Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2022)

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 182-194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28398]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR Part 478

[Docket No. ATF 24P; AG Order No. 5304-2021]
RIN 1140-AA10

Secure Gun Storage and Definition of ``Antique Firearm''

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (``ATF'') to
codify into regulation certain provisions of the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999. This rule amends
ATF's regulations to account for the existing statutory requirement
that applicants for Federal firearms dealer licenses certify that
secure gun storage or safety devices will be available at any place
where firearms are sold under the license to nonlicensed individuals.
This certification is already included in the Application for Federal
Firearms License, ATF Form 7/7CR (``Form 7/7CR''). The regulation also
requires applicants for manufacturer or importer licenses to complete
the certification if the licensee will have premises where firearms are
sold to nonlicensees. Moreover, the regulation requires that the secure
gun storage or safety devices be compatible with the firearms offered
for sale by the licensee. Finally, it conforms the regulatory
definitions of certain terms to the statutory language, including the
definition of ``antique firearm,'' which is amended to include certain
modern muzzle loading firearms.

DATES: This rule is effective February 3, 2022.

[[Page 183]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York
Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On October 21, 1998, Public Law 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681), the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (``the Act''), was enacted. Among other things, the Act amended
the Gun Control Act of 1968, Public Law 90-618 (82 Stat. 1213)
(``GCA'') (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. chapter 44). Some of the
GCA amendments made by the Act are as follows: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Child Safety Lock Act of 2005 (``CSLA''), enacted as
part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Public Law
109-92 (119 Stat. 2095), amended the GCA by adding a new subsection,
18 U.S.C. 922(z). This subsection requires licensed importers,
manufacturers, and dealers to provide secure gun storage or safety
devices whenever they sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to a
nonlicensed person. See 18 U.S.C. 922(z)(1). The CSLA was
implemented primarily in a final rule issued shortly before the NPRM
was issued for this rule. See Federal Firearms License Proceedings--
Hearings, 81 FR 32,230 (May 23, 2016) (amending 27 CFR 478.73, which
provides that a notice of suspension or revocation of a license, or
the imposition of a civil penalty, may be issued whenever the ATF
Director has reason to believe that any licensee has violated Sec.
922(z)(1) by selling, delivering, or transferring any handgun to any
person other than a licensee, unless the transferee was provided
with a secure gun storage or safety device for that handgun).
Although the requirements of the CSLA and the regulation at issue in
this rulemaking are in some respects similar, the two requirements
are distinct: The CSLA requires that licensed importers,
manufacturers, and dealers actually provide a secure gun storage or
safety device to any nonlicensee that receives a handgun, whereas
the regulation at issue in this rulemaking applies more broadly to
the sale of ``firearms'' (not just handguns) to nonlicensees, but
requires only that secure gun storage or safety devices be made
available (not actually provided).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Secure Gun Storage. The Act amended section 923(d)(1) of title
18, United States Code, to require that, with certain exceptions,
applicants for Federal firearms dealer licenses certify the
availability of secure gun storage or safety devices at any place where
firearms are sold under the license to nonlicensees. 18 U.S.C.
923(d)(1)(G). The certification requirement does not apply where a
secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because
of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a
manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the
licensee. Id.
In addition, the Act amended 18 U.S.C. 923(e) to provide that the
Attorney General may revoke, after notice and opportunity for hearing,
the license of any Federal firearms licensee that fails to have secure
gun storage or safety devices available at any place where firearms are
sold under the license to nonlicensees, subject to the same exceptions
noted above.
The Act defined the term ``secure gun storage or safety device'' in
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(34) to mean: (1) A device that, when installed on a
firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without
first deactivating the device; (2) a device incorporated into the
design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the
firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or (3) a safe, gun
safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can
be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by
means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.
The provisions of the Act relating to secure gun storage became
effective April 19, 1999.
(2) Definition of Antique Firearm. The Act amended the definition
of ``antique firearm'' in the GCA to include certain modern muzzle
loading firearms. Specifically, section 115 of the Act amended the
definition of ``antique firearm'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) to include a
weapon that is a muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or
muzzle loading pistol; that is designed to use black powder or a black
powder substitute; and that cannot use fixed ammunition. The term
expressly does not include any weapon that incorporates a firearm frame
or receiver; any firearm converted into a muzzle loading weapon; or any
muzzle loading weapon that can be readily converted to fire fixed
ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any
combination thereof. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16)(C).
The provisions of the Act relating to antique firearms became
effective upon the date of enactment, October 21, 1998.
(3) Miscellaneous Amendments. Prior to amendment by the Act, the
term ``rifle'' was defined in the GCA 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 metallic cartridge to fire only a single
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.''
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(7) (1994). The Act amended the definition of ``rifle''
by replacing the words ``the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge''
with ``an explosive.'' See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(7) (2018).
Additionally, prior to amendment by the Act, the term ``shotgun''
was defined in the GCA 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 shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of
ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.''
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(5) (1994). The Act amended the definition of
``shotgun'' by replacing the words ``the explosive in a fixed shotgun
shell'' with ``an explosive.'' See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(5) (2018).
The provisions of the Act relating to the miscellaneous amendments
also became effective upon the date of enactment, October 21, 1998.

II. Proposed Rule

On May 26, 2016, the Department of Justice (``the Department'')
published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NPRM'') to codify into regulation certain provisions of the Act.
Commerce in Firearms and Explosives; Secure Gun Storage, Amended
Definition of Antique Firearm, and Miscellaneous Amendments, 81 FR
33448 (May 26, 2016). The rule proposed amending ATF's regulations to
account for the existing statutory requirement that applicants for
Federal firearms dealer licenses certify that secure gun storage or
safety devices will be available at any place where firearms are sold
under the license to nonlicensed individuals. This certification is
already included in ATF Form 7/7CR. The NPRM also proposed requiring
applicants for Federal firearms manufacturer or importer licenses to
complete the certification if the licensee will have premises where
firearms are sold to nonlicensees.
Next, the Department proposed to amend 27 CFR 478.11 by adding a
definition for the term ``secure gun storage or safety device'' that
tracks the language in the statute, as well as a new section 27 CFR
478.104 that specifies the terms of the certification requirement.
Moreover, the proposed regulation required that the secure gun storage
or safety device be compatible with the firearms offered for sale by
the licensee. 81 FR at 33449. Therefore, applicants under the proposed
rule would be required to certify the availability of compatible secure
gun storage or safety devices at any place where firearms were sold
under the license to nonlicensees.
The NPRM proposed applying the certification requirement to
applicants for Federal firearms importer or manufacturer licenses if
the licensee has

[[Page 184]]

premises where firearms are sold to nonlicensees. Federal regulations
provide that a licensed importer or a licensed manufacturer may engage
in business on the licensed premises as a dealer in the same type of
firearms authorized by the license to be imported or manufactured. 27
CFR 478.41(b). Accordingly, under the proposed rule, an applicant for a
Federal firearms importer or manufacturer license that engaged in
business on the licensed premises as a dealer of firearms to
nonlicensees was required to complete the certification.
One provision of the Act provides that, ``[n]otwithstanding any
other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance
[with the secure gun storage or safety device requirement] shall not be
admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board,
or other entity.'' Public Law 105-277, sec. 119, reprinted in 18 U.S.C.
923 note. In the proposed rule, ATF explained that this section applies
to civil liability actions against dealers and other similar actions,
and not to proceedings associated with license denials or revocations
(or appeals in Federal court from decisions in such proceedings)
involving noncompliance with the secure gun storage or safety device
requirement of the GCA. 81 FR at 33449. The proposed rule amended 27
CFR 478.73 to clarify that a notice of revocation of a Federal firearms
license may be issued whenever the ATF Director has reason to believe
that a licensee fails to have secure gun storage or safety devices
available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license to
persons who are not licensees (except in any case in which a secure gun
storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of theft,
casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any
other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee). Id. at 33453.
Finally, the Department proposed to amend 27 CFR 478.11 to reflect
the definitions of the terms ``antique firearm,'' ``rifle,'' and
``shotgun'' set forth in the Act. Id.
Comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking were to be submitted
to ATF on or before August 24, 2016.

III. Comment Analysis and Department Response

In response to the NPRM, with respect to an industry that includes
approximately 59,909 federally licensed firearms dealers (including
pawnbrokers), 12,673 licensed firearms manufacturers, and 1,054
licensed firearms importers, ATF received only four comments. This
small number of responses indicates that a broad majority of the
firearms industry accepts codification of behavior that has been
statutorily required for more than 20 years.

A. Comments on Impact on Manufacturers and Importers

1. Comments Received
One commenter argued that the proposed rule imposes the
certification requirement on all manufacturers and importers that sell
firearms to the public, despite the fact that the statute requires only
that dealers in firearms meet the certification requirement. Further,
according to the commenter, forcing manufacturers and importers to have
secure gun storage available and perhaps even to ``use'' such secure
gun storage could create a burdensome and expensive requirement.
Requiring firearms, many of which might not even be finished, to be
stored under lock and key every night would, in the opinion of the
commenter, be difficult, time consuming, and cost-prohibitive.
Therefore, according to the commenter, the proposed rule violated
Federal law by creating new requirements for licensees.
2. Department Response
The Department disagrees with the comment that ATF does not have
the statutory authority to require licensed manufacturers and importers
to certify that secure gun storage or safety devices will be available
at any place in which firearms are sold to nonlicensees. Under 18
U.S.C. 923(a), the license application must be in such form and contain
the information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing as the
Attorney General may prescribe by regulation. Similarly, under 18
U.S.C. 926(a), the Attorney General has the authority to promulgate any
rules that are necessary to implement the provisions of the GCA.
``Because Sec. 926 authorizes the [Attorney General] to promulgate
those regulations which are `necessary,' it almost inevitably confers
some measure of discretion to determine what regulations are in fact
`necessary.' '' Nat'l Rifle Ass'n v. Brady, 914 F.2d 475, 479 (4th Cir.
1990).
Although the language of section 923(d)(1)(G) refers only to
applications for license as a dealer, section 923(e), as amended by the
Act, more broadly provides that the Attorney General may, after notice
and an opportunity for a hearing, ``revoke any license issued under
this section if the holder of such license . . . fails to have secure
gun storage or safety devices available at any place in which firearms
are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees.''
(Emphasis added.) Section 923(e) thus applies to all licensees that
sell firearms to nonlicensees--not just dealer licensees. Hence,
because licensed manufacturers and importers may sell their firearms
directly to nonlicensees, see 27 CFR 478.41(b), ATF has the authority
to revoke the licenses of manufacturers or importers if they fail to
have secure gun storage or safety devices available for retail
transactions. Requiring manufacturers and importers to certify that
secure gun storage or safety devices will be available at any place in
which firearms are sold to nonlicensees helps ensure that manufacturers
and importers are aware of the implicit requirement in section 923(e)
that these licensees must make such storage or devices available. This
certification has been required of all license applicants except
collectors on ATF Form 7/7CR (5300.12/5310.16) for years.
Finally, neither the NPRM nor the final rule requires manufacturers
or importers to use secure gun storage or safety devices on their
inventory; rather, they need only make such storage or devices
available.

B. Comments on Compatibility of Devices

1. Comments Received
One commenter noted that 18 U.S.C. 923 does not explicitly require
that secure gun storage or safety devices maintained by Federal
firearms dealers be compatible or even be used, only that they be
available; therefore, according to the commenter, the proposed rule
cannot require it. Further, the commenter noted that ATF has no
authority to revoke the license of a dealer that does not lock up its
firearms.
2. Department Response
The commenter misinterpreted the proposed rule's application. The
proposed rule did not, as the commenter suggested, require federally
licensed dealers to use compatible devices on their inventory, nor did
the rule require them to lock up and store their firearms inventory.
Rather, the NPRM proposed implementing 18 U.S.C. 923(d)(1)(G) by
requiring applicants for dealer licenses, or those licensed
manufacturers and importers that will also deal firearms to nonlicensed
individuals as permitted in 27 CFR 478.41(b), to certify only that
compatible secure gun storage or safety devices are available at any
place where firearms are sold under the license to nonlicensed
individuals.
The Department believes the compatibility language in the rule is

[[Page 185]]

consistent with the text of the statute because it clarifies that the
secure gun storage or safety devices made available must be compatible
with the firearms offered for sale by the licensee.
Courts have explained that ``the administration and enforcement of
a statute call upon the agency charged with its execution to interpret
it.'' Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Dep't of Transportation, 843 F.2d
1444, 1449 (D.C. Cir. 1988). When a court is called upon to review an
agency's construction of a statute it administers, the court looks to
the framework set forth in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The first step of Chevron
review is to ask ``whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise
question at issue.'' Id. 842. ``If the intent of Congress is clear,
that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency,
must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If,
however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the
precise question at issue . . . the question for the court is whether
the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the
statute.'' Id. at 842-43 (footnote omitted). Although the Act defines
``secure gun storage or safety device,'' that definition does not
specify whether or with which sorts of firearms the secure gun storage
and safety devices must be compatible. The Department believes that
this rule comports with the best reading of the statute and permissibly
clarifies that such storage and devices must be compatible with the
firearms sold at the licensed premises. This specification in the
regulation resolves any ambiguity in the statute and fulfills its
purpose because customers purchasing firearms should be able to leave
the premises with a secure gun storage or safety device that is
compatible with the type of firearm they purchased. A contrary rule,
under which licensees could comply with the statute by making available
exclusively devices that are incompatible with the firearms they sell,
would unreasonably thwart Congress's evident purpose in the Act. See
City of Chicago v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco &
Firearms, 423 F.3d 777, 781 (7th Cir. 2005) (statutes should not be
read in a way that ``would thwart Congress' intention'').

C. Comments on Noncompliance Evidence in License Denial or Revocation
Procedures

1. Comments Received
In the NPRM, ATF referenced a provision in the Act that states that
``evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance [with the secure gun
storage or safety device requirement] shall not be admissible as
evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other
entity.'' See Public Law 105-277, sec. 119. ATF explained that, based
on basic tenets of statutory construction, it reads the evidentiary
limitation as applying only ``to civil liability actions against
dealers and other similar actions, and not to proceedings associated
with license denials or revocations (or appeals in Federal court from
decisions in such proceedings) involving noncompliance with the secure
gun storage or safety device requirement'' of the Act. 81 FR at 33449.
Three commenters asserted that this provision of the Act prohibits
the use of a dealer's compliance or noncompliance with the secure gun
storage or safety device requirement in any administrative proceedings
to deny or revoke a Federal firearms license. Two commenters also
argued that ATF's interpretation substitutes its judgment for that of
Congress, and, by effectively amending legislation, violates the
``Separation of Powers Doctrine.'' These commenters stated that ATF
does not have the power to change or ignore statutes. They argued that
words have meaning, and that ATF cannot construe statutes to permit
something the plain text prohibits or create an exception for ATF's
administrative hearings where one does not exist in the law.
2. Department Response
The Department respectfully disagrees. There are at least two
canons of statutory interpretation that inform the Department's reading
of the evidence provision the commenters relied on. The first relevant
canon provides that, ``[w]henever a power is given by statute,
everything necessary to make it effectual or requisite to attain the
end is implied.'' Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1093, 1097 (2016)
(Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American
Law 464 (13th ed. 1884)). The second relevant canon provides that a
``court will not merely look to a particular clause in which general
words may be used, but will take in connection with it the whole
statute . . . and the objects and policy of the law.'' Stafford v.
Briggs, 444 U.S. 527, 535 (1980) (quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 19 How.
183, 194 (1857)). The evidence provision cannot be read in isolation.
Rather, it must be read within the context of the rest of the statute,
including the specific grant of authority for the Attorney General to
revoke the license of a licensee that does not comply with the Act.
Moreover, the Act specifically provides that none of its amendments
``shall be construed . . . as creating a cause of action against any
firearms dealer or any other person for any civil liability.'' 18
U.S.C. 923 note. That prohibition on civil liability implies that
Congress expected compliance with the secure gun storage or safety
device requirement to be enforced not by private individuals in civil
actions, but by the Attorney General in administrative proceedings, in
accordance with the specific authority granted to the Attorney General
to do so in 18 U.S.C. 923(e). The Attorney General could not fulfill
this role if, as asserted by the commenters, evidence of noncompliance
could not be used in administrative proceedings related to that
noncompliance, thus indicating that the evidence provision in the Act
does not apply to administrative proceedings regarding compliance with
the secure gun storage or safety device requirement. Cf. United States
v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 315 (2011) (``Courts should not
render statutes nugatory through construction.'').
The Department's interpretation of the evidence provision is
further supported by the legislative history. The secure gun storage
provisions that were enacted were initially sponsored by Senator Larry
Craig as part of S.10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act of
1997, for which a Senate report was produced by the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary.\2\ The Committee's report stated that ``[t]he penalty
for willful violation . . . is revocation of the dealer's license,
after notice and opportunity for hearing is given pursuant to current
law.'' \3\ Thus, the Committee evidently expected that noncompliance
with the secure gun storage and safety device provisions would be
enforced through administrative proceedings, including a hearing. It
would accordingly be nonsensical to bar the Attorney General from using
evidence of such noncompliance in the same proceedings. Congress, in
other words, would not have written the specific amendments giving the
Attorney General the ability to revoke or deny a license based on
noncompliance if

[[Page 186]]

evidence of noncompliance could not be considered at the hearing ATF is
required to conduct under the law. Accordingly--in light of the context
in which the evidence provision appears, the legislative history
underlying the secure gun storage or safety device requirement, and the
authority granted in section 923(e)--the Department's position that the
evidence provision does not apply to ATF's enforcement hearings or
actions is the best interpretation of the law, and is certainly a
permissible interpretation of the provision. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at
843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ S. Rep. No. 105-108, at 108 (1997).
\3\ Id. (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, Congress expressly authorized the Attorney General to
deny or revoke a license if the licensee or applicant fails to have or
certify that it has secure gun storage or safety devices available at
any place in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who
are not licensees (with the same exceptions noted above). 18 U.S.C.
923(d), (e). To exercise this authority, the Attorney General is
required to provide notice to an applicant or licensee and, upon
request of the aggrieved party, is authorized to conduct an
administrative hearing to make a final determination. 18 U.S.C. 923(e),
(f); 27 CFR 771.40-44. The agency's final decision is appealable to a
Federal court. 18 U.S.C. 923(f)(3). ATF \4\ can also institute criminal
proceedings against a licensee for violations of the GCA or the
regulations. 18 U.S.C. 923(f)(4). The express statutory grant of
authority in section 923 to deny or revoke a license based on evidence
of noncompliance supersedes the general language the commenters relied
on. See RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639,
645 (2012) (citing HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 6 (1981)
(per curiam), for the proposition that the specific governs the
general, ``particularly when the two [statutes] are interrelated and
closely positioned, both in fact being parts of [the same statutory
scheme]''); Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398, 406 (1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA,
as amended. This responsibility includes the authority to promulgate
regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA. See 18
U.S.C. 926(a). The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility
for administering and enforcing the GCA to the ATF Director, subject
to the direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney
General. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Comments on Definitions of ``Rifle'' and ``Shotgun''

1. Comments Received
Comments relating to the definitions of ``rifle'' and ``shotgun''
stated that, to prevent confusion between a modern rifle or shotgun and
a muzzleloader or antique firearm, and to preclude future Federal
``over reach'' to classify muzzle loading arms as rifles, the
definitions should specifically exclude muzzle loading arms using black
powder or black powder substitutes. Additionally, one commenter stated
that ``explosive'' is not the correct word for the propellant in a
modern firearm and suggested amending the term ``explosive'' in the
definitions of ``rifle'' and ``shotgun'' to reference smokeless solid
propellants that deflagrate rather than detonate, thereby clarifying
that metallic cartridge firearms using smokeless propellants do not
fall under the definitions of ``rifle'' or ``shotgun'' due to their
lack of use of an explosive that detonates.
2. Department Response
The Department respectfully declines to revise the definitions of
``rifle'' and ``shotgun'' to refer to smokeless solid propellants,
rather than an ``explosive,'' because doing so would not be consistent
with the statutory definitions set forth in the Act. The current
statutory definition for ``antique firearm'' excludes certain muzzle
loading firearms using black powder or black powder substitutes from
the definition of ``firearm,'' thus making the inclusion of additional
language to exclude them unnecessary. This final rule updates the
existing regulations to reflect the current language of the statute.
Further, the Department does not agree with the suggested
clarification of the term ``explosive'' in the definitions of ``rifle''
and ``shotgun.'' The use of the phrase ``by action of an explosive''
within the definitions of ``rifle'' and ``shotgun'' is appropriate, as
it is descriptive of a process and not a classification of the
propellant powder. The provisions of the Act relating to antique
firearms and definitions of the terms ``rifle'' and ``shotgun'' became
effective on the day of enactment, October 21, 1998. This final rule
updates the existing regulations to reflect the current language of the
statute.

IV. Final Rule

This final rule implements the amendments to the regulations in 27
CFR part 478 that were specified in the NPRM published on May 26, 2016
(81 FR 33448) without change.

V. 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,
environmental, 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 maintaining
flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that,
although this final rule is not economically significant, it is a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(4) of Executive
Order 12866 because this final rule raises novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed
by OMB.
This rule requires that Federal firearms licensees (``FFLs'') make
available secure gun storage or safety devices to non-FFLs that
purchase firearms. Furthermore, this rule requires that all FFLs must
certify that they have secure gun storage or safety devices available
if they sell firearms to non-FFLs. This section describes the affected
population, costs, and benefits for this rule. In determining the costs
and benefits of this rule, ATF has followed OMB guidance for conducting
regulatory analyses. See OMB, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive
Agencies and Establishments, Re: Regulatory Analysis, Circular A-4
(Sept. 17, 2003) (``Circular A-4''). According to that guidance,
regulations such as this one that largely restate self-enforcing
statutory requirements should be analyzed against a baseline that pre-
dates the enactment of the relevant statute. Thus, although ATF has
implemented and enforced the Act in the years since its passage even in
the absence of the regulation at issue in this rulemaking, the costs
and benefits of doing so have been attributed to this regulation for
the purpose of this analysis.
Table 1 provides the summary of the expected effects that this rule
will have on the public. For more details regarding this analysis,
please refer to the standalone regulatory analysis (``RA'') located on
the docket.

[[Page 187]]

Table 1--Summary of Affected Population, Costs, and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.......................... All FFLs.
Type 1 FFL--Dealer in
firearms other than
destructive devices.
Type 2 FFL--Pawnbroker
in firearms other than
destructive devices.
Affected Population.................... 130,525 FFLs.
52,795 Type 1 FFLs.
7,114 Type 2 FFLs.
Total Costs to Industry, Public, and $853,187 at 7% annualized.
Government (7% Discount Rate).
Savings (7% Discount Rate)............. N/A.
Benefits (7% Discount Rate)............ N/A.
Benefits non-monetized................. Inhibits unauthorized
access to privately owned
firearms by individuals such
as children, who might suffer
accidental injuries.
Inhibits access to
privately owned firearms by
criminals, who might use them
for illicit activities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for Federal Regulation
Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One reason is
to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in statutes.
Here, this rulemaking aims to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 relating to secure
gun storage. Another reason underpinning regulatory action is the
failure of the market to compensate for negative externalities caused
by commercial activity. A negative externality can be the byproduct of
a transaction between two parties that is not accounted for in the
transaction. This final rule addresses a negative externality. The
negative externality of the sale of firearms is that the firearms might
not be stored properly and could be accessed by children who could
cause accidents with the firearms or accessed by criminals who would
use them for illicit activities. This rule provides nonlicensed firearm
owners with the option to have devices that enable them to store their
firearms so as to inhibit children or criminals from accessing their
firearms.
2. Affected Population
This rulemaking affects two populations. The first population is
the number of FFLs required to certify on Form 7/7CR that secure gun
storage or safety devices will be available at any place in which
firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees.
The second population is the number of FFLs that need to acquire secure
gun storage or safety devices to make available at their place of
business.
Entities directly affected by the requirement to certify the
availability of secure gun storage or safety devices are all FFLs.
Although this rule primarily affects FFLs that sell firearms to
nonlicensed persons, this rule affects all FFLs in that all FFL
applicants must indicate on the Form 7/7CR application whether the
applicants have gun storage or safety devices available for
nonlicensees or whether this requirement is not applicable because they
are seeking a Type 3 license for collectors.
Because the Act was enacted shortly before 1999, and because ATF
has required certification since 1999, ATF estimated the affected
population to be all FFLs from 1999 to present. However, FFLs have to
certify the availability of secure gun storage or safety devices only
when they apply as new FFLs or every three years when they renew their
Federal firearms license. Tables 2 and 3 show the numbers of new
applications and renewals by FFL type and year. For more information on
the methodology used to determine the numbers of new FFLs by Type,
please refer to the standalone RA.

Table 2--New and Renewal Applications of Type 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 Federal Firearms Licensees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06--Manufacturer
Year 01--Dealer in 02--Pawnbroker in 03--Collector of of ammunition for 07--Manufacturer
firearms firearms curios and relics firearms of firearms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..................................................... 24,977 3,516 19,919 787 574
2000..................................................... 24,829 3,583 19,919 777 652
2001..................................................... 24,788 3,572 19,919 757 715
2002..................................................... 24,660 3,615 19,919 727 800
2003..................................................... 24,553 3,639 19,919 723 874
2004..................................................... 24,547 3,579 19,919 711 938
2005..................................................... 24,494 3,553 19,919 683 1,034
2006..................................................... 24,406 3,503 19,919 679 1,143
2007..................................................... 24,266 3,434 19,919 690 1,315
2008..................................................... 24,148 3,345 19,919 708 1,482
2009..................................................... 23,763 3,337 19,919 759 1,782
2010..................................................... 23,284 3,368 19,919 859 2,097
2011..................................................... 20,956 3,046 22,338 816 2,343
2012..................................................... 21,259 3,105 21,622 855 3,104
2013..................................................... 22,274 3,221 13,134 966 3,748
2014..................................................... 22,049 3,235 6,767 1,033 3,966
2015..................................................... 20,876 3,029 18,671 967 3,901
2016..................................................... 22,104 3,146 19,322 957 4,317
2017..................................................... 21,896 3,043 18,876 873 4,622
2018..................................................... 20,479 2,799 17,643 776 4,603
2019..................................................... 20,034 2,726 17,478 709 4,848

[[Page 188]]

2020..................................................... 22,710 3,060 20,150 777 6,076
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Numbers may not add for Type 1 FFLs due to adjustments to ensure the numbers of applications in Tables 2 and 3 match total FFLs in this table.

Table 3--New and Renewal Applications of Type 8, 9, 10, and 11 Federal Firearms Licensees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
09--Dealer in 10--Manufacturer 11--Importer of Total new
Year 08--Importer of destructive of destructive destructive applications and
firearms devices devices devices renewals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..................................................... 265 4 44 26 50,112
2000..................................................... 275 4 46 26 50,111
2001..................................................... 283 5 45 28 50,112
2002..................................................... 303 7 52 31 50,114
2003..................................................... 307 7 56 35 50,113
2004..................................................... 315 7 60 37 50,113
2005..................................................... 317 7 66 40 50,113
2006..................................................... 327 8 81 47 50,113
2007..................................................... 338 11 86 52 50,111
2008..................................................... 344 15 94 57 50,112
2009..................................................... 365 17 107 64 50,113
2010..................................................... 375 20 119 71 50,112
2011..................................................... 349 18 112 69 50,047
2012..................................................... 355 22 109 71 50,502
2013..................................................... 411 24 113 76 43,967
2014..................................................... 451 26 114 80 37,721
2015..................................................... 428 25 117 82 48,096
2016..................................................... 429 27 130 86 50,518
2017..................................................... 430 30 138 90 49,998
2018..................................................... 413 36 138 88 46,975
2019..................................................... 413 48 146 94 46,496
2020..................................................... 489 55 182 116 53,615
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: Numbers may not add for Type 1 FFLs due to adjustments to ensure the number of applications in Tables 2 and 3 match total FFLs in this table.

The second population directly affected by this rule primarily
consists of Type 1 and 2 FFLs that sell firearms to the public. These
FFLs must acquire secure gun storage or safety devices to be made
available to firearm purchasers in their place of business. Based on
the year the Act was enacted, ATF assumed that all Type 1 and 2 FFLs in
1999 had to acquire secure gun storage or safety devices to make
available to any potential nonlicensee customers. From 2000 onwards,
only new FFLs would need to acquire some form of gun storage or safety
devices to make available to their customers. Although this rule
affects all FFLs that sell firearms to nonlicensed individuals, no cost
was attributed to Type 9, 10, and 11 licensees because they primarily
deal, manufacture, and import destructive devices used by domestic and
foreign governments rather than selling firearms at the retail level to
nonlicensed individuals. Similarly, although Type 7 and 8 licensees are
manufacturers and importers that may sell firearms to nonlicensed
persons, most of these licensees, even prior to enactment of the Act,
have voluntarily included secure gun storage or safety devices for
their firearms, and hence would not have needed to separately acquire
such storage or devices to make them available to nonlicensees.\5\ Of
those Type 7 and 8 FFLs that do not provide secure gun storage or
safety devices, ATF assumed these licensees primarily sell firearms
wholesale to Type 1 FFLs and do not sell to nonlicensed persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See Hearing before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the
S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 117th Cong. (2021), 2021 WL 2138600
(discussing the success of Project ChildSafe, through which
``manufacturers have voluntarily included a locking device in every
box sold since the late 1980's'' (testimony of Joseph Bartozzi,
President and CEO, National Shooting Sports Foundation)); S. Rep.
No. 105-108, at 201-02 (``The arguments raised against safety locks
ring hollow, especially in light of the recent announcement by
eight[] of the Nation's largest handgun manufacturers that they will
voluntarily comply with the heart of Senator Kohl's amendment by
packaging a child safety lock with every handgun they sell.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on congressional testimony and subject matter experts'
(``SMEs'') experience, most firearm manufacturers now include locks
with new purchases of firearms, and, as noted above, have been doing so
since before the enactment of the Act.\6\ ATF, however, is not certain
of the exact date when manufacturers and importers began voluntarily
providing locks and, in the interest of not underestimating the costs
attributable to this rule, ATF assumed that all Type 1 FFLs in 1999
would need to acquire secure gun storage or safety devices to make
available to their customers. ATF then estimated that, as manufacturers
and importers continued to provide locks with their firearms, and as
this practice became more common, a decreasing number of FFLs needed to
acquire secure gun storage or safety devices each year until year 2003.
After 2003, ATF maintained a constant rate of 20 percent of FFLs that
do not receive safety devices with the firearms they sell to account
for any manufacturers and importers that, even today, do not provide
safety devices with their firearms. In addition, Type 2 FFLs are
pawnshops that acquire previously owned firearms. ATF does not know

[[Page 189]]

whether the firearms acquired by Type 2 FFLs have secure locks or not.
Therefore, ATF assumed that all new Type 2 FFLs need to acquire secure
gun storage or safety devices to satisfy the requirements of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because Type 2 FFLs primarily deal with secondhand firearms and not
new purchases, ATF assumed that, in 1999, all Type 2 FFLs acquired
secure gun storage or safety devices and, from 2000 onward, only new
Type 2 FFLs needed to acquire a means of securing firearms. Therefore,
ATF assumed that pawnbrokers from 2000 to 2020 consisted only of new
Type 2 FFLs.
Table 4 provides the estimated number of Type 1 and 2 FFLs that
needed to acquire secure gun storage or safety devices and make them
available at their place of business for potential nonlicensed
customers. For more detailed information on obtaining the population of
FFLs needing to acquire secure gun storage or safety devices to make
available, please refer to the standalone RA.

Table 4--FFL Types 1 and 2 That Needed To Purchase Secure Gun Storage or Safety Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate of FFLs that
do not receive Type 2 FFL
Year New type 1 FFL locks from Type 1 FFL needing
manufacturers (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................... 71,290 100 71,290 10,035
2000............................... 8,677 80 6,942 1,252
2001............................... 8,663 60 5,198 1,248
2002............................... 8,618 40 3,447 1,263
2003............................... 8,581 20 1,716 1,272
2004............................... 8,579 20 1,716 1,251
2005............................... 8,560 20 1,712 1,242
2006............................... 8,529 20 1,706 1,224
2007............................... 8,481 20 1,696 1,200
2008............................... 8,439 20 1,688 1,169
2009............................... 8,305 20 1,661 1,166
2010............................... 8,137 20 1,627 1,177
2011............................... 7,768 20 1,554 854
2012............................... 9,034 20 1,807 971
2013............................... 10,177 20 2,035 1,063
2014............................... 7,874 20 1,575 823
2015............................... 7,088 20 1,418 730
2016............................... 7,552 20 1,510 762
2017............................... 6,599 20 1,320 645
2018............................... 6,314 20 1,263 603
2019............................... 5,667 20 1,133 532
2020............................... 8,442 20 1,688 772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Costs
This analysis considers the rule's direct (or industry) costs,
indirect costs, and government costs. Industry costs are the costs to
FFLs that need to certify the availability of secure gun storage or
safety devices and the costs to FFLs that need to acquire secure gun
storage or safety devices to make available to the public. Indirect
costs are those costs associated with organizations and manufacturers
providing gun locks or safety devices. Government costs are enforcement
costs to ensure that the affected FFLs have been and are continuing to
comply with the statute.
In determining direct, industry costs, ATF used the average wage
rate associated with certain job titles listed on Form 7/7CR by FFL
type. ATF used a loaded wage rate of 1.42 to include fringe benefits
such as insurance as part of the overall compensation.\7\ Because FFLs
are segmented by industry type, ATF used a sample from each industry
type to determine an average wage rate by each FFL type. For FFLs
completing Form 7CR, ATF assigned a leisure wage rate of $16.52 because
FFLs that complete Form 7CR are Type 3 FFLs--i.e., collectors who do
not apply for a license as part of an occupation.\8\ Although Type 3
FFL collectors are not required to make available secure gun storage or
safety devices, they are still required to answer the question about
availability on Form 7CR by marking ``N/A.'' Therefore, costs for that
action were counted as an industry cost of this rule. For more
information on the wages used for each sample, please refer the
standalone RA. Table 5 provides the average loaded wage rate by FFL
type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Series Report, https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate. Data was generated for 2020 using
series CMU2010000000000D, CMU2010000000000P and CMU2020000000000D,
CMU2020000000000P. Average total compensation was $35.87. Average
cost per hour worked was $25.18. Loaded wage rate 1.42 = $35.87/
$25.18.
\8\ As explained more fully in the accompanying RA, the leisure
wage rate was estimated using the calculation described in the
Department of Transportation's guidance on the valuation of travel
time. See Dep't of Transportation, Revised Departmental Guidance on
Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis 19 (Sept. 27, 2016),
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf.

Table 5--Average Loaded Wage Rate by FFL Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types 1 and 2........................................... $82.06
Type 3.................................................. 16.52
Type 6.................................................. 58.91
Type 7.................................................. 62.93
Type 8.................................................. 76.13
Type 9.................................................. 103.44
Type 10................................................. 87.86
Type 11................................................. 109.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 190]]

The time needed for an FFL to certify on Form 7/7CR that it has
secure gun storage or safety devices (or to mark ``N/A'') was estimated
at 0.1 minute (0.0017 hours). ATF started with the average loaded wage
rate by type of license, multiplied the wage rate by the estimated
number of new and renewal FFLs per type from Tables 2 and 3, and
multiplied that result by the hour burden to determine the annual cost
to certify. Tables 6 and 7 provide the annual costs to certify by FFL
type from 1999 to the present.

Table 6--Cost To Certify by FFL Types 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Types 1 and 2 Type 3 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..................................................... $3,897 $548 $77 $60 $34
2000..................................................... 3,886 548 76 68 35
2001..................................................... 3,879 548 74 75 36
2002..................................................... 3,867 548 71 84 38
2003..................................................... 3,856 548 71 92 39
2004..................................................... 3,847 548 70 98 40
2005..................................................... 3,836 548 67 108 40
2006..................................................... 3,817 548 67 120 41
2007..................................................... 3,788 548 68 138 43
2008..................................................... 3,760 548 70 155 44
2009..................................................... 3,706 548 75 187 46
2010..................................................... 3,645 548 84 220 48
2011..................................................... 3,283 615 80 246 44
2012..................................................... 3,332 595 84 326 45
2013..................................................... 3,487 362 95 393 52
2014..................................................... 3,458 186 101 416 57
2015..................................................... 3,269 514 95 409 54
2016..................................................... 3,453 532 94 453 54
2017..................................................... 3,411 520 86 485 55
2018..................................................... 3,184 486 76 483 52
2019..................................................... 3,113 481 70 508 52
2020..................................................... 3,524 555 76 637 62
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7--Cost To Certify by FFL Types 9, 10, and 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Type 9 Type 10 Type 11 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999................................ $1 $6 $5 $4,564
2000................................ 1 7 5 4,562
2001................................ 1 7 5 4,561
2002................................ 1 8 6 4,560
2003................................ 1 8 6 4,558
2004................................ 1 9 7 4,556
2005................................ 1 10 7 4,554
2006................................ 1 12 9 4,551
2007................................ 2 13 9 4,545
2008................................ 3 14 10 4,540
2009................................ 3 16 12 4,529
2010................................ 3 17 13 4,515
2011................................ 3 16 13 4,300
2012................................ 4 16 13 4,415
2013................................ 4 17 14 4,423
2014................................ 4 17 15 4,255
2015................................ 4 17 15 4,378
2016................................ 5 19 16 4,626
2017................................ 5 20 16 4,597
2018................................ 6 20 16 4,323
2019................................ 8 21 17 4,271
2020................................ 9 27 21 4,912
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For purposes of this analysis, ATF estimated that Type 1 and 2 FFLs
that must comply with the Act would have purchased at least two safety
devices at an average price of $7.39 per safety device and tape ($2.36)
to notate the owner of the gun. Combined, the average price to make
available secure gun storage or safety devices for customers is $17.14
per store. For sources of costs to make available secure gun storage or
safety devices, refer to section 3.1.2 of the standalone RA.
For an annual direct, industry cost of certifying and making
available secure gun storage or safety devices, refer to Table 8. That
table provides the annual cost of certifying and making available
secure gun storage or safety devices from 1999 to 2020.

[[Page 191]]

Table 8--Year by Year Direct, Industry Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost
Year Undiscounted -------------------------------------
industry costs 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999................................................... $1,398,539 $6,196,088 $2,679,745
2000................................................... 147,582 611,072 274,546
2001................................................... 117,089 453,096 211,475
2002................................................... 86,808 313,942 152,218
2003................................................... 56,753 191,821 96,618
2004................................................... 56,368 178,057 93,168
2005................................................... 56,157 165,784 90,115
2006................................................... 55,727 153,753 86,821
2007................................................... 55,132 142,161 83,393
2008................................................... 54,445 131,204 79,954
2009................................................... 53,922 121,442 76,879
2010................................................... 53,517 112,645 74,080
2011................................................... 45,572 89,646 61,244
2012................................................... 52,034 95,663 67,893
2013................................................... 57,778 99,274 73,192
2014................................................... 45,742 73,451 56,256
2015................................................... 41,188 61,813 49,181
2016................................................... 43,561 61,097 50,499
2017................................................... 38,282 50,179 43,086
2018................................................... 36,298 44,466 39,664
2019................................................... 32,817 37,572 34,815
2020................................................... 47,075 50,370 48,487
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 2,632,384 9,434,596 4,523,330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized......................................... ................. 852,942 283,827
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to direct, industry costs for Type 1 and 2 FFLs to make
available secure gun storage or safety devices, the government incurred
costs to enforce secure gun storage and safety device requirements on
FFLs. Based on ATF's database, ATF found two violations in 2019 and six
violations in 2020, making the average number of violations four. Based
on input from SMEs, ATF determined that Industry Operations
Investigators (``IOI'') undertaking inspections related to the secure
gun storage and safety device requirement range from a GS-9 to GS-13,
making the average IOI a GS-10, step 5. The hourly wage rate for a GS-
10, step 5 is $27.56.\9\ In order to account for fringe benefits, ATF
attributed a load rate of 1.41, making the loaded, hourly wage rate for
an IOI $38.86.\10\ \11\ The SMEs estimated that it would take an
average of 20 minutes (0.33 hours) to have a conversation with the FFL
in question and compile a report or warning regarding the violation,
making the government cost $26 in 2019 and $78 in 2020. Because ATF
does not have any information regarding inspections for previous years,
ATF used the average of four violations per year as the government cost
for enforcement between the years 1999 and 2018. The average cost of
enforcement was estimated to be $52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Office of Personnel Management, SALARY TABLE 2021-GS (Jan.
2021), https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2021/GS_h.pdf.
\10\ Federal benefits account for 41 percent of total
compensation. Congressional Budget Office, Comparing the
Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees, 2011 to 2015,
at 14 (Apr. 2017), https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf.
\11\ $38.86 loaded wage rate = $27.56 hourly wage rate * 1.41
load rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATF accounts for indirect costs of this rule although they are not
considered part of the total cost of the rule. Other organizations,
such as Project ChildSafe, provide gun locks free to the public, which
ends up being a savings for the populations affected by this rule.
Because these costs are voluntarily incurred, they are considered
indirect costs. Based on information provided by Project ChildSafe,
which primarily obtains its funding through other sources, this
organization has provided approximately 38 million gun locks to the
public and provides approximately 1.8 million gun lock kits
annually.\12\ Furthermore, Project ChildSafe estimates that
manufacturers have included approximately 70 million locks with a
purchase of a firearm, which they estimate is valued at $140
million.\13\ These are indirect costs that ATF does not consider as
part of the total costs of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Project ChildSafe, Project ChildSafe by the Numbers,
https://www.projectchildsafe.org/sites/default/files/NSSF_PCS_Infographic_PCSByTheNumbers_Jan2019_0.pdf (last accessed
Dec. 17, 2021).
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other indirect costs include firearm manufacturers who voluntarily
include safety devices with each purchase of a new firearm. While
manufacturers are not required to provide gun locks with their firearms
due to this rule, it is possible that manufacturers have incorporated
the cost of these gun locks into the final purchasing price of the
firearm and is therefore already accounted for. It is for these reasons
that ATF does not consider these indirect costs as costs attributed to
this rule.
ATF accounted for the direct, industry costs of this rule along
with the government enforcement costs attributed to this rule. Table 9
provides the total costs for this rule.

[[Page 192]]

Table 9--Total Direct, Industry and Government Costs of This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discounted cost
Year Undiscounted -------------------------------------
total costs 7% 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999................................................... $1,398,590 $6,196,318 $2,679,844
2000................................................... 147,634 611,287 274,642
2001................................................... 117,140 453,296 211,569
2002................................................... 86,859 314,130 152,309
2003................................................... 56,805 191,996 96,706
2004................................................... 56,420 178,221 93,254
2005................................................... 56,209 165,937 90,198
2006................................................... 55,779 153,896 86,902
2007................................................... 55,184 142,294 83,471
2008................................................... 54,497 131,329 80,030
2009................................................... 53,973 121,558 76,953
2010................................................... 53,569 112,754 74,152
2011................................................... 45,623 89,748 61,314
2012................................................... 52,086 95,758 67,960
2013................................................... 57,830 99,363 73,257
2014................................................... 45,793 73,534 56,320
2015................................................... 41,240 61,890 49,243
2016................................................... 43,613 61,170 50,559
2017................................................... 38,333 50,247 43,145
2018................................................... 36,350 44,530 39,720
2019................................................... 32,843 37,602 34,843
2020................................................... 47,153 50,454 48,567
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 2,633,524 9,437,311 4,524,959
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized......................................... ................. 853,187 283,929
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, ATF estimated that, in accordance with the standards for
regulatory analysis described in OMB Circular A-4, the total cost
attributable to this rule from 1999 to 2020 was $2.6 million
undiscounted, or annualized at $853,187 and $283,929 at 7 percent and 3
percent, respectively.
4. Benefits
The benefit of this rule is making available secure gun storage or
safety devices for owners of firearms who otherwise do not have such
storage or safety devices available to them. Making secure gun storage
or safety devices available inhibits unauthorized access to privately
owned firearms for individuals such as children, who might accidently
discharge them, and inhibits access by criminals, who might use them
for illicit activities.

B. Executive Order 13132

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or
on 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 rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

C. Executive Order 12988

This rule 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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-12, the Attorney
General certifies that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
Department has considered whether this final rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
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.
ATF has determined that, in order for the costs associated with
this rule to impact a small entity's revenue by even one percent, the
entity would need to make $1,728 or less in annual revenue. For the
costs to have a 10 percent effect on revenue, a small entity would need
to make $173 or less in revenue. ATF has determined that it is unlikely
that a small entity would make such minimal amounts in revenue and
continue to operate. Therefore, the Attorney General certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the aggregate expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C.
3501-21, agencies are required to submit for OMB review and approval
any reporting requirements inherent in a rule. The collection of
information contained in this final rule is a collection of information
that has been reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the
requirements of the PRA, and it has been assigned an OMB Control
Number.
Title: Application for Federal Firearms License--ATF Form 7
(5310.12)/7CR (5310.16).
OMB Control Number: 1140-0018.
Summary of the Collection of Information: This collection of
information is used by the public when applying for a Federal firearms
license

[[Page 193]]

(``FFL''); this form is used to apply for all FFL types.
Need for Information: The information requested on the form is used
to determine the eligibility of the applicant to obtain an FFL, and the
identity and eligibility of Responsible Persons.
Proposed Use of Information: The information contained will be used
to determine the applicant's eligibility to receive a license.
Description of the Respondents: All Federal firearms licensees.
Number of Respondents: 47,088.
Frequency of Response: Once every 3 years.
Burden of Response: For this rule, 0.0017 hours. Total 1 hour.
Estimate of Total Annual Burden: For this rule, 80 hours. Total
burden 47,088 hours.

G. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-08, OMB's
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not
result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a
major increase in costs or prices; or a significant adverse effect on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

Disclosure

Copies of this rule and the comments received in response to the
proposed rule will be available for public inspection through the
Federal eRulemaking portal, www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-
AA10), or by appointment during normal business hours at the ATF
Reading Room, Room 1E-062, 99 New York Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20226;
telephone: (202) 648-8740.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 478

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports,
Freight, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement
officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.

Authority and Issuance

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part
478 is amended as follows:

PART 478--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION

0
1. The authority citation for part 478 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-931; 44 U.S.C.
3504(h).

0
2. Amend Sec. 478.11 as follows:
0
a. Revise the definition of ``Antique firearm'';
0
b. Remove the words ``the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge'' in
the definition of ``Rifle'' and add in their place ``an explosive'';
0
c, Add a definition for ``Secure gun storage or safety device'' in
alphabetical order; and
0
d. Remove the words ``the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell'' in the
definition of ``Shotgun'' and add in their place ``an explosive''.
The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec. 478.11 Meaning of terms.

* * * * *
Antique firearm. (1) Any firearm (including any firearm with a
matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition
system) manufactured in or before 1898;
(2) Any replica of any firearm described in paragraph (a) of this
definition if such replica:
(i) Is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional
centerfire fixed ammunition; or
(ii) Uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that
is no longer manufactured in the United States and that is not readily
available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or
(3) Any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle
loading pistol that is designed to use black powder, or a black powder
substitute, and that cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this
paragraph (3), the term ``antique firearm'' does not include any weapon
that incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm that is
converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon
that can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the
barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof.
* * * * *
Secure gun storage or safety device. (1) A device that, when
installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being
operated without first deactivating the device;
(2) A device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is
designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having
access to the device; or
(3) A safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is
designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed
to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar
means.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec. 478.73 by adding a sentence after the first sentence in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 478.73 Notice of revocation, suspension, or imposition of civil
fine.

(a) * * * In addition, a notice of revocation of the license, on
ATF Form 4500, may be issued whenever the Director has reason to
believe that a licensee fails to have secure gun storage or safety
devices available at any place in which firearms are sold under the
license to persons who are not licensees (except in any case in which a
secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because
of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a
manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the
licensee). * * *
* * * * *

0
4. Add Sec. 478.104 to subpart F to read as follows:

Sec. 478.104 Secure gun storage or safety device.

(a) Any person who applies to be a licensed firearms dealer must
certify on ATF Form 7 (5310.12), Application for Federal Firearms
License, that compatible secure gun storage or safety devices will be
available at any place where firearms are sold under the license to
nonlicensed individuals (subject to the exception that in any case in
which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable
because of theft, casualty, loss, consumer sales, backorders from a
manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the
licensee, the dealer shall not be considered in violation of the
requirement to make available such a device).
(b) Any person who applies to be a licensed firearms importer or a
licensed manufacturer and will be engaged in business on the licensed
premises as a dealer in the same type of firearms authorized by the
license to be imported or manufactured must make the certification
required under paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Each licensee described in this section must have compatible
secure gun storage or safety devices available at any place in which
firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees.
However, such licensee shall

[[Page 194]]

not be considered to be in violation of this requirement if a secure
gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of
theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer,
or any other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee.

Dated: December 23, 2021.
Merrick B. Garland,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2021-28398 Filed 1-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P