. 

For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service works to monitor international 

trade in wildlife and wildlife products and to prevent the illegal import or 

export of species regulated under international and U.S. wildlife laws, 

while the Consumer Product Safety Commission works to ensure that 

imported products comply with U.S. consumer product safety rules and 

regulations.

In 1994, CBP initiated planning and development of an information 

system, known as the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), to 

ensure proper assessment and collection of customs duties. 

Subsequently, the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 

(SAFE Port Act) mandated the creation of a “single portal” International 

Trade Data System (ITDS). The stated purpose of ITDS included, among 

other things, eliminating redundant information requirements, efficiently 

regulating the flow of commerce, and more effectively enforcing laws and 

regulations relating to international trade (in this report, “trade 

enforcement”).2 According to CBP, ACE is intended to provide this single 

portal. The act also stated that all agencies requiring documentation to 

 1

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA), Pub. L. No. 114-

125, § 802 (Feb. 24, 2016), codified the establishment of CBP. Prior to TFTEA, the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Homeland Security Act), Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 

2002), transferred various functions to the Department of Homeland Security and 

established numerous bureaus therein including the United States Customs Service. Then 

in 2003, a Presidential Reorganization Plan Modification for the Department of Homeland 

Security renamed the Customs Service the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 

and also specified that the “Bureau will include the resources and missions relating to 

borders and ports of entry of the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, including the Border Patrol and inspections program, and the agricultural 

inspections function of the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program.” See 

Reorganization Plan Modification for the Department of Homeland Security, H. Doc. 108-

32, p. 4 (Feb. 4, 2003).

2

Pub. L. No. 109-347, § 405 (Oct. 13, 2006).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

clear or license imported or exported cargo must participate in the 

system. After a series of unsuccessful efforts to complete ACE, CBP 

began a renewed effort in 2013 to complete the implementation of key 

activities, processes, and functions in ACE that CBP defines as core 

capabilities.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (TFTEA) 

includes a provision for GAO to review issues related to the 

implementation and use of ACE.3 In this report, we examine (1) the status 

of CBP’s efforts to implement core capabilities since 2013; (2) CBP 

partner agencies’ access to ACE and use of the system for import 

processing; (3) available information about any cost savings and trade 

enforcement benefits that have resulted from using ACE; and (4) the 

approach that will be used to manage ACE after core capabilities have 

been completed.4

To examine CBP’s efforts since 2013 to implement core capabilities, we 

obtained information from CBP’s Office of Information Technology and 

Office of Trade, which have been responsible for developing and 

administering ACE. We also obtained information from the Department of 

the Treasury, which has responsibility under the SAFE Port Act for 

coordinating interagency participation in ITDS. While ACE is designed to 

permit management of both exports and imports, we focused on the 

implementation of ACE capabilities to manage imports, because recent 

CBP efforts to complete and improve ACE functionality have focused 

primarily on imports.5

To examine other agencies’ progress in accessing and using ACE data

for import processing, we obtained summary information about CBP’s 49 

partner agencies, focusing our analysis on the 22 partner agencies that 

CBP identified as requiring documentation for clearing or licensing cargo 

for import or export. We selected 5 of these agencies for case studies: the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug 

 3

Pub. L. No. 114-125, § 106(c) (Feb. 24, 2016).

4

In this report, “partner agencies” refers to federal agencies that are partnering with CBP 

in ITDS, including all agencies CBP identified as having responsibility for clearing or 

licensing cargo.

5

According to CBP documents, efforts to transition export commodity filings from older 

information technology systems into ACE were completed in May 2016 and pilot tests of 

export manifest submission through ACE are currently under way.
Page 3 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Administration (FDA), the Department of Transportation’s National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Department of the 

Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). We based our selection of 

these 5 agencies on their size and on the extent to which they require 

documentation for clearing and licensing cargo, among other factors.

To examine available information about actual and potential cost savings 

and enforcement benefits from using ACE, we obtained information on 

efforts by CBP, other agencies, and companies engaged in international 

trade to estimate such savings and benefits. We also obtained 

information on efforts by CBP and other agencies to assess any cost 

savings and other benefits that could result from CBP’s future 

implementation of enhancements to the system. We examined metrics 

that CBP has developed to measure cost savings from ACE and 

determined that data generated from these metrics are sufficiently reliable 

to be included in this report. In addition, we interviewed CBP and agency 

officials in Washington, D.C., and at the ports of New York, N.Y., and 

Newark, N.J., about benefits and challenges associated with using ACE. 

We selected these ports because they allowed us to interview CBP 

officials charged with processing a large volume of diverse imported 

goods—both air and sea cargo—and provided an opportunity to interview 

field staff representing four of our five case-study agencies. We also 

discussed these issues with 16 trade community representatives (i.e., 

representatives of companies that buy and sell internationally traded 

products as well as customs brokers and shippers that work for and with 

these companies), many of whom had participated in organizations that 

advise CBP regarding its operations.6

To examine factors related to CBP’s management of ACE after 

implementation of core capabilities is complete, we obtained information 

on CBP processes for reviewing, assessing, and prioritizing required and 

suggested changes to enhance ACE. We also obtained information from 

CBP about projected budgetary needs for its “post-core” management of 

ACE (i.e., after implementation of core capabilities is complete). In 

addition, we interviewed and obtained documentation from CBP regarding 

 6

According to CBP, customs brokers assist importers and exporters in meeting federal 

requirements governing imports and exports. The brokers, who are licensed and regulated 

by CBP, submit information and appropriate payments to CBP on behalf of their clients 

and charge a fee for this service, according to CBP.
Page 4 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

interagency dialogue on post-core management of ACE. See appendix I 

for more information about our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to February 

2018 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.

Imported goods flow into the U.S. market through a process that CBP 

facilitates and enforces, in collaboration with other federal agencies and 

with companies, including customs brokers, engaged in international 

trade. Imported goods enter the United States at more than 300 ports by 

air, land, or sea. The processing of imported goods includes three stages: 

pre-arrival, arrival/cargo release, and post-release.

• Pre-arrival. Before goods leave their country of origin, importers and 

shipping companies file paperwork and provide required advance 

electronic information for CBP to review.

• Arrival/cargo release. Importers or brokers file entry documents 

when goods reach a U.S. port of entry. At the ports, CBP and other 

agencies with regulatory responsibilities review documents and may 

examine the goods for import security and trade enforcement 

purposes.7 Some goods selected for examination may be deemed 

nonadmissible because of trade law or other violations. Admissible 

goods are released from the port and enter into U.S. commerce.

• Post-release. After goods are released from a port, importers or 

brokers file additional entry summary documents, which CBP reviews 

to ensure compliance with trade laws. CBP verifies importers’ cargo 

classifications and calculation of customs duties, taxes, and fees 

owed, taking action when needed. CBP and other agencies may 

 7

FDA officials stated that entry data may also be submitted to ACE and reviewed by CBP 

and partner agencies during cargo transport to avoid a backlog of goods, some of which 

may be perishable, at the port.

Background

CBP and Partner Agency 

Processing of Imported 

Goods
Page 5 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

determine that entered goods are noncompliant, thus triggering postrelease enforcement action.

Figure1 summarizes agency roles at these three stages of import 

processing.

Figure 1: CBP and Other Agency Roles at Three Stages of Import Processing

CBP initiated planning and preliminary development of ACE in 1994, 

following the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement 

Implementation Act.8 Title VI of the act required the creation of a national 

customs automation program that would allow electronic processing of 

commercial imports.9 According to CBP, its existing electronic system for 

processing imports—the Automated Commercial System (ACS), which 

became operational in 1984—used antiquated hardware and software 

and, because of limited processing capability, was increasingly difficult 

and expensive to operate. In addition, despite ACS’s availability, CBP 

continued to rely heavily on paper documents.

 8

Pub. L. 103-182 (Dec. 8, 1993).

9

See section 631 of the act. CBP refers to Title VI as the Customs Modernization and 

Informed Compliance Act.

ACE Development and 

Implementation, 1994–

2013
Page 6 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

The following year, a multi-agency task force launched an effort to 

develop the International Trade Data System—a government-wide 

system for reporting data used to clear imports and exports—and efforts 

to develop ITDS and ACE were subsequently integrated. The 2006 SAFE 

Port Act mandated the creation of ITDS to provide a “single portal” trade 

data system, to be implemented no later than the date when ACE is fully 

implemented. CBP initially planned to deploy ACE incrementally from 

1998 through 2005. According to CBP officials, after substantial 

difficulties, CBP awarded a contract to begin implementing ACE in 2001 

and began deploying ACE capabilities in 2003.10 However, continued 

slow progress led DHS to halt all new ACE development in 2010. A CBP 

acquisition decision memorandum issued at that time stated that the 

scope and complexity of ACE projects had been consistently 

underestimated during the period leading up to this decision.

DHS authorized CBP to renew work on ACE in 2013, after CBP had 

completed a revision of ACE’s schedule, cost, and performance goals.11

This “rebaselining” of ACE included adopting the agile approach to 

system development, which involves segmenting development and 

deployment into small consecutive stages, with frequent opportunities to 

test new capabilities and confirm that they meet requirements. CBP’s new 

plan called for completing core ACE capabilities to allow CBP and partner 

agencies to employ the system in all phases of import and export 

processing by November 2016, 11 years later than initially planned. A 

February 2014 Executive Order, as well as provisions in TFTEA, 

 10For additional information on difficulties related to ACE during the 1990s, see GAO, 

Customs Service Modernization: Serious Management and Technical Weaknesses Must 

Be Corrected, GAO/AIMD-99-41 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999); and Customs Service 

Modernization: Strategic Information Management Must be Improved for National 

Automation Program to Succeed, GAO/AIMD-96-57 (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1996).

11In a 2015 review of DHS acquisitions, including ACE, we reported that from January 

2006 to August 2013, ACE’s “full operational capability” date slipped by more than 5 years 

and its life-cycle cost estimate increased by $1.1 billion. See GAO, Homeland Security 

Acquisitions: Major Program Assessments Reveal Actions Needed to Improve 

Accountability, GAO-15-171SP (Apr. 22, 2015). DHS policy establishes “full operational 

capacity” as the point at which a program has deployed all functions to the designated 

users.
Page 7 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

subsequently reinforced this commitment to complete the system before 

the end of 2016.12

In rebaselining ACE, CBP consulted with partner agencies and trade 

community representatives to identify the core trade processing 

capabilities needed for the system to achieve full operational capacity, 

according to CBP officials. CBP officials stated that these capabilities are 

laid out in an internal 2013 CBP document describing, in general terms,

key activities, processes, and functions that must be performed to 

automate import and export processing and improve targeting and 

security.13 We use “core ACE capabilities” to refer to activities, processes, 

and functions that CBP has defined as core.14

 12Exec. Order No. 13,659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America’s 

Businesses, 79 Fed. Reg. 10657 (Feb. 25, 2014), required agencies participating in ITDS 

and supporting systems, such as ACE, to have in place by December 31, 2016, the 

capabilities and other requirements to utilize ACE as the primary means of receiving the 

standard set of data and other relevant documentation required from companies for the 

release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export. TFTEA, enacted in February 

2016, called on CBP to report to Congress no later than December 31, 2016, regarding 

incorporation of all core trade processing capabilities into ACE no later than September 

30, 2016, among other things. The act also called on DHS, ITDS partner agency heads, 

and the interagency steering committee involved to ensure, among other things, that ITDS 

partner agencies (a) inform CBP of the data elements required by the agency to authorize 

release of cargo, for incorporation into ACE, by June 2016 and (b) utilize ITDS as the 

primary means of receiving data and documentation required for release of imported 

cargo and clearance of cargo for export by no later than December 31, 2016 (exclusive of 

applications for permits, licenses, or certifications for release of imports or clearance of 

exports).

13ACE Business Office, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, Automated Commercial Environment: Operational Requirements Document, 

ver. 4.1 (June 7, 2013).

14According to partner agency officials, CBP and some ACE users have disagreed about 

whether certain capabilities that CBP has not deployed in ACE should be considered core 

capabilities.
Page 8 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

After revising its schedule, cost, and performance goals for ACE in 2013, 

CBP developed and deployed most of the capabilities that it defined as 

core ACE. On February 27, 2018, CBP announced that it had deployed 

the last of the major scheduled core trade processing capabilities. 

However, CBP delayed completion of these capabilities several times and 

has deferred deployment of collections—a capability for collecting import 

duties, taxes, and fees—while it considers alternative approaches to 

make this capability operational. 

Using the agile approach, CBP began deploying new ACE capabilities in 

November 2013, introducing elements iteratively every few months. For 

example, the November 2013 deployment included functions related to 

the pre-arrival and arrival/cargo release phases of import processing, 

initial steps to support two agencies in pilot testing ACE participation, and 

a number of efforts to resolve technical problems. By mid-2016, CBP had 

deployed all core pre-arrival and arrival/cargo release capabilities, but 

several post-release capabilities remained to be deployed. In June 2016, 

CBP officials reported that the program would not complete several key 

events by November 2016 as planned and declared a cost and schedule 

breach; in November 2016, CBP rebaselined ACE again.15 CBP 

subsequently reported that it expected to finish deploying post-release 

core ACE capabilities by January 2017, but the agency was unable to 

complete this deployment as planned. In April 2017, CBP officials 

reported that the program was again in breach, and CBP subsequently 

moved the target date for completing deployment of remaining core 

capabilities to July 2017.

In June 2017, CBP announced that final core capabilities would be 

deployed in three phases—in September 2017, December 2017, and 

 15CBP officials stated that ACE was declared to be in breach because of the need to give 

the trade community and partner agencies more time to prepare for planned changes in 

the system. According to DHS policy, if a program fails to meet any approved schedule, 

cost, or performance threshold approved in the agency’s Acquisition Program Baseline, it 

is considered to be in breach and the program must be rebaselined. Programs in breach 

are required to notify their acquisition decision authority and develop a remediation plan 

that outlines a time frame for the program to return to its Acquisition Program Baseline

parameters; rebaseline—that is, establish new schedule, cost, or performance goals; or 

have a DHS-led program review that results in recommendations for a revised baseline. 

As of December 2017, the program remained in breach status.

CBP Has 

Implemented Core 

ACE Capabilities but 

Delayed Completion 

Several Times
Page 9 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

February 2018.16 The February 2018 deployment completed most core 

capabilities for post-release, including reconciliation, liquidation, and 

drawback—functions related to the final determination and payment of 

duties to CBP (see sidebar).17

CBP initially intended to implement collections in ACE along with other 

post-release core capabilities. However, CBP officials told us that after a 

series of unsuccessful attempts to move collections from ACS to ACE, 

the agency decided in July 2017 to decouple collections from the other 

remaining post-release capabilities. Agency officials explained that this 

would allow deployment of other post-release capabilities by the end of 

February 2018. CBP officials observed that technical challenges involved 

in moving the current collections function—which is needed to complete 

post-release functions such as liquidation—from ACS into ACE primarily 

accounted for CBP’s inability to finish deploying core ACE capabilities in 

2017.18

CBP officials stated that the agency will continue to link the newly

deployed post-release capabilities to collections in ACS while deciding 

how to proceed. According to CBP officials, the agency expects to select 

one of three options for collections by the end of March 2018: (1) add a 

collections capability to ACE, (2) retain collections in ACS, or (3) develop 

a separate collections system. CBP officials stated that the agency would 

revise its estimate of the overall cost of completing and maintaining ACE 

through the system’s expected life cycle after reaching this decision.19

 16The December 2017 deployment included the addition of certain capabilities for the 

arrival/cargo release stage of import processing: moving the “e214 Form” used in 

admission of goods to U.S. foreign trade zones from ACS to ACE and allowing the 

creation of manufacturer identification numbers in ACE.

17According to CBP, the February 2018 deployment included a newly mandated form of 

drawback processing required by TFTEA.

18CBP documents and officials indicated that lack of understanding of collections 

processes and functionality in ACS, as well as underestimation of the level of effort 

required to integrate ACS collections into ACE, contributed to these challenges.

19CBP officials stated that they will issue an updated ACE life-cycle cost estimate by 

August 2018. In November 2016, CBP completed its most recent reassessment of its 

investment in ACE and projected ACE life-cycle costs. CBP reported having spent about 

$3.5 billion on ACE through fiscal 2015 and estimated that an additional $1.13 billion 

would be required to complete and maintain the system through its anticipated life (i.e., 

through 2026).

Reconciliation, Liquidation, and Drawback

During reconciliation, preliminary data on 

import transactions provided to CBP at the time 

of entry (such as the dollar value of imported 

goods) may be updated.

During liquidation, import transactions are 

finalized and duty, taxes, and fees due to CBP 

are determined. 

During drawback, exporters may be able to 

claim and recover certain duties, taxes, or fees 

upon the exportation or destruction of imported 

merchandise under CBP supervision.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). | 

GAO-18-271
Page 10 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

The timeline in figure 2 summarizes CBP’s efforts to develop and deploy 

core ACE capabilities since 2013.

Figure 2: Timeline Summarizing CBP Efforts to Develop and Deploy Core Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) 

Capabilities since 2013

Note: Core ACE capabilities are key activities, processes, and functions that must be performed to 

automate import and export processing and improving targeting and security, according to CBP 

officials. “Post-core ACE” refers to the development, operations, and maintenance of ACE after 

implementation of core capabilities is complete.
Page 11 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

All partner agencies that CBP identified as bearing responsibility for 

clearing or licensing goods for import or export have been granted some 

access to ACE data. However, as our case studies of five partner 

agencies illustrate, the extent to which these agencies use the system 

varies, and agencies are continuing efforts to enhance their use of ACE.

Each of the 22 partner agencies with responsibility for clearing or 

licensing cargo has signed a memorandum of understanding with CBP 

that allows access to ACE and details the information the agency will 

receive through the system, according to CBP officials. Table 1 lists the 

22 partner agencies CBP identified as having responsibility for clearing or 

licensing cargo and as having signed a memorandum of understanding 

with CBP

Table 1: Agencies with Responsibility for Clearing or Licensing Cargo That Have 

Signed Memorandums of Understanding with CBP

Agency Department

Agricultural Marketing Service Dept. of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Dept. of Agriculture

Food Safety and Inspection Service Dept. of Agriculture

Foreign Agricultural Service Dept. of Agriculture

Bureau of Industry and Security Dept. of Commerce

National Marine Fisheries Service Dept. of Commerce

International Trade Administration Dept. of Commerce

Office of Textiles and Apparel Dept. of Commerce

Defense Contracts Management Agency Dept. of Defense

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dept. of Health and Human Services

Food and Drug Administration Dept. of Health and Human Services

Fish and Wildlife Service Dept. of the Interior

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives 

Dept. of Justice

Drug Enforcement Administration Dept. of Justice

Bureau of Ocean and International Scientific 

Affairs 

Dept. of State

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls Dept. of State

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dept. of Transportation

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Dept. of the Treasury

Partner Agencies 

That Clear or License 

Cargo Have Access 

to ACE, but Extent of 

Use Varies

All Agencies with 

Responsibility for Clearing 

and Licensing Cargo Have 

Been Granted Access to 

ACE Data
Page 12 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Agency Department

Office of Foreign Assets Control Dept. of the Treasury

Consumer Product Safety Commission Independent

Environmental Protection Agency Independent

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Independent

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). | GAO-18-271

According to CBP, each memorandum of understanding specifies data 

that the partner agency may access in accordance with its responsibilities 

and as allowed by statute.20 Agencies may obtain these data through 

ACE in the following ways:

• Agencies may specify data elements to be included in the ACE 

partner government agency message set—that is, the consolidated 

set of data that importers and exporters submit electronically. In many 

cases, the message set includes data elements formerly collected 

through paper forms, according to CBP officials.

• Agencies may require submission of supporting documents (e.g., 

cargo manifests) as image files through the ACE Document Image 

System.

Agencies may access these data directly through ACE or may establish 

web linkages between ACE and their own data processing systems that 

will allow their systems to receive automatic transmissions of ACE data. 

CBP documents show that among the 22 agencies CBP identified as 

having responsibility for clearing or licensing cargo,

• 16 have established web linkages between ACE and their own data 

analysis systems,

• 14 obtain agency-specific data through the ACE message set,21 and

• 17 receive document image files from importers through ACE.

In addition, 15 of the 22 agencies have completed, or are conducting,

pilots to initiate or expand their participation in ACE.

22

 20Each partner agency’s access to ACE data is limited to the data elements specified in 

the agency’s memorandum of understanding with CBP, according to CBP officials.

21According to CBP officials, of the 22 agencies with responsibility for clearing or licensing 

cargo, 8 obtain data on both imports and exports through ACE, 12 obtain data on imports 

only, and 2 obtain data on exports only.
Page 13 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Appendix II provides detailed information about each of these 22 

agencies as well as 27 other partner agencies that CBP did not identify as 

having responsibility for clearing or licensing cargo. (As app. II shows, 

these 27 other agencies may use ACE data for a variety of purposes, 

including analyzing and reporting on international trade flows.23)

While all of the 22 agencies that CBP identified as having responsibility 

for clearing or licensing cargo have access to ACE data, our case studies 

of 5 agencies found considerable variation in the extent to which they use 

ACE for import processing. As table 2 shows, 4 of these agencies (FDA, 

NHTSA, CPSC, and APHIS) have established linkages between ACE and 

their own import data analysis systems, apply ACE data in those systems,

and have completed pilots to begin or expand their use of ACE. Agency 

staff also may access ACE directly to obtain additional information that is 

not available in their agencies’ systems. Nonetheless, we found 

significant differences in the agencies’ use of ACE to obtain agencyspecific data from importers: While FDA and NHTSA have largely 

transitioned to using ACE for this purpose, CPSC and APHIS use it to a 

more limited extent, and FWS continues to obtain data on imported goods 

largely without using ACE. All five agencies reported ongoing efforts to 

resolve difficulties related to using ACE and make greater use of the 

system.

 22Pilot testing is one of many steps agencies reported as necessary to more fully integrate 

with ACE. Several agencies also noted that the notice and comment process—whereby 

agencies must notify the public of new rules, through notifications in the Federal Register, 

and allow a period for public comment—can be a lengthy and complicated process. In 

addition, integration may require multiple pilot tests, receiving complaints from the trade 

community, and experiencing technical failures. For examples of partner agencies’

Federal Register notifications related to ACE, see Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, International Trade Data System Test Concerning the 

Electronic Submission to the Automated Commercial Environment of Data Using the 

Partner Government Agency Message Set, 81 Fed. Reg. 46640 (July 18, 2016) (advising 

the public of the success of a pilot test for the electronic submission of data via ACE, 

among other things); and Department of State; International Traffic in Arms Regulations: 

International Trade Data System, Reporting, 82 Fed. Reg. 15 (Jan. 3, 2017) (issuing a 

final rule allowing businesses to electronically submit the data required to import or export 

cargo, as provided by Executive Order 13659 and the Security and Accountability for 

Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), among other things).

23According to CBP documents, several of these 27 other agencies have not concluded 

an ACE memorandum of understanding with CBP and do not appear to be accessing 

ACE—in some cases because ACE does not generate information that serves an agency 

need, according to CBP and Treasury Department officials.

Case Studies Show 

Variation in Use of ACE 

among Agencies That 

Clear or License Cargo
Page 14 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Table 2: Five Selected Agencies’ Use of CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) as Reported by CBP

Agencya

Agency data 

analysis system 

linked to ACEb

Data submission 

through ACE required 

or requestedc

Accesses data through 

ACE message set or 

document image systemd Status of ACE pilote

Food and Drug 

Administration

Linked Required Message set Completed

National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration 

Linked Required Both Completed

Consumer Product Safety 

Commission

Linked Requested

Considering additional 

data elements

Neitherf Completed

Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service

Linked Requested but minimally 

used

Both Completed

Fish and Wildlife Service Not linked Not required or requested Neither Suspended

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). | GAO-18-271

Note: We conducted case studies of the five agencies shown. We selected these agencies from 22 

that CBP indicated require documentation for clearing or licensing cargo, basing our selection on the 

extent to which they require documentation to clear and license cargo and their size, among other 

factors. For additional information about these agencies, see GAO-18-271, appendix II.

a

According to CBP officials, in accordance with CBP policy, agencies whose responsibilities require 

access to ACE data must conclude a memorandum of understanding with CBP, specifying the data 

that the agency requires importers or exporters, or both, to submit and the ways that the data will be 

transmitted to the agency. Authorized staff of these agencies receive access to the specified data.

b

Agencies that have established Internet linkages between their data analysis systems and ACE 

receive automatic transmissions of data submitted through ACE.

c

According to CBP, agencies have either required or requested the submission of data from importers 

and exporters through ACE. For each of the five selected agencies, we show data submission 

through ACE as required or requested on the basis of information from CBP and the selected agency

d

Agencies may add data elements specific to the agency’s mission to the consolidated set of data that 

partner agencies have requested that ACE collect from importers and, exporters, known as the 

partner agency message set. Agencies may also obtain supporting documents (e.g., cargo manifests) 

as image files through the ACE document image system.

e

The agencies shown undertook pilots to test their technical abilities to receive information from 

importers.

f

The Consumer Product Safety Commission obtains and applies the standard data that CBP collects 

on imports but does not obtain any agency-specific data.
Page 15 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

FDA has integrated its internal systems with ACE and uses ACE data to 

review imports under its jurisdiction, targeting FDA-regulated imports that 

pose higher public health risks for manual review to determine the 

imports’ admissibility, according to FDA officials. FDA has worked with 

CBP to establish bilateral transmission of import entry data between CBP 

and FDA since 1997, when the two agencies linked FDA’s earlier import 

operations system with CBP’s ACS, according to FDA. Consequently, 

FDA officials described the transition to ACE as an upgrade, substantially 

expanding the information available to the agency, rather than a new 

approach to processing imports.

FDA officials stated that they coordinated with the trade community and 

CBP to complete the transition to using ACE. For example, the officials 

said that they consulted with the trade community to develop FDA’s ACE 

message set, with the goal of improving the clearance process. According 

to FDA officials, the data that the agency required through the message 

set included more information than it had previously required from 

importers through ACS. FDA officials explained that their intent in adding 

data elements was to facilitate the automated admissibility review of lowrisk FDA-regulated articles and thus focus agency resources on articles 

associated with a higher public health risk. Additionally, FDA worked with 

the trade community to develop recommendations for technical 

enhancements to ACE. Finally, FDA tested the new systems and the 

viability of the message set in a pilot that it successfully concluded in 

2016.

According to agency officials, in November 2016, FDA issued a final rule 

requiring that the trade community, when electronically submitting an 

entry in ACE, provide certain information on all incoming cargo that is 

subject to FDA regulation. In most cases, FDA finds this information 

sufficient to determine admissibility. However, in about 3 percent of 

cases, FDA requests additional information directly from importers, using 

the agency’s Import Trade Auxiliary Communications System. FDA 

officials stated that the agency is pursuing improvements in its ability to 

communicate with importers via ACE.

FDA Uses ACE Data to 

Review and Target Imports for 

Health Risks

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

FDA applies health and safety standards to a 

variety of imported products, including food, 

drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, biologics, 

tobacco, and radiation-emitting electronic 

products. To carry out these functions, FDA 

maintains a nationwide network of port-based 

staff with authority to review and, if 

necessary, refuse entry to goods that do not 

comply with pertinent laws and regulations

that it enforces. FDA maintains two internal 

information technology systems to assist 

these efforts: the Operational and

Administrative System for Import Support, for 

admissibility review of imports, and the 

Predictive Risk Evaluation for Dynamic Import 

Targeting system, a risk-based screening tool 

that performs an initial electronic screening of 

import entries containing FDA regulated 

articles to target those items with potentially 

higher public health risk for a manual

admissibility review.

Source: GAO analysis of FDA documents. | GAO-18-271
Page 16 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

NHTSA is using ACE data to review and clear imported motor vehicles 

and equipment for entry into the U.S. market and works with CBP to 

assess the compliance of certain products offered for importation. NHTSA 

established an electronic link between its internal system and CBP’s ACS 

in 1992. At that time, NHTSA and CBP arranged for importers to submit 

NHTSA’s required paper form electronically through ACS. In 2015, 

NHTSA began transitioning to ACE by pilot-testing submission of data for 

a large ACE message set. According to NHTSA officials, the testing 

process revealed significant technical problems. Prior to the pilot testing, 

the trade community expressed concern about the number of data 

elements that NHTSA asked CBP to collect from the trade community. 

The Office of Management and Budget determined that certain proposed 

requirements were burdensome for the trade community and asked 

NHTSA to eliminate some of these requirements. Subsequently, in March 

2016, NHTSA completed its transition to ACE with fewer data 

requirements.

In addition to using ACE data, NHTSA continues to obtain information 

directly from importers, when necessary, through its Motor Vehicle 

Importation Information system. For example, according to NHTSA 

officials, the agency requests information through its system when it 

identifies reporting errors in ACE or when additional information is needed 

for certain temporary imports, such as vehicles or equipment imported for 

research or demonstration purposes. NHTSA officials stated that they are 

working with CBP to overcome a major challenge to efficient 

collaboration: NHTSA uses vehicle identification numbers to track 

imported vehicles, while ACE does not. According to NHTSA officials, 

NHTSA has developed a database to provide public access to 

manufacturer identification and vehicle identification number-deciphering 

information submitted by manufacturers. According to NHTSA, CBP port 

staff have begun accessing the database but it has not yet been linked to 

ACE.24

 24For more information about NHTSA’s Product Information Catalog and Vehicle Listing 

database, see https://vpic.nhtsa.dot/gov.

NHTSA Uses ACE Data to 

Review Motor Vehicle Imports

National Highway Safety Transportation 

Administration (NHTSA)

NHTSA works to ensure that imported motor 

vehicles and equipment (e.g., tires) meet U.S. 

safety standards. According to agency 

officials, because NHTSA does not have 

independent authority to hold incoming cargo 

and does not have any staff at U.S. ports, it 

relies on U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

officials to hold and inspect cargo and to take 

enforcement action if indicated (e.g., seizing 

goods or denying entry) in consultation with 

NHTSA. To fulfill its tasks, NHTSA uses its 

Motor Vehicle Importation Information 

database to assist in admissibility and 

targeting decisions.

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA documents. | GAO-18-271
Page 17 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

CPSC uses only ACE data collected under CBP authority to support its 

oversight of consumer product imports and is considering expanding the 

information it receives from ACE. CPSC’s internal Risk Assessment 

Methodology targeting system focuses on 300 high-risk categories of 

imports listed by CPSC, using U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes, 

and currently receives the standard data that CBP obtains via ACE on all 

imported goods under the agency’s jurisdiction, according to CPSC 

officials. After launching an initial pilot version of its system in 2011, 

CPSC initiated discussion with the trade community in 2014 about 

expanding its electronic data reporting requirements to add certain data 

elements to the ACE message set that would assist the agency in 

determining whether incoming products meet applicable standards.25

However, CPSC reduced the scope of the proposed expansion of 

reporting requirements after trade community representatives expressed 

concerns. In 2016, CPSC concluded an initial, limited pilot test of 

electronic filing of several additional data elements. According to CPSC 

officials, the agency plans to study the benefits of adding these elements 

before it initiates a second pilot and has not reached a final decision 

about requiring importers to submit any additional information through 

ACE.

CPSC staff continue to rely primarily on the agency’s internal targeting 

system to target incoming shipments for review and possible inspection, 

with contributions from CPSC staff at CBP’s Commercial Targeting and 

Analysis Center and at ports, according to CPSC officials. These officials 

stated that the agency’s representative at the Commercial Targeting and 

Analysis Center employs CBP and CPSC resources to generate about 30 

percent of the targeting orders disseminated to CPSC staff at ports. 

Agency staff at two New York ports told us that ACE can be a useful 

source of additional information for their local targeting efforts.

 25According to CPSC officials, CPSC’s discussion with the trade community concerned 

the addition of data elements from a paper CPSC form to the ACE message set.

CPSC Uses ACE Data to 

Target Imported Consumer 

Products

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC)

CPSC protects the public from unreasonable 

risk of injury or death associated with 

consumer products, including over two-thirds 

of all categories of imported goods, such as 

toys, children’s sleepwear, and household 

electronics. CPSC expanded examination of. 

imported goods in 2008 following passage of 

the Consumer Product Safety Improvement

Act of 2008, which required the agency to 

develop a risk-assessment methodology for 

certain imports. CPSC maintains a limited 

presence at U.S. ports and has independent 

authority to hold incoming cargo for 

inspection. The agency employs its Risk 

Assessment Methodology targeting system to 

assist in its import oversight responsibilities 

by generating potential targets for inspection. 

Source: GAO analysis of CPSC documents. | GAO-18-271
Page 18 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

APHIS’s use of ACE data remains limited while the agency works to 

expand linkages between its data processing systems and ACE. 

According to APHIS officials, the agency did not establish an electronic 

link to ACS, ACE’s precursor system, and instead used paper forms in its 

import review processes. In 2016, the agency pilot-tested electronic 

submission of APHIS-specific partner agency message set data through 

ACE and subsequently announced that data could be submitted through 

ACE for APHIS compliance review. However, trade community 

participation remains voluntary except for Lacey Act–covered imports.26

According to APHIS officials, companies that import APHIS-regulated 

products have been slow to invest the resources required to transition to 

reporting through ACE and, as a result, use paper forms to submit 

information about most shipments of such products. However, APHIS 

officials observed that reporting through ACE occurs for a small but 

growing share of all imports subject to APHIS regulation.

APHIS has been collaborating with CBP to provide for the effective flow of 

information between ACE and APHIS’s systems, but these efforts remain 

incomplete. While staff of APHIS’s Veterinary Services unit may access 

ACE data directly to complete their import review processes, APHIS 

intends for its Plant Protection and Quarantine staff to access ACE data 

through the agency’s Agriculture Risk Management system, according to 

APHIS officials. However, these officials informed us that the functionality 

required for accessing ACE data through that system is still under 

development. They explained that Plant Protection and Quarantine staff 

will use ACE to receive and reply to inquiries from, and provide 

assistance to, CBP agricultural specialists regarding incoming cargo 

requiring inspection and that significant coordination is required to fully 

integrate the two agencies’ data processing systems.

APHIS officials observed that a CBP requirement for partner agencies to 

complete extensive background checks of staff before they can receive 

access to ACE has presented another obstacle to greater use of the 

system by staff of both Plant Protection and Quarantine and Veterinary 

 26Importers of goods subject to the Lacey Act must submit Lacey Act–specific import 

declarations. According to APHIS officials, the information provided in these declarations 

is then combined with data submitted through ACE for review by Plant Protection and 

Quarantine.

APHIS Makes Limited Use of 

ACE Data to Review Imports 

for Agricultural Risks

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS)

APHIS collaborates with Customs and Border 

Protection agricultural specialists to keep 

agricultural pests and diseases out of the 

United States. In pursuit of this mission, the 

agency maintains Plant Protection and 

Quarantine and Veterinary Services units at 

some ports of entry and operates its own data 

analysis system, the Agriculture Risk 

Management system. APHIS also implements 

a requirement to file a plant and plant produce 

import declaration on arrival in the United 

States, as mandated under the 2008 Lacey 

Act. Importers may file the declaration in ACE 

or in APHIS’s Lacey Act Web Governance 

System. 

Source: GAO analysis of APHIS documents. | GAO-18-271
Page 19 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Services.27 In November 2017, APHIS officials informed us that more 

than 100 agency staff had completed these background checks and thus 

had access to ACE but that the current number of users remained 

insufficient to process many APHIS-regulated goods in ACE.28

FWS use of ACE data in its import review and regulation activities has 

been minimal, in part because of technical challenges. According to FWS 

officials, the agency attempted during the 1990s to integrate its activities 

with ACS. After concluding that ACS did not meet FWS needs, the 

agency discontinued these efforts in 2000 and developed its own 

Electronic Declarations system for the trade community to submit data to 

the agency’s data analysis and targeting system. Agency officials told us 

that FWS port staff may access ACE and that some find it a useful source 

of additional information on incoming cargo. However, FWS has not yet 

integrated ACE into FWS operations.

FWS officials told us that lack of alignment between the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule codes that CBP uses to organize its work and FWS’s 

regulatory responsibilities constitutes a significant challenge in integrating 

ACE into FWS operations. For example, the tariff schedule may indicate 

only that an import is leather footwear, while FWS operations may also 

require additional information about the leather’s source, such as the type 

of animal, its nation of origin, and its domestication status. According to 

FWS and CBP officials, FWS has so far been unable to overcome this 

difficulty.

According to FWS officials, the agency pilot-tested participation in ACE 

during 2016 but suspended the test in January 2017 in light of trade 

community concerns about expanded reporting requirements, lack of 

clarity in the requirements, and uncertainty regarding FWS’s authority to 

 27According to APHIS officials, the capability for agricultural pests and diseases to enter 

the United States is not limited to agricultural products; consequently, APHIS officials 

need broad access to CBP entry information on all imported commodities. As a result, 

according to agency officials, CBP guidance requires that APHIS users of ACE must 

complete a relatively extensive “Tier 4” background investigation.

28Delays in obtaining these clearances have been a particular problem for Veterinary 

Services, according to APHIS officials. In June, 2017, APHIS officials informed us that 

background investigations had been completed for fewer than 10 Veterinary Services port 

staff and that, as a result, Veterinary Services–regulated entries submitted through ACE at 

ports where no Veterinary Services staff have access to the system must be processed by 

the service’s staff at other ports. Officials of Veterinary Services estimated that less than 1 

percent of all entries that it regulates at ports it staffs were being processed through ACE.

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Makes Little Use of ACE Data

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

FWS monitors wildlife trade and works to 

prevent the illegal importation or exportation

of species (including parts and products 

thereof) that are regulated under the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

and U.S. wildlife laws and regulations, 

according to U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP). Virtually all wildlife imports 

and exports must be declared to FWS and 

cleared by FWS wildlife officers, according to 

CBP. To carry out its responsibilities, FWS 

maintains staff at 38 U.S. ports and generally 

requires that all internationally traded wildlife 

and wildlife products be routed through 

designated ports. FWS staff are able to place 

holds on, to inspect, and to deny entry or exit

to incoming or outgoing cargo, according to 

agency officials. FWS staff obtain information 

about incoming or outgoing cargo from data 

filed by the trade community in the agency’s 

own data analysis and targeting system, the 

Law Enforcement Management Information 

System.

Source: GAO analysis of CBP and FWS documents. | 

GAO-18-271
Page 20 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

collect data electronically. According to FWS officials, the agency 

subsequently began efforts to reach agreement with trade community 

representatives and CBP on an approach to data collection through ACE 

that will meet the needs of both FWS and the trade community. FWS 

officials stated in November 2017 that these discussions had produced an 

interim solution and were continuing and that FWS and CBP planned to 

resume pilot testing in March or April 2018.

CBP and partner agency officials and trade community representatives 

told us that their use of ACE has reduced costs by increasing the 

efficiency of trade processing. CBP and partner agency officials also 

reported that the system has strengthened their ability to enforce trade 

laws and regulations. CBP has developed metrics for itself and the trade 

community that estimate savings associated with the increased efficiency 

of some processes in ACE. According to CBP documents and officials, 

the agency plans to expand its metrics for capturing ACE benefits—for 

example, to estimate the value of increased efficiencies for partner 

agencies and to measure any savings associated with the remaining core 

ACE capabilities after they are implemented.

CBP, partner agencies, and trade community representatives who use 

ACE to conduct their work told us that the use of ACE had improved the 

efficiency of import processing and brought associated cost savings.

• Fewer paper records. According to CBP officials at the Port of New 

York, the use of ACE for electronic data submission has significantly 

reduced reliance on paper forms in processing imports. The officials 

noted that before ACE was implemented, their reception area was 

typically filled with couriers delivering large volumes of paper for 

manual processing. CBP officials told us that electronic data 

submission through ACE had allowed CBP and partner agencies to 

automate over 250 paper forms. In addition, one trade community 

representative we spoke with said that elimination of paper records 

had been the primary benefit realized through ACE implementation. 

ACE Users Report 

Cost Savings and 

Enforcement Benefits

ACE Users Report the 

System Has Improved 

Efficiency, Reduced Costs, 

and Enhanced 

Enforcement

Agencies and Trade 

Community Report Improved 

Efficiency and Associated 

Savings
Page 21 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

CBP has estimated, on the basis of an informal poll survey of private 

companies, that eliminating document delivery to CBP offices would 

save $25 per courier trip.29

• Faster processing. According to CBP and partner agency officials, 

ACE’s automated review of data submitted by importing companies 

speeds the agencies’ processing and clearing of eligible shipments for 

release. CBP officials at the Port of New York commented that 

although reviewing and clearing incoming cargo for release through 

ACS required approximately 24 hours, performing this process 

through ACE takes only a few minutes if data are complete and 

properly formatted and if the cargo does not require inspection. For 

example, CBP officials stated that the Environmental Protection 

Agency formerly took an average of about 4 days to clear cargo for 

release into the U.S. market but now takes only seconds to clear 

nonproblematic shipments. CBP officials further observed that the 

reduction in document processing and the elimination of manual data 

review for nonproblematic imports increases the time available for 

CBP officials at ports to engage in tasks such as examining cargo that 

may violate U.S. trade and customs laws. In addition, NHTSA officials 

stated that ACE had substantially speeded their review and clearance 

process. Further, FDA reported that since the agency’s cargo review 

and clearance process had been linked to ACE, the portion of 

incoming FDA-regulated cargo receiving an automated “may proceed”

had increased from 26 to 62 percent and processing time for these 

entries averaged less than 2 minutes. According to trade community 

representatives and CBP officials, ACE has also dramatically reduced 

the time required to file bond applications, from several days to a few 

seconds.30

 29According to CBP, five agencies continue to require submission of some information in 

paper form. For example, APHIS requires paper submission of foreign veterinary health 

and phytosanitary certificates for imports of animals and agricultural products, 

respectively, according to agency officials. 

30According to CBP, importers must obtain bonds for almost all formal entries. There are 

many types of bonds, covering different requirements. For instance, according to CBP, the 

main purpose of a customs bond is to ensure that the payment of import duties, taxes and 

fees owed to the federal government will be paid.
Page 22 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

• Reduced labor and storage costs. CBP officials and trade 

community representatives reported that efficiency improvements 

resulting from the use of ACE can lead to substantial labor- and 

storage-cost savings for the trade community. CBP officials observed

that expedited processing can reduce storage and demurrage costs 

for importers.31 For example, CBP officials commented that 

companies in the Newark, N.J., area could be charged $250 to $300 

per day to store a container awaiting clearance to enter the U.S. 

market.

• Fewer supply chain disruptions. CBP and trade community 

representatives reported that ACE had reduced the negative impacts 

that import processing delays can have on company supply chains. 

For example, a pharmaceutical company representative stated that 

ACE had reduced delays in processing incoming cargo that, before 

ACE was implemented, sometimes lasted for 10 days or longer, 

resulting in costly supply chain failures. According to this 

representative, a longer-than-expected delay of an imported material 

that is a vital ingredient in a time-sensitive clinical trial or a treatment 

could result in significant material losses.

While ACE is not a targeting system, the data that ACE provides has 

improved CBP’s and partner agencies’ ability to identify and examine 

incoming cargo for inspection, according to CBP and partner agency 

officials. For example, ACE, in addition to other sources, provides data 

that CBP uses in its Automated Targeting System and that most of the 

partner agencies we examined use in their data analysis and targeting 

systems to flag relatively high-risk cargo for possible inspection by port 

officials. (See text box for examples of CBP’s and partner agencies’

targeting efforts.)

 31Demurrage is a penalty charge against shippers or consignees for delaying the carrier’s 

equipment or vessel beyond the allowed free time.

CBP and Partner Agencies 

Report ACE Has Improved 

Enforcement
Page 23 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Examples of CBP and Partner Agency Efforts to Target High-Risk Imports

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its partner agencies perform targeting of 

imports at the national and local levels. For example:

• CBP. At the national level, CBP maintains the Automated Targeting System, which 

compares traveler, cargo, and conveyance information against law enforcement, 

intelligence, and other enforcement data, using risk-based targeting scenarios and 

assessments to identify relatively high-risk cargo. CBP also operates the Commercial 

Targeting and Analysis Center, which facilitates targeting and enforcement 

information sharing among partner agencies involved in clearing or licensing cargo. In 

addition, CBP maintains five National Targeting and Analysis Groups, each targeting 

higher-risk imports related to one of the CBP’s priority trade issues. For instance, the 

National Targeting and Analysis Group for Trade Agreements targets shipments for 

which the country of origin has been misrepresented to avoid import duties.a CBP 

officials at ports of entry also conduct locally focused targeting efforts. 

• Partner agencies. All five of the partner agencies we selected for our review—the 

Food and Drug Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service—work with CBP in the Commercial 

Targeting and Analysis Center while also employing their own import data analysis 

and targeting systems. In addition, agencies with personnel at U.S. ports of entry may 

conduct locally focused targeting efforts.

Source: GAO analysis of CBP and partner agency documents. | GAO-18-271

a

CBP’s four other National Targeting and Analysis Groups focus on antidumping and countervailing 

duties, revenue, textiles, and intellectual property rights. CBP defines priority trade issues as high-risk 

areas that can cause significant revenue loss, harm the U.S. economy, or threaten the health and 

safety of the American people.

CBP officials indicated that ACE had improved their trade enforcement 

efforts. For example:

• CBP officials stated that ACE’s streamlining of import processing 

helps to better ensure compliance with trade laws and regulations. 

CBP port staff stated that reduction in the time required to process 

paper forms has allowed them to devote more time to higher valueadded activities such as inspecting incoming cargo. In addition, CBP 

officials at the Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center said that it 

was easier to access and generate reports in ACE than in ACS.

• CBP officials observed that ACE’s collection of additional information 

facilitates trade enforcement. Officials in the agency’s National 

Targeting and Analysis Groups explained that ACE functions as a 

valuable system of record that can be employed to refine and focus 

targeting efforts, as the results of each examination undertaken are 
Page 24 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

recorded in ACE for future reference.32 Similarly, CBP officers in the 

New York area said that ACE was a valuable source of additional 

information—for example, data on particular products or importing 

companies—that helped them in their local targeting efforts.

In addition, partner agency officials at ports indicated that ACE data were 

indirectly or directly useful in their enforcement efforts. For example, FDA 

officials in the New York area told us that, while they do not access ACE 

directly, FDA’s targeting system, on which they primarily rely, does 

access ACE data. FDA headquarters officials noted that ACE provides 

the agency’s targeting system with more data elements than it received 

through ACS and that this has led to greater processing efficiency. A 

CPSC port official stated that he found ACE a very useful source of 

information that helped him to refine his local targeting efforts.

CBP expects the use of ACE to also yield indirect, economy-wide benefits 

by improving the targeting of shipments that violate U.S. trade policy, 

according to a CBP official and a CBP analysis. For example, according 

to a CBP official we interviewed, more-thorough enforcement of U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty orders would reduce the entry of 

products that unfairly compete with U.S. producers.33 Similarly, a costbenefit analysis that CBP conducted in 2002 cited reduced predatory or 

unfair trade practices as a potential benefit of ACE.34 In addition, the CBP 

official observed that the use of ACE for targeting shipments could help to 

prevent injuries to American consumers by reducing the number of 

unsafe foreign products that enter the U.S. market.

 32CBP maintains five National Targeting and Analysis Groups, each targeting higher-risk 

imports related to one of CBP’s five priority trade issues (i.e., revenue, antidumping and 

countervailing duties, trade agreements, textiles, and intellectual property rights).

33CBP enforces antidumping and countervailing duty orders, which the Department of 

Commerce may issue on determining that specified imported goods are being sold in the 

United States at less than fair value (i.e. “dumped”) or benefit from foreign-government 

subsidies, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission.

34U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Cost Benefit Analysis: Final, ver. 2.0, 02-eCP0531 (Feb.12, 2002). CBP’s analysis compared the then current value of expected costs 

for developing and implementing ACE over time with the then-current value of expected 

benefits and concluded that the benefits—which CBP estimated at $24 billion, including 

$19 billion for the trade community—would outweigh the costs.
Page 25 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

CBP has developed metrics to estimate the value of efficiency gains 

associated with the use of some of the implemented ACE capabilities for 

itself and the trade community. CBP’s metrics capture reductions in the 

time required for CBP staff to complete certain import processes now 

included in ACE and translate these efficiency gains into dollar values.35

CBP performs similar calculations for the trade community, using survey 

data from companies on the savings they estimate are realized when 

import processes are transitioned into ACE. For fiscal year 2017, CBP 

estimated that efficiencies gained through the implemented core ACE 

capabilities for which it had developed metrics had a total value of nearly 

$28 million for itself and about $52 million for the trade community. These 

metrics estimate potential cost savings associated with efficiency gains 

resulting from the use of ACE, according to CBP officials; the estimates 

do not account for CBP’s costs for developing and maintaining ACE, 

which, according to CBP, amounted to about $118 million in fiscal year 

2017. In addition, the estimates do not account for costs that the trade 

community has sustained in adapting to ACE. For example, one 

representative of a large company estimated that the total cost of 

developing appropriate software had exceeded $12 million.36

CBP’s metrics capture increased efficiency gains in a number of areas. 

For example, ACE includes a feature that allows members of the trade 

community to submit corrections to data on incoming shipments after the 

data have been summarized and presented to, and accepted by, CBP. 

 35CBP officials stated that such efficiency gains do not necessarily mean that the agency’s 

labor costs have declined over time and that CBP has not estimated the extent to which 

the potential labor cost savings suggested by these increased efficiencies have been 

realized. 

36CBP’s cost savings metrics measure potential savings during limited time frames but do 

not provide sufficient information for concluding whether ACE will achieve net benefits 

over its life cycle. Unlike cost-benefit analyses, which assess whether an investment will 

yield benefits that exceed costs over its entire life cycle, CBP’s ACE cost savings metrics 

estimate operational cost savings over limited periods of time—monthly and annual—and 

do not account for the costs of developing and maintaining the system. According to CBP 

officials, the agency does not forecast future cost savings.

CBP Has Developed, and 

Plans to Expand, Metrics 

to Estimate the Value of 

Process Efficiencies 

Gained through ACE

CBP Has Developed Some 

Metrics to Value Efficiency 

Gains for Itself and the Trade 

Community
Page 26 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Importers formerly requested such “post summary corrections” by 

submitting a paper form for CBP’s review. To capture the value of this 

procedural change for CBP, the agency surveys CBP officials to 

determine their time savings on each post summary correction and 

multiplies the average per-transaction time saved by the number of 

summaries submitted and the CBP officials’ average hourly compensation 

rate. To capture the value of the change for members of the trade 

community, CBP surveys importers, brokers, and shippers to determine 

their average savings for each transaction and multiplies the reported 

savings by the number of summaries submitted. CBP’s metrics also 

capture reductions in the time that CBP officers devote to completing 

primary processing for incoming cargo, the time that trucks must spend 

waiting at border crossings for clearance to enter the United States, and 

the time that CBP and members of the trade community devote to 

processing applications for customs bonds, among other things.

CBP’s estimate of the value of efficiencies resulting from the use of ACE 

has grown over time. For example, for fiscal year 2014, CBP estimated 

the total value of these efficiencies for CBP and the trade community at 

about $33 million—about 40 percent of the total value of such efficiencies 

CBP reported for fiscal year 2017. This increase reflects CBP’s progress 

in deploying core capabilities and in developing and applying metrics to 

capture the capabilities’ value to CBP and the trade community. The 

increase in the estimated value also reflects growing use of ACE by 

partner agencies and members of the trade community. For example, the 

number of import entry summaries that partner agencies filed in ACE 

increased fourfold in the 3-year period from January 2014 through 

January 2017.

According to CBP officials, CBP and partner agencies are unable to 

develop metrics to quantify trade enforcement benefits that may have 

resulted from their use of ACE, in part because of a lack of baseline 

information and the difficulty of isolating such impacts. For example, an 

increase in seizures may reflect increased efforts, increased efficiency in 

those efforts, or an increase in the volume of imports subject to seizure. 

Similarly, according to a CBP official, a lack of baseline information 

makes it difficult to assess any broader impacts of improved trade 

enforcement resulting from the use of ACE, such as prevention of injuries 

to American consumers through better targeting of harmful foreign 

products.
Page 27 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

CBP reported that it is working to expand its metrics for estimating cost 

savings associated with improved trade processing efficiencies and other 

benefits resulting from the use of ACE.

• CBP officials stated that they expect to have collected sufficient data 

in the near future to begin reporting on the estimated dollar value of 

efficiencies that partner agencies are realizing through ACE. While 

CBP measures efficiency improvements and associated savings 

resulting from CBP and the trade community’s use of ACE, CBP and 

most partner agencies currently do not collect or report information 

about efficiency improvements or associated savings that the partner 

agencies may have realized.

• CBP has prepared baseline information that will allow it to measure 

efficiency improvements and estimate any savings associated with 

several post-release core ACE capabilities, including reconciliation, 

liquidation, and drawback, after they are implemented. For example, 

on the basis of an internal study completed in late 2016, CBP has 

determined that agency officials take about 1.8 hours, on average, to 

process a drawback entry summary. Comparing this average time 

with the average time required after this post-release capability is 

implemented in ACE will allow CBP to calculate the average time 

saved per transaction. CBP plans to obtain comparable information 

from the trade community to allow similar calculations of efficiency 

improvements for importing companies.37

• CBP officials stated that, while the agency does not currently measure 

any improvement in revenue collection that may have resulted from 

the implemented capabilities, CBP plans to undertake efforts to better 

understand the current revenue collection environment and to explore 

ways to collect baseline information on revenue collections. The 

officials said that CBP intends to identify revenue collection metrics 

that are quantifiable and reportable after it deploys the liquidation and 

 37The results of CBP’s 2016 survey of ACE users suggest that the trade community may 

realize substantial savings from introduction of remaining core capabilities. For example, 

on average, trade community respondents to the survey estimated that adding drawback 

and reconciliation to ACE would result in savings of about $11 and $247 per transaction, 

respectively.

CBP Plans to Expand Its 

Metrics for Savings and Other 

Benefits
Page 28 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

reconciliation capabilities in ACE and completes deployment of 

collections.38

• According to CBP documents, CBP’s Office of Trade has outlined a 

strategy for improving the agency’s ability to measure benefits 

resulting from the use of ACE. CBP documents indicate that this 

strategy will include efforts to measure, to the extent that data are 

available, the impact of any enhancements to the system after 

implementation of core capabilities is complete, including 

enhancements identified as critical components in improving import or 

export operations.

CBP does not have a process in place to manage the continued 

development of ACE after February 2018, when it finished implementing 

most of the capabilities it identified as core. ACE users in CBP, partner 

agencies, and the trade community have identified a number of 

shortcomings in ACE and have suggested enhancements to address 

them. CBP has identified a small number of enhancements suggested by 

CBP and the trade community as near-term priorities and identified a 

number of others to consider for priority status. However, a substantial 

number of additional suggested enhancements, including submissions 

from partner agencies, remain unaddressed. Further, a process for 

prioritizing all suggested enhancements has not been established. 

Moreover, funding for the continued development of ACE after fiscal year 

2018—including funding to address most of the suggested 

enhancements—has not been identified. CBP and its partner agencies 

are working to establish a management approach that includes processes 

for prioritizing and funding enhancements from all sources, but it is 

unclear when these discussions will conclude or the extent to which they 

will resolve outstanding issues. Federal guidance calls for establishing the 

organizational structure necessary to achieve objectives, including 

compatible means of operating across agency boundaries.

 38CBP officials also informed us that they are exploring ways to use an economic benefits 

model that is currently being pilot-tested by the agency’s Office of Trade to help quantify 

the economic benefits gained through deployment of ACE. According to the officials, the 

model is designed to quantitatively link Office of Trade resources and activities, including 

ACE, to mission outputs and to evaluate the impact and value of those outputs on the U.S. 

economy.

Approach to 

Managing ACE after 

Implementation of 

Core Capabilities Has 

Not Been Established
Page 29 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

ACE users in CBP, the trade community, and partner agencies have 

identified a variety of shortcomings in ACE and have suggested 

enhancements to address them. Examples of reported shortcomings 

include the following:

• CBP officials tasked with validating data in ACE to assess compliance 

with trade laws and with processing importers’ protests of duty 

assessments told us that performing those tasks in ACE is labor 

intensive and cumbersome.

• CBP and agency officials noted that ACE has not yet been updated to 

respond to a number of legal requirements, including several TFTEA 

provisions and agency regulations necessitating certain 

enhancements to ACE.

• Some partner agency officials cited capabilities that were included in 

ACS but, despite being needed by the agencies for their import review 

and enforcement responsibilities, had not been deployed in ACE.

• CBP agriculture specialists identified a number of shortcomings in 

ACE capabilities for processing imported agricultural goods. ACE 

contains a “workspace” specifically designed for agricultural goods, 

but it is incomplete.

• Trade community officials highlighted the need for a variety of 

improvements in the arrival/cargo-release and post-release phases of 

the import process, such as improving the ability of agency officials 

and the trade community to send messages in ACE and increasing 

the size of files that the trade community can submit.

• A 2016 CBP survey of ACE users, including trade community 

representatives and partner agency officials, found that while the 

majority of respondents were satisfied with the ease of using ACE, 

substantial minorities (29 percent of CBP respondents, 36 percent of 

partner agency respondents, and 31 percent of trade community 

respondents) were dissatisfied, citing concern with navigation and 

functional limitations.

In response to such shortcomings, ACE users have submitted a large 

number of suggestions for enhancements to ACE. According to a CBP 

document, as of July 2017, 671 enhancements had been submitted since 

ACE Users Have Identified 

Shortcomings in ACE and 

Suggested Enhancements 

to Address Them
Page 30 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

the early 2000s and many of these had been addressed;

39 however, a 

third of those submitted (223) remained to be addressed. Of the

unaddressed enhancements, nearly three-quarters were submitted by 

trade community representatives (see fig. 3). According to CBP officials, 

funding constraints, as well as the effort required to complete deployment 

of core ACE capabilities within established time frames, largely precluded 

efforts to address enhancements over the last year. CBP officials stated 

that, because ACE is not funded to support enhancements, funding for 

enhancements suggested by CBP or the trade community must be 

provided by a CBP unit and funding for enhancements suggested by a 

partner agency must be provided by that agency.

Figure 3: Numbers of Unaddressed Suggested Enhancements to CBP Automated 

Commercial Environment, by Source, 2001-2017

Note: According to CBP, enhancements suggested by the trade community were submitted from 

2001 through mid-July 2017; by CBP officials, from 2015 through mid-July 2017; and by partner 

agencies, from 2016 through mid-July 2017.

 39According to CBP, 204 of the reported total of 671 suggested enhancements (30 

percent) had been developed, while another 244 (36 percent) had been rejected or 

withdrawn. According to CBP, the most common reasons for rejection have been that the 

suggested enhancement did not align with what CBP wished to implement, or that it 

reflected something that CBP already planned to implement. Those withdrawn were most 

commonly trade community suggestions that were addressed as core ACE 

implementation proceeded.
Page 31 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

While postponing action on these suggestions, as of November 2017 

CBP had prioritized seven enhancements suggested by CBP staff or the 

trade community to be implemented in the near term, most of them in 

response to legal or technical requirements. CBP also had identified 22 

additional enhancements suggested by CBP staff or the trade community 

for consideration as priorities.40

Prioritized enhancements. CBP’s seven prioritized ACE enhancements 

include two that had been scheduled for implementation in fiscal year 

2017 and five that were scheduled for implementation as post-core 

activities begin.41 According to CBP officials, the agency prioritized three 

of the seven enhancements in response to provisions in TFTEA; one of 

these three, pertaining to drawback processes, was necessitated by 

changes in the act, and the other two were intended to support changes 

in CBP procedure mandated by the act, according to CBP officials (see 

table 3). The CBP officials said that a fourth enhancement was required 

to comply with a new electronic filing rule by the U.S. Court of 

International Trade and that a fifth was needed to correct technical 

obsolescence.42 As table 3 shows, the information that CBP officials 

provided identified in general terms the enforcement or other benefits that 

could be realized through addressing these prioritized enhancements. As 

the table shows, as of September 2017, CBP had identified funding for 

three of these seven priorities.

 40According to CBP officials, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between individual 

suggestions submitted by CBP or the trade community and the agency’s lists of priority 

and unprioritized initiatives. Several suggestions may be combined in one initiative for 

implementation. CBP officials added that not all initiatives are associated with specific 

suggestions.

41An eighth enhancement that CBP prioritized for implementation in fiscal year 2017—

moving a foreign trade zones form from ACS to ACE to correct a technical 

obsolescence—was completed as of December 2017, according to CBP officials. 

42This discussion excludes two CBP priorities that are required to allow for ACS to be 

decommissioned, according to CBP.
Page 32 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Table 3: Prioritized Enhancements to CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment as of September 2017

Enhancement Expected benefit Reason cited by CBP Statusa

Truck manifests: Update truck manifest 

capability to the ACE platform used to 

process ocean, rail and air manifests.b

Provide benefits to CBP by placing 

all manifest processing on one ACE 

platform.

To correct technical 

obsolescence

In process.

Funding identified.

U.S. Court of International Trade:

Allow CBP to electronically send ACE 

data to the U.S. Court of International 

Trade.c

Provide benefits to CBP by placing 

all manifest processing on one ACE 

platform.

To implement new 

U.S. Court of 

International Trade 

Rule 73.1

In process.

Funding identified.

Drawback claims: Develop capability for 

all drawback claims to be submitted 

electronically.d

Streamline filing for the trade 

community to reduce processing 

times and increase cost savings.

To meet requirement

in TFTEA, Section 906

In process; to be completed 

by February 2018.

Funding identified.

Importer data submissions: Increase 

amount of data submitted electronically 

on CBP Importer of Record Form 5106.

Provide substantial benefits to CBP 

and the trade community by 

streamlining processes to reduce 

processing times and increase cost 

savings.

To support CBP 

processes required by 

TFTEA, Section 115

High-level requirements 

under review.

Funding not yet identified.

De minimis shipments: Allow partner 

agency data to be submitted for de 

minimis shipments without assessing any 

duties or fees.e

Provide substantial benefits to CBP 

and the trade community by 

streamlining processes to reduce 

processing times and increase cost 

savings.

To support CBP 

processes required by 

TFTEA, Section 901

Review of required level of 

effort in process.

Funding not yet identified.

Foreign-trade zones: Incorporate 

partner agency data into the Foreign 

Trade Zone admissions process.f

Provide substantial benefits to CBP 

and the trade community by 

streamlining processes to reduce 

processing times and increase cost 

savings.

To align with CBP 

mission priority

Review of required level of 

effort in process.

Funding not yet identified.

Ocean shipments: Allow non-vessel 

operating common carriers to process 

cargo data for ocean shipments through 

ACE.

Provide substantial benefits to CBP 

and the trade community by 

streamlining processes to reduce 

processing times and increase cost 

savings.

To align with CBP 

mission priority

On hold, pending 

completion of truck 

refactoring.

Funding not yet identified.

Legend: ACE = Automated Commercial Environment; CBP = U.S. Customs and Border Protection; TFTEA = Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement 

Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-125 (Feb. 24, 2016).

Source: Customs and Border Protection (CBP). | GAO-18-271

Note: The first two enhancements shown were prioritized for implementation in fiscal year 2017 but 

had not yet been implemented as of September 2017. The other five enhancements were prioritized 

for implementation in fiscal year 2018, after CBP completes implementation of key ACE activities, 

processes, and functions.

a

Status as reported by CBP officials as of September 2017. 

b

ACE includes a capability that enables carriers of imports to the United States to submit electronic 

truck manifests to CBP prior to a truck’s arrival at a U.S. land border crossing.

c

The U.S. Court of International Trade, established under Article III of the Constitution, has nationwide 

jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of the customs and international trade laws of the United 

States, according to the court.

d

Drawback is the process by which an importer may be able to claim and recover most of the duties, 

taxes, or fees upon exportation or destruction of imported merchandise, under CBP supervision.

e

The de minimis value level is the value of a shipment imported by one person on one day that 

generally may be imported free of duties and taxes, according to CBP.. TFTEA included an 
Page 33 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

amendment to Section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1321) to increase the

maximum de minimis value exemption from duties and taxes from $200 to $800, which CBP 

implemented on March 10, 2016.

f

Foreign-trade zones are secure areas under CBP that are generally considered outside CBP territory 

upon activation. Located in or near CBP ports of entry, they are the United States’ version of what are 

known internationally as free-trade zones, according to CBP.

Accepted but unprioritized enhancements. CBP officials also provided 

us with a list of 22 unprioritized enhancements suggested by CBP staff 

and the trade community that had been presented to CBP’s Product 

Management Committee for assessment and possible prioritization. 

Several of these enhancements are aimed at strengthening ACE 

provisions for processing agricultural imports. For example, one 

enhancement would improve the interface between ACE and various 

Department of Agriculture subsystems, reducing the need to manually 

enter data in multiple systems. Another enhancement would integrate the 

ACE agricultural workspace and CBP’s Automated Targeting System, 

strengthening targeting for agricultural imports. The list of unprioritized 

enhancements also includes initiatives to simplify several import 

processing steps for the trade community, allowing faster processing and 

associated cost savings.

While CBP has a process for prioritizing enhancements suggested by its 

own staff or by members of the trade community (see text box), no 

process has been established for prioritizing enhancements suggested by 

partner agencies or for making priority decisions among all suggested 

enhancements, including those submitted by partner agencies. 

Enhancements suggested by partner agencies are provided to the Border 

Interagency Executive Council (BIEC) for prioritization.43 The BIEC, which 

CBP chairs, was created to improve coordination among ITDS partner 

agencies. The BIEC’s responsibilities extend to reviewing and prioritizing 

partner agency suggestions for enhancing ACE, according to CBP 

officials. However, CBP officials told us in September 2017 that the BIEC 

did not have explicit criteria for prioritizing partner agency suggestions 

 43Formally established in February 2014, the BIEC includes senior-level representatives 

from partner agencies with relevant border management interests or authorities. BIEC 

member agencies are the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, 

Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation 

and Treasury; CPSC; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. BIEC also includes several representatives from the Executive Office 

of the President, including from the Office of Management and Budget. BIEC is co-chaired 

by CBP and vice-chaired by CPSC.

Process for Prioritizing 

Enhancements from All 

Sources Has Not Been 

Established
Page 34 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

and had not yet agreed on a cost-sharing strategy that would allow 

multiple agencies to share the cost of enhancements that might benefit 

those agencies.44 In the absence of such a process, CBP has been 

evaluating partner agency–suggested enhancements on a first-come, 

first-served basis, and partner agencies requesting such enhancements 

are required to pay for them on a fee-for-service basis, according to CBP 

officials.45

CBP’s Documented Process for Prioritizing ACE Enhancements Suggested by CBP 

Staff or the Trade Community

• CBP policy offices consider six criteria to decide whether to accept or reject 

enhancements suggested by CBP and the trade community: (1) completion of 

technical requirements to assess the required level of effort; (2) legal and regulatory 

provisions; (3) overlap with, or connection to, other enhancements in development or 

already deployed; (4) availability of funding and contract vehicles; (5) possible 

burden on trade, especially on existing coding or business processes; and (6) 

possible burden on CBP. CBP adds accepted enhancements to a list of 

“unprioritized initiatives.”

• CBP’s Product Management Committee considers four criteria in assessing 

unprioritized initiatives for placement on the agency’s “short list” of priorities: (1) the 

enhancement aligns with a CBP mission priority, (2) the enhancement meets a 

legislative or regulatory requirement, (3) the enhancement is associated with a 

security protocol or gap, and (4) funding for the enhancement is available. According 

to CBP officials, an affirmative response to one or more of these criteria yields a 

higher probability that the enhancement will be deemed a priority.

• To prepare enhancements for development and deployment, CBP estimates the 

level of effort required, gathers high-level requirements, and conducts impact 

assessments. Once planning is complete, the CBP policy office sponsoring the 

priority develops a business case for initiatives on the “short list” of priorities, 

including budget justification and information on potential benefits/return on 

investment.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) documents. | GAO-18-271

 44For example, CPSC officials told us that the commission is currently negotiating an 

agreement to add two-way messaging to ACE. CPSC officials observed that this 

enhancement will be undertaken at CPSC’s expense, although it will benefit many 

agencies.

45For example, FDA provided $33,000 to add a reporting element to ACE that will support 

the agency’s regulatory program under the Food Safety Modernization Act, according to 

FDA.
Page 35 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Although CBP identified funding to complete the implementation of core 

ACE capabilities as defined by CBP in fiscal year 2018, officials of CBP 

and its partner agencies stated that they have not identified funding for 

the continued development of ACE, including most of the enhancements 

that have been suggested by CBP, the trade community, or partner 

agencies. Through fiscal year 2017, CBP maintained separate accounts 

to support ACE operations and maintenance and ACE acquisitions—that 

is, development and deployment of new ACE capabilities.46 According to 

CBP officials, the agency’s ACE acquisition funds were used exclusively 

to develop and deploy ACE capabilities that the agency defined as core. 

Neither acquisition funds nor operations and maintenance funds were 

available for enhancements to the core system, according to the officials. 

However, CBP officials told us in November 2017 that, beginning in fiscal 

year 2018, the agency’s planned annual budgets for ACE would include 

funds only for operations and maintenance and would no longer include 

funds to support acquisitions. CBP officials stated that the agency had 

identified additional funding to complete core ACE capabilities, other than 

collections, in fiscal year 2018 and to ensure that these capabilities 

operate in concert with ACS, which the agency uses for collections. 

However, the agency had not yet identified funding for several 

enhancements that CBP considered near-term priorities (see table 3) or 

for the longer list of accepted but unprioritized enhancements suggested 

by CBP staff or the trade community. CBP officials estimated that 

supporting post-core development will require about $7 million in 

additional funds in fiscal year 2019 and slightly more than $14 million 

annually in additional funds in the succeeding 3 years.47 Figure 4 

summarizes CBP’s anticipated ACE funding requirements for fiscal years 

2019 through 2022, as identified by CBP in November 2016 and 

September 2017.

 46Operations and maintenance includes efforts to address “trouble tickets” submitted by 

ACE users. In June 2017, ACE users submitted over 10,000 trouble tickets to address a 

wide variety of problems, including slow response times and outages. According to CBP, 

nearly 98 percent of these problems were resolved.

47Because CBP has not yet developed full information on ACE funding requirements and 

allocations, these numbers should be considered preliminary.

Funding for ACE 

Development after Fiscal 

Year 2018 Has Not Been 

Identified
Page 36 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Figure 4: Estimated Annual Funding Requirements for CBP’s Automated 

Commercial Environment, Fiscal Years 2019-2022

CBP is working with its partner agencies in the BIEC to reach agreement 

on an approach to managing ACE’s continued development after 

completing the implementation of core capabilities, but this approach has 

not been finalized. According to CBP officials and some partner agency 

officials, the BIEC is seeking agreement on processes for prioritizing all 

suggested enhancements and for sharing the costs of maintaining and 

enhancing the system.

• Process for prioritizing enhancements. According to CBP officials, 

the BIEC is developing a process for prioritizing enhancements, 

including criteria to be applied and a governance process to guide 

decision making. CBP officials stated that this process would be 

applied to all suggested enhancements, regardless of their source.

• Process for sharing costs. According to CBP officials, the BIEC 

agreed in early 2016 to begin working toward consensus among CBP 

and its partner agencies on an approach to sharing future ACE 

operations and maintenance and development costs. This consensus 

Approach to Managing 

ACE after Completion of 

Core Capabilities Has Not 

Been Finalized
Page 37 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

is to include an agreement on criteria for classifying suggested 

enhancements as operations and maintenance or as new capabilities 

and on funding arrangements for both categories.48 Additionally, the 

Office of Management and Budget requested the Department of 

Homeland Security and CBP to develop a cost-sharing framework, 

according to CBP.

However, the BIEC has not yet finalized a management approach to 

address these tasks. According to CBP, in early December 2017 the 

BIEC produced a document, titled “BIEC Principals Single Window 

Sustainment Decision Memorandum,” proposing a “sustainment model”

for ACE and received partner agency comments on this document later 

that month. CBP did not provide us with copies of the memorandum or 

the partner agencies’ comments but stated that the comments covered 

the following areas: acceptance of a proposed definition of operations and 

maintenance and a “pay as you go” funding model, evaluation criteria for 

prioritizing suggested enhancements, and an overall process for making 

prioritization decisions. According to CBP officials, a draft cost-sharing 

and prioritization process plan was distributed to the BIEC principals and 

discussed in detail at a principals meeting on January 30, 2018, and work 

on refining and finalizing this plan is continuing. CBP officials estimated 

that this process would be completed by October 31, 2018.

In light of funding constraints and the need for broad interagency 

agreement to adopt processes such as those reportedly under discussion 

in the BIEC, it is unclear whether these discussions will conclude within 

the specified time frame or whether the sustainment model will resolve all 

outstanding issues in a manner satisfactory to participating agencies. For 

example, according to FDA and Treasury officials, some partner agencies 

maintain that certain improvements to ACE suggested by partner 

agencies should be regarded as part of the core system—traditionally 

supported by CBP acquisition funds—rather than treated as 

enhancements that must be supported by the agencies that suggest 

 48According to partner agency officials, clarity on this point is needed. For example, 

APHIS officials stated that their agency is seeking an enhancement to allow APHIS 

permits to be submitted via ACE. The officials told us that APHIS believes this 

enhancement should be classified as maintenance, since it is a system upgrade and will 

not affect any business practice.
Page 38 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

them.49 It remains unclear how such enhancements will be categorized or 

funded, since CBP has indicated that it will no longer allocate funds to 

ACE acquisition and that operations and maintenance funds have 

traditionally not been used for such purposes.

The solutions to these unresolved issues will affect both CBP and its 

partner agencies, according to agency officials. FDA officials observed 

that CBP will not fund or implement additional capabilities without funding 

for these efforts, whether through its own budget or from partner 

agencies. Treasury officials observed that interagency coordination and 

transfers of funding are cumbersome, costly processes. FDA officials also 

commented that, rather than try to arrange cost sharing with other 

agencies that may have funding constraints, partner agencies might

develop alternative systems to compensate for capabilities lacking in 

ACE. FDA officials observed that this could result in multiple agencies’

developing separate systems to meet similar needs.

According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,

management should establish an appropriate organizational structure and 

communicate effectively to achieve agency objectives.50 In addition, key 

practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration include 

articulating a common outcome, establishing mutually reinforcing or joint 

strategies, and establishing compatible means of operating across 

agency boundaries.51 Until CBP, in collaboration with partner agencies, 

finalizes its management approach to ACE, including processes for 

prioritizing, and sharing costs for, critical enhancements, U.S. agencies 

and the trade community will not realize the system’s full potential 

benefits.

 49For example, FDA officials cited a delayed messaging capability that they said was 

available in ACS but has not been implemented in ACE. Automated screening processes 

often result in admissibility decisions being made quickly and in advance of a shipment’s 

physical arrival at a port. According to FDA officials, because delayed messaging has not 

been implemented in ACE, entry filers and importers receive advance notice of FDA’s 

intention to examine cargo and can therefore cancel or divert the cargo to another port to 

avoid FDA oversight. According to FDA officials, the agency needs access to the delayed 

messaging capability in ACE to reduce the risk of manipulation or diversion of shipments 

that may endanger public health.

50GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Sept. 

10, 2014).

51See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
Page 39 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

The need for an international trade data system to enhance U.S. 

agencies’ efficiency and effectiveness in processing cargo and enforcing 

U.S. trade laws has long been clear. Indeed, information available from 

CBP, partner agencies, and the trade community points to savings and 

enforcement benefits resulting from the implemented core ACE 

capabilities, including faster import processing; improved targeting; and 

other benefits to partner agencies, the trade community, and consumers. 

However, realization of the full benefits of transitioning to ACE continues 

to be hampered by a variety of functional shortcomings’.

CBP and its partner agencies recognize the need to agree on an 

approach to maintaining and continuing to develop the system after core 

ACE is completed. While CBP recently completed deployment of most of 

the capabilities that it identified as core, CBP and its partner agencies in 

the BIEC have not yet agreed on processes for prioritizing 

enhancements—including those that ACE users have suggested to 

improve the system—and for sharing the costs of operating and 

enhancing the system. Until CBP, in collaboration with its partner 

agencies, finalizes an approach to post-core management of ACE that 

includes such processes, as well as time frames for implementing them, 

CBP, its partner agencies, and the trade community will not realize the full 

potential benefits of the substantial investment ACE represents.

We are making the following recommendation to DHS:

The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the 

Commissioner of CBP, in collaboration with partner agencies, finalizes an 

interagency approach to the post-core management of ACE that includes 

(1) processes for prioritizing enhancements to ACE and for sharing ACE 

operations and maintenance and development costs, including the costs 

of suggested enhancements among partner agencies that may benefit, 

and (2) time frames for implementing such processes. (Recommendation 

1)

We provided a draft of this report to DHS; the Departments of Agriculture, 

Health and Human Services, the Interior, the Treasury, and 

Transportation; and CPSC. DHS provided substantive comments, which 

are reproduced in appendix III. In addition, DHS; the Departments of 

Health and Human Services, the Interior, Transportation, and the 

Treasury; and CPSC provided technical comments, which we 

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 40 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Agriculture did not 

provide comments.

In its substantive comments, DHS concurred with our recommendation. 

DHS also reported that some steps toward developing an interagency 

approach to post-core management of ACE had been taken after we 

distributed our draft report for agency comment. DHS estimated that the 

process would be completed by the end of October 2018. We updated 

our report accordingly.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Commissioner of CBP, the Secretaries of the 

Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, the Interior, the 

Treasury, and Transportation. 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) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk.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 IX.

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos

Director, International Affairs and Trade
Page 41 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

List of Committees

The Honorable Orrin Hatch

Chairman

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

The Honorable John Boozman

Chairman

The Honorable Jon Tester

Ranking Member

Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

United States Senate

The Honorable Kevin Brady

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Neal

Ranking Member

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

The Honorable John R. Carter

Chairman

The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard

Ranking Member

Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

In this report, we examine (1) the status of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection’s (CBP) efforts to implement core Automated Commercial 

Environment (ACE) capabilities since 2013, (2) CBP partner agencies’

access to ACE and use of the system for import processing, (3) available 

information about any cost savings and trade enforcement benefits that 

have resulted from using ACE, and (4) the approach that will be used to 

manage ACE after core capabilities have been completed.

To examine CBP’s efforts to implement ACE since 2013, we obtained 

information from CBP’s Office of Information Technology and Office of 

Trade, which have been responsible for developing and administering 

ACE. CBP documents reviewed include ACE deployment schedules, 

acquisition decision memos, remediation plans, cost estimates, and a 

staff post mortem report on the ACE acquisition process. We also 

interviewed officials from CBP and five partner agencies regarding the 

ACE acquisition process since 2013: the Department of Health and 

Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of 

Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Department of 

Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and 

the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). We 

selected these five agencies on the basis of their size (to include both 

large and small agencies), the degree to which they require 

documentation for clearing or licensing cargo, and recommendations from 

officials of CBP and the Department of the Treasury regarding agencies 

that would provide a range of experience in transitioning to ACE. We also 

reviewed prior GAO reports on ACE acquisition. While ACE is designed 

to permit management of both exports and imports, we focused on the 

implementation of ACE capabilities to manage imports, because CBP’s 

efforts to complete and improve ACE functionality are currently focused 

primarily on import trade.1

To examine other agencies’ progress in accessing and using ACE data, 

we obtained summary information on ACE usage for CBP’s 49 partner 

agencies, including information such as whether an agency had a 

memorandum of understanding with CBP regarding ACE access, whether 

it accessed trade data through ACE data and how it did so. While we 

collected information on all 49 partner agencies, we focused our analysis 

 1

According to CBP documents, efforts to transition export commodity filings from older 

information technology systems into ACE were completed in May 2016, and pilot tests of 

export manifest submission via ACE are under way.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

on the 22 partner agencies that CBP identified as requiring 

documentation for clearing or licensing cargo for import or export. To 

collect this information, we identified and reviewed Federal Register 

notices posted by the agencies. We obtained documentation on agency 

participation in ACE from CBP officials and from the Department of the 

Treasury.2 We also discussed the documentation and our descriptions 

with CBP officials and partner agency officials. To understand how the 

five selected agencies used ACE, we conducted case studies that 

included reviewing CBP user guidance documents and documents from 

the respective agencies on their transitions and interviewing agency 

officials in Washington, D.C., and at the ports of New York and Newark.

To examine available information about actual and potential cost savings 

and enforcement benefits from using ACE, we obtained information on 

efforts by CBP, partner agencies, and companies involved in international 

trade to identify and measure efficiency gains and potential cost savings. 

The CBP documents we reviewed included listings and definitions of 

metrics for determining efficiency gains and CBP’s method for using 

those to calculate potential cost savings, and also documentation of 

CBP’s process for determining the reliability of the data and measures. In 

addition, we reviewed a 2015 report on CBP’s ACE metrics by the DHS 

Office of the Inspector General, which recommended that CBP strengthen 

its metrics; the Inspector General subsequently closed those 

recommendations as implemented. On the basis of our review of the 

available information, we determined that CBP’s metrics were sufficiently 

reliable for the purpose of conveying the estimated value of these 

efficiency gains. To understand earlier CBP estimates of potential cost 

savings from ACE, we reviewed a cost-benefit analysis conducted and 

revised by CBP during 2002-2004. We also reviewed a more recent cost 

benefit analysis conducted by FDA. In addition, we interviewed officials at 

CBP and the 5 case study partner agencies regarding information on 

potential cost savings and other benefits from ACE, including officials in 

CBP’s Office of Enforcement who discussed challenges with developing 

metrics to measure enforcement benefits. In addition, to obtain 

information on observed and potentials benefits and cost savings of ACE 

to importers and exporters, and related companies, we interviewed 

representatives of these companies. We also obtained information from 

CBP regarding their preparations to assess the benefits of enhancements 

 2

The SAFE Port Act assigned responsibility for coordinating interagency participation in 

ITDS to the Department of the Treasury.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

to ACE after core ACE capabilities are completed. We interviewed CBP 

and agency officials in Washington, D.C., and at the ports of New York, 

N.Y., and Newark, N.J., concerning benefits and challenges associated 

with using ACE. We selected these ports because they allowed us to 

interview CBP officials charged with processing a large volume of diverse 

imported goods, representing both air and sea cargo. These ports also 

afforded an opportunity to interview field staff representing four of our five 

case-study agencies (APHIS, CPSC, FDA, and FWS). We also discussed 

these issues with CBP officials with the agency’s Center for Commercial 

Targeting and Analysis, each of CBP’s five National Targeting and 

Analysis Groups, and six of the agency’s 10 Centers of Excellence and 

Expertise (national-level CBP units responsible for processing imported 

goods associated with designated industry sectors), which we 

judgmentally selected. We also discussed these issues with 16 trade 

community representatives—that is, representatives of companies that 

buy and sell internationally traded products as well as brokers and 

shippers that work for and with these companies—some of whom 

participate in organizations that advise CBP regarding its operations. 

These 16 representatives included members of the Trade Support 

Network, a private sector group created to provide input to CBP on its 

business processes, including ACE; the Commercial Customs Operations 

Advisory Committee, a private sector group created to advise the 

Departments of the Treasury and Homeland Security on CBP’s 

commercial operations; and the National Customs Brokers and Freight 

Forwarders Association.

To analyze the approach that will be used to manage ACE after core 

capabilities have been completed, we obtained information on CBP 

processes to identify, evaluate, and operationalize changes to enhance 

ACE. We also obtained information from CBP about its projected “postcore” budgetary needs. In addition, we reviewed documentation from 

CBP regarding interagency dialogue on post-core management of ACE 

and interviewed officials from CBP and other agencies to obtain their 

views on the challenges to be addressed and progress toward addressing 

them.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to February 

2018 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.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in 

ACE

Page 45 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Table 4 provides information about participation in U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s (CBP) Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by 

the 22 partner agencies that CBP identified as requiring documentation to 

clear or license cargo. Table 5 provides information about participation in 

ACE by the 27 partner agencies that CBP did not identify as requiring 

such documentation.

Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in 

ACE
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE

Page 46 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Table 4: Participation in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by CBP Partner Agencies That Require Documentation to Clear or License 

Cargo

 ACE integration

No. Department Agency

MOU with 

CBPa Document image 

systemb

PGA 

message

setc

Type of 

trade data 

obtained

ACE pilot 

statusd

Examples of agency functionse

1. Department of 

Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing Service ● ● ● Import In progress Inspects certain imported fresh and processed fruits, vegetables, and specialty 

crops to verify that they meet the same 

requirements as domestic products subject 

to certain quality and condition 

requirements.

Export N/A Certifies that shipments of fresh apples and 

table grapes meet certain requirements.

2. Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service

● ● ● Import Completed Regulates the import of animals, plants, or 

their products; can prohibit entry of 

products that do not meet health or 

phytosanitary standards, do not have import 

permits from the service, or do not have 

certain foreign government certifications. 

3. Department of 

Agriculture

Food Safety and 

Inspection Service ● ● ● Import Completed Regulates the import and export of meat, poultry, and eggs. 

4. Department of 

Agriculture

Foreign 

Agricultural 

Service

● ● ___

Import Completed Administers tariff rate quotas and issues 

import licenses for sugar and dairy 

products.

5. Department of 

Commerce

Bureau of Industry 

and Security ● ___ ● Export N/A Administers the Export Administration Regulations, which set forth license 

requirements for the export of items that 

have chiefly commercial uses, but could 

potentially be used for human rights 

abuses/terrorism.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE

Page 47 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

 ACE integration

No. Department Agency

MOU with 

CBPa Document image 

systemb

PGA 

message

setc

Type of 

trade data 

obtained

ACE pilot 

statusd

Examples of agency functionse

6. Department of 

Commerce

National Marine 

Fisheries Service ● ● ● Import Completed Regulates the importation and exportation of certain fish such as swordfish, tooth fish, 

and tuna; uses information on imports to 

identify illegal importations or exportations 

of fish, and to assist in its investigations of 

illegal fishing or related violations.

Export

7. Department of 

Defense

Defense Contract 

Management 

Agency

● ● ___ Import N/A Responsible for ensuring Department of 

Defense federal acquisition programs 

(systems, supplies, and services) are 

delivered on time, within projected cost or 

price, and that they meet performance 

requirements; acts as customs broker for 

the department for goods being shipped 

into the United States to department 

activities.

8. Department of 

Health and 

Human 

Services

Centers for 

Disease Control 

and Prevention

● ● ___ Import Completed Regulates imports that can potentially 

cause disease in humans and requires 

permits for disease-causing agents, 

biological materials, and certain 

animals/animal products.

9. Department of 

Health and 

Human 

Services

Food and Drug 

Administration ● ___ ● Import Completed Regulates the importation of food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, biologics, 

tobacco, and radiation-emitting products.

10. Department of 

the Interior

Fish and Wildlife 

Service ● ___ ___ Import Suspended Determines the admissibility and controls the export of most wildlife and wildlife 
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE

Page 48 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

 ACE integration

No. Department Agency

MOU with 

CBPa Document image 

systemb

PGA 

message

setc

Type of 

trade data 

obtained

ACE pilot 

statusd

Examples of agency functionse

● ___ ___ Export Suspended products; issues licenses and permits to 

import or export wildlife and wildlife 

products; inspects wildlife and wildlife 

products to ensure proper documentation 

and prevent the illegal import or export of 

wildlife.

11. Department of 

Justice

Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives

● ● ● Import Completed Regulates importation of arms, ammunition, 

implements of war, destructive devices, and 

explosives; requires licenses and permits 

for the importation of some of these items.

Export In progress Regulates and requires a permit for 

exportation of certain weapons.

12. Department of 

Justice

Drug Enforcement 

Administration ● ● ● Import Completed Regulates the import of controlled substances and listed chemicals that 

maybe used to manufacture controlled 

substances; issues permits for certain 

controlled substances and monitors their 

movement.

Export Same as import, except for shipments 

leaving United States.

13. Department of 

State

Bureau of Ocean 

and International 

Scientific Affairs 

(Office of Marine 

Conservation)

● ● ● Import In progress Provides a list to CBP and Congress of 

nations importing shrimp harvested in a

manner that does not pose a threat to sea 

turtles.

14. Department of 

State

Directorate of 

Defense Trade 

Controls

● ● ● Import Completed Controls the export and temporary import of 

defense articles and defense services 

covered by the U.S. Munitions List. Export
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE

Page 49 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

 ACE integration

No. Department Agency

MOU with 

CBPa Document image 

systemb

PGA 

message

setc

Type of 

trade data 

obtained

ACE pilot 

statusd

Examples of agency functionse

15. Department of 

Transportation

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration

● ● ● Import Completed Monitors imported motor vehicles and 

motor vehicle equipment to ensure 

compliance with applicable Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards.

16. Department of 

the Treasury

Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau

● ● ● Import Completed Issues permits to alcohol and tobacco 

importers; approves labels for alcoholic 

beverages imported into the United States.

Export N/A Monitors alcohol and tobacco exports to 

ensure permit, and tax requirements are 

being met.

17. Department of 

the Treasury

Office of Foreign 

Assets Control ● ___ ● Export N/A Administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions; provides information to 

CBP for use in the ports to determine the 

admissibility of shipments within the Office 

of Foreign Asset Control’s jurisdiction.

18. Independent 

agency

Consumer Product 

Safety 

Commission

● ___ ___ Import Completed Monitors consumer products, including 

those being imported into the United States, 

to protect children and families against 

unreasonable risk of injury and death from 

thousands of types of consumer products; 

uses import information to determine which 

shipments to stop and examine, as well as 

to identify shipments where entry can be 

facilitated.

19. Department of 

Commerce

Enforcement and 

Compliance ● ● ___ Import In progress Administers laws involving antidumping and countervailing duties; sets duty rates and 

provides CBP with cash deposit and 

liquidation instructions on entries subject to 

these duties.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE

Page 50 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

 ACE integration

No. Department Agency

MOU with 

CBPa Document image 

systemb

PGA 

message

setc

Type of 

trade data 

obtained

ACE pilot 

statusd

Examples of agency functionse

20. Independent 

Agency

Environmental 

Protection Agency ● ___ ● Import:vehicles 

and 

engines

Completed Performs port of entry inspections, 

conducts follow-up inspections of import 

materials at importers of record or ultimate 

consignees, and carries out other 

investigative activities for enforcement 

actions authorized by certain environmental 

statutes; regulates importation of ozone 

depleting substances, vehicles and 

engines, fuels and fuel additives subject to 

the Clean Air Act, pesticides and devices 

subject to the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and 

chemical substances and chemical 

mixtures subject to the Toxic Substances 

Control Act.

___ ● Import:

Toxic 

Substances 

Control Act

(TSCA)

Completed

___ ● Import:

ozonedepleting 

substances 

Completed

● ● Import:

pesticides

Completed

___ ● Export:

hazardous 

waste

Completed

21. Department of 

Commerce

Office of Textiles 

and Apparel ● ● ___ Import N/A Administers tariff rate quotas on certain worsted wool fabrics; monitors all textile 

trade agreements and provides economic 

analysis, data, and information on textiles.

22. Independent 

agency

Office of the 

United States 

Trade 

Representative 

● ● ___ Import N/A Responsible for developing and 

coordinating U.S. international trade, 

commodity, direct investment policy, and 

overseeing negotiations with other 

countries.

Legend: ITDS = International Trade Data System, MOU = memorandum of understanding, N/A = not applicable, PGA = partner government agency, — = not 

established, ● = established/in use.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) documents. | GAO-18-271
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in ACE

Page 51 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Notes: The listed agencies were identified by CBP as requiring documentation to clear or license cargo.

ITDS is a “single-window” system for electronic filing of import and export documentation to be provided through ACE.

a

In accordance with CBP policy, agencies seeking access to ACE data must conclude an MOU with CBP, detailing 

the information that the agency requires and how the data will be transmitted. According to CBP officials, staff of 

agencies that have signed MOUs with CBP have access to ACE data elements specified in the MOUs. We did not 

review MOUs but relied on CBP to indicate whether agencies had or had not concluded MOUs with CBP.

b

The ACE document image system allows trade partners to supply supporting documentation electronically as image 

files to CBP and partner agencies. The document imaging system integrates with the ACE Secure Data Portal, 

allowing authorized personnel access to images to perform coordinated reviews.

c

”PGA message set” refers to the consolidated set of data that partner government agencies have requested that 

ACE collect from importers, exporters, or both. The message set includes numerous data elements formerly collected 

through paper forms.

d

”Pilot status” refers to the status of pilots that agencies undertook to test their technical abilities to receive information 

from the trade community through ACE.

e

Examples of agency functions as identified by the ITDS Board of Directors report.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in 

ACE

Page 52 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Table 5: Participation in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) by CBP Partner Agencies That Do Not Require 

Documentation to Clear or License Cargo

No. Department Agency

MOU 

with 

CPBa

Document 

image 

systemb Examples of agency functionsc

1. Department of 

Agriculture

Federal Grain Inspection 

Service 

___ ___ Provides inspection and weighing services 

for grain exported from the United States.

2. Department of 

Commerce

Foreign Trade Zones 

Board ● ___ Licenses, regulates, and monitors the activityof foreign trade zones in the United States.

3. Department of 

Commerce

U.S. Census Bureau ___ ● Collects merchandise import and export data 

from various sources in order to compile 

official statistics to be used for research, as 

well as transportation and infrastructure 

planning, among other things.

4. Department of 

Defense

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers ● ___ Uses and maintains cargo and vessel movement information to inform capital 

investment decisions, among other things.

5. Department of Energy Energy Information 

Administration ● ___ Issues a wide range of weekly, monthly, and annual reports on energy production, stocks, 

demand, imports, exports, and prices, and 

prepares analyses and reports.

6. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy ___ ___ Regulates natural gas imports and exports 

from and to the United States.

7. Department of Energy Office of General 

Counsel ● ___ Enforces minimum efficiency standards (or maximum consumption standards) for many 

imported and domestic products, such as 

residential appliances and commercial 

equipment.

8. Department of 

Homeland Security

Transportation Security 

Administration

___ ___ Responsible for security relating to civil 

aviation, maritime, and all other modes of 

transportation, including transportation

facilities; works in tandem with CBP and the 

Coast Guard on maritime transportation 

issues.

9. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States Coast 

Guard

___ ___ Conducts regulatory inspections in the ports, 

including inspecting vessels and containers 

that transport imported and exported cargo, 

including bulk items. 

10. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics ● ___ Generates price indices for various 

internationally-traded goods and services, 

which are used to adjust import and export 

trade values for inflation.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in 

ACE

Page 53 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

No. Department Agency

MOU 

with 

CPBa

Document 

image 

systemb Examples of agency functionsc

11. Department of State Bureau of Administration, 

Office of Logistics 

Management

___ ___ Provides customs clearance and freight 

forwarding services for inbound and 

outbound property of U.S. government 

employees as they travel in and out of the 

United States; acts like a customs broker or 

freight forwarder responsible for filing all CBP 

clearance information on behalf of the 

returning employee.

12. Department of State Office of Foreign 

Missions ● ___ Authorizes duty free treatment for shipments consigned to foreign missions, international 

organizations, and their members.

13. Department of 

Transportation

Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics ● ___ Collects, compiles, and publishes comprehensive monthly and annual 

transportation statistics covering all modes of 

transportation, and performs research and 

prepares statistics and reports on the volume 

and geography of international trade on the 

nation’s transportation systems.

14. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Aviation 

Administration ● ___ Enforces regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials by air.

15. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Highway 

Administration ● ___ Conducts research on international commodity flows and related freight 

transportation activities, develops analytical 

tools, including freight models, to measure 

the transportation system, and examine the 

relationship between freight transportation 

improvements and the U.S. economy.

16. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration ● ___ Enforces safety standards for commercial motor vehicles entering and operating 

throughout the United States.

17. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railway 

Administration ● ___ Mission is to enable the safe, reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods for a 

strong America, now and in the future.d

18. Department of 

Transportation

Maritime Administration ● ___ Administers the Cargo Preference Act of 

1954, which reserves a portion of U.S. 

government–sponsored cargo to qualified 

U.S.-flag privately owned commercial 

vessels.

19. Department of 

Transportation

Pipeline Hazardous 

Materials Safety 

Administration

● ___ Determines compliance with safety and 

training standards by inspecting entities that 

offer hazardous materials for transportation 

and that manufacture, requalify, rebuild, 

recondition, or retest packaging used to 

transport hazardous material.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in 

ACE

Page 54 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

No. Department Agency

MOU 

with 

CPBa

Document 

image 

systemb Examples of agency functionsc

20. Department of the 

Treasury

Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network

___ ___ Aims to enhance U.S. national security, deter 

and detect criminal activity, and safeguard 

financial systems from abuse by promoting 

transparency in the United States and 

international financial systems.

21. Independent agency Export-Import Bank ● ___ Facilitates the export of U.S. goods and 

services as the official export credit agency of 

the United States.e

22. Independent agency Federal Communications 

Commission

___ ___ Prevents unauthorized radio frequency 

devices from entering the United States and 

ensures that finished products, as well as 

products assembled from parts shipped into 

the United States conform to certain 

standards to ensure they do not interfere with 

licensed radio communications.

23. Independent agency Federal Maritime 

Commission ● ___ Registers all Ocean Transportation Intermediaries doing business at U.S. ports 

and issues licenses and certificates, as well 

as reports on maritime trading conditions.

24. Department of the 

Treasury

Internal Revenue Service ● ● Collects excise taxes on certain imports and 

on foreign trucks subject to the Heavy 

Highway Vehicle Use tax; monitors 

information reported by importers (entry 

summary) to ensure payment of excise taxes 

on goods.

25. Independent agency International Trade 

Commission ● ___ Maintains the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated and conducts 

research and makes determinations 

concerning unfair trade practices with regard

to antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations.

26. Independent agency Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ● ___ Issues import and export licenses for certain nuclear material, components, and 

commodities.

27. Independent agency U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

___ ___ Works with developing countries to 

implement trade agreements, facilitate trade 

flows, and enhance economic effectiveness.

f

Legend: ITDS = International Trade Data System, MOU = memorandum of understanding, N/A = not applicable,— = not established, ● = established/in use.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) documents. | GAO-18-271

Notes: CBP did not identify these agencies as requiring documentation to clear or license cargo.

ITDS is a “single-window” system for the electronic filing of import and export documentation to be 

provided through ACE.

a

Agencies seeking access to ACE data must conclude an MOU with CBP, detailing the information 

that the agency requires and how the data will be transmitted, according to CBP officials. Agency 

officials also noted that staff of agencies that have signed MOUs with CBP have access to ACE data 

elements specified in the MOUs. We did not review MOUs but relied on CBP to indicate whether 

agencies had concluded MOUs with CBP.
Appendix II: Partner Agency Participation in 

ACE

Page 55 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

b

The ACE document image system allows trade partners to supply supporting documentation 

electronically as image files to CBP and partner agencies. DIS integrates with the ACE Secure Data 

Portal, allowing authorized personnel access to images to perform coordinated reviews.

c

Examples of agency functions as identified by the ITDS Board of Directors report.””

d

The agency was not identified or discussed in the ITDS Board of Directors Report in 2014 but was 

identified by CBP as an agency that uses ACE data. Agency function is according to information from 

the Federal Railway Administration.

e

The agency was not identified or discussed in the ITDS Board of Directors Report in 2014 but was 

identified by CBP as an agency that uses ACE data. Agency function is according to information from 

the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

f

The agency was not identified or discussed in the ITDS Board of Directors Report in 2014 but was 

identified by CBP as an agency that uses ACE data. Agency function is according to information from 

the Bureau of Economic Growth, Education and Environment; Office of Trade and Regulatory 

Reform.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 56 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 57 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 58 GAO-18-271 Customs and Border Protection

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos, (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Celia Thomas (Assistant 

Director), Michael McAtee (Analyst-in-Charge), Marybeth Acac, Ryan 

Deloughry, Philip Farah, Reid Lowe, Scott McClinton, Maria Stattel, 

Bryant Torres, and Alex Welsh made key contributions to this report. Neil 

Doherty and Justine Lazaro provided technical assistance.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff

Acknowledgments

(101338)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.