Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30826-30851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12176]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR Parts 478 and 479

[Docket No. ATF 2021R-08; AG Order No. 5070-2021]
RIN 1140-AA55

Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ``Stabilizing
Braces''

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (``Department'') proposes amending
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (``ATF'')
regulations to clarify when a rifle is ``intended to be fired from the
shoulder.'' The Department proposes factors ATF considers when
evaluating firearms equipped with a purported ``stabilizing brace'' to
determine whether these weapons would be considered a ``rifle'' or
``short-barreled rifle'' under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (``GCA'') or
a ``rifle'' or ``firearm'' subject to regulation under the National
Firearms Act (``NFA''). This proposed rule is a separate action from
the Notice on the Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with
``Stabilizing Braces'' published on December 18, 2020, and withdrawn on
December 31, 2020. No comments received under the withdrawn notice were
considered for this proposed rule, and no comments received pursuant to
that notice will be considered as part of this proposed rule.
Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this
proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be postmarked, and electronic comments
must be submitted on or before September 8, 2021. Commenters should be
aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not
accept comments after Midnight Eastern Time on the last day of the
comment period.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF
2021R-08, by any of the following methods--
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Denise Brown, Mail Stop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226;
ATTN: ATF 2021R-08.
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Instructions: All submissions received should include the agency
name and docket number (ATF 2021R-08) for this notice of proposed
rulemaking. All properly completed comments received will be posted
without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave.
NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070 (this is not a
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as
amended, and the NFA, as amended.\1\ This includes the authority to
promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA
and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A)(ii), 7805(a).
The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering
and enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF, subject to the
direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See
28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2). Accordingly, the Attorney General and ATF have
promulgated regulations implementing both the GCA and the NFA. See 27
CFR parts 478, 479. The ATF Director delegated the authority to
classify firearms pursuant to the GCA and NFA to ATF's Firearms
Technology Criminal Branch (``FTCB'') and the Firearms Technology
Industry Services Branch (``FTISB''), within the Firearms and
Ammunition Technology Division (``FATD''), Office of Enforcement
Programs and Services (``EPS'').\2\ FATD supports the firearms industry
and the general public by, among other things, responding to technical
inquiries and by testing and evaluating firearms voluntarily submitted
to ATF for classification under the GCA or NFA. There is no requirement
that the firearms industry or the public submit firearms to ATF for
evaluation of the firearm's proper classification under Federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ NFA provisions still refer to the ``Secretary of the
Treasury.'' However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the functions of ATF from the
Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the
general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28
U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of reference, this notice of
proposed rulemaking refers to the Attorney General throughout.
\2\ Delegation of Authorities within the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Delegation Order 1100.168C (Nov.
5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statutory definitions of ``firearm'' under the GCA and the NFA
are different.\3\ In 1934, Congress passed the NFA in order to regulate
certain

[[Page 30827]]

``gangster'' type weapons.\4\ These weapons were viewed as especially
dangerous and unusual, and, as a result, are subject to taxes and are
required to be registered with ATF.\5\ 26 U.S.C. 5811, 5821, 5841,
5845. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008), recognized these additional constraints as consistent with the
Second Amendment. ``We also recognize another important limitation on
the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v. ] Miller[, 307 U.S.
174 (1939),] said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons
protected were those `in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59
S. Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the
historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ``dangerous and
unusual weapons.'' Id. at 627.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) (GCA definition of firearm); 26 U.S.C.
5845(a) (NFA definition of firearm).
\4\ Congress chose to regulate these firearms by taxing them.
Therefore, the NFA is part of the Internal Revenue Code.
\5\ Courts have recognized the dangerousness and uniqueness of
NFA firearms and that possession of unregistered firearms poses a
danger to the community. United States v. Jennings, 195 F.3d 795,
799 (5th Cir. 1999) (Congress determined that the unregistered
possession of the particular firearms regulated under the NFA should
be outlawed because of ``the virtual inevitability that such
possession will result in violence''); see United States v. Cox, 906
F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2018) (``[T]he historical tradition of
prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons''
supported limiting the Second Amendment's protection to weapons ``in
common use at the time'' of ratification. (quoting District of
Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008)); United States v.
Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 95 (3rd Cir. 2010) (explaining that a long
gun with a shortened barrel is both dangerous and unusual, because
``its concealability fosters its use in illicit activity,'' and
``because of its heightened capability to cause damage''); United
States v. Amos, 501 F.3d 524, 531 (6th Cir. 2007) (McKeague, J.,
dissenting) (``[A] sawed-off shotgun can be concealed under a large
shirt or coat. . . . [T]he combination of low, somewhat
indiscriminate accuracy, large destructive power, and the ability to
conceal . . . makes a sawed-off shotgun useful for only violence
against another person, rather than, for example, against sport
game.''); Bezet v. United States, 276 F. Supp. 3d 576, 611-12 (E.D.
La. 2017), aff'd, 714 F. App'x. 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (``Prior to the
enactment of the NFA, Congress recognized that the country struggled
to control the violence wrought by `gangsters, racketeers, and
professional criminals.' . . . Similarly to the GCA, the NFA was
adopted by Congress to establish a nationwide system to regulate the
sale, transfer, license, and manufacturing of certain `dangerous
weapons' such as `machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off
rifles, and other firearms, other than pistols and revolvers, which
may be concealed on the persons, and silencers.' . . . [T]he NFA
targets `certain weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes.'
''); United States v. Gonzalez, No. 2:10-cr-00967, 2011 WL 5288727,
at *5 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2011) (``Congress specifically found that
`short-barreled rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no
appropriate sporting use or use for personal protection.' ''
(quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28 (1968))).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of the different definitions in the GCA and NFA,
classification of a weapon as a ``firearm'' under the GCA or the NFA
affects how it is regulated under Federal law. For instance, a weapon
classified as a ``firearm'' under only the GCA is subject to interstate
controls, but is not subject to making or transfer taxes, and need not
be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record
(``NFRTR'') as required by the NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1); 26 U.S.C.
5812, 5822, 5841, 5845. In contrast, weapons classified as NFA firearms
are generally regulated under both statutes. This includes rifles
having a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length (also known as
``short-barreled rifles'') and shotguns having a barrel or barrels less
than 18 inches in length (also known as ``short-barreled shotguns.'').
Under the NFA and implementing regulations, the term ``rifle'' is
defined to mean ``a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and
intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and
made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge
to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single
pull of the trigger and shall include any such weapon which may be
readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.'' 26 U.S.C. 5845(c); 27 CFR
479.11. In addition to the NFA requirements, the GCA also imposes
specific restrictions on the transportation, sale, and delivery of
``short-barreled rifles'' and ``short-barreled shotguns.'' 18 U.S.C.
922(a)(4), (b)(4). Therefore, FATD's classifications of a particular
firearm allow industry members to plan, develop, and distribute
products in compliance with the law, thereby reducing their risk of
incurring criminal or civil penalties, or the potential for costly
corrective actions, including a possible recall by the manufacturer.
Generally, when FATD evaluates a submitted firearm sample, it
examines its overall configuration, physical characteristics, and
objective design features that are relevant under the statutory
definitions of the GCA and NFA, and any other information that directly
affects the classification of a particular firearm configuration as
presented by that sample. The numerous configurations, materials, and
designs of modern firearms require thorough examination and
consideration to ensure proper classification. Even though firearms may
have a similar appearance (i.e., shape, size, etc.), an ATF
classification of a firearm pertains only to the particular sample
submitted because of the vast variations in submissions, the
application of different relevant statutes and judicial interpretations
of these statutes, the manufacturer's or maker's stated intent,\6\ and
the objective design features supporting or undercutting that stated
intent that may be legally and technically significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Brandon, 826 F.3d 598 (1st Cir. 2016)
(noting that, in the firearms classification context, it is
appropriate for ATF to consider ``a part's design features . . . as
part of the inquiry into'' the intended use of that part). The court
noted that ``[s]uch an objective approach to ferreting out a party's
intent is a very familiar one in the law. See, e.g., United States
v. Siciliano, 578 F.3d 61, 77 (1st Cir. 2009) (noting that objective
evidence is useful to `buttress or rebut direct testimony as to
intent'); cf. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 253, 96 S. Ct.
2040, 48 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring) (`Frequently
the most probative evidence of intent will be objective evidence of
what actually happened rather than evidence describing the
subjective state of mind of the actor.'); United States v. Gaw, 817
F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (`[T]he law is long since settled that the
prosecution may prove its case without direct evidence of a
defendant's guilty knowledge so long as the array of circumstantial
evidence possesses sufficient persuasive power.' (quoting United
States v. O'Brien, 14 F.3d 703, 706 (1st Cir. 1994))).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In recent years, some manufacturers have produced and sold devices
(``stabilizing braces'') designed to be attached to large or heavy
pistols and that are marketed to help a shooter ``stabilize'' his or
her arm to support single-handed firing. The first individual to submit
a forearm brace to determine if it changed the classification of a
``pistol'' advised ATF that ``the AR15 pistol is very difficult to
control with the one-handed precision stance due to the forward weight
of the weapon and the recoil of the 5.56, 7.62 or 7.62[sic]x39 NATO
caliber rounds.'' \7\ There, the submitter explained that the intent of
the brace was to facilitate one-handed firing of the AR-15 pistol for
those with limited strength or mobility due to a disability, and to
reduce bruising to the forearm when firing with one hand. According to
this individual, the brace concept was inspired by the needs of combat
veterans with disabilities who still enjoy recreational shooting but
could not reliably control heavy pistols without assistance. However,
whereas some accessories marketed as ``stabilizing braces'' may make it
easier for a person to fire a weapon with one hand and would not result
in a determination that the firearm with the attached brace is a
``rifle,'' there are other accessories also marketed as ``stabilizing
braces'' that may be attached to a weapon platform for the purpose of
circumventing the GCA and NFA prohibitions on the sale, delivery,
transportation, or unregistered possession and taxation of ``short-
barreled rifles.'' As described below, the addition of an accessory
that is

[[Page 30828]]

marketed as a ``stabilizing brace'' to a pistol does not guarantee that
the resulting firearm will still be classified as a pistol. Indeed,
classifying a firearm based on a limited or singular characteristic
(i.e. the marketing label of the manufacturer that the item is a
``stabilizing brace), ``has the potential to be significantly
overinclusive or underinclusive.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Classification request from NST Global LLC (Nov. 8, 2012).
\8\ Innovator Enters., Inc. v. Jones, 28 F. Supp. 3d 14, 25
(D.D.C. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because short-barreled rifles are among the firearms considered
unusual and dangerous, subjecting them to regulation under the NFA, it
is especially important that such weapons be properly classified.
Indeed, firearms with ``stabilizing braces'' have been used in at least
two mass shootings, with the shooters in both instances reportedly
shouldering the ``brace'' as a stock, demonstrating the efficacy as
``short-barreled'' rifles of firearms equipped with such ``braces.''
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See, e.g., Cameron Knight, Dayton shooter used a modified
gun that may have exploited a legal loophole USA Today (published
Aug. 5, 2019, updated Aug. 6, 2019) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/05/dayton-shooter-used-gun-may-have-exploited-legal-loophole/1927566001/ (the firearm used in a shooting killing 9
people and wounding 14 had a ``pistol brace'' used to ``skirt[ ]''
regulation of short-barrel rifles); Melissa Macaya et al., 10 killed
in Colorado grocery store shooting, CNN (updated Mar. 23, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/boulder-colorado-shooting-3-23-21/h_0c662370eefaeff05eac3ef8d5f29e94 (reporting that the firearm used
in a shooting that killed 10 was an AR-15 pistol with an ``arm
brace'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The GCA and NFA regulate ``firearms'' and, with limited exceptions,
do not regulate individual components. Accordingly, ATF does not
classify unregulated components or accessories alone under the GCA and
NFA.\10\ However, components or accessories, when attached to a
firearm, can affect the classification of a firearm because: (1) A
component's or an accessory's likely use may be relevant in assessing
the manufacturer's or maker's purported intent with respect to the
design of a firearm; and (2) the design of a component or an accessory
may result in a firearm falling within a particular statutory
definition. Examples include: (1) The attachment of a forward secondary
grip \11\ to a ``pistol,'' where the resulting firearm would no longer
be designed to be held and fired with a single hand; and (2) a wallet
holster \12\ where the handgun can be fired while inserted, thus
changing the classification of these handguns into an ``any other
weapon.'' See 26 U.S.C. 5845(e). A ``stabilizing brace,'' of which
there are several variations, is yet another example of a component or
an accessory that may change the classification of the firearm to which
it is attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ ATF does, however, make these types of classifications
under the Arms Export Control Act (``AECA''), 22 U.S.C. 2778, with
respect to the permanent importation of ``defense articles.''
\11\ See U.S. v. Black, 739 F.3d 931, 934-36 (6th Cir. 2014).
\12\ See FFL Newsletter, August 1997, at 5-6 (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/newsletter/federal-firearms-licensees-newsletter-%E2%80%93-august-1997/download).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATF's longstanding and publicly known position is that a firearm
does not evade classification under the NFA merely because the firearm
is configured with a device marketed as a ``stabilizing brace'' or
``arm brace.'' \13\ When a purported ``stabilizing brace'' and an
attached weapon's objective design features indicate that the firearm
is actually designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder, such
weapon may fall within the scope of the NFA, requiring registration and
payment of tax. Accordingly, ATF must evaluate on a case-by-case basis
whether a particular firearm configured with a ``stabilizing brace''
bears the objective features of a firearm designed and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and is thus subject to the NFA. The use of a
purported ``stabilizing brace'' cannot be a tool to circumvent the NFA
(or the GCA) and the prohibition on the unregistered possession of
``short-barreled rifles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See ATF, Open Letter on the Redesign of ``Stabilizing
Braces,'' (Jan. 16, 2015); and a letter to industry counsel
clarifying the 2015 Open Letter, Letter for Mark Barnes, Counsel to
SB Tactical, LLC, from Marvin G. Richardson, Assistant Director, ATF
Enforcement Programs & Services, 90000:GM, 5000, Re: Reversal of ATF
Open Letter on the Redesign of ``Stabilizing Braces'' (Mar. 21,
2017) (made widely available to the public on various websites, for
example, see https://johnpierceesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ATF-Letter-March-21-2017.pdf and https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/atf-letter-march-21-2017.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the purpose of the NFA is ``to regulate certain weapons likely
to be used for criminal purposes,'' United States v. Thompson/Center
Arms Co., 504 U.S. 505, 517 (1992), ATF cannot ignore the design
features of a firearm that place it within the scope of the NFA's
regulation. This is the case even when a manufacturer characterizes or
markets a firearm accessory in a manner that suggests a use that does
not correspond to its objective design. The characterization of an
accessory by the manufacturer, including assertions in advertising, is
not dispositive. If ATF's evaluation of a submitted sample demonstrates
that the objective design features of the firearm, as configured, do
not support the manufacturer's purported intent and, in fact, suggest
an altogether different intent, ATF will classify the firearm based on
the objective design features, as Federal law requires. See Sig Sauer,
Inc. v. Brandon, 826 F.3d 598, 601-02 (1st Cir. 2016).
It is estimated that manufacturers of stabilizing braces have sold
3 million stabilizing braces since 2013. ATF has observed that the
development and production of rifled barrel weapons with ``stabilizing
braces'' has become more prevalent in the firearms industry and that,
consequently, requests for classifications for this kind of firearm
design have also increased. ATF has classified several firearms
equipped with ``stabilizing braces'' and the objective features used to
make these classifications have been described in letters to the
industry as well as in criminal cases. However, ATF has received
criticism for not more widely publishing the criteria and for not
publishing a definitive approach in the application of that criteria.
Therefore, to aid the firearms industry and public in understanding the
criteria that FATD considers when evaluating firearm samples that are
submitted with an attached ``stabilizing brace'' or similar component
or accessory, ATF proposes a worksheet to be entitled Factoring
Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories \14\ commonly
referred to as ``Stabilizing Braces,'' ATF Worksheet 4999 (``Worksheet
4999''). The purpose of this worksheet is to allow individuals or
members of the firearms industry to evaluate whether a weapon
incorporating a ``stabilizing brace'' that they intend to submit to
FATD or offer for sale will be considered a ``short-barreled rifle'' or
``firearm'' under the GCA and NFA. FATD will use the criteria within
ATF Worksheet 4999 and resulting point value when evaluating and
classifying a submitted firearm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ As used in this rule and worksheet, the term ``accessory''
is intended as a general term to describe the marketing of items
commonly known as ``stabilizing braces'' and does not affect any ATF
determinations whether such items when attached to a handgun are, in
fact, ``accessories'' not necessary for the operation of the
handgun, but which enhance its usefulness or effectiveness, or
whether they are component parts necessary to properly operate a
weapon, such as a rifle. Furthermore, use of that term does not
affect any determinations whether such items are ``defense
articles'' under the Arms Export Control Act. Please direct all
inquiries as to possible liability for the firearms and ammunition
excise tax, 26 U.S.C. 4181-82, to the United States Department of
Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (``TTB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These criteria and worksheet do not apply to firearms with a smooth
bore that use shotgun ammunition. These types of firearms, commonly
referred to as ``pistol grip shotguns,'' were never designed to be
fired from one hand (e.g., Mossberg Shockwave, Remington Tac-

[[Page 30829]]

14). ATF has always classified these weapons as GCA ``firearms,'' not
shotguns or pistols, as they do not incorporate a stock, like a
shotgun, and are not designed to be fired from one hand, like a pistol.
Thus, the addition of a ``stabilizing brace'' does not assist with
single-handed firing, but rather redesigns the firearm to provide
surface area for firing from the shoulder.

II. Application of ATF Worksheet 4999

Similar to the Factoring Criteria for Weapons, ATF Form 4590
(``Form 4590''), which is used for the importation of pistols and
revolvers, the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 has a point system assigning
a weighted value to various characteristics of the fully assembled
firearm as configured when submitted for classification. A firearm that
accumulates less than 4 points in Section II (Accessory
Characteristics), and less than 4 points in Section III (Configuration
of Weapon), will generally be determined not to be designed to be fired
from the shoulder, unless there is evidence that the manufacturer or
maker expressly intended to design the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder. A firearm that accumulates 4 points or more in Section II or
Section III will be determined to be designed and intended to be fired
from the shoulder.
As a preliminary factor when evaluating a submitted sample, certain
prerequisites (i.e., weapon weight and overall length) will be applied
to determine if the firearm will even be considered as a possible
pistol or immediately determined to be a rifle, as defined by the
applicable statutes. As discussed, ``stabilizing braces'' were
originally marketed as intended to assist persons with disabilities and
others lacking sufficient grip strength to control heavier pistols.
Therefore, attaching a ``stabilizing brace'' to a typical pistol, where
no assistance is necessary, or attaching one to a firearm so heavy or
difficult to control that one-handed shooting is impractical or
inaccurate, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent, will change
the design of the firearm into a rifle intended to be fired from the
shoulder. Indeed, the purported ``stabilizing brace'' would have no
design function other than to facilitate the firing of the weapon from
the shoulder.
On the proposed Worksheet 4999, objective design characteristics or
features that are common to rifles, features associated with shoulder
stocks, and those features limiting the ability to use the
``stabilizing brace'' as an actual brace are assigned point values.
These point values range from 0 to 4 points based upon the degree of
the indicator, explained as follows:

1 point: Minor Indicator (the weapon could be fired from the
shoulder)
2 points: Moderate Indicator (the weapon may be designed and
intended to be fired from the shoulder)
3 points: Strong Indicator (the weapon is likely designed and
intended to be fired from the shoulder)
4 points: Decisive Indicator (the weapon is designed and
intended to be fired from the shoulder)

As in ATF Form 4590, the point values associated with particular
features or designs are based upon their relative importance in
classifying the firearm under the law. In this case, design factors
that are more likely to demonstrate a manufacturer's or maker's intent
to produce a ``short-barreled rifle'' and market it as a ``braced
pistol'' accrue more points than those that reveal less evidence. There
are certain inherent features that may support a design as a
``stabilizing brace'' and also a shoulder stock. For example, a large
amount of surface area on the rear of a purported ``stabilizing brace''
may indicate that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder and
facilitate its use as a shoulder stock. However, that characteristic
may also be the result of incorporating substantial stabilizing support
that envelopes the shooter's arm (e.g., the original SB15 ``stabilizing
brace''), allowing one-handed firing of a large pistol. These
complexities cannot serve merely to exempt all firearms with purported
``stabilizing braces'' from classification as ``rifles.'' Indeed, the
statutory definitions of ``rifle'' in the GCA and NFA describe that
type of weapon as one ``intended to be fired from the shoulder.'' 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(7); 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). The ATF Worksheet 4999 is
necessary to enforce the law consistently, considering the diversity of
firearm designs and configurations.
As stated above, if the total point value of the firearm submitted
is equal to or greater than 4--in either Section II or III--then the
firearm, with the attached ``stabilizing brace,'' will be determined to
be ``designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired
from the shoulder,'' or a ``rifle'' under the GCA and NFA. The firearm
will be classified as a ``short-barreled rifle'' under the GCA and NFA,
and as an NFA ``firearm,'' if the attached barrel is also less than 16
inches. The ATF Worksheet 4999 will provide the public and the firearms
industry with a detailed methodology for ensuring legal compliance.
By using ATF Worksheet 4999, ATF is ensuring uniform consideration
and application of these criteria when evaluating firearm samples with
attached ``stabilizing braces.'' ATF also notes that some makers or
manufacturers have received a classification of a ``stabilizing brace''
without it being attached to a firearm or may have received a
classification for a firearm that would be considered a NFA firearm
under these criteria. Therefore, any maker or manufacturer who has
received a classification prior to the effective date of the rule is
encouraged to resubmit the firearm with the attached ``stabilizing
brace'' to ensure that the prior classification is consistent with this
new rule and to avoid any possible criminal or tax penalties for the
continued manufacture, transfer, or possession of a NFA firearm. As
iterated above, FATD's classifications allow industry members to plan
and develop products that comply with the law, and thereby reduce their
risk of incurring criminal or civil penalties, or the need for
corrective actions, including a recall by the manufacturer. ATF
recognizes that these factors may affect industry members and members
of the public, as they may manufacture or already own firearms with a
``stabilizing brace'' attached. ATF wants to assist affected persons
and industry members and provides the additional information in this
proposed rule to aid them in complying with Federal laws and
regulations.

III. Proposed Rule

Given the public interest surrounding these issues, ATF is
proposing to amend the definition of ``rifle'' in 27 CFR 478.11 and
479.11, respectively, by adding a sentence at the end of each
definition. The new sentence would clarify that the term ``rifle''
includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with \15\ an
attached ``stabilizing brace'' that has objective design features and
characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired
from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Cf., e.g., United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 407-08
(5th Cir. 2006) (analyzing whether there was sufficient evidence
that a firearm was ``equipped with'' a silencer); United States v.
Thompson, 82 F.3d 849, 851-53 & n.5 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing when
a firearm may be ``equipped with'' a silencer); United States v.
Rodriguez, 53 F.3d 545, 546 (2d Cir. 1995) (analyzing whether a
firearm was ``equipped with'' a silencer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because the objective design features and characteristics
considered will be on a new worksheet to be used by ATF, the Department
is also publishing this proposed worksheet--ATF Worksheet

[[Page 30830]]

4999--as part of the preamble to this proposed rule and inviting
interested members of the public and industry to provide comment.
Similar to ATF Form 4590, used to determine if a firearm is sporting
for purposes of importation, ATF proposes to use ATF Worksheet 4999 to
determine if a firearm is designed and intended to be fired from the
shoulder, as follows:

Proposed Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons With Accessories
Commonly Referred to as ``Stabilizing Braces''

BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.015

[[Page 30831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.016

BILLING CODE 4410-FY-C
Section I. Prerequisites
As a preliminary factor when evaluating a submitted sample, certain
prerequisites will be applied to determine if the firearm, without the
attached ``stabilizing brace,'' will even be considered a suitable
weapon for the brace. As described above, ``stabilizing braces'' were
originally marketed as being designed to assist persons with
disabilities and others lacking sufficient grip strength to control
heavier pistols. Accordingly, FATD will first examine the submitted
sample's weapon weight and overall length.
Weapon Weight. Weapon weight is a key prerequisite in determining
whether a ``stabilizing brace'' is appropriately used on a weapon. A
traditional unloaded 1911-type pistol weighs approximately 39 ounces.
Similarly, the polymer Glock 17 weighs 39 ounces when fully loaded.
Weighing just over 2 pounds, these firearms are easily held and fired
with one hand without the need for a ``stabilizing brace,'' as such
``braces'' are designed. This stands in contrast to the weight of the
type of pistols or other firearms for which the ``stabilizing brace''
was designed to be attached. The AR-type pistol, a popular large
handgun design, for example, weighs approximately 5 to 7 pounds (i.e.,
80 ounces to 112 ounces) based on its configuration. Such weight is
more difficult to manipulate and to keep on target, indicating the
``stabilizing brace'' is in fact intended to assist one-handed fire.
Based on the weights stated above, firearms weighing less than 64
ounces/4 pounds (weighed with unloaded magazine and accessories
removed) are not considered weapons suitable for use with a
``stabilizing brace'' accessory because they are more easily held and
fired with one hand without the need for a ``stabilizing brace.''
Overall Length. The overall length of a weapon is relevant in
classifying it as a ``rifle'' or a ``pistol'' because, as a firearm
becomes excessive in length, it is increasingly difficult to fire with
one hand. The AR-type pistol has an overall length between 18 and 25
inches, depending on barrel length (due to the necessary inclusion of
the buffer tube). Other large frame pistols range between 14 and 22
inches, such as the AK-type DRACO, HK SP5, and CZ Scorpion EVO.
Firearms possessing an overall length between 12 and 26 inches may be
considered pistols for which a ``stabilizing brace'' could reasonably
be attached to support one-handed fire. Firearms with an overall length
of less

[[Page 30832]]

than 12 inches are considered too short to indicate any need for a
``stabilizing brace.'' Conversely, firearms exceeding 26 inches in
overall length are impractical and inaccurate to fire one handed, even
with a ``stabilizing brace,'' due to imbalance of the weapon.
Section II. Accessory Characteristics
If the submitted firearm sample meets the prerequisites of weighing
at least 64 ounces and having an overall length between 12 and 26
inches, FATD will analyze various attachment characteristics. For FATD
to determine that a weapon with an attached ``stabilizing brace'' is
not, in fact, designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder, the
accessory must not have the characteristics of a shoulder stock. These
characteristics are as follows:
Accessory Design. The design of the accessory when attached is a
factor in determining whether the item is actually a ``stabilizing
brace'' or is intended to be utilized as a stock, making the firearm
designed to be fired from the shoulder. Specifically, because the NFA
or GCA could be circumvented by substituting a ``stabilizing brace''
for a traditional shoulder stock on a ``short-barreled rifle''
(``stabilizing braces'' sometimes share close similarities with known
stocks), the more features a purported ``stabilizing brace'' has in
common with known shoulder stock designs, the more points it will
accumulate. ``Stabilizing braces'' that are not based on any known
shoulder stock design will accrue zero points. ``Stabilizing braces''
that incorporate one or more shoulder stock design features (e.g.,
adjustment levers or features that allow for the length of the device
to be varied in a manner similar to an adjustable shoulder stock, sling
mounts,\16\ or hardened surfaces) will accrue 1 point. Lastly,
``stabilizing braces'' that are modified versions of known shoulder
stock designs will accrue 2 points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The location of a sling or quick detach (QD) mount is an
indicator as to the intended use of the accessory. A sling
attachment at the rear of the device could be a deterrent from
shouldering the weapon, whereas some accessories incorporate QD
mounts consistent with known shoulder stock designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rear Surface Area. Rear surface area is a design characteristic
referring to the area on the rear of the purported ``stabilizing
brace.'' Since the purpose of a ``stabilizing brace'' is to be secured
to a shooter's forearm, there is no advantage for a manufacturer of
``stabilizing braces'' to include substantial surface area on the rear
of the design unless the brace is attached to a firearm in order to
redesign it to be fired from the shoulder. As with the other design
characteristics, rear surface area is a consideration that must be
evaluated in light of the overall design. Clearly, larger, more
substantial ``stabilizing braces'' may have more surface area in which
to shoulder a firearm. However, while smaller, less substantial
``stabilizing brace'' designs may have reduced surface area, this
shouldering area may still be similar to known shoulder stock designs
upon which they are based. The reduced contact area of the flaps to the
shooter's forearm, and the surface area necessary to shoulder the
weapon work in tandem to indicate whether the purported ``stabilizing
brace'' is, in fact, a shouldering device.
Any ``stabilizing brace'' that incorporates a surface area feature
that clearly makes it difficult to use as a shouldering device will
accrue zero points. A ``stabilizing brace'' accessory that is designed
with only a minimal rear surface area (e.g., a ``fin-type'') with which
a weapon could possibly be shouldered will accrue 1 point. A
``stabilizing brace'' accessory that is designed with a rear surface
area sufficient to shoulder the firearm, or approximating the rear
surface of known shoulder stocks, which allows shouldering the firearm,
will accrue 2 points. Finally, a ``stabilizing brace'' accessory that
features material clearly designed to increase rear surface area to
facilitate shoulder firing will accrue 3 points.
Adjustability. When ATF was first asked to classify an adjustable
``stabilizing brace,'' it responded that adjustability is ``a feature
commonly associated with butt stocks/shoulder stocks as well as
firearms designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder.'' \17\
Although ATF ultimately determined that adjustability, in and of
itself, is not determinative of a ``stabilizing brace's'' design
function on a firearm, it remains a significant indicator that the
device is designed and intended to be shouldered. Weapons that do not
incorporate an adjustable ``stabilizing brace'' will accrue zero
points, while ``stabilizing brace'' designs that are adjustable will
accrue 2 points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See FTISB Letter 303984, at 3 (Nov. 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stabilizing Support. To be effective, a ``stabilizing brace'' must
provide support for the weapon through sufficient and stable contact
with the shooter's forearm. Original ``stabilizing brace'' designs used
a substantial amount of hardened material intended to contact a
significant portion of the shooter's forearm, and a strap to secure the
device and limit movement. Later iterations substantially reduced these
design features, mimicking the outline of low-profile (i.e., slim
design) shoulder stocks. These later designs resulted in less contact
with the forearm and instead rely heavily upon a Velcro strap to
perform the function of the more substantial flaps present in earlier
designs. While the strap may be used to tighten the minimal polymer
flaps on top of the arm, these later designs were far less effective at
providing stabilizing support--in contrast to the originally stated
intent--and increase bruising to the forearm when firing with one hand.
These later designs were also similar to the tactical shoulder stocks
widely advertised and sold in the marketplace.
Stabilizing support is a vital characteristic because it provides
evidence to evaluate the purported purpose of the attached device,
which is to provide shooters with forearm support for firing large,
heavy handguns. It is therefore important for ATF to consider the
various ``stabilizing brace'' designs and the forearm support they
provide. ATF has categorized these different ``stabilizing brace''
designs into three broad categories: Counterbalance, ``Fin-type'', and
``Cuff-type.''
Counterbalance designs \18\ utilize the weight of the weapon as a
lever to push the ``stabilizing brace'' into the forearm and provide
stability for firing. These designs do not typically include a strap
because the ``stabilizing brace'' itself contacts the side and bottom
of the shooter's arm and is held in place by the weight of the firearm,
using the shooter's hand as the fulcrum. However, whether characterized
as a method of storage or otherwise, there is no forearm stabilizing
purpose in a Counterbalance design that folds closed such that it can
no longer be used as a ``stabilizing brace.'' Indeed, this type of
design may create rear surface area such that the ``stabilizing brace''
may be suitable only as a shoulder stock when closed. The folding
feature of the Counterbalance design stands in contrast to the
purported intent of the device. This feature presents some evidence
that a firearm equipped with a Counterbalance ``stabilizing brace'' is
intended to be fired from the shoulder and therefore will accrue 1
point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See, e.g., US Patent 10,690,442 B2 June 23, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Fin-type'' designs incorporate a thin ``blade'' designed to rest
against the shooter's arm, and feature a minimal, thin rear surface
area. Although originally submitted with the explanation that these
devices would incorporate an arm strap or that a sling

[[Page 30833]]

could be wrapped around the shooter's arm and provide additional
support,\19\ the majority of these accessories are now marketed and
sold without such a strap, thus virtually eliminating their
effectiveness as a ``stabilizing brace.'' ``Fin-type'' accessories that
do not incorporate an arm strap of suitable length or functionality
will accrue 2 points, while those that incorporate an arm strap long
enough to secure a person's forearm consistent with the purported
intent will not accrue any points (zero).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ See FTISB Letter 302672 (Sept. 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Cuff-type'' designs are by far the most prevalent of all
``stabilizing braces,'' consisting of over two dozen different unique
designs. ``Cuff-type'' ``stabilizing braces'' have evolved over the
past decade, from non-adjustable, large articles into compact designs,
clearly based on, or modified from, shoulder stocks. ``Cuff-type''
``stabilizing braces'' vary greatly in design and the classification of
firearms with these types of ``stabilizing braces'' is the most complex
of the three categories. The original ``cuff-type'' designs
incorporated large ``arm flaps'' to fully envelop the forearm and also
a strap to limit movement of the cuff by tightening it. These designs
were contoured so that a shooter's forearm could easily fit through the
cuff and the strap would tighten around the cuff to provide additional
arm support. These designs were clearly devised to secure the firearm
to the shooter's forearm and were effective in doing so. Therefore, a
``cuff-type'' ``stabilizing brace'' that fully wraps around the
shooter's forearm (e.g., SB15/SBX-K) will not accrue any points (zero).
Later designs of the ``cuff-type'' braces possessed arm flaps that
lacked contouring and did not provide a suitable opening for the
shooter's forearm. These designs relied on softer materials that, while
saving on production costs, mimicked the design of popular shoulder
stocks and did not provide the same support for single-handed firing of
large handguns. These designs could be secured to the shooter's
forearm, but the brace rested on top of the arm, and relied on the
Velcro strap to secure the firearm to the shooter's arm. Because they
are less effective at the stated purpose of stabilizing one-handed
firing, it is appropriate that weapons with such devices attached
accrue points as these are more evidently designed and intended for
another purpose, which is to be fired from the shoulder. Such ``cuff-
type'' ``stabilizing braces'' that partially wrap around the shooter's
forearm (e.g., SOB/SB-Mini) will accrue 1 point. Finally, those
``stabilizing braces'' incorporating arm flaps that do not wrap around
the shooter's forearm (e.g., SBA3/SB-PDW), thereby providing no arm
support, will accrue 2 points.
Further, with the later ``split stock'' design, which is another
``cuff-type'' design where the flaps lack arm contouring, ``stabilizing
brace'' developers simply used known or existing stocks, added a slot
down the center of the stock, or otherwise slightly altered the
original shoulder stock design and contended that these were
``stabilizing braces'' like any other ``cuff-type'' design. However,
the purpose of such designs is clearly indicated by the fact that they
are far more effective when utilized as a shoulder stock than a
``stabilizing brace.'' These types of ``stabilizing braces'' are
difficult to attach to the arm, provide minimal support in one-handed
shooting, and are not effective to use as a ``stabilizing brace.'' As
such, any ``stabilizing brace'' that is configured as a ``split-stock''
(e.g., SBT/FS1913) will accrue 3 points.
Section III. Configuration of Weapon
This section will be used to evaluate the entire weapon including
how the ``stabilizing brace'' is mounted to the firearm as well as the
effectiveness of the brace in single-handed firing as opposed to firing
from the shoulder. It will also consider all of the accessories that
have been added to affect firing that will be used in conjunction with
the ``stabilizing brace.''
Length of Pull. Length of pull is a common measurement of firearms
that describes the distance between the trigger and the center of the
shoulder stock. This is a measurement that may be used to fit a firearm
to a particular shooter. Generally, taller shooters require a longer
length of pull and shorter shooters require a shorter length of pull.
Adjustable shoulder stocks are commonly available. Patents, advertising
material, and other resources make clear that adjustability is meant to
facilitate changing the length of pull.\20\ Such length of pull
measurements are far less relevant when a pistol is involved because a
shooter merely requires a device that reaches from the back of the
firearm to the forearm. Far less variation exists between shooters in
this way. A firearm with a ``stabilizing brace'' will accrue more
points the further it is positioned rearward, indicating that it is
intended for use as a shouldering device. Firearms with ``stabilizing
braces'' that incorporate a length of pull of less than 10\1/2\ inches
will not accrue any points (zero). However, a length of pull that is
between 10\1/2\ but under 11\1/2\ inches will accrue 1 point, while
11\1/2\ but under 12\1/2\ will accrue 2 points, 12\1/2\ but under 13\1/
2\ will accrue 3 points, and a length of pull of 13\1/2\ inches or more
will accrue 4 points as this is a standard length of pull for rifles
and is a decisive indicator that the firearm is intended to be fired
from the shoulder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See, e.g., U.S. Patent 7,762,018 B1 (July 27, 2010) (in
which invention ``provides structure for mounting the stock body and
contains structure for the pre-set system utilized by stock bodies
which are adjustable for length. The length of pull system comprises
a series of pre-drilled threaded holes 56, which are off-set from a
center axis. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment Method. A ``stabilizing brace's'' attachment method
often provides critical insight as to how a firearm is intended to be
used. ``Stabilizing braces'' attached to a standard-length AR-type
pistol buffer tube (extending 6 to 6\1/2\ inches from the rear of the
firearm) will not accrue any points (zero). Use of an AR-type pistol
buffer tube with adjustment notches, an adjustable rifle buffer tube,
or an adjustable PDW-type guide rail, will accrue 1 point as each
indicates the ability to adjust the ``stabilizing brace.'' An extended
AR-type pistol buffer tube (greater than 6\1/2\ inches), folding
adaptors, and the use of ``spacers'' are all indicators that the
``brace'' is being positioned to serve as a shouldering device because
it increases the ``length of pull,'' thereby allowing a shooter to fire
the weapon from the shoulder. Therefore, such firearm will accrue 2
points. Additionally, a shoulder stock that has been modified to
incorporate a ``stabilizing brace,'' or any attachment method that
results in an unusable aim-point when the ``stabilizing brace'' is
attached is also a strong indicator the weapon is actually intended to
be shoulder fired and will accrue 3 points.
``Stabilizing Brace'' Modifications/Configuration. ``Stabilizing
brace'' accessories that have been modified from their original
configuration will accrue additional points. Any ``cuff-type'' or
``fin-type'' accessory, which incorporates an arm strap too short to
wrap around the shooter's arm or is manufactured from an elastic
material (eliminating stabilizing support), will accrue 2 points, as
will a ``fin-type'' accessory lacking an arm strap. Further, if these
modifications reconfigure the device into a shoulder stock, 4 points
will be accrued. These modifications could include taping or strapping
the arm flaps together on a ``cuff-type'' ``stabilizing brace,'' or
adding shouldering surface to a ``fin-type'' ``stabilizing brace.''

[[Page 30834]]

Peripheral Accessories. ATF has examined multiple firearms that
include peripheral accessories, often added by the end user, that
indicate the weapon is not designed and intended to be held and fired
by a single hand. Such accessories include secondary grips, hand-stops,
flip-up rifle-type sights, sights/scopes with limited eye-relief, and
bipod/monopods.
Certain hand-stop attachments have been determined to protect a
shooter's off-hand from being placed in front of the barrel and do not,
in and of themselves, redesign a pistol to be fired with more than one
hand. However, the presence of such an attachment is an indication the
weapon may not be intended to be fired with a single hand, but rather
intended to be fired from the shoulder. As such, the presence of a
hand-stop will result in 2 points being accrued. Further, the presence
of any secondary grip on a weapon with a ``stabilizing brace''
accessory changes the classification from a one-handed to a two-handed
weapon, thereby disqualifying it from being classified as a ``braced
pistol,'' and resulting in the subject firearm accruing 4 points.
Installed sights are also indicators as to the intended use of a
firearm with an attached ``stabilizing brace.'' ATF has examined
numerous AR-type firearms with ``stabilizing brace'' accessories that
lack any sight or that incorporate rifle-type flip-up or back-up iron
sights (``BUIS''), which are only partially usable when firing the
weapon with one hand. As such, the presence of this type of sight or
lack of any sight will accrue 1 point. Further, firearms that
incorporate a reflex sight (e.g., Red Dot) in conjunction with a flip-
to-the-side (``FTS'') magnifier with limited eye relief (distance
between the shooter's eye and rear of sight/scope) will accrue 2
points. Finally, any weapon incorporating a sight or scope that
possesses an eye relief (distance between the shooter's eye and rear of
sight/scope) incompatible with one-handed firing will accrue 4 points,
as this is a decisive indicator that the ``stabilizing brace'' is being
utilized as a shouldering device. For example, a sight would be
incompatible with one-handed firing if it cannot be seen clearly when
held at arm's length, thus showing the weapon must be shouldered in
order for the sight to be used.
Firearms that incorporate or are designed to rest on bipod/monopod
accessories generally are not designed and intended to be held and
fired by a single hand. Much like hand-stops, bipods/monopods do not
necessarily, in and of themselves, change the classification of a
``pistol'' when installed. However, bipods/monopods offer ``stabilizing
support'' to the firearms to which they are attached, which is often
counter-intuitive to an attached ``stabilizing brace,'' for example,
Counterbalance ``stabilizing brace'' designs. Therefore, attachment of
a bipod/monopod will accrue 2 points, regardless of the type of
``stabilizing brace'' attached.
Finally, any complete firearm with an installed ``stabilizing
brace'' that weighs more than 120 ounces (7\1/2\ pounds), incorporating
end user accessories, will be considered too heavy to be fired with one
hand, and will accrue 4 points. The firearm will be weighed as
configured, with an unloaded magazine. The upper limit of 120 ounces
takes into account that in order to fire the weapon, the shooter will
insert a loaded magazine, which will typically add an additional 16-32
ounces. For example, a loaded 30-round AR-type magazine with .223
caliber ammunition weighs approximately 16 ounces (1 pound), while a
loaded 30-round AK-type magazine with 7.62x39 caliber ammunition weighs
approximately 29 ounces (1.8 pounds). Additionally, a 20-round magazine
with .308 Winchester caliber ammunition weighs approximately 23 ounces
(1.4 pounds). These are typical types of magazines used with one-handed
``stabilized'' firing. Firearms may reach a weight where the use of a
``stabilizing brace'' provides insufficient support for one-handed
firing. Indeed, the existence of a ``stabilizing brace'' on firearms
that are too heavy to be ``intended to be fired by one hand'' indicates
that the purported ``stabilizing brace'' is actually intended as a
shouldering device.
Even if a weapon accrues less than 4 points in each section,
attempts by a manufacturer or maker to circumvent Federal law by
attaching purported ``stabilizing braces'' in lieu of shoulder stocks
may result in classification of those weapons as ``rifles'' and
``short-barreled rifles.'' While some manufacturers have recognized
that there is a market advantage in designing and selling ``short-
barreled rifles'' as ``pistols'' to customers seeking to avoid tax and
registration requirements, ``stabilizing braces'' are not a method by
which the Federal statutes may be circumvented. Therefore, efforts to
advertise, sell, or otherwise distribute ``short-barreled rifles'' as
such will result in a classification as a ``rifle'' regardless of the
points accrued on the ATF Worksheet 4999 because there is no longer any
question that the intent is for the weapon to be fired from the
shoulder.

IV. Application of the Proposed Worksheet to Common ``Stabilizing
Braces''

For the purpose of explaining how the factoring criteria in
Worksheet 4999 would be implemented, ATF applied the Worksheet 4999 to
three weapons with common ``stabilizing braces'' attached: An AR-type
firearm with an SB-Mini accessory, an AR-type firearm with an SBA3
accessory, and an AR-type firearm with a Shockwave Blade accessory. The
results of that process follow.

A. AR-Type Firearm With SB-Mini Accessory

BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P

[[Page 30835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.017

[[Page 30836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.018

SB-Mini Accessory

[[Page 30837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.019

Applying the criteria in Section I, the above firearm was
determined to weigh approximately 91 ounces and have an overall length
of 25\1/8\ inches, and thus would be a suitable host firearm for a
``stabilizing brace'' accessory. In Section II, the firearm would score
a total of 3 points. The firearm with attached SB-Mini (sometimes
referred to as the SBL-Mini) accessory would score 0 points in
Accessory Design for not being based on a known shoulder stock design.
In Rear Surface Area, the firearm would accrue 2 points for possessing
a rear surface useful for shouldering the firearm. In Adjustability,
the firearm would accrue 0 points for not being an adjustable design.
Finally, in Stabilizing Support the firearm would accrue 1 point, as
the flaps on the ``Cuff-type'' design only partially wrapped around a
shooter's forearm. As the firearm would score 3 points in Section II,
it would be able to proceed to Section III.
Under Section III, the firearm would score a total of 3 points. In
Length of Pull, the firearm was determined to possess a length of pull
of approximately 11\3/8\ inches; thereby it would accrue 2 points. In
Attachment Method, the firearm would accrue 0 points as the SB-Mini
accessory is attached using a standard-length AR-type pistol buffer
tube. In the ``Stabilizing Brace'' Modification category, the firearm
was determined to have no modifications, and would accrue 0 points.
Finally, in the Peripheral Accessories, the firearm possessed rifle-
type flip-up sights, which would accrue 1 point. As evaluated, no other
accessories were installed onto the firearm. The firearm, in this
configuration, would score a total of 3 points in this section, and
accordingly would be determined not to be designed and intended to be
fired from the shoulder. Therefore, since each section is evaluated
separately, the firearm, as submitted, would be classified as a pistol
with an attached ``stabilizing brace'' accessory.

B. AR-Type Firearm With SBA3 Accessory

[[Page 30838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.020

[[Page 30839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.021

SBA3 Accessory

[[Page 30840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.022

ATF evaluated an AR-type firearm with the SBA3 accessory, and would
determine the above firearm to be designed and intended to be fired
from the shoulder. Applying the criteria in Section I, the firearm was
determined to weigh approximately 89 ounces and have an overall length
of 25\1/8\ inches, and thus would be a suitable host firearm for a
``stabilizing brace'' accessory. In Section II, the firearm would score
a total of 8 points, precluding it from proceeding to Section III. The
firearm with attached SBA3 would accrue 1 point in Accessory Design for
incorporating known shoulder stock features, such as an adjustment
lever, a Quick Detach (QD) sling mount, and incorporation of hardened
polymer-type material. In Rear Surface Area, the firearm would accrue 3
points, as the SBA3 accessory has additional rear surface material
added for use in shouldering. In Adjustability, the firearm would
accrue 2 points for being an adjustable design. Finally, in Stabilizing
Support the firearm would accrue 2 point, as the flaps on the ``Cuff-
type'' design fail to wrap around a shooter's forearm.
Although an evaluation under Section III is not necessary as the
firearm would have already been determined to be designed to be fired
from the shoulder, the firearm was further evaluated for informational
purposes. Under Section III, the firearm would score a total of 5
points. In Length of Pull, the firearm was determined to possess a
length of pull of approximately 12\1/2\ inches; thereby it would accrue
3 points. In Attachment Method, the firearm would accrue 1 point as the
SBA3 accessory utilizes an M4-type rifle buffer tube. Under the
``Stabilizing Brace'' Modification category, the firearm was determined
to have no modifications, and would accrue 0 points. Finally, in
Peripheral Accessories, the firearm possessed rifle-type flip-up
sights, and thereby would accrue 1 point. As evaluated, no other
aftermarket components or accessories were installed onto the firearm.
The firearm, in this configuration, would score a total of 5 points in
this section, and would be determined to be designed and intended to be
fired from the shoulder. Therefore, the evaluated firearm, as
submitted, would be classified as a ``rifle.'' Further, having a rifled
barrel less than 16 inches in length, the firearm would be properly
classified as a ``short-barreled rifle'' and an NFA ``firearm.''

C. AR-Type Firearm With Shockwave Blade Accessory

[[Page 30841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.023

[[Page 30842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.024

Shockwave Blade Accessory on KAK Tube Without Strap

[[Page 30843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN21.025

BILLING CODE 4410-FY-C
ATF evaluated an AR-type firearm with the Shockwave Blade
accessory, and would determine that the firearm, as configured, would
be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Applying the
criteria in Section I, the firearm was determined to weigh
approximately 93 ounces and have an overall length of 23 inches, and
thus would be a suitable host firearm for a ``stabilizing brace''
accessory. In Section II, the submitted firearm would score a total of
5 points, precluding it from proceeding to Section III. The submitted
firearm with attached Shockwave Blade accessory would accrue 0 points
in Accessory Design for not incorporating known shoulder stock
features, such as an adjustment lever. In Rear Surface Area, the
firearm would accrue 1 point, as the Shockwave Blade accessory has
minimized rear surface area discouraging shouldering. In Adjustability,
the firearm would accrue 2 points because it is installed onto a KAK-
type tube that incorporates adjustment notches for adjustability.
Finally, in Stabilizing Support, the firearm would accrue 2 points for
being submitted without an arm strap--greatly reducing any stabilizing
support.
Although an evaluation under Section III would not be necessary as
the firearm would already have been determined to be designed to be
fired from the shoulder, the firearm was further evaluated for
informational purposes. Under Section III, the firearm would score a
total of 14 points. In Length of Pull, the firearm was determined to
possess a length of pull of approximately 13\1/4\ inches, and thereby
would accrue 3 points. In Attachment Method, the firearm would accrue 1
point as the Shockwave Blade accessory utilizes a KAK tube with
adjustment notches. Under the ``Stabilizing Brace'' Modification
category, the firearm would accrue 2 points for lack of an arm strap.
Finally, in Peripheral Accessories, the firearm would accrue an
additional 8 points. The firearm was submitted with a secondary forward
grip, a determinative indicator that the weapon is not designed to be
held and fired with one hand; thereby it would accrue 4 points.
Further, the firearm would accrue an additional 4 points due to it
being submitted with a scope that has incompatible eye relief for one-
handed firing (where the weapon must be fired from the shoulder in
order to use the sight). The submitted firearm, as configured, would
score a total of 14 points in this section, and would be determined to
be designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, the
firearm would be classified as a ``rifle.'' Further, having a rifled
barrel less than 16 inches in length, the firearm would be properly
classified as a ``short-barreled rifle'' and an NFA ``firearm.''

V. Options for Affected Persons

As mentioned, ATF wants to assist affected persons or companies and
is providing additional information to aid them in complying with
Federal laws and regulations. Below are options for those persons that
may be affected upon publication of a final rule.

A. Current Unlicensed Possessors

In order to comply with the provisions of the NFA, current
unlicensed possessors of a firearm equipped with a ``stabilizing
brace'' and a barrel length of less than 16 inches that would qualify
as a ``short-barreled rifle'' as indicated on the ATF Worksheet 4999
contained in this proposed rule would need to take one of the following
actions before the effective date of a final rule.
(1) Permanently remove or alter the ``stabilizing brace'' such that
it cannot be reattached, thus converting the firearm back to its
original pistol configuration (as long as it was originally configured
without a stock and as a pistol) and thereby removing it from
regulation as a ``firearm'' under the NFA. Exercising this option would
mean the pistol would no longer be ``equipped with'' the stabilizing
brace within the meaning of the proposed rule.
(2) Remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer barrel
to the firearm thus removing it from the provisions of the NFA.
(3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will publish information regarding
proper destruction on its website, www.atf.gov.
(4) Turn the firearm into your local ATF office.
(5) Complete and submit an Application to Make and Register a
Firearm, ATF Form 1 (``Form 1''). As part of the submission, the $200
tax payment is required with the application. Pursuant to 27 CFR
479.102, the name, city, and state of the maker of the firearm must be
properly marked on the firearm. All other markings, placed by the
original manufacturer, should be adopted. Proof of submission of the
Form 1 should be maintained by all possessors. Documentation
establishing submission of Form 1 includes, but is not limited

[[Page 30844]]

to, eForm submission acknowledgement, proof of payment, or copy of Form
1 submission with postmark documentation.

B. Federal Firearms Licensees Not Having Paid Special (Occupational)
Tax (``SOT'') as a Class 2 Manufacturer Under the NFA

In order to comply with the provisions of the NFA, Federal firearm
licensees not having paid SOT as a Class 2 manufacturer under the NFA
currently in possession of a firearm equipped with a ``stabilizing
brace'' and a barrel length of less than 16 inches that would qualify
as a ``short-barreled rifle'' under the ATF Worksheet 4999 contained in
this proposed rule would be required to take one of the following
actions before the effective date of a final rule.
(1) Options 1-4 listed above.
(2) Complete and submit an ATF Form 1. As part of the submission,
the $200 tax payment is required with the application. Pursuant to 27
CFR 479.102, the name, city, and state of the maker of the firearm must
be properly marked on the firearm. All other markings, placed by the
original manufacturer, should be adopted. Proof of submission of the
Form 1 should be maintained by all possessors. Documentation
establishing submission of Form 1 includes, but is not limited to,
eForm submission acknowledgement, proof of payment, or copy of Form 1
submission with postmark documentation. An importer, manufacturer, or
dealer licensed under the GCA, but not the NFA, may not engage in the
business of dealing in NFA firearms prior to compliance with the
payment of the SOT.

C. Manufacturers Licensed Under GCA and Qualified Under NFA

In order to comply with the provisions of the NFA, manufacturers
licensed under the GCA and having paid SOT as a Class 2 manufacturer
under the NFA currently in possession of a firearm equipped with a
``stabilizing brace'' and a barrel length of less than 16 inches that
would qualify as a ``short-barreled rifle'' as indicated on the ATF
Worksheet 4999 contained in this proposed rule would be required to
take one of the following actions before the effective date of a final
rule.
(1) Options 1-4 listed above.
(2) Complete and submit an ATF Form 2, Notice of Firearms
Manufactured or Imported.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic
benefits, environmental benefits, public health and safety effects,
distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' that is
economically significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
because the rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB. As
required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov),
ATF has prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of
expenditures associated with the NPRM.

Table 1--OMB Accounting Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
---------------------------------
Category Primary Minimum Maximum Period Notes
estimate estimate estimate Dollar Disc (%) covered
year (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized benefits ($ N/A N/A N/A 2020 7 10
Millions/year).................... N/A N/A N/A 2020 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified.............. N/A N/A N/A 2020 7 10
N/A N/A N/A 2020 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative........................ --Prevents manufacturers and individuals from circumventing the
requirements of the NFA.
--Enhances public safety by reducing the criminal use of such
firearms, which are easily concealable from the public and first
responders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs ($ $125.7 $125.7 $303.5 2020 7 10
Millions/year).................... 114.7 114.7 278.2 2020 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified.............. N/A N/A N/A 2020 7 10
N/A N/A N/A 2020 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qualitative (unquantified)......... N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Annualized Monetized ($ $20.1 $20.1 $46.7 2020 7 10
Millions/year).................... 17.2 17.2 40.0 2020 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30845]]

From/To............................ From: Individuals and FFLs
To: Federal Government
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Annualized monetized N/A N/A N/A 2020 7 10
transfers ($ Million/year)........ N/A N/A N/A 2020 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From/To............................ From: N/A
To: N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, and/or tribal
governments....................... The rule would not have a significant intergovernmental mandate,
significant or unique effect on small governments, or have
Federalism or Tribal implications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small businesses................... Approximately 3 manufactures of ``stabilizing braces'' would be
significantly affected by more than 10% of their revenue. May
affect 13,210 Type 1 FFLs and 3,881 Type 7 FFLs. Most Type 1
FFLs are small businesses, but likely would need to make less
than $2,357 in revenue to have an impact of 10 percent or more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages.............................. N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth............................. N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 summarizes the affects that this proposed rule would have
on the industry and public.

Table 2--Summary of Affected Population, Costs, and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected populations, costs, and
Category benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population............... 8 Manufacturers of affected
``stabilizing braces.''
3,881 Manufacturers of
``short-barreled rifles'' that have
a ``stabilizing brace'' attachment.
13,210 Dealers of ``short-
barreled rifles'' that have a
``stabilizing brace'' attachment.
1.4 million firearm owners
who have purchased pistols with
``stabilizing braces'' attached and
those who intend to purchase them
in the future.
Costs (annualized)................ $125.7 million at 7%.
$114.7 million at 3%.
Total Quantified from Industry, to $20.1 million at 7%
the Government (annualized). $17.2 million at 3%.
Unquantified Benefits............. Prevents manufacturers and
individuals from circumventing the
requirements of the NFA.
Enhances public safety by
reducing the criminal use of such
firearms, which are easily
concealable from the public and
first responders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need for Federal Regulatory Action
One of the reasons ATF is considering this proposed regulation is
the failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities
caused by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the by-
product of a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for
in the transaction. A negative externality addressed by this proposed
rule is that individuals and manufacturers may try to use purported
``stabilizing braces'' and affix them to firearms to circumvent the
requirements of the NFA, which requires registration and taxes to be
paid on the making and transfer of NFA weapons. Further, Congress chose
to regulate these items more stringently, finding them to be especially
dangerous to the community if not regulated since they are used for
violence and criminal activity. See United States v. Gonzalez, No.
2:10-cr-00967 CW, 2011 WL 5288727, at *5 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2011)
(``Congress specifically found that `short-barreled rifles are
primarily weapons of war and have no appropriate sporting use or use
for personal protection.'' (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28
(1968))). Therefore, if persons can circumvent the NFA by effectively
making unregistered ``short-barreled rifles'' by using an accessory
such as a ``stabilizing brace,'' these weapons can continue to
proliferate and could pose an increased public safety problem given
that they are easily concealable.
Population
Based on subject matter experts (``SMEs''), ATF estimates that
there are at least eight manufacturers of ``stabilizing braces.''
Anecdotal evidence from the manufacturers of the affected ``stabilizing
braces'' indicates that the manufacturers have sold between 3 million
and 7 million ``stabilizing braces'' between the years 2013 to 2020 or
over the course of eight

[[Page 30846]]

years. For the purposes of this analysis, ATF uses 3 million as the low
estimate and primary estimate of affected ``stabilizing braces.'' This
proposed rule may affect upwards of 1.4 million individuals, 13,210
Type 1 Federal Firearms Licensees (``FFLs''), and 3,881 Type 7 FFLs.
For more details, please refer to Chapter 2 and each of the specific
cost chapters of the standalone Regulatory Impact Analysis (``RIA'')
for this proposed rule.
Scenario 1: Turn in Firearm to ATF
One option for current owners of firearms with ``stabilizing
braces'' to comply with the proposed rule would be to turn in the
firearm with the attached stabilizing brace to ATF for disposal. As the
individual possessing the firearm would be permitted to simply remove
the ``stabilizing brace'' and dispose of it, while retaining the
firearm, ATF believes it would be unlikely that individuals would turn
in their entire firearm into ATF to be destroyed. As ATF does not
anticipate anyone choosing to turn in a firearm with an attached
stabilizing brace into ATF for disposal, so no cost was attributed to
this scenario. Because braces themselves, as firearm accessories or
components, are generally not regulated items, ATF requests comments
regarding the population, methodology, and scope of this scenario.
Scenario 2: Convert Firearm Into a Long-Barreled Rifle
Another scenario is for individuals and FFLs to retain the
``stabilizing brace'' but convert the firearm into a firearm under the
GCA rather than under the NFA. More specifically, they may convert the
firearm into a long-barreled rife. ATF anticipates the minimum need is
to purchase a long barrel and handrails. The average cost of a long
barrel is $198.\21\ The average cost for handrails is $212,\22\ making
the cost per firearm $410.\23\ ATF estimates that the average affected
individual may own approximately two firearms with an attached
``stabilizing brace'' while affected FFLs own an average of 3 firearms
with an attached ``stabilizing brace.'' The total cost for this
scenario is $125.1 million. For more details, please refer to Chapter 4
of the standalone RIA. Because braces themselves are generally not
regulated items, ATF requests comments regarding the population,
methodology, and scope of this scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/barrel-parts/rifle-barrels/ar-15-6mm-arc-barrels-heavy-profile-prod135844.aspx
(accessed May 10, 2021); https://www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/mossberg-92062-rifled-barrel-wsights-gauge-slug-p-13798.html
(accessed May 10, 2021); https://www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/mossberg-90831-ulti-barrel-wparkerized-finish-accu-chokes-gauge-ulti-slug-p-13809.html (accessed May 10, 2021); https://www.gunpartscorp.com/category/barrels/rifle-barrels/sig-sauer/516-sig (accessed May 10, 2021); https://www.gunpartscorp.com/category/barrels/rifle-barrels/sig-sauer/516-sig (accessed May 10, 2021);
https://www.gunpartscorp.com/category/barrels/rifle-barrels/colt/lightning-cf-rifle (accessed May 10, 2021); https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1017600744 (accessed May 10, 2021);
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1017600744 (accessed May 10,
2021); https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1017600744 (accessed May
10, 2021); https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1023207522 (accessed
May 10, 2021).
\22\ https://www.aeroprecisionusa.com/ar15-atlas-r-one-m-lok-handguard (accessed Apr. 14, 2021); https://slrrifleworks.com/hand-guards/5-56-handguards/ion-series/ion-ultra-lite/ (accessed Apr. 14,
2021); https://www.odinworks.com/O2_Lite_M_LOK_Forend_p/f-12-ml-o2.htm (accessed Apr. 14, 2021);. https://seekinsprecision.com/noxs-mlok-rail-1-1.html (accessed Apr. 14, 2021).
\23\ $410 = $198 + $212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 3: Apply To Register Under the NFA
Individuals and FFLs could keep their firearms with attached
``stabilizing brace'' and apply to register under the NFA. Under this
scenario, individuals and Type 1 FFL dealers would need to complete a
Form 1 for each and every firearm affected by this proposed rule. Type
7 FFL manufacturers would complete a Form 2 for all their affected
firearms in inventory. FFLs would then be able to sell these firearms
with attached ``stabilizing braces'' as NFA weapons to individuals who
wish to purchase them. The estimated cost for an individual to apply
for two firearms with attached ``stabilizing braces'' would be
$132.\24\ The cost per Type 1 FFL to fill out 3 Form 1s is $985.\25\
The cost per Type 7 FFL to fill out one Form 2 is $47.\26\ The total
industry cost to this scenario is a one-time cost of $51.3 million.
While individuals and Type 1 FFLs would need to pay a $200 makings tax
per firearm under the NFA, because this cost is a transfer payment from
industry to the Federal Government, the transfer payment of these taxes
is described under section 7.2 of the standalone RIA. For more details,
please refer to Chapter 5 of the standalone RIA. Because braces
themselves are generally not regulated items, ATF requests comments
regarding the population, methodology, and scope of this scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ $132 = (($16.52 leisure hourly wage * 4 hours)) * 2
applications.
\25\ $985 = (($82.08 average loaded hourly wage * 4 hours)) * 3
applications.
\26\ $47 = $62.93 average loaded hourly wage * 0.75 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scenario 4: Permanently Remove or Alter Affected ``Stabilizing Braces''
Currently in Circulation and Foregone Future Sales
Under this scenario, all parties affected could simply permanently
remove or alter their ``stabilizing braces'' as they see fit. However,
ATF has determined this would be a loss of property. There are various
types of ``stabilizing braces'' that would be affected by this proposed
rule. We assume that the lost value to owners of a ``stabilizing
brace'' would be at least as much as the cost of a new ``stabilizing
brace.'' The average cost for a ``stabilizing brace'' is $236.\27\ At
1.9 million ``stabilizing braces'' affected under this scenario, ATF
estimates that the cost for disposing of currently existing
``stabilizing braces'' would be $443.9 million.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sba3/(accessed Apr. 22,
2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sbm47/(accessed Apr. 22,
2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/hkpdw/(accessed Apr. 22,
2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/tac13-sba3/(accessed Apr.
22, 2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/czpdw/(accessed Apr.
22, 2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/fs1913/(accessed Apr.
22, 2021); https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-ar-15-pistols/
(accessed Apr. 22, 2021).
\28\ $443.9 million = ((905,523 individuals * 2 ``stabilizing
braces'') + (10,642 Type 1 FFLs * 3 ``stabilizing braces'') + (1,263
Type 7 FFLs * 32 ``stabilizing braces'')) * $236 cost of brace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While these ``stabilizing braces'' have been purchased over the
course of eight years, ATF uses that information to estimate the future
sales of these affected ``stabilizing braces'' forgone. However, in
lieu of promulgating a proposed regulation, ATF has been and will
continue to use enforcement actions, to include criminal actions,
against existing FFLs that manufacture firearms that do not comply with
the intent of the law. ATF estimates that in the absence of this
proposed rule, these individual enforcement actions against existing
FFLs would change the market perception of these ``stabilizing braces''
and may affect the overall demand for these items regardless of the
implementation of the proposed rule. Therefore, ATF estimates that the
overall future demand for ``stabilizing braces'' would decrease by the
estimated amount attributed to Type 1 and Type 7 FFLs, making the
primary estimate of future ``stabilizing braces'' 211,178 per year.\29\
Thus, ATF estimates that this scenario would mean a loss of $49.7
million in sales per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ 211,178 future ``stabilizing braces'' = 375,000 annual
``stabilizing braces''-(13,210 Type 1 FFL * 3 stabilizing braces)-
(3,881 Type 7 FFL * 32 stabilizing braces).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more details, please refer to Chapter 6 of the standalone RIA.

[[Page 30847]]

Because braces themselves are not regulated items, ATF requests
comments regarding the population, methodology, and scope of this
scenario.
Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
This section summarizes the total costs of this proposed rule as
described throughout this RIA. As noted in Chapter 5 of the standalone
RIA, $151.0 million was not accounted for in Chapter 5 due to the NFA
tax. Because it would be considered a transfer payment from the public
to the Federal Government, it was not included in the societal cost of
the rule. The annualized cost of this proposed rule would be $114.7
million and $125.7 million, at 3 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
At this time, the government cost of this proposed rule was not
included in this cost assessment.
Benefits
This proposed rule would affect attempts by manufacturers and
individuals to circumvent the requirements of the NFA and would affect
the criminal use of weapons with a purported ``stabilizing brace,''
such as the shooting incident at the King Soopers in Boulder, Colorado.
The purpose of this proposed rule is to amend ATF regulations to
clarify when a rifle is ``intended to be fired from the shoulder'' and
to set forth factors that ATF considers when evaluating firearms with
an attached purported ``stabilizing brace'' to determine whether these
are ``rifles'' under the GCA or NFA, and therefore whether they are
``firearms'' subject to the NFA. Congress placed stricter requirements
on the making and possession of ``short-barreled rifles'' because it
found them to pose a significant crime problem. Providing clarity to
the public and industry on how ATF enforces the provisions of the NFA
through this proposed rule significantly enhances public safety and
could reduce the criminal use of such firearms, which are easily
concealable from the public and first responders.
Alternatives
This section outlines the various alternatives considered when
creating this proposed rule. For a more detailed analysis, please refer
to Chapters 1 and 10 of the RIA.
Proposed Alternative--Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached
Stabilizing Braces. This proposed alternative would amend the
definitions of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 27 CFR 479.11 to indicate
that a rifle includes any weapon with a rifled barrel equipped with an
accessory or component purported to assist the shooter to stabilize the
weapon while shooting with one hand, commonly referred to as a
``stabilizing brace,'' that has objective design features and
characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire as described in ATF
Worksheet 4999.
Alternative 1--No change alternative. This alternative has no costs
or benefits because it is maintaining the existing status quo. This
alternative was considered and not implemented because the NFA requires
regulation of certain types of firearms above what is required under
the GCA.
Alternative 2--Simple Criteria. This alternative would provide very
short and simple parameters in terms of how a ``stabilizing brace'' or
stock would be defined, such as length only. This alternative would be
easy for the public to read and understand. Where this was feasible,
ATF has incorporated these simple and easy to follow parameters.
Alternative 3--Grandfather all existing firearms with an attached
``stabilizing brace.'' In order to enforce the regulation, a complete
grandfathering of existing firearms with an attached ``stabilizing
brace'' is problematic in that manufacturers could continue to produce
these items that are actually ``rifles'' under the statutory definition
and subject to the NFA and market them as grandfathered firearms with
an attached ``stabilizing brace'' not subject to the same regulation.
This could potentially pose an enforcement issue that may not be
resolved for years if not decades.
Alternative 4--Guidance documents. This alternative would publish a
guidance document instead of a rulemaking. While this alternative
minimizes cost because compliance in this scenario would be voluntary,
it does not meet the objectives outlined in this proposed rule as
guidance documents do not have the same force and effect as a
regulation. Guidance documents do not in and of themselves impose
binding legal obligations. This would pose an enforcement issue.
Moreover, issuing a proposed rule invites comments from the public,
creating greater transparency and notice.
Alternative 5--Forgiveness of the NFA Tax. This alternative would
allow individuals and entities that currently have firearms with
attached ``stabilizing braces'' to apply and register firearms under
the NFA without paying the $200 making tax. In this scenario, the
societal costs would be the same except there would be no transfer
payment. Similar to the proposed rule, the bulk of this cost would be
the foregone future revenue and the loss in property for individuals
not applying under the NFA.\30\ This scenario was rejected because
``stabilizing braces'' are not serialized and an individual or entity
could merely register all firearms possessed with the intent of later
obtaining a ``stabilizing brace.'' Further, although the ``brace'' is
used on a particular weapon, an individual might register all pistols
as SBRs and then attempt to utilize other stocks on these firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ However, the real cost to the individual or FFL would be
minimal since filling out the form would not necessarily incur an
out-of-pocket cost and the tax would not be incurred either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Executive Order 13132

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States,
or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Attorney General has determined
that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact
statement.

C. Executive Order 12988

This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), ATF
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'') that
examines the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated
and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions
with populations of fewer than 50,000 people.
Summary of Findings
ATF performed an IRFA of the impacts on small businesses and other
entities from the Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached
``Stabilizing Braces'' proposed rule [2021R-08] . We performed this
assessment using the cost information discussed in chapters 2 through 7
of the RIA.
Based on the information from this analysis, we found:
ATF estimates that this proposed rule would potentially
affect at least 8 manufactures of ``stabilizing braces.'' Based on SME
commentary, it is

[[Page 30848]]

anticipated 3 of them would go out of business;
ATF also anticipates that this proposed rule would affect
17,091 FFLs, many of whom would be considered small businesses;
However, the highest anticipated cost to would be if a
Type 1 FFL had 24 ``stabilizing braces'' (the high estimate that a Type
1 FFL may have) and opted to file under the NFA. Should they own 24 arm
braces and opt to apply under the NFA, ATF anticipates these FFLs would
need to make $111,855 in revenue or less in order to incur an impact of
10 percent or more.
There are no relevant government entities.
Preliminary Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The RFA establishes that agencies must try to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale of the businesses,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve this goal, agencies must solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, sec. 2(b),
94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the RFA, we are required to consider what, if any, impact
this rule would have on small entities. Agencies must perform a review
to determine whether a rule will have such an impact. Because the
agency has determined that it will have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the agency has prepared an
initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
Under section 603(b) of the RFA, the regulatory flexibility
analysis must provide or address:
A description of the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered;
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule;
A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
Descriptions of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and that minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
One of the reasons ATF is considering this proposed rule is the
failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused
by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the by-product of
a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the
transaction. A negative externality addressed by this proposed rule is
that individuals and manufacturers may try to use purported
``stabilizing braces'' and affix them to firearms to circumvent the
requirements of the NFA, which requires registration and taxes to be
paid on the making and transfer of NFA weapons. If persons can
circumvent the NFA by effectively making unregistered ``short-barreled
rifles'' by using an accessory such as a ``stabilizing brace,'' these
weapons can continue to proliferate and could pose an increased public
safety problem given that they are easily concealable.
A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as
amended, and the NFA, as amended. This responsibility includes the
authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions
of the GCA and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A),
7805(a). The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for
administering and enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF,
subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2).
Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations
implementing both the GCA and the NFA. See 27 CFR parts 478, 479.
This proposed rule would prevent persons from circumventing the NFA
by using arm braces as stocks on ``short-barreled rifles''. If persons
can circumvent the NFA by effectively making unregistered ``short-
barreled rifles'' by using an accessory such as a ``stabilizing
brace,'' these weapons can continue to proliferate and could pose an
increased public safety problem given that they are easily concealable.
A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
This rule would affect primarily three manufacturers of certain
``stabilizing braces'' that have been primarily used as an alternative
to a stock on a firearm. It is anticipated they would lose their
business of manufacturing ``stabilizing braces.''
This proposed rule would also affect FFLs that sell these affected
arm braces, and other small retailers of firearm accessories that have
invested in the arm brace industry. ATF anticipates that this proposed
rule would affect 17,091 FFLs, many of whom would be considered small
businesses.
Based on data gleaned from persons who turned in bump stocks, an
FFL could have as many as 24 ``stabilizing braces'' affected by this
proposed rule. The majority are likely to own only one. The cost for an
FFL could range from $236 to dispose of one ``stabilizing brace'' to
$11,185 to submit 24 applications under the NFA. ATF anticipates the
majority of FFLs to experience a one-time cost of $236 for the disposal
of one ``stabilizing brace.'' However, the highest anticipated cost
would occur if an FFL had 24 ``stabilizing braces'' and opted to file
under the NFA. Should they own 24 arm braces and opt to apply under the
NFA, ATF anticipates that these FFLs would need to make $111,855 in
revenue or less in order to incur an impact of 10 percent or more.
Assuming that the average Type 1 FFL has an average of 3
``stabilizing braces'' in inventory and opts to dispose of them, the
FFL would lose $707 per entity. This would mean that the FFL would need
to make $7,071 or less to incur a significant impact.
An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of all Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule does not duplicate or conflict with other
Federal rules.
Descriptions of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule That
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and That
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
Please see Chapter 9 of the RIA on the discussion of alternatives.
ATF did not create any alternatives specific to small businesses but
notes that the majority of the affected businesses would be considered
small.

[[Page 30849]]

E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is likely to be considered major as it is economically
significant and is projected to have an effect of over $100 million on
the economy in at least the first year of the rule. See 5 U.S.C. 804.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million or
more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under
the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA''),
Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, based on the proposed rule's impact on
State, local, or Tribal governments. However, based on the analysis
presented in the RIA, the Department concludes that the proposed rule
would impose a Federal mandate on the private sector in excess of $100
million in expenditures in any one year. The RIA constitutes the
written statement containing a qualitative and quantitative assessment
of the anticipated costs, benefits, and alternatives required under
section 202(a) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 1532).

G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This proposed rule would call for collections of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-20). As defined in
5 CFR 1320.3(c), ``collection of information'' comprises reporting,
recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, and other similar
actions. The title and description of the information collection, a
description of those who must collect the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow. The estimate covers the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing sources of data, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection.
Under the provisions of this proposed rule, there would be a one-
time increase in paperwork burdens of NFA applications. This
requirement would be added to an existing approved collection covered
by OMB control number 1140-0011 and 1140-0012.

Title: Application to Make and Register a Firearm.
OMB Control Number: OMB 1140-0011.
Proposed Use of Information: The ATF Form 1 (5320.1) is required to
register an NFA firearm by any person, other than a qualified
manufacturer, who wishes to make and register an NFA firearm. The
implementing regulations are in 27 CFR 479.61-479.71. Under the
provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5822, no person can make an NFA firearm until
he or she has applied for and received approval from the Attorney
General (delegated to ATF). Subject to certain exceptions, the making
of an NFA firearm is subject to a tax of $200 (26 U.S.C. 5821). The
proposed use of this information is to ensure that applicants are in
compliance with relevant laws.
Description and Number of Respondents: Currently, there is a total
of 25,716 respondents to this information collection. Of these 25,716
respondents, 477 of them are FFLs, 21,879 of them are trusts and legal
entities, and 3,360 of them are individuals. For the purposes of this
proposed rule, ATF estimates 1,679 FFLs and 375,000 individuals would
submit a response due to this proposed rule. For the purposes of this
proposed rule, the number of trusts and legal entities were not
calculated.
Frequency of Response: One time.
Burden of Response: Currently, one time. For this proposed rule, 2
to 3 times, depending on the number of firearms.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The existing hourly burden is
102,808 hours, with an additional 3,020,148 hours due to this proposed
rule.

Title: Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported.
OMB Control Number: OMB 1140-0012.
Proposed Use of Information: The Notice of Firearms Manufactured or
Imported, ATF Form 2 (5320.2), is required of (1) a person who is
qualified to manufacture NFA firearms, or (2) a person who is qualified
to import NFA firearms to register manufactured or imported NFA
firearm(s). In general, under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5822, no
person can make an NFA firearm until he or she has applied for and
received approval from the Attorney General of the United States
(delegated to ATF). Subject to certain exceptions, the making of an NFA
firearm is subject to a tax of $200. Section 5841(b) provides that each
manufacturer and importer shall register each firearm manufactured or
imported. Section 5841(c) provides that each manufacturer shall notify
the Attorney General about the manufacture of a firearm, as provided by
the regulations. These regulations further stipulate that each importer
must obtain authorization as required by regulations, prior to
importing a firearm. Section 5852(c) exempts a qualified manufacturer
from payment of the making tax for manufactured firearms. The proposed
use of this information is to ensure that applicants are in compliance
with relevant laws.
Description and Number of Respondents: Currently, there are 14,384
FFLs with SOT.
Frequency of Response: One time.
Burden of Response: Currently, respondents will respond one time.
This proposed rule may require a second response to incorporate a
change in inventory.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: Currently, the burden hours is
7,192. This rule would add an additional burden of 1,323 hours.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of this proposed rule to the OMB for
its review of the collections of information.
We ask for public comment on the proposed collection of information
to help us determine how useful the information is; whether it can help
us perform our functions better; whether it is readily available
elsewhere; how accurate our estimate of the burden of collection is;
how valid our methods for determining burden are; how we can improve
the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information; and how we can
minimize the burden of collection.
You need not respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number from OMB. Before the
requirements for this collection of information become effective, we
will publish a notice in the Federal Register of OMB's decision to
approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed collection.

VII. Public Participation

A. Comments Sought

ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested
persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this
proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. ATF also
requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and on
the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and
benefits. Additionally, ATF requests comments on providing a tax
forgiveness for the registration of ``short-barreled rifles'' pursuant
to this proposed rule.
ATF recognizes that individuals may have submitted comments
previously in response to a notice ATF published on December 18, 2020,
titled ``Objective

[[Page 30850]]

Factors for Classifying Weapons with `Stabilizing Braces.' '' 85 FR
82516. However, the notice was withdrawn on December 31, 2020, prior to
the comment period ending. 85 FR 86948. Moreover, this proposed rule
incorporates different provisions than the December 2020 notice did,
including a series of objective factors that are weighted in order to
reflect objective decisions based on the design elements of each
``stabilizing brace.'' Comments received pursuant to that notice have
not been, and will not be, considered as part of this proposed rule.
Commenters will need to submit new comments in connection with this
proposed rule.
All comments should reference this document's docket number ATF
2021R-08, be legible, and include the commenter's complete first and
last name and full mailing address. ATF may not consider, or respond
to, comments that do not meet these requirements or comments containing
excessive profanity. ATF will retain all comments as part of this
rulemaking's administrative record. ATF will treat all comments as
originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if
ATF cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your
comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received
on or before the closing date, and will give comments after that date
the same consideration if practical to do so, but assurance of
consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before the closing date.
In addition to the broader requests for comment outlined above, ATF
is interested in specific comments from the public that may help
address the following questions:
1. How do current owners of stabilizing braces anticipate that they
will choose to comply with this rulemaking if it is finalized? Are
owners more likely to permanently remove or alter their braces, turn in
their firearms with a brace to ATF, or register them with ATF as NFA
firearms and pay the associated tax? Would owners be more likely to
register their firearms instead of choosing one of the other options if
the tax on the registration is forgiven?
2. How do manufacturers anticipate they will comply with this
rulemaking, if finalized? Will manufacturers stop making stabilizing
braces, alter their stabilizing braces in some manner so they don't
meet the criteria in this rulemaking, or market their braces
differently?
3. Has ATF selected the most appropriate criteria for determining
whether a stabilizing brace has made a firearm subject to the NFA? Do
commenters have additional criteria that should be considered?

B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this
section, whether submitted electronically or on paper, available for
public viewing at ATF and on the internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal, and subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552). Commenters who do not want their name or other personal
identifying information posted on the internet should submit comments
by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet containing
their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet and
comment should reference this docket number (2021R-08). For comments
submitted by mail or facsimile, information contained on the cover
sheet will not appear when posted on the internet but any personal
identifying information that appears within a comment will not be
redacted by ATF and will appear on the internet.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary
or confidential business information. The commenter shall place any
portion of a comment that is proprietary or confidential business
information under law on pages separate from the balance of the comment
with each page prominently marked ``PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL
BUSINESS INFORMATION'' at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information
submitted in compliance with these instructions available when
disclosing the comments that it received but will disclose that the
commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information
that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not
have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this
information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such
proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required
by other legal process.

C. Submitting Comments

Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same
comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted. Comments not satisfying these
requirements may not be considered by ATF.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF recommends that you submit
your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal at
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Comments will be
posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes
of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be
viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking
number that is provided after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments should appear in
minimum 12-point font size (.17 inches), include the commenter's first
and last name and full mailing address, be signed, and may be of any
length. Mailed comments will be treated as timely if they are
postmarked on or before the last day of the comment period.
Facsimile: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to
(202) 648-9741. Faxed comments must:
1. Be legible and appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17
inches);
2. Be on 8\1/2\'' x 11'' paper;
3. Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last
name and full mailing address; and
4. Be no more than five pages long.

D. Request for Hearing

Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally
at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to
the Director of ATF within the 90-day comment period. The Director,
however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all
circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response
to it will be available through the Federal eRulemaking portal, at
www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA55), and for public
inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF Reading
Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226;
telephone: (202) 648-8740.

List of Subjects

27 CFR Part 478

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports,
Freight, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement
officers, Military

[[Page 30851]]

personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.

27 CFR Part 479

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise
taxes, Exports, Imports, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts 478 and 479
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 478--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION

0
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921-931; 44 U.S.C.
3504(h).

0
2. In Sec. 478.11, add a sentence to the end of the definition of
``rifle,'' to read as follows:

Sec. 478.11 Meaning of terms.

* * * * *
Rifle. * * * The term shall include any weapon with a rifled barrel
equipped with an accessory or component purported to assist the shooter
stabilize the weapon while shooting with one hand, commonly referred to
as a ``stabilizing brace,'' that has objective design features and
characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire, as indicated on
Factoring Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with Accessories commonly
referred to as ``Stabilizing Braces,'' ATF Worksheet 4999, published on
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
* * * * *

PART 479--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS

0
3. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 479 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5812; 26 U.S.C. 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26
U.S.C. 7805.

0
4. In Sec. 479.11, add a sentence to the end of the definition of
``rifle'', to read as follows:

Sec. 479.11 Meaning of terms.

Dated: June 7, 2021.
Merrick B. Garland,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2021-12176 Filed 6-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P