Electronic tracking for truck cargo expanded

The Homeland Security Department is expanding its use of an automated system to track cargo being transported in the United States by the trucking industry.

Beginning in January, the trucking industry will have to submit electronic cargo manifests to Customs and Border Protection for trucks entering the United States through all ports of entry in the states of Washington and Arizona, and select ports in North Dakota, the agency announced Friday. The information will be submitted through the automated commercial environment, or ACE, which CBP touts as its next-generation technology to track and process truck cargo.

ACE currently is deployed to 49 ports and ultimately will be at all 99 land-border ports. CBP intends to make it mandatory for the trucking industry to use ACE starting in 2007. The system will be expanded in coming years to process air, rail and sea cargo.

More than 12,000 electronic manifests were filed in September, according to CBP. "We are very pleased with the continued growth in e-manifest usage," said Lou Samenfink, the program's office director. "With every company that makes the switch to e-manifests now, it makes it that much easier when we make e-manifests mandatory next year."

CBP said the next land ports where ACE will be mandatory will be in Alaska, California, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Texas and Vermont, as well as the remaining ports in North Dakota. The agency did not give a timeframe for those ports but said it will give a 90-day public notice before the requirement take effect.

ACE is scheduled to be fully deployed in 2011 at an estimated cost of $3 billion, according to the department's inspector general. Auditors, however, issued a report this week finding some problems with the agency's accounting process for the system.

"CBP's internal controls for the review and approval of invoices were not adequate," the IG said. "This occurred because CBP management did not adequately monitor invoice review operations. Consequently, CBP risks not detecting invoice errors or irregularities."

Specifically, written guidance describing accounting review procedures was not sufficiently detailed, workers did not always document the review activities that were performed, and CBP did not sufficiently research the causes for issues identified during reviews, according to the IG.

"The weaknesses in the internal controls over the invoice review process increase the risk of improper payments," the IG said. "To strengthen internal controls, CBP needs to improve written procedures, better monitor the process, document the review activities performed, and research the cause of discrepancies noted during the review."

CBP agreed with the audit's findings and said it had taken steps to address the problems. Auditors reported that actions taken by CBP satisfied their recommendations.