66050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Would this concern be minimized if the 

requirement to offer capacity release is 

limited to larger section 311 and 

Hinshaw pipelines whose services are 

predominantly interstate? 

7. If section 311 and Hinshaw 

pipelines are required to offer capacity 

release, should the regulations be the 

same as the capacity release regulations 

for interstate pipelines set forth in 

section 284.8 of the Commission’s 

regulations? Would a subset of those 

regulations be sufficient for purposes of 

preventing undue discrimination and 

promoting transparency, while 

minimizing any burden on the pipelines 

offering capacity release? 

19. Finally, as we recognized in the 

APS/Sequent order, the Commission has 

not previously addressed the issue of 

whether the buy/sell prohibition applies 

to interstate service provided by section 

311 and Hinshaw pipelines. Thus, until 

the Commission issued that order, there 

was no clear policy prohibiting such 

transactions. Therefore, the Commission 

will not institute any enforcement 

actions with respect to prior buy/sell 

transactions involving section 311 and 

Hinshaw pipelines. In addition, the 

Commission grants a blanket waiver of 

the prohibition on buy/sell transactions 

to allow existing and new buy/sell 

transactions involving section 311 and 

Hinshaw pipelines to continue to take 

place until the Commission issues a 

further order in this proceeding. This 

will avoid disrupting any ongoing 

relationships established through 

currently existing buy/sell transactions 

and also avoid discouraging beneficial 

new arrangements, while the 

Commission considers the policy issues 

raised in this proceeding. As we 

recognized in the APS/Sequent order, 

capacity reassignments can promote 

more efficient use of firm pipeline 

capacity by enabling a holder of such 

capacity to permit its capacity to be 

used by another party for a higher 

valued use. 

III. Procedure for Comments 

20. The Commission invites interested 

persons to submit comments and other 

information on the matters, issues, and 

specific questions identified in this 

notice. Comments are due 60 days from 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register. Comments must refer to 

Docket No. RM11–1–000, and must 

include the commenter’s name, the 

organization they represent, if 

applicable, and their address. 

21. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

22. Commenters unable to file 

comments electronically must mail or 

hand deliver an original copy of their 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20426. The current 

requirements are specified on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at http:// 

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or 

via phone from FERC Online Support at 

202–502–6652 or toll-free at 1–866– 

208–3676. 

23. All comments will be placed in 

the Commission’s public files and may 

be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

are not required to serve copies of their 

comments on other commenters. 

IV. Document Availability 

24. In addition to publishing the full 

text of this document in the Federal 

Register, the Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and print the contents of this 

document via the Internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http:// 

www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s 

Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., 

Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. 

25. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the Internet, this information is 

available in the Commission’s document 

management system, eLibrary. The full 

text of this document is available on 

eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word 

format for viewing, printing, and 

downloading. To access this document 

in eLibrary, type the docket number 

(excluding the last three digits) in the 

docket number field. 

26. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s Web site 

during normal business hours. For 

assistance, please contact the 

Commission’s Online Support at 1–866– 

208–3676 (toll free) or 202–502–6652 

(e-mail at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov) 

or the Public Reference Room at 202– 

502–8371, TTY 202–502–8659 (e-mail at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov). 

By direction of the Commission. 

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27156 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

19 CFR Part 111 

[Docket No. USCBP–2010–0038] 

RIN 1651–AA80 

Permissible Sharing of Client Records 

by Customs Brokers 

AGENCIES: Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) regulations in title 19 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining 

to the obligations of customs brokers to 

keep clients’ information confidential. 

The proposed amendment would allow 

brokers, upon the client’s consent in a 

written authorization, to share client 

information with affiliated entities 

related to the broker so that these 

entities may offer non-customs business 

services to the broker’s clients. The 

proposed amendment would also allow 

customs brokers to use a third-party to 

perform photocopying, scanning, and 

delivery of client records for the broker. 

These proposed changes are intended to 

update the regulation to reflect modern 

business practices, while protecting the 

confidentiality of client (importer) 

information. In addition, the proposed 

changes would align the regulations 

with CBP’s previously published rulings 

concerning brokers’ confidentiality of 

client information. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by one of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

via docket number USCBP–2010–0038. 

• Mail: Trade and Commercial 

Regulations Branch, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW. 

(Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229– 

1179. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66051 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submitted 

comments may also be inspected on 

regular business days between the hours 

of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Trade and 

Commercial Regulations Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW. 

(5th Floor), Washington, DC. 

Arrangements to inspect submitted 

comments should be made in advance 

by calling Mr. Joseph Clark at (202) 325– 

0118. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

legal aspects, Carrie Owens, Chief, Entry 

Process & Duty Refunds Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, (202) 325–0266. For 

operational aspects, Anita Harris, Chief, 

Broker Compliance Branch, Trade 

Policy and Programs, Office of 

International Trade, (202) 863–6069. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on any aspect of the 

proposed rule. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) also invites comments 

that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this proposal. If 

appropriate to a specific comment, the 

commenter should reference the specific 

portion of the proposed rule, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include data, information, or 

authority that support such 

recommended change. 

Background 

The statutory provision governing 

customs brokers is found in section 641, 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 1641). Specifically, section 641(f) 

authorizes CBP to promulgate ‘‘rules and 

regulations relating to the customs 

business of customs brokers as the 

Secretary * * * considers necessary to 

protect importers and the revenue of the 

United States * * * including rules and 

regulations governing * * * the keeping 

of * * * records by customs brokers 

* * * ’’ See 19 U.S.C. 1641(f). The 

implementing regulations issued under 

the authority of § 641 are set forth in 

part 111 of title 19 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 111). 

In order to meet its obligations to 

protect the revenue and enforce the 

customs laws, it is essential that CBP 

receive full and complete information 

from importers with respect to their 

customs transactions. These 

transactions contain confidential 

business information, the unauthorized 

disclosure of which could cause 

competitive harm to the importer or 

other companies. Brokers occupy a 

unique role as conduits with respect to 

import transactions. As entities that are 

licensed and regulated by the U.S. 

government, brokers act as 

intermediaries between importers and 

CBP to assure that complete and 

accurate information is provided. Thus, 

a special relationship exists between the 

broker, its client (the importer), and 

CBP. The duties and responsibilities of 

customs brokers in transacting customs 

business on behalf of their clients, and, 

in particular, the confidential treatment 

that brokers must accord their records of 

such transactions, are governed by the 

regulations in 19 CFR part 111 issued 

under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1641(f). 

It is well settled that customs brokers 

have a fiduciary duty to protect client 

information. As such, brokers are 

subject to certain recordkeeping 

requirements set forth in part 111 of 19 

CFR. In that regard, part 111 requires, 

among other things, that a broker 

maintain records of transactions (19 

CFR 111.21), retain records (19 CFR 

111.23), and make records available for 

official CBP inspection (19 CFR 111.25). 

Additionally, in carrying out its duties 

and responsibilities, a broker is required 

to exercise responsible supervision and 

control over the transaction of customs 

business (19 CFR 111.28(a)) (see also 19 

U.S.C. 1641(b)(4)), and exercise due 

diligence in handling customs business 

matters (19 CFR 111.29(a)). Further, a 

broker is precluded from entering into 

an agreement with an unlicensed person 

to transact customs business if the fees 

generated from the transaction would 

inure to the benefit of the unlicensed 

person (19 CFR 111.36(b)). 

Another significant requirement set 

forth in part 111 is that brokers maintain 

the confidentiality of client records. See 

19 CFR 111.24. Section 111.24 of CBP 

regulations (19 CFR 111.24) covers a 

broad range of records as defined in 

§ 163.1(a) (19 CFR 163.1(a)), and 

protects client records and the 

information contained in those records. 

Specifically, § 111.24 currently provides 

that with the exception of certain 

accredited officers or agents of the 

United States and the surety involved in 

a particular transaction, brokers may not 

disclose client information to third 

persons except when ordered to by a 

court. The purpose of the regulation is 

to prevent a broker from disclosing 

information it receives from a client to 

a third-party without the consent of the 

broker’s client. It is noted that when a 

broker is issued its license by CBP, it 

agrees to abide by the rules governing 

brokers, including rules pertaining to 

the confidentiality of client records. To 

overcome this confidentiality 

requirement, a broker need merely 

request, and receive, a written release 

from the client authorizing disclosure of 

that client’s information. Absent such a 

release, a broker who engages in 

information sharing is subject to 

disciplinary action for violating the 

confidentiality requirements of 19 CFR 

111.24. 

The issue of whether brokers may 

share client information with thirdparty business entities has previously 

been considered by CBP in the form of 

published rulings. CBP’s longstanding 

position on this matter is that absent 

written client consent, a broker may not 

share client information. Specifically, in 

Headquarters ruling letters (HQ) 116025 

(September 29, 2003) and HQ 116190 

(June 14, 2004), CBP was asked whether 

a broker within a family of companies 

(such as related affiliates, subsidiaries, 

and parent companies) may share 

certain client background or aggregate 

revenue information with related 

affiliates who were not licensed brokers, 

but who were separately-incorporated 

and owned by the same parent 

company. CBP has consistently held 

that separately-incorporated companies 

constitute separate legal entities under 

the law, notwithstanding common 

ownership (see HQ 223804 (June 29, 

1992); HQ 114166 (February 2, 1998); 

HQ 115248 (August 28, 2001)). 

Therefore, CBP found that absent a 

written release from the client 

authorizing disclosure of client 

information, section 111.24 precludes a 

broker from sharing client information 

with separately-incorporated affiliates of 

the same parent company. In CBP’s 

view, client background and aggregate 

revenue information is collected and 

compiled from, and connected with, 

records pertaining to the business of 

clients serviced by the broker. As such, 

that information falls within the 

protection of § 111.24. CBP’s position is 

that brokers can secure waivers of 

confidentiality from their clients in 

order not to violate the confidentiality 

requirements of section 111.24. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Similarly, in HQ 114404 (March 16, 

1999), CBP held that a licensed broker 

must ensure that it will not disclose its 

clients’ records to a parent company, 

unless disclosure is authorized by the 

client. 

In HQ 114758 (November 7, 2000), the 

question presented was whether a 

licensed broker may transfer its 

ancillary financial functions to a related 

or affiliated company that is not a 

licensed broker. In that instance, CBP 

reiterated its position that disclosure to 

an unauthorized party of any 

information emanating from a 

transaction with a client of the broker 

would constitute a violation, and would 

subject the violating broker to possible 

penalty or other disciplinary action. 

CBP found that outsourcing ancillary 

financial and administrative services 

would run afoul of the broker 

confidentiality provisions, since the 

records sought to be outsourced would 

contain financial data or information 

derived from clients’ files pertaining to 

customs business. 

In that ruling, however, CBP 

acknowledged that there may be 

situations in which a broker may 

legitimately transfer some of its business 

operations to another company. For 

instance, in HQ 114411 (November 22, 

1999), CBP had allowed a broker to 

outsource its human resources 

department to an employee leasing 

company on the condition that the 

leasing company would have no access 

to, or involvement in, the actual 

customs business work of the broker, 

and that the records of the clients of the 

broker would be kept confidential from 

the leasing company. Relying on HQ 

114411, CBP held in HQ 114758 that a 

broker may outsource ancillary financial 

and administrative functions provided 

that the same safeguards are in place. 

Specifically, the broker would be 

allowed to outsource financial or 

administrative functions, provided the 

new service provider had no access to, 

or involvement in, the actual customs 

business work of the broker client. This 

meant that the new service provider 

could not perform any functions that 

would be dependent on information or 

data derived from client files. The 

broker could only outsource the 

aforementioned functions provided that 

the records of the broker’s clients, and 

the information contained in those 

records would not be disclosed to the 

new service provider. 

Finally, in determining whether a 

broker is meeting the requirements to 

keep clients’ records confidential, CBP 

considers how the broker is exercising 

responsible supervision and control 

over the customs business it conducts 

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1641(b)(4). See 

HQ 225006 (February 15, 1994). 

CBP continues to believe that 

protection of the client’s business 

information remains a paramount 

concern. At the same time, however, 

CBP recognizes that the development of 

more modern and efficient business 

practices, brought about by the changing 

structure and environment of the 

business community, has rendered the 

blanket prohibition of the current 

regulation somewhat antiquated. In 

particular, CBP understands that in an 

effort to streamline business practices, a 

broker may need to use a third-party 

service provider to perform the tasks of 

photocopying, scanning, and delivering 

client documents to support the 

business functions of the brokerage 

services. CBP further acknowledges that 

a broker may have a legitimate financial 

interest in providing its clients 

additional non-customs business 

services which are offered by affiliated 

entities related to the broker. 

To that end, CBP believes policy 

reasons favor amending § 111.24 to 

update the regulation to reflect modern 

business practices, while protecting the 

confidentiality of client (importer) 

information. Therefore, consistent with 

the holdings in CBP’s previously 

published rulings, this document 

proposes to amend the CBP regulations 

to align them with its rulings. 

Explanation of Proposed Amendments 

Permissible Sharing With Client 

Consent/Written Authorization 

With respect to a broker’s interest in 

providing additional non-customs 

business services to its clients, CBP 

proposes to permit a broker to share 

client information with affiliated 

entities related to the broker so that the 

related affiliate may offer non-customs 

business services to the broker’s client 

only on the condition that the client 

provides its express consent in a written 

authorization. The written authorization 

must specify the information the client 

authorizes the broker to share outside of 

the brokerage with affiliated entities 

related to the broker or with a party 

bound by contract to the broker. 

Requiring such consent would balance 

CBP’s interest in the broker’s 

maintaining confidentiality of 

importers’ records with the business 

interest of the broker to offer additional 

non-customs business services to its 

clients. 

Other Third-Party Services 

Photocopying and Scanning. CBP 

proposes to amend 19 CFR 111.24 to 

permit a broker to use a third-party 

service provider for the limited routine 

non-customs functions of photocopying 

and scanning for the broker without 

violating § 111.24, because these two 

functions are ancillary to the conduct of 

‘‘customs business.’’ It is noted, 

however, that even in providing the 

administrative tasks of photocopying 

and scanning, business information 

pertaining to the broker’s client would 

be revealed in the process. Therefore, in 

order to achieve a balance between the 

broker’s need for a streamlined business 

process, and the requirement to 

maintain the confidentiality of client 

information, safeguards must be in place 

to ensure that the requirements arising 

from 19 U.S.C. 1641 and 19 CFR 111.24 

are not compromised. 

In that regard, the proposed 

amendment requires that the broker, 

consistent with its obligations under 

§ 111.29(a), exercise due diligence in the 

selection of the third-party service 

provider. The broker must ensure that 

the requirements in § 111.36(b) 

pertaining to a broker’s relations with 

unlicensed persons are complied with. 

Moreover, in accordance with 

§ 111.28(a), a broker is required to 

exercise responsible supervision and 

control over its brokerage business. 

Thus, the broker must ensure that the 

party to whom records will be provided 

for photocopying or scanning will 

safeguard the information it obtains in 

the course of providing the subject 

services. Accordingly, the proposed 

amendment requires that the broker 

enter into a non-disclosure agreement 

with the third-party service provider 

that requires the third-party to keep the 

contents and information contained in 

any records pertaining to the broker’s 

client confidential. 

The written consent and the nondisclosure agreement as contemplated 

in the proposed amendment will be 

subject to the recordkeeping 

requirements prescribed for brokers as 

set forth in §§ 111.21(a), 111.23, and 

111.25. 

The proposed amendment in this 

document is designed to codify CBP’s 

previously published rulings and to 

update the regulation so that it is 

streamlined with modern and efficient 

business practices, while protecting the 

confidentiality of client (importer) 

information. 

Messenger Delivery Services. Because 

messenger/delivery services are also 

ancillary to the conduct of ‘‘customs 

business,’’ CBP proposes to further 

amend 19 CFR 111.24 to provide that a 

broker may use a third-party messenger 

service for transporting and/or 

delivering client documents on the 

broker’s behalf, if the broker safeguards 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 66053 

the clients’ records by sealing the 

documents so that the messenger cannot 

view, alter, or amend them. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to examine the impact a rule 

would have on small entities. A small 

entity may be a small business (defined 

as any independently owned and 

operated business not dominant in its 

field that qualifies as a small business 

per the Small Business Act); a small notfor-profit organization; or a small 

governmental jurisdiction (locality with 

fewer than 50,000 people). 

This rule proposes to allow a broker, 

upon the client’s consent in a written 

authorization, to share client (importer) 

information with affiliated entities 

related to the broker in order to offer 

non-customs business services to its 

clients. If brokers choose to share client 

(importer) information with an affiliated 

entity related to the broker, the changes 

to the regulation would potentially 

benefit the broker’s client (importer) 

through the availability and access to 

additional non-customs business 

services. This rule also proposes to 

allow a broker to outsource its 

photocopying and scanning tasks to a 

third-party service provider, and to use 

a third-party messenger service provider 

for transport and delivery of client 

records. To the extent that brokers 

would use third-parties for copying, 

scanning and messenger services, the 

changes to the regulation would confer 

a benefit to the broker by allowing it to 

streamline its business. 

The entities affected by this proposed 

amendment are brokers, importers, and 

third-party service providers and would 

likely consist of a broad range of large, 

medium, and small businesses; thus, the 

number of entities subject to this 

proposed rule would be considered 

‘‘substantial.’’ The effects of this 

amendment, however, would not rise to 

the level of being considered a 

‘‘significant’’ economic impact. 

Accordingly, CBP believes that the 

proposed amendment, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. However, we 

welcome comments on that assumption. 

The most helpful comments are those 

that can give us specific information or 

examples of a direct impact on small 

entities. If we do not receive comments 

that demonstrate that the rule causes 

small entities to incur significant direct 

costs, CBP may, during the process of 

drafting the final rule, certify that this 

action does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12866 

The proposed amendment in this 

document does not meet the criteria for 

a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

specified in Executive Order 12866 

because it will not result in 

expenditures totaling $100 million or 

more in any one year. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has not 

reviewed this regulation under that 

order. To the extent that licensed 

customs brokers are able to use lower 

cost third-party service providers to 

perform limited administrative tasks, 

this rule, if finalized, should confer 

benefits to brokers. Please see the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act section of this 

preamble for additional information 

regarding the potential economic impact 

of this proposed rule. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collected under the 

provisions of this proposed rule has 

been submitted for approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

1651–0034. Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a valid 

control number assigned by OMB. The 

burden estimates for recordkeeping for 

the non-disclosure agreement as well as 

the client consent/written authorization 

are presented below: 

Non-Disclosure Agreement 

Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 

11,986. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Recordkeeper: 1. 

Estimated Number of Total Annual 

Responses: 11,986. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 11,986. 

Client Consent/Written Authorization 

Estimated Number of Recordkeepers: 

711,000. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Recordkeeper: 1. 

Estimated Number of Total Annual 

Responses: 711,000. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 711,000. 

Comments concerning the accuracy of 

this burden estimate and suggestions for 

reducing this burden should be directed 

to the Office of Management and 

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Department of Homeland Security, 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Washington, DC 20503. A copy 

should also be sent to the Trade and 

Commercial Regulations Branch, 

Regulations and Rulings, Office of 

International Trade, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, 799 9th Street, NW. 

(5th Floor), Washington, DC 20229– 

1179. 

Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the recordkeeping is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(b) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

recordkeeping; 

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the recordkeeping; 

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the recordkeeping on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

recordkeeping techniques or other forms 

of information technology; and 

(e) Estimates of capital or startup costs 

and costs of operations, maintenance, 

and purchases of services to provide 

recordkeeping. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

will not impose an unfunded mandate 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995. It will not result in costs 

of $100 million or more, in the 

aggregate, to any of the following: State, 

local, or Native American Tribal 

governments, or the private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), this notice of 

proposed rulemaking will have no 

substantial effect on the States, the 

current Federal-State relationship, or on 

the current distribution of power and 

responsibilities among local officials. 

Signing Authority 

This document is being issued in 

accordance with 19 CFR 0.2(a), which 

provides that the authority of the 

Secretary of the Treasury with respect to 

CBP regulations that are not related to 

customs revenue functions was 

transferred to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security pursuant to section 403(1) of 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 

that such regulations are signed by the 

Secretary of Homeland Security (or her 

delegate). 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 111 

Customs brokers, Duties and 

responsibilities, Records confidential. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
66054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Amendments to the CBP 

Regulations 

For the reasons stated above, it is 

proposed to amend part 111 of title 19 

of the CFR (19 CFR part 111) as set forth 

below. 

PART 111—CUSTOMS BROKERS 

1. The general authority citation for 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General 

Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS)), 1624, 1641. 

* * * * * 

2. Section 111.24 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 111.24 Records confidential. 

(a) Client Records. The records 

referred to in this part and pertaining to 

the business of the clients serviced by 

the broker are considered confidential. 

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) 

and (c) of this section, the broker must 

not disclose the contents or any 

information connected with client 

records to any persons other than those 

clients, their surety on a particular 

entry, and the Field Director, Office of 

International Trade, Regulatory Audit, 

the CBP port director, the Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement agent, or 

other duly accredited officers or agents 

of the United States, except on 

subpoena by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

(b) Disclosure to Affiliated Entity 

Related to Broker. Upon the client’s 

consent in a written authorization to 

share client information outside the 

brokerage, a broker may disclose only to 

an affiliated entity related to the broker, 

information specified in the written 

authorization pertaining to the customs 

business of that client so that the 

affiliated entity may offer non-customs 

business services to the broker’s client. 

(c) Other Third-Party Service 

Providers—(1) Photocopying and 

Scanning Services. A broker may 

provide its clients’ records to a thirdparty service provider for photocopying 

and/or scanning without violating the 

prohibitions set forth in the provisions 

of this part pertaining to confidentiality, 

provided that: 

(i) The broker exercises due diligence 

in accordance with § 111.29(a) of this 

part in the selection of the third-party 

service provider for photocopying and/ 

or scanning by ensuring that its 

association with the third-party does not 

violate the provisions in § 111.36(b) of 

this part; and 

(ii) The broker enters into a nondisclosure agreement with the thirdparty service provider for photocopying 

and/or scanning that requires the thirdparty to keep the information contained 

in any records pertaining to the broker’s 

client confidential. 

(2) Messenger Services. A broker may 

provide its clients’ records to a thirdparty messenger service provider for 

transport and delivery without violating 

the prohibitions set forth in the 

provisions of this part pertaining to 

confidentiality, provided that the 

clients’ records are sealed in such a 

manner so that the third-party 

messenger service provider may not 

view, alter, or amend the documents to 

be delivered. 

Dated: October 21, 2010. 

David V. Aguilar, 

Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27106 Filed 10–26–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–14–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Parts 35 and 36 

RIN 1190–AA61; 1190–AA62; 1190–AA63; 

1190–AA64 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in State and Local 

Government Services, Public 

Accommodations and in Commercial 

Facilities; Hearings 

AGENCY: Civil Rights Division, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed hearings. 

SUMMARY: On July 26, 2010, the 

Department of Justice (Department) 

published four Advanced Notices of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) in the 

Federal Register to amend regulations 

issued under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). These four 

ANPRMs include: Nondiscrimination 

on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility 

of Web Information and Services of 

State and Local Government Entities 

and Public Accommodations; 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability in State and Local 

Government Services; Accessibility of 

Next Generation 9–1–1; 

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of 

Disability; Movie Captioning and Video 

Description; and Nondiscrimination on 

the Basis of Disability by State and 

Local Governments and Places of Public 

Accommodation; Equipment and 

Furniture. To provide an opportunity 

for interested persons to express their 

views directly to Department officials, 

the Department will hold three public 

hearings on the ANPRMs. 

DATES: The hearing dates are: 

1. November 18, 2010, 9:30 a.m. to 4 

p.m., CST, Chicago, IL. 

2. December 16, 2010, 9:30 a.m. to 4 

p.m., EST, Washington, DC. 

3. January 2011 in San Francisco, CA, 

on a date to be announced in the near 

future on the ADA Home Page at 

http://www.ada.gov. 

ADDRESSES: The hearing locations are: 

1. Access Living, 115 West Chicago 

Avenue, Chicago, IL 60654. 

2. United States Access Board, 1331 F 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

3. San Francisco, CA, at a location to 

be announced in the near future on the 

ADA Home Page at http://www.ada.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Garrett, Civil Rights Program 

Specialist, Disability Rights Section, 

Civil Rights Division at (202) 353–0423 

(TTY). This is not a toll-free number. 

Information also may be obtained from 

the Department’s toll-free ADA 

Information Line at (800) 514–0301 

(Voice) or (800) 514–0383 (TTY), 9:30 

a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, 

Wednesday, and Friday, and 12:30 p.m. 

to 5 p.m. on Thursday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

26, 2010, the Department published four 

ANPRMs seeking public comment on 

whether to revise the ADA regulations 

to address Web site accessibility, movie 

captioning and video description, 

accessible features for Next Generation 

9–1–1, and accessible equipment and 

furniture. The Department has 

scheduled three public hearings on the 

ANPRMs to provide an opportunity to 

interested persons to express their views 

about the questions and issues raised in 

the ANPRMs. Entities, organizations, 

and individuals who wish to present 

comments at a particular hearing are 

encouraged to register in advance by 

calling the ADA Information Line at 

(800) 514–0301 (Voice) or (800) 514– 

0383 (TTY) at least five business days in 

advance of the hearing date. 

Organizations should designate no more 

than one individual to speak on behalf 

of the organization. Commenters who 

are not able to testify in person will 

have the option to present their 

comments using a speaker telephone, 

telephone relay service, or video relay 

service. The Department will attempt to 

provide an approximate time for the 

receipt of comments from those who 

register in advance; however, persons 

who register in advance should report to 

the registration desk at the hearing at 

least one-half hour prior to their 

scheduled time in order to confirm the 

time and order of their presentations. 

Those who register to comment via 

speaker telephone, telephone relay 

service, or video relay service should be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS