[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24400-24408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08914]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0071; ATF No. 2025R-10P]
RIN 1140-AA97
Importing Training Rounds
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(``ATF'') proposes amending Department of Justice (``Department'')
regulations to clarify that certain training rounds do not meet the
definition of ``ammunition'' as defined by the Gun Control Act and are
not regulated by the Arms Export Control Act. Less-than-lethal
ammunition, which is distinct from training rounds, will still
generally be considered ammunition.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on
or before (or, if mailed, must be postmarked on or before) August 4,
2026. Commenters should be aware that the federal e-rulemaking portal
comment system will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Time on
the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1140-AA97, by
either of the following methods--
Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: ATF Rulemaking Comments; Mail Stop 6N-518, Office of
Regulatory Affairs; Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 99 New York Ave. NE;
Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: RIN 1140-AA97.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
number (RIN 1140-AA97) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM''
or ``proposed rule''). ATF may post all properly completed comments it
receives from either of the methods described above, without change, to
the federal e-rulemaking portal, https://www.regulations.gov. This
includes any personally identifying information (``PII'') or business
proprietary information (``PROPIN'') submitted in the body of the
comment or as part of a related attachment they want posted. Commenters
who submit through the federal e-rulemaking portal and do not want any
of their PII posted on the internet should omit it from the body of
their comment and any uploaded attachments that they want posted. If
online commenters wish to submit PII with their comment, they should
place it in a separate attachment and mark it at the top with the
marking ``CUI//PRVCY.'' Commenters who submit through mail should
likewise omit their PII or PROPIN from the body of the comment and
provide any such information on the cover sheet only, marking it at the
top as ``CUI//PRVCY'' for PII, or as ``CUI//PROPIN'' for PROPIN. For
detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov. Commenters must submit comments by using one of
the methods described above, not by emailing the address set forth in
the following paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email
at [email protected], by mail at Office of Regulatory Affairs; Enforcement
Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives; 99 New York Ave. NE; Washington, DC 20226, or by telephone
at 202-648-7070 (this is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control
Act of 1968 (``GCA''), as amended. This includes the authority to
promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the
GCA.\1\ See 18 U.S.C. 926(a). Congress and the Attorney General have
delegated the
[[Page 24401]]
responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA to the Director
of ATF (``Director''), subject to the direction of the Attorney General
and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28
CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2); Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696-97
(June 10, 1972).\2\ Accordingly, the Department and ATF have
promulgated regulations to implement the GCA in 27 CFR part 478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some GCA provisions still refer to the ``Secretary of the
Treasury.'' However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the functions of ATF from the
Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the
general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28
U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of reference, this proposed rule
refers to the Attorney General where relevant.
\2\ In Attorney General Order Number 6353-2025, the Attorney
General delegated authority to the Director to issue regulations
pertaining to matters within ATF's jurisdiction, including under the
National Firearms Act, GCA, and Title XI of the Organized Crime
Control Act. ATF's jurisdiction also includes those portions of sec.
38 of the Arms Export Control Act pertaining to permanently
importing defense articles and services and the Contraband Cigarette
Trafficking Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (``AECA''), the
President is authorized, in furtherance of world peace and the security
and foreign policy of the United States, to control the import, export,
and brokering of defense articles and defense services. 22 U.S.C.
2778(a)(1). The AECA also authorizes the President to designate items
as defense articles and defense services for the purposes of section
38, and to promulgate regulations for the import and export of such
articles and services. Id.
Through Executive Order 13637, the President delegated to the
Attorney General authority under the AECA to control the permanent
import of defense articles and defense services. See E.O. 13637, sec.
1(n)(ii). In exercising that authority, the Attorney General ``shall be
guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting
world peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United
States.'' Id. The Attorney General has delegated this AECA permanent
import control authority to ATF. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(6)(vi). ATF
promulgated its AECA regulations at 27 CFR part 447. ATF's AECA
regulations include the United States Munitions Import List (``USMIL'')
at 27 CFR 447.21. The USMIL enumerates AECA defense articles and
defense services that are controlled by the Attorney General for
permanent import purposes pursuant to the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 2778, and
Executive Order 13637.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Additionally, the President delegated authorities under the
AECA to the Secretary of State, including controls for the export,
temporary import, and brokering of defense articles and defense
services. E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n)(i), 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013). The
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (``ITAR''), 22 CFR part
120 et seq., implement the Secretary of State's delegated AECA
authorities and enumerates the defense articles and defense services
the Secretary of State regulates for export and temporary import
purposes on the regulatory United States Munitions List (``USML'')
at 22 CFR 121.1. While the defense articles and services on the USML
under ITAR for export and temporary import and the defense articles
and services on the USMIL for permanent import purposes are separate
lists, there is some overlap of items listed on the USML and USMIL.
The USML at 22 CFR 121.1 and the USMIL at 27 CFR 447.21 collectively
compose the United States Munitions List described at 22 U.S.C.
2778(a)(3). All defense articles and defense services are controlled
by the Department of State for purposes of brokering (see 22 CFR
129.1). In addition, the Department of State has delegated authority
over other sections of the AECA not relevant to this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AECA generally requires a license prior to exporting or
importing defense articles or defense services, issued in accordance
with the AECA and regulations promulgated thereunder. 22 U.S.C.
2778(b)(2). Additionally, when permanently importing \4\ items into the
United States, the item must be importable under all applicable laws
and the importer must submit an ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to
Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (``Form 6, part I''),
to ATF and receive ATF approval before doing so. See 27 CFR 447.42,
478.112, 479.111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ References to imports in this preamble are to permanent
imports controlled by ATF, unless specifically preceded by the word
``temporary,'' which indicates control under the ITAR by Department
of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. 922(l) prohibits importing ammunition into the
United States unless it meets an exception under 18 U.S.C. 925(d).\5\
The GCA defines ``ammunition'' as ``ammunition or cartridge cases,
primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any
firearm.'' 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(A). The statutory definition of
``ammunition'' includes the element that components are ``for use in
any firearm.'' The GCA defines a ``firearm'' as: ``(A) any weapon
(including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily
be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B)
the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or
firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not
include an antique firearm.'' 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3). Congress
specifically included starter guns ``which will . . . or may readily be
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.'' 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A). This provision prevented circumvention of the GCA
by regulating weapons that could be converted into fully functioning
firearms by ``boring a hole through an obstruction in the barrel,''
``substitution of a barrel,'' or some other ready means of
``conver[sion] to fire a projectile.'' See Federal Firearms Amendments
of 1966, S. Rep. 89-1866, at 73 (explaining earlier congressional
proposal). As mentioned above, the USMIL enumerates AECA defense
articles and defense services that are controlled by the Attorney
General for permanent import purposes pursuant to the AECA. Category
III of the USMIL includes ammunition for arms in Category I of the
USMIL. See 27 CFR 447.21. Category I of the USMIL includes nonautomatic
and semiautomatic firearms, to caliber .50 inclusive, combat shotguns,
and shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches in length, and all
components and parts for such firearms. See id. For those AECA
authorities delegated to ATF, regulations at 27 CFR 447.11 define
``firearms'' as ``a weapon, and all components and parts therefor, not
over .50 caliber which will or is designed to or may be readily
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive . . .''
Under both the GCA and AECA, a ``firearm'' is a type of weapon. 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A); 27 CFR 447.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ With respect to ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 925(d) addresses a few
scenarios where the Attorney General can authorize its import. For
example, ammunition can be imported if it is brought in for
scientific or research purposes or if it is suitable or readily
adaptable for sporting purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF's prior position was that training rounds were ``ammunition''
because the round included cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or
propellent powder. As such, there has been a general prohibition on
importing training rounds. However, there are a few exceptions under
which ammunition may be imported, including if the ammunition is
imported ``for the use of'' the federal, state, or local government (18
U.S.C. 925(a)(1); 27 CFR 478.115(b)) or if the ammunition is deemed
suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes (18 U.S.C.
925(d)(3)). ATF has received numerous inquiries from regulated firearms
industry members on the importability of training rounds that contain
ammunition components such as cartridge cases, primers, or propellant
powder with the only two general exceptions being importability by a
licensee pursuant to the government exception under section 925(a)(1)
or by a licensee should the training round come within the sporting
purposes exception under 925(d)(3).
In reviewing the text of the definition, ATF has recognized that
its initial analysis is flawed and that training rounds do not come
within the statutory definition of ``ammunition'' because training
rounds are not ``designed for use in any firearm'' which is an element
of the definition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(A). These training rounds
do not function in conventional firearms. Rather, they are designed to
be fired from specially adapted training guns,
[[Page 24402]]
which usually consist of a conversion kit (including special slide or
bolt, barrel, or assembly and other components) that is placed on the
firearm frame or receiver. Therefore, ATF submits this proposal to
clarify the definition of ``ammunition.''
II. Proposed Rule
ATF proposes to clarify that training rounds are not ``ammunition''
because they are not designed to be fired from a ``firearm,'' as
defined by the GCA. Although training rounds consist of cartridge
cases, primers, propellant powder, and projectiles, they are not
``designed for use in any firearm.''
As applicable here, the definition of ``firearm'' includes ``any
weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may
readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive.'' 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A). Although ``weapon'' is not further
defined by the GCA or AECA, the Supreme Court in Bondi v. VanDerStok,
explained that the GCA's definition of ``firearm'' demonstrates
congressional intent to regulate inoperable firearms and firearms
capable of being readily converted to expel a projectile by the action
of an explosive. 145 S. Ct. 857, 868-69 (2025). The Court highlighted
that the statute indicates that a starter gun is a weapon prior to any
attempted conversion.\6\ Id. at 868-69. Additionally, the Court
explained that a ``weapon,'' as it pertains to the definition of
firearms, is ``an instrument of offensive or defensive combat.'' Id. at
868. As discussed below, training rounds are designed for use in, and
are fired from, training guns, which are not ``firearms'' within the
meaning of the GCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A starter gun is a firearm that normally fires blanks and is
usually found at sporting events, not in combat. United States v.
Hall, 396 F.2d 841, 842, n. 2 (CA4 1968); United States v. Mullins,
446 F.3d 750, 755 (CA8 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, unlike starter guns, Congress did not expressly regulate
training guns as weapons under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3). Moreover, training
guns, unlike starter guns, are generally not capable of being readily
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.\7\ Under
these two aspects of the definition, training guns do not fall within
the definition of ``firearm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Should a training gun be designed or be able to incorporate
components that make it readily convertible to expel a projectile by
the action of an explosive, a separate analysis would be necessary
to determine if it a weapon and thus a ``firearm'' under 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, training guns as assembled \8\ are not weapons designed for
offensive or defensive combat because they are incapable of firing
conventional firearm ammunition. The conversion kits used in a training
gun are specifically designed so that the gun can function only with a
training round that has significantly less propellant powder than
conventional firearm ammunition, which allows the training round to
safely and effectively cycle the conversion kit bolt. Using
conventional firearm ammunition in a training gun would be unsafe.
Thus, training guns are designed with additional safety features
including offset firing pins to ensure they can fire only training
rounds in specific calibers. In other words, the devices that fire
training rounds are not ``firearms'' within the meaning of the GCA or
the AECA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Training guns are generally assembled by placing a
conversion kit on the frame or receiver of the gun, which limits the
type of caliber and rounds the gun can expel. The GCA definition of
``firearm'' includes ``frame or receiver'' of a weapon. 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(3)(B). The mere fact that a training gun includes a component
(i.e., frame or receiver) regulated as a statutory ``firearm'' does
not transform the training gun into a weapon capable of using
ammunition as set out in section 921(a)(17)(A). The GCA does this
because the frame or receiver are the essential component parts of
completed weapons, not because they are independently capable of
expelling projectiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, with respect to the training round itself, the
cartridges, when discharged, produce low-energy projectiles that are
designed to provide immediate feedback to a trainee during a military
or law enforcement training exercise. The projectiles provide impact
awareness for the shooter by providing imprint markings on the target
or provide immediate non-lethal feedback to a user in close-range
reality-based training scenarios often leaving bruising or welts on a
person. These projectiles are not intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury, nor will they likely cause such injury when used with
proper safety equipment. Because they are low-energy, the projectiles
are also ineffective as ``less-than-lethal'' ammunition in riot control
situations, unlike bean bag rounds and rubber pellets that are used in
weapons for nonlethal riot control. Given that these training rounds
are not useful for offensive or defensive combat, they are not designed
for use in instruments of offensive or defensive combat.
Moreover, based on the design of the cartridge, the training rounds
themselves typically have design features consistent with use in a
training device and not for use in unmodified firearms. For example, a
training round for a 9mm training pistol or AR-type training rifle (or
device with a conversion kit) has insufficient propellant powder to
cycle a firearm's slide or bolt. The training rounds are also not
reloadable, i.e., they cannot be altered to be lethal or less-than-
lethal ammunition. The cartridge case of each training round contains a
plastic piston that, when removed, weakens and damages the casing so
the training round cannot be reloaded without being destroyed.
Nevertheless, if a manufacturer makes a ``training round'' that is
designed for use only in a firearm, then the round may be ammunition.
ATF notes that an item marketed or advertised as a ``training round''
would not by itself make it exempt from regulation as ``ammunition.''
Rather, ATF must make a determination based on an examination of the
item that the round is not designed for use in offensive or defensive
combat and in a firearm.
Accordingly, ATF proposes to amend the definition of ``ammunition''
by adding a new paragraph (c) under the existing exemptions to clarify
that the term would not include ``any fully assembled training round
that is not designed (1) for offensive or defensive combat and (2) to
be used in a device that constitutes a weapon.'' Consequently,
importers would not need to complete a Form 6, part I under 27 CFR
parts 447 and 478 to bring training rounds into the United States.
III. 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.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public
flexibility.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this proposed rule would be a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, although it would not be
economically significant under section 3(f)(1). OMB has therefore
reviewed this rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply with
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. By clarifying that training rounds do
not meet the definition of ``ammunition,'' the effect of this proposed
rule would be to codify a June 2025 Open Letter so that training rounds
can continue to be imported without any future restrictions. ATF has
laid out the impacts of this proposed rulemaking in
[[Page 24403]]
OMB's A-4 accounting statement here, in Table 1. Table 1 also
illustrates the range of future estimates in a low, primary, and high
range as part of ATF's Circular A-4 sensitivity analysis. ATF then
provides its normal regulatory cost-benefit analysis.
Table 1--OMB Circular A-4 Accounting Statement ($ millions) and Sensitivity Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
-------------------------------
Category Primary Minimum Maximum Period
estimate estimate estimate Dollar Percent covered
year discount (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized benefits............ n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
Annualized quantified benefits........... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized non-monetized benefits........ Benefits to consumers who would see lower prices and importers who
would see higher profits. Disbenefits (i.e., adverse impacts) to the
domestic training rounds industry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs............... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025 7 10
0.00 0.00 0.00 2025 3 10
Annualized quantified costs.............. n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized non-monetized costs........... n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal annualized monetized transfers... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: federal government
To: individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other annualized monetized transfers..... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, and/or tribal governments.. The rule would not impose an intergovernmental mandate or have
significant or unique effects on small governments, or have
federalism or tribal implications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Small businesses......................... This rule will increase competition to domestic producers of training
rounds or high-end, realistic CO2 cartridges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages.................................... n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth................................... n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives............................. Defining training rounds as ammunition. $0 cost and $0 benefits. This
was rejected as more stringent without any incremental benefit.
Proposed alternative: $4,522 in cost savings. This alternative was
selected because the benefits exceed the costs.
Issuing Guidance Documentation. This alternative has already been
implemented, but this alternative was deemed not to have the same
force and effect of a regulation; therefore, this alternative was
rejected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized net benefits........ n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Need Statement
This proposed rule reduces a regulatory burden on the public and
responds to their request to reduce administrative burdens by providing
more flexibility for importing of non-lethal ammunition types. As these
cartridges are non-lethal and are not used in firearms, ATF has
determined that the need identified by the public request is valid and
has identified an area where ATF's regulations impose unwarranted
burdens that are not statutorily required.
2. Benefits
This proposed rule would now clarify that training rounds do not
meet the definition of ammunition under the GCA. As ammunition, their
import into the United States is restricted except for the use of the
United States, any
[[Page 24404]]
department or agency thereof, any state or any department, agency, or
political subdivision thereof, or unless excepted under 18 U.S.C.
925(d) (e.g., if the ammunition is considered sporting). By stipulating
that training rounds are not ammunition, these training rounds would no
longer fall under ATF purview or be subject to ATF regulations.
Currently, importers import training rounds only for governmental or
law enforcement purposes under the government exception 18 U.S.C.
925(a)(1). In other words, this proposed rule would allow FFL importers
to import training rounds and import them without needing to complete
and submit an ATF import forms (including the Form 6, part I
application).\9\ This rule would also allow importers to sell training
rounds for retail or commercial use as well as law enforcement
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ OMB-1140-0005, Application/Permit to Import Firearms,
Ammunition, and Defense Articles (``ATF Form 6, part I''), https://www.atf.gov/media/22521/download [https://perma.cc/5XCC-8G23?type=image].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF does not have information on the wholesale costs or value of
imported training rounds and thus does not incorporate the difference
between wholesale costs versus retail costs, nor does ATF have any data
on the current domestic market for training rounds. As a result, ATF is
unable to make any quantitative assessments of the benefits of this
rulemaking. It is highly likely that there will be benefits to
consumers who face a lower price for training rounds and for importers
who will have more flexibility to import foreign training rounds.
Accordingly, ATF requests any information from the public regarding the
economic effects that this rulemaking may have on the public and the
regulated entities.
Additionally, there are an estimated two domestic entities that may
be affected by this proposed regulation. One entity is a domestic
subsidiary of a large business that produces their training rounds
abroad. The other is a small entity that produces their training rounds
domestically. Of these two entities, the business that produces
domestically is likely to experience disbenefits (i.e., adverse
impacts) in the form of lower prices and demand from foreign
competition. The other business may indirectly benefit because while
they are a domestic company, they appear to manufacture overseas and
subsequently import into the United States, thus they would be able to
import more without restrictions and reduced burdens. Because this
proposed rule may have an impact on domestic manufacturers, ATF
requests public comments regarding the overall estimated revenue impact
that this proposed rule would have on domestic manufacturers.
3. Cost Savings
In addition to the additional potential revenue this proposed rule
would add to an FFL importer's business, ATF anticipates that there
would be some cost savings to importers because they no longer must
complete a Form 6, part I to receive approval for the items they wish
to import and then subsequently complete an ATF Form 5330.3C,
Releasing/Receiving Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles
(``Form 6A'') to confirm the items imported. As mentioned above, ATF
estimates that importers brought in the equivalent of one import per
year, thus completing one Form 6, part I. ATF estimates for purposes of
this analysis that not completing a Form 6, part I would save a retail
salesperson, who works for an FFL, an estimated 30 minutes in hourly
burden. To determine the monetized value of the hourly burden, ATF uses
the unloaded wage rate of $17.64 for a retail salesperson based on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (``BLS'').\10\ To account for fringe
employment benefits such as insurance, ATF determined the average load
rate based on BLS's calculated national hourly compensation (salaries/
wages plus paid benefits) for all private-sector occupations (average
of $44.20 for 2024) \11\ divided by the national average hourly wages
and salaries without benefits (average of $31.10 for 2024),\12\ making
a load rate of 1.42.\13\ ATF then applied this load rate to the $17.64
to calculate their total compensation. Multiplying BLS's estimated
hourly wage rate for a retail salesperson ($17.64) by the load rate of
1.42, ATF estimates that a rounded, loaded wage rate for a retail
salesperson would be $25 and that an FFL would save $12.50 in loaded
monetized time per hour under this rule for submitting an ATF Form 6,
part I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 41-2031 Retail Salespersons https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes412031.htm [https://perma.cc/V5T8-T455].
\11\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total compensation cost
per hour worked for private industry workers (2023-2025), https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CMU2010000000000D [https://perma.cc/T2ZL-2UUB].
\12\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wages and salaries cost
per hour worked for private industry workers (2023-2025), https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CMU2020000000000D [https://perma.cc/8WEJ-2TRW].
\13\ 1.4 load rate = $44.20 total hourly compensation/31.95
hourly wages and salaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For imports received, the importing FFL would subsequently submit a
Form 6A, which is estimated to take 35 minutes (0.583 hours). Using the
same loaded wage rate of $25 per hour, an FFL would save an hourly
burden of $14.58 per Form 6A submittal, with a combined total of $27.08
per import.
With a population of 167 importers, and assuming one less Form 6,
part I application and one less Form 6A submittal, ATF estimates that
the cost savings for this rule from no longer applying and submitting a
Form 6, part I or Form 6A would be $4,522 annually.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ $4,522 = 167 importers * $25 loaded wage * (0.5 hours Form
6 part I application + 0.583 Form 6A application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF notes that this would be the minimum cost savings from this
rule. There may be additional cost savings with importers not needing
to obtain and submit the government or law enforcement agency contract
and letter to show the import comes under the government exception
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1). However, as government and law
enforcement agency procedures may vary, ATF seeks additional comment on
whether there are any additional steps, time, and burden that importers
may save by not having to submit additional documentation with the Form
6, part I. Overall, this rule would provide an annual cost savings of
$4,522 per year, or $45,215 over the course of ten years.
4. Regulatory Alternatives
Alternative 1. Maintaining the Status Quo (No Action Alternative)
ATF considered determining that these training rounds are
considered ammunition, which would prohibit importation of these
training rounds unless an exception applied under 18 U.S.C 925(d) or
unless imported for governmental use under 18 U.S.C. 925(a). While
government and law enforcement are the primary users of these training
rounds, the ability for importers to import only pursuant to a
government contract severely limits the importer's ability to retain
sufficient stock in the event that state or local law enforcement
unexpectedly need more than requested. As a result, ATF currently
believes that retaining the status quo is not the best alternative as
this does not provide the most qualitative flexibility for importation.
Alternative 2. Issuing Guidance.
Another alternative ATF considered was only issuing guidance.
Currently, this is the status quo, and guidance has been in effect in
the recent year. However, guidance does not have the same force and
effect of a regulation, so
[[Page 24405]]
ATF is choosing to undertake a regulation to solidify in regulation the
interpretation it has provided in guidance.
Alternative 3: Rulemaking (Proposed Alternative)
Finally, an alternative that ATF considered is the proposed
alternative. This is to publish a regulation amending the definition of
ammunition to make clear the term does not include any fully assembled
training round that is not designed for (1) offensive or defensive
combat; and (2) use in a device that constitutes a weapon. Items that
meet this description would no longer be restricted from import and
thus importers would not need to complete a Form 6, part I. This
alternative is estimated to have qualitative benefits for consumers who
will face lower prices for training rounds and for importers who will
have more flexibility to import foreign training rounds. There are also
estimated cost savings of $4,552 per year from removing the need for
importers to complete a Form 6, part I and Form 6A to import these
types of items. ATF believes this alternative provides the most
flexibility to importers or any business that deals or otherwise
retails in training rounds and reduces regulatory and administrative
burdens.
B. Executive Order 14192
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation)
requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten
existing regulations to be repealed or revised when the agency publicly
proposes for notice-and-comment or otherwise promulgates a new
regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
(defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total
costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section
3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs
associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by
law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at
least ten prior regulations. Although this proposed rule would be a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, it
would not count as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because
it has total costs less than zero. The rule would add an exception to
the definition of ammunition for training rounds, which would allow
persons to import training rounds without having to comply with the
restrictions and requirements on importing ammunition. ATF therefore
expects this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an
Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-
25-20 as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero).
C. Executive Order 14294
Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations) requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal
regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to
explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the
authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each
element of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a
criminal regulatory offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order
14294 requirements.
D. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the
states, the relationship between the federal government and the states,
or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that
this proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs
on state and local governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully
implicate federalism. It thus does not warrant preparing a federalism
summary impact statement.
E. Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform).
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
agencies are required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of
any proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements
unless the agency head certifies, including a statement of the factual
basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include certain small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
ATF performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the
potential impacts on small businesses and other entities that would
occur due to this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'')
The RFA establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
ensure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' Public
Law 96-354, sec. 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider whether the
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Agencies must perform a review to determine
whether the proposed rule would have such an impact. If the agency
determines that it would, the agency must prepare an IRFA (or a
regulatory flexibility analysis for a final rule) as described in the
Act. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b).
1. Describing the reasons why the agency is considering taking
action.
ATF is proposing this action to allow persons to import training
rounds as an exemption from general restrictions on importing
ammunition, thereby increasing the opportunities for importers and
permitting more selection among consumers.
2. Succinctly stating the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
The objective of this proposed rulemaking is to reduce the
regulatory burden on importers and the public by streamlining
requirements to allow training rounds to be imported for use in
training guns. Additionally, the goal of this rule is to avoid
unnecessary delays in the sale and transfer of non-lethal ammunition
types from abroad. For example, the existing framework, under which
importers can generally import only limited circumstances, severely
limits importers' ability to retain sufficient stock in the event state
and local law enforcement unexpectedly need more than requested.
3. Describing and, where feasible, estimating the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply.
Based on ATF's Federal Firearm Licensing Center, there are 1,666
FFLs that import firearms that may benefit from this proposed rule from
no longer needing to complete a Form 6, part I or
[[Page 24406]]
Form 6A to import training rounds as they would no longer be considered
ammunition. The majority of these FFLs are likely to be small.
However, there are an estimated two domestic entities that may be
indirectly affected by this proposed regulation. One entity is a
domestic subsidiary of a large business that produces their training
rounds abroad. The other is a small entity that produces their training
rounds domestically. Of these two entities, the business that produces
domestically is likely to experience disbenefits (i.e., adverse
impacts) in the form of lower prices and demand from foreign
competition. The other business may indirectly benefit because while
they are a domestic company they appear to manufacture overseas and
subsequently import into the United States, thus they would be able to
import more without restrictions and reduced burdens.
Furthermore, there may be other small entities that may be
indirectly affected due to ATF's decision to classify training rounds
as not meeting the definition of ammunition. These companies
manufacture high-end air rifles and CO2 cartridges that also
mimic realistic firing. While training rounds might be considered to
provide more realistic firearm feedback than their CO2
counterparts, these CO2 cartridges sell for less than
training rounds.\15\ \16\ \17\ While training rounds retail for
approximately $0.57 per cartridge, CO2 cartridges are less
expensive, selling for an average at retail of $0.37 per cartridge.
Furthermore, rifles that use CO2 cartridges retail for less
than a firearm that needs a conversion kit in order to use training
rounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ T4E guns, https://training.t4eguns.com/t4e-paintballs-43-blue-430-ct-2292119 [https://perma.cc/2VRX-CK8Z].
\16\ Unit 4 Solutions, https://unitsolutions.com/products/marking-round-value-packs?variant=45703050625177 [https://perma.cc/S283-TPFG].
\17\ Byrna, https://byrna.com/collections/less-lethal-training-ammo [https://perma.cc/T8NM-SUAN].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities indirectly affected by this proposed rule fall under Small
Business Administration (``SBA'') industry NAICs standard: 332992 for
Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing. The SBA size standard for this
industry is less than 1,300. These entities have employee sizes of less
than 1,000.
4. Describing the proposed rule's projected reporting, record-
keeping, and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which would be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary to prepare the report or
record.
This rule would remove the reporting requirement that FFL importers
file a Form 6, part I prior to importing training rounds pursuant to a
government contract and remove the subsequent need to complete a Form
6A upon importation of the goods. This rule would provide cost savings
of $27.08 per importer and would remove a restriction on the public,
with an added benefit of $174.6 million in increase retail sales. There
are no additional requirements or costs imposed by this proposed rule.
5. Identifying, to the extent practicable, all relevant Federal
rules which might duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rule.
This proposed rule would not duplicate or conflict with other
federal rules.
6. Describing any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which
minimize and significant economic impact the proposed rule might have
on small entities.
ATF has considered the alternative of maintaining the status quo
and continuing to restrict the import of training rounds. Compared to
the status quo, the proposed approach would benefit firearms importers,
individuals would have more options on places from where they could
obtain training ammunition, and small entities would benefit from being
able to run their enhanced self-defense training courses with
sufficient quantities of training rounds. ATF notes, however, that this
alternative will increase competition for one or two domestic
manufacturers of training rounds.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might
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, and it would not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, ATF has determined that no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C.
3501-3521, agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and
approval, any information collection requirements a rule creates or any
impacts it has on existing information collections. An information
collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public.
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule involves two existing
information collections under the PRA. These information collections,
as currently approved by OMB, are OMB control number 1140-0005, ATF
Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and
Defense Articles (``Form 6, part I''), and OMB control number 1140-
0007, ATF Form 5330.3C, Releasing/Receiving Imported Firearms,
Ammunition, and Defense Articles (``Form 6A''). The title and
description of the information collection impacted by this rule, a
description of those who provide the information, and an estimate of
the total annual burden follow.
Impacted ICR 1
Title: ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms,
Ammunition, and Defense Articles (``Form 6, part I'').
OMB control number: 1140-0005.
Summary of the information collection: Importation of firearms,
ammunition, and defense articles into the United States is subject to
the provision of 18 U.S.C. 925(d) and (e), 22 U.S.C. 2778, and 26
U.S.C. 5844. Except as provided, or specifically authorized by the
Attorney General, the importation of articles coming within the purview
of these statutes is restricted or prohibited. In general, the
importation of firearms is permitted only if the firearms meet certain
criteria and the Attorney General authorizes the importation.
Need for information and proposed use: Data provided on the
Application and Permit for Importation of Firearms, Ammunition, and
Defense Articles--ATF Form 6, part I allows ATF to determine if the
article(s) described on the application qualifies for importation by
the importer. It also serves as authorization for the importer. The
approved form also serves as authorization for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to allow the listed articles entry into the United States.
Many importers use the form for internal accounting purposes.
Information may be disclosed to other federal, state, foreign, and
local law enforcement and regulatory agency personnel, to verify
information on the application. Disclosure also aids them in the
performance of their duties regarding the enforcement and regulation of
firearms and/or ammunition, where such disclosure is not prohibited by
law. The licensee is
[[Page 24407]]
required to retain this form permanently.
Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule:
Importer FFLs.
Number of current respondents: 1,666.
Frequency of response: as needed.
Number of responses: this proposed rule would decrease the number
of responses by 1,666.
Response time estimate: 0.5 hours.
Burden of response: this proposed rule would decrease hourly burden
by 833 hours.
Impacted ICR 2
Title: ATF Form 5330.3C, Release/Receipt of Imported Firearms,
Ammunition, and Defense Articles (``Form 6A'').
OMB control number: 1140-0007.
Summary of the information collection: Under 18 U.S.C. 925(a), 22
U.S.C. 2778, and 26 U.S.C. 5844, the import of firearms, ammunition and
defense articles coming within the purview of these statutes is
prohibited. The statutes also require that persons engaged in the
business of importing such articles be licensed and/or registered.
Implementing regulations in 27 CFR parts 447, 478, and 479, prescribe
the forms and procedures necessary to fulfill the import permit
requirements. Through these requirements, the law and regulations
establish a comprehensive system for regulating the importation of
firearms, ammunition, and defense articles.
Need for information and proposed use: The data provided by this
information collection request are used by ATF to determine if articles
imported meet the statutory and regulatory criteria for importation and
if the articles shown on the permit application have actually been
imported. Form 6A serves as the certification of release and receipt of
the articles described on the permit application. The form is used by
FFLs (registered importers, Federal firearms licensees other than
importers), members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and persons not licensed
by or registered with ATF.
Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule:
Importer FFLs.
Number of current respondents: 1,666.
Frequency of response: as needed.
Number of responses: this proposed rule would decrease the current
inventory by 1,666 responses.
Response time estimate: 0.583 hours.
Burden of response: this proposed rule would decrease hourly burden
by 971 hours.
IV. Public Participation
A. Comments Sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested
persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this
proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. In addition,
ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and
on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and
benefits.
All comments must reference this document's RIN 1140-AA97 and, if
handwritten, must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also
include your complete first and last name and contact information. If
submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking portal, as
described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review
and follow the website's instructions on submitting comments. Whether
you submit comments online or by mail, ATF will post them online. If
submitting online as an individual, any information you provide in the
online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly
viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov
by ATF. However, if you include such personally identifying information
(``PII'') in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and
viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in
the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online.
Therefore, all commenters should review section IV.B of this preamble,
``Confidentiality,'' regarding how to submit PII if you do not want it
published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do
not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity.
ATF will retain comments containing excessive profanity as part of this
rulemaking's administrative record, but will not publish such documents
on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all comments as
originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if
ATF cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be
able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received
on or before the closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this
section, whether submitted electronically or on paper, and except as
provided below, available for public viewing on the internet through
the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who
do not want their name or other PII posted on the internet should
submit their comments with a separate cover sheet containing their PII.
The separate cover sheet should be marked with ``CUI//PRVCY'' at the
top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy Act. Both the
cover sheet and comment must reference this RIN 1140-AA97. For comments
submitted by mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not
appear when posted on the internet, but any PII that appears within the
body of a comment will not be redacted by ATF and may appear on the
internet. Similarly, commenters who submit through the federal e-
rulemaking portal and who do not want any of their PII posted on the
internet should omit such PII from the body of their comment and any
uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the online fields
designated for name, email, and other contact information will not be
posted or viewable online.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary
or confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF
handle this information as controlled unclassified information
(``CUI''), the commenter must place any portion of a comment that is
proprietary or confidential business information under law or
regulation on pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each
page prominently marked ``CUI//PROPIN'' at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information
submitted in compliance with these instructions available when
disclosing the comments that it receives, but will disclose that the
commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information
that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not
have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this
information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such
proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required
by other legal process.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments using either of the two methods described below
(but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one
method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted.
[[Page 24408]]
Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you
submit your comments to ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at
https://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Comments will
be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment
may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that is provided after you have successfully uploaded
your comment.
Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in
minimum 12-point font size, include the commenter's first and last name
and full mailing address, and may be of any length. See also section
IV.B of this preamble, ``Confidentiality.''
D. Request for Hearing
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally
at a public hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to
the Director within the 90-day comment period. The Director, however,
reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether
a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response
to it are available through the federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA97).
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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27
CFR part 478 as follows:
PART 478--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
0
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-931; 44 U.S.C.
3504(h).
0
2. Revise the definition of ``Ammunition'' in Sec. 478.11 to read as
follows:
Sec. 478.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Ammunition. Ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or
propellent powder designed for use in any firearm other than an antique
firearm. The term does not include--
(a) any shotgun shot or pellet not designed for use as the single,
complete projectile load for one shotgun hull or casing;
(b) any unloaded, non-metallic shotgun hull or casing not having a
primer; or
(c) any fully assembled training round that is not designed:
(1) for offensive or defensive combat; and
(2) to be used in a device that is a weapon.
* * * * *
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-08914 Filed 5-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P