[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 53 (Thursday, March 20, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13080-13084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04872]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
27 CFR Part 478
28 CFR Part 0
[Docket No. OLP-179; AG Order No. 6212-2025]
RIN 1105-AB78
Withdrawing the Attorney General's Delegation of Authority
AGENCY: Office of the Attorney General, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim final rule (``IFR'') amends the Department of
Justice (``Department'') regulations relating to the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (``ATF'') by withdrawing effectively
moribund regulations regarding how ATF will adjudicate applications for
relief from the disabilities imposed by certain firearms laws and
withdrawing a related delegation.
DATES:
Effective date: This interim final rule is effective March 20,
2025.
Comments: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 18,
2025. Comments postmarked on or before that date will be considered
timely. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept
comments until midnight Eastern Time on that date.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide comments regarding this rulemaking,
you must submit comments, identified by the agency name and referencing
RIN 1105-AB78 or Docket No. OLP-179, by one of the two methods below.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the website instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Paper comments that duplicate an electronic
submission are unnecessary. If you wish to submit a paper comment in
lieu of electronic submission, please direct the mail to: Robert
Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of
Justice, Room 4252 RFK Building, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20530. To ensure proper handling, please reference the
agency name and RIN 1105-AB78 or Docket No. OLP-179 on your
correspondence. Mailed items must be postmarked on or before the
submission deadline.
Comments submitted in a manner other than the ones listed above,
[[Page 13081]]
including emails or letters sent to the Department officials, will not
be considered comments on the IFR and may not receive a response from
the Department. Please note that the Department cannot accept any
comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, the
Department cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital
media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be
found in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel,
Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, telephone (202)
514-8059 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this
rule. The Department also invites comments that relate to the economic
or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments that
will provide the most assistance to the Department in developing these
procedures will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or
authority that supports such recommended change. Comments must be
submitted in English or accompanied by an English translation.
Each submitted comment should include the agency name and reference
RIN 1105-AB78 or Docket No. OLP-179 for this rulemaking. Please note
that all properly received comments are considered part of the public
record and generally may be made available for public inspection at
https://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally
identifying information (such as name, address, etc.) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter. The Department may, in its discretion,
withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that it
determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. But
all submissions may be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, you may
wish to limit the amount of personal information you include in your
submission.
For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that
is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it
to be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONALLY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you want redacted. The redacted personally
identifying information will be placed in the agency's public docket
file but not posted online.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be
effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
www.regulations.gov. The redacted confidential business information
will not be placed in the public docket file.
II. Background
A. Statutory Framework
Federal law prohibits several categories of persons from
``possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.''
18 U.S.C. 922(g). By statute, it also provides that any ``person who is
prohibited from possessing, shipping, transporting, or receiving
firearms or ammunition may make application to the Attorney General for
relief from th[at] disabilit[y]'' and that ``the Attorney General may
grant such relief if it is established to his satisfaction that the
circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and
reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a
manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief
would not be contrary to the public interest.'' 18 U.S.C. 925(c).
The first version of these provisions was enacted in 1968, see
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Public Law 90-351,
82 Stat. 197 (Jun. 19, 1968). Initially, the Secretary of the Treasury
was empowered to provide relief only to a ``person who has been
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other
weapon or a violation of this chapter or of the National Firearms
Act).'' Id. at 233. Over time, however, that authority was transferred
to the Attorney General and expanded to allow the Attorney General to
provide relief to any ``person who is prohibited from possessing,
shipping, transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition'' and to
allow such a person to ``make application to the Attorney General for
relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws.'' 18 U.S.C.
925(c).
Regulations establishing a process to implement the relief-from-
disabilities provisions of 18 U.S.C. 925(c) were also first promulgated
in 1968. See Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, 33
FR 18555 (Dec. 14, 1968). Initially, those regulations delegated the
Secretary of the Treasury's authority to adjudicate applications to
remove disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service. See 26 CFR 178.144 (1968). Treasury
Department Order 221 (June 6, 1972) created the forerunner of ATF,
within the Department of the Treasury, effective July 1, 1972. See 37
FR 11696. In 1975, the Secretary of the Treasury ``transfer[red] the
functions, powers and duties of the Internal Revenue Service arising
under laws relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives'' to
this new entity. See Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 40 FR 16835 (Apr.
15, 1975).
Under title XI, subtitle B, section 1111 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002) (``HSA''), the
``authorities, functions, personnel, and assets'' of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury were
transferred to the Department, with the exception of certain enumerated
authorities retained by the Department of the Treasury. Id. 1111(c)(2),
(d). In short, the HSA created two separate agencies, ATF in the
Department and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau in the
Department of the Treasury.
Under 28 U.S.C. 509, ``[a]ll functions of other officers of the
Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of
the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General,'' except
for functions not relevant here. Moreover, the HSA expressly provided
that ``the Attorney General may make such provisions as the Attorney
General determines appropriate to authorize the performance by any
officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice of any
function transferred to the Attorney General under this section.'' HSA
1111; see also 28 U.S.C. 510 (``The Attorney General may from time to
time make such provisions as he considers appropriate authorizing the
performance
[[Page 13082]]
by any other officer, employee, or agency of the Department of Justice
of any function of the Attorney General''). In doing so, the HSA made
clear that the primary functions of ATF were investigating ``criminal
and regulatory violations of the Federal firearms, explosives, arson,
alcohol, and tobacco smuggling laws'' as well as other violent crimes
and domestic terrorism as assigned by the Attorney General. HSA
1111(b). It also amended 18 U.S.C. 925(c) to make clear that an
individual seeking relief from the disabilities related to firearms
imposed by Federal laws must now seek relief from the Attorney General.
Id. 1112(f)(6).
Pursuant to this statutory authority, and consistent with
historical practice, the Attorney General delegated authority to
adjudicate requests for relief from disabilities on the use of firearms
as imposed by Federal law to ATF. See 27 CFR 478.144; Reorganization of
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, 68 FR 3744 (Jan. 24, 2003). This
delegation was effectuated through a final rule that took immediate
effect and was exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking. 68 FR 3747.
In the early 1990s, Congress became concerned about the number of
resources that ATF was using to adjudicate requests to relieve
individual Americans from disabilities on their ownership of firearms.
S. Rep. 102-353 (``The Committee believes that the approximately 40
man-years spent annually to investigate and act upon these
investigations and applications would be better utilized to crack down
on violent crime.''). Congressional reports also stated that judging
whether applicants posed ``a danger to public safety'' was ``a very
difficult and subjective task,'' id., and that ``too many felons . . .
whose gun ownership rights were restored went on to commit crimes with
firearms,'' H.R. Rep. 104-183 (1996). To allow ATF to return to its
core function of investigating violations of federal firearms laws, see
id. (``The Committee expects ATF to redeploy the positions and funding
presently supporting firearms disability relief to the Armed Career
Criminal program.''), Congress provided in 1992 that ``none of the
funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon
applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18
U.S.C. 925(c).'' Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102-393, 106 Stat 1729 (1992).
Since then, ATF has been unable to effectuate its regulatory
authority to act on individual applications due to an identical
appropriations rider enacted annually. See, e.g., Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 139 (2024)
(``Provided, That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be
available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from
Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United
States Code''); see also Is there a way for a prohibited person to
restore their right to receive or possess firearms and ammunition?,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/there-way-prohibited-person-restore-their-right-receive-or-possess-firearms-and (last visited February 15, 2025)
(``Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms
disabilities, ATF's annual appropriation since October 1992 has
prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon
applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by
individuals.'').
ATF is, however, able to act on applications for relief from
disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) filed by corporations, which are
historically far less common. See, e.g., Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2024, Public Law 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 139 (2024) (``Provided
further, That such funds shall be available to investigate and act upon
applications filed by corporations for relief from Federal firearms
disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code'').
It has not received such an application since 2018, rendering ATF's
existing regulations effectively moribund.
Nevertheless, as noted above, when it passed the HSA, Congress
chose to transfer authority to remove individual firearms disabilities
from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Attorney General. As a
result, 18 U.S.C. 925(c) continues to provide a remedy to remove
disabilities from firearms possession for certain individuals even
though ATF has been unable to act on any application for such relief
since 1992 due to the annual appropriations rider.\1\ This confusing
state of affairs has taken on greater significance given developments
in Second Amendment jurisprudence since 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Accord Calloway v. DC, 216 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
(recognizing the ``very strong presumption' that appropriation acts
do not amend substantive statutes''); Bldg. & Const. Trades Dep't,
AFL-CIO v. Martin, 961 F.2d 269, 273-74 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (same)
(citing, inter alia, TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 190 (1978). Minis v.
United States, 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 443 (1841); National Treasury
Employees Union v. Devine, 733 F.2d 114, 120 (D.C. Cir. 1984);
General Accounting Office, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law.
2-33 to 2-34 (3d ed. 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Withdrawal of Delegation of Authority to ATF To Implement 18 U.S.C.
925(c)
In Executive Order 14206 of February 6, 2025 (Protecting Second
Amendment Rights), the President reaffirmed our national commitment to
``[t]he Second Amendment [as] an indispensable safeguard of security
and liberty,'' and directed that ``[w]ithin 30 days of the date of this
order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations,
guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of
executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing
infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.''
Consistent with this Order and with the Department's own strong support
for all constitutional rights, including ``the right of the people to
keep and bear arms'' enshrined in the Second Amendment, the Department
has begun that review process in earnest and will provide the President
with a plan as required by Order 14206. The Department simultaneously
recognizes that no constitutional right is limitless; consequently, it
also supports existing laws that ensure, for example, that violent and
dangerous persons remain disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms.
From the Department's perspective, regardless of whether the Second
Amendment requires an individualized restoration process for persons
subject to 18 U.S.C. 922(g), 18 U.S.C. 925(c) reflects an appropriate
avenue to restore firearm rights to certain individuals who no longer
warrant such disability based on a combination of the nature of their
past criminal activity and their subsequent and current law-abiding
behavior while screening out others for whom full restoration of
firearm rights would not be appropriate.
However, ATF, which currently has regulatory authority to act on
applications made under 18 U.S.C. 925(c), has been forbidden from
utilizing any of its appropriated funds for staffing to process
requests by individuals for over 30 years. The Department respects
congressional appropriations prerogatives, and it expects its
forthcoming plan under Executive Order 14206 to include legislative
proposals to modify or rescind the rider. It is also undertaking a
broader examination of how to address the drain on resources that
caused Congress to impose the rider in the first instance, including by
addressing any potential inefficiencies in the regulatory process
created by 26 CFR 178.144. Although the specific contours of any
[[Page 13083]]
new approach to the implementation of 18 U.S.C. 925(c) may be refined
through future rulemaking, the Attorney General has determined, in an
exercise of her discretion under the HSA and 28 U.S.C. 509-510, that
the appropriate first step is to withdraw the delegation to ATF to
administer section 925(c) and withdraw the moribund regulations
governing individual applications to ATF for 18 U.S.C. 925(c) relief.
Consistent with that rider, the process described under 27 CFR 178.144
will not be transferred to any other agency or Department. At the same
time, the statute speaks clearly that the authority provided in 18
U.S.C. 925(c) is conferred on the Attorney General, and no applicable
statute restricts the Attorney General's authority in these
circumstances to delegate that authority or withdraw a prior delegation
or amend prior rules.\2\ Thus, the Attorney General is withdrawing her
delegation of authority to ATF to implement 18 U.S.C. 925(c) by
revising a delegation of authority in 28 CFR 0.130 and removing 27 CFR
478.144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Absent such a clear statement by Congress, an agency is
presumed to have the inherent authority to reconsider its prior
decisions. E.g., Ivy Sports Medicine, LLC v. Burwell, 767 F.3d 81,
86 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Kavanaugh, J.) (``[A]dministrative agencies are
assumed to possess at least some inherent authority to revisit their
prior decisions, at least if done in a timely fashion. . . .
``[I]nherent authority for timely administrative reconsideration is
premised on the notion that the power to reconsider is inherent in
the power to decide.'' (quotation marks and citations omitted));
Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 825-26 (5th Cir. 2002) (``It is
generally accepted that in the absence of a specific statutory
limitation, an administrative agency has the inherent authority to
reconsider its decisions.'') (collecting cases); Mazaleski v.
Treusdell, 562 F.2d 701, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (``We have many times
held that an agency has the inherent power to reconsider and change
a decision if it does so within a reasonable period of time.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revising 28 CFR 0.130 and removing 27 CFR 478.144 further provides
the Department a clean slate on which to build a new approach to
implementing 18 U.S.C. 925(c) without the baggage of no-longer-
necessary procedures--e.g., a requirement to file an application ``in
triplicate,'' 27 CFR 478.144(b). With such a clean slate, the
Department anticipates future actions, including rulemaking consistent
with applicable law, to give full effect to 18 U.S.C. 925(c) while
simultaneously ensuring that violent or dangerous individuals remain
disabled from lawfully acquiring firearms.
III. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
Notice and comment is unnecessary because this is a rule of
management or personnel as well as a rule of agency organization,
procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(A). For the same
reasons, this rule is not subject to a 30-day delay in effective date.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (d). The interim rule relates to an internal
delegation of authority and relates to a matter of agency organization,
procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), (b)(A).
Removing effectively defunct regulations addressing how the
Attorney General's statutory authority will be exercised does not
adversely affect members of the public and involves an agency
management decision that is exempt from the notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'').
See United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065, 1068 (9th Cir. 1991)
(delegations of authority have ``no legal impact on, or significance
for, the general public,'' and ``simply effect[ ] a shifting of
responsibilities wholly internal to the Treasury Department'');
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1446 (10th Cir. 1990) (``APA
does not require publication of [rules] which internally delegate
authority to enforce the Internal Revenue laws''); United States v.
Goodman, 605 F.2d 870, 887-88 (5th Cir. 1979) (unpublished delegation
of authority from Attorney General to Acting Administrator of the Drug
Enforcement Agency did not violate APA); Hogg v. United States, 428
F.2d 274, 280 (6th Cir. 1970) (where taxpayer would not be adversely
affected by the internal delegations of authority from the Attorney
General, APA does not require publication).
This rule is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and
comment and a 30-day delay in effective date because it relates to a
matter of agency organization, procedure, or practice. See 5 U.S.C.
553(b). For similar reasons, the original rule delegating the Attorney
General's 925(c) authority to ATF also did not go through a notice-and-
comment process, see 68 FR at 3747, in contrast to the Department of
the Treasury's 1968 rule that set forth substantive standards for
consideration of 925(c) applications, see 33 FR 18555. Because ATF's
existing rule was published, however, the Department nonetheless has--
in the exercise of its discretion--deemed it appropriate to publish its
revocation in the form of an IFR. Cf. 44 U.S.C. 1510(e) (noting that
publication ``shall be prima facie evidence of the text of the
documents and of the fact that they are in effect on and after the date
of publication''). Due to the significance of the removal of firearms
disabilities process, it is also providing the public with opportunity
for post-promulgation comment before the Department issues a final rule
on these matters. Providing such an opportunity is not, however,
committing the Department to waive its exemption from the APA's notice-
and-comment process in this or future rulemakings regarding the removal
of firearms disabilities under section 925(c). Accord Buschmann v.
Schweiker, 676 F.2d 352, 356 n.4 (9th Cir. 1982) (finding that an
agency had waived its exemption to the extent that it bound itself to
using APA procedures); Rodway v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 514 F.3d 809,
814 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (same).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-
and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or other law. 5 U.S.C.
603(a), 604(a). Because this is a rule of internal agency organization
and therefore is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking, no RFA
analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604 is required for this rule.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), 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.
D. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or
personnel matters and is therefore not subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Nevertheless, the Department
certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the
principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order
13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct 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). The
benefits of this rule include providing the Department a clean slate to
reconsider its approach to
[[Page 13084]]
implementing a core constitutional right embodied by a statutory
authorization that has largely lain dormant for over thirty years.
E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the National 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, this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact
statement.
F. Executive Order 12988--Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR
part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no new or
revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
H. Congressional Review Act
This is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action
pertains to agency organization, management, and personnel and,
accordingly, is not a ``rule'' as that term is used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Therefore, the reports to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not required.
I. Executive Order 14192--Regulatory Costs
Executive Order 14192, titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' was issued on January 31, 2025. Section 3(a) of
Executive Order 14192 requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to
identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed when the
agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise
promulgates a new regulation. In furtherance of this requirement,
section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that the new incremental
costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at
least ten prior regulations. This interim final rule is a deregulatory
action under Executive Order 14192 because it withdraws the Attorney
General's delegation of authority to ATF to adjudicate applications for
relief from the disabilities imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922 pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 925(c).
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 478
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs
duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,
Transportation.
28 CFR Part 0
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Government employees,
Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR part
478 and 28 CFR part 0 are amended as follows:
Title 27--Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms
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
Sec. 478.144 [Removed and Reserved].
0
2. Remove and reserve Sec. 478.144.
Title 28--Judicial Administration
PART 0--ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
0
3. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 515-519.
0
4. In Sec. 0.130, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 0.130 General functions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) 18 U.S.C. chapters 40 (related to explosives); 44 (related to
firearms), except for 18 U.S.C. 925(c); 59 (related to liquor
trafficking); and 114 (related to trafficking in contraband
cigarettes);
* * * * *
Dated: March 12, 2025.
Pamela J. Bondi,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2025-04872 Filed 3-18-25; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4410-BB-P