[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24395-24400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08917]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0007; ATF No. 2025R-23P]
RIN 1140-AA84
Clarifying Delivery to a Common or Contract Carrier When
Transporting Firearms
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, for purposes of the Gun Control Act of
1968, a person who travels aboard a common or contract carrier while in
possession of a firearm or ammunition is not considered to have
``delivered'' or ``caused to be delivered'' said firearm or ammunition
to the common or contract carrier, provided that the person possesses
and maintains direct control over the firearm or ammunition for the
duration of the trip.
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: Comments may be submitted, identified by RIN 1140-AA84, 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-AA84.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
number (RIN 1140-AA84) 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
[[Page 24396]]
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 responsibility 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 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 922(e) of the GCA makes it ``unlawful for any person
knowingly to deliver or cause to be delivered to any common or contract
carrier for transportation or shipment in interstate or foreign
commerce, to persons other than licensed importers, licensed
manufacturers, licensed dealers, or licensed collectors, any package or
other container in which there is any firearm or ammunition'' without
providing written notice to the carrier that such firearm or ammunition
is being transported or shipped. There is an exception to this
requirement: any passenger who owns or legally possesses a firearm or
ammunition being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for
movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce may
deliver the firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot,
captain, conductor, or operator of the common or contract carrier for
the duration of the trip without violating any of the provisions of
that chapter of the GCA. 18 U.S.C. 922(e).
Congress did not provide a definition as to what circumstances do
or do not qualify as having ``delivered'' or ``caused to be delivered''
any firearm or ammunition to any common or contract carrier for
purposes of the first clause of section 922(e). Thus, ATF proposes this
rule to clarify what circumstances do not qualify as having
``delivered'' or ``caused to be delivered'' any firearm or ammunition
to any common or contract carrier for purposes of section 922(e).
Specifically, this rule would clarify that if an individual possesses a
firearm that is being transported aboard any common or contract carrier
for movement with the passenger in interstate or foreign commerce, and
that individual maintains direct control and possession of the firearm
or ammunition, such actual possession does not result in a ``delivery''
to the common or contract carrier under section 922(e), and would
therefore not amount to a violation of that provision.
II. Proposed Rule
ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.31 by adding a new paragraph (e)
to explain that persons who travel aboard a common or contract carrier
and who possess a firearm or ammunition on their person or in baggage
under their immediate control are not to be considered to have
``delivered'' or ``caused to be delivered'' a ``package'' or ``other
container'' containing a firearm or ammunition when the person
maintains direct control over the firearm or ammunition for the
duration of the person's trip and does not relinquish possession or
custody to the common carrier. The new paragraph also explains that
common or contract carriers do not include public or private for-hire
vehicles (e.g., taxis, limousines, rideshares etc.), or municipal or
regional mass transit vehicles, including those that cross state lines,
for which passengers do not deliver the firearm or ammunition into the
custody of the operator of the common or contract carrier.
As explained above, this proposed change provides greater
clarification as to circumstances that do not come within the ambit of
18 U.S.C. 922(e). The term ``delivery'' is defined in Black's Law
Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) as follows: ``[t]he formal act of
voluntarily transferring something.'' ATF proposes that to constitute a
delivery to a common or contract carrier for purposes of violations of
18 U.S.C. 922(e), the possessor of the firearm or ammunition must have
voluntarily transferred said firearm or ammunition to the common or
contract carrier. Thus, if the individual maintains direct control of
the firearm or ammunition (e.g., by keeping it on his person), a
transfer of the firearm or ammunition to the common or contract carrier
does not occur.
This interpretation of the word ``deliver'' is consistent with the
plain meaning of that term. Most individuals would not, when boarding a
bus while carrying a firearm, believe they had ``delivered'' that
firearm to the carrier operating the bus. Therefore, it is unlikely
that most people, having read section 922(e), would understand it to
mean that they must notify the carrier of the firearm on their hip or
in their backpack to avoid violating this provision of law. The
proposed regulation ensures the statute will be interpreted using the
plain, ordinary meaning of the statutory text, thereby reducing the
chances that an unwitting individual with no intent to violate the law
will be accused of doing so. See E.O. 14294, 90 FR 20363 (May 14, 2025)
(denouncing ``abuse and weaponization by providing Government official
tools to target unwitting individuals'').
Indeed, when federal courts of appeals have affirmed convictions
under 18 U.S.C. 922(e), it has been almost exclusively in circumstances
where the defendants have given up direct control of the firearms or
ammunition in question to the carrier without notifying them. For
example, in United States v. Udofot, 711 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1983), the
court affirmed the conviction of a passenger under 18 U.S.C. 922(e)
where the evidence showed that the passenger checked luggage with an
airline, relinquishing control of the luggage and its contents, and
that the luggage contained firearms. In United States v. Burton, 351 F.
Supp. 1372 (W.D. Mo. 1972), aff'd, 475 F.2d 469 (8th Cir. 1973), the
court held that a passenger violated 18 U.S.C. 922(e) when the evidence
showed that the passenger delivered a suitcase to an airline in Kansas
City, which was to be
[[Page 24397]]
returned to him upon arrival in Minneapolis and that the suitcase was
found, ``without any break in the chain of custody,'' to contain a
firearm. In United States v. Dunn, 813 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1987) (per
curiam), the court affirmed a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(e) when
the defendant checked luggage containing firearms onto an airline
without notifying the airline orally or in writing that the luggage
contained the firearms.
ATF proposes amending its regulation at 27 CFR 478.31 so that it
more closely conforms to the agency's earlier interpretation of the
GCA. Until 1981, ATF's position was that a passenger aboard a common or
contract carrier who possesses a firearm or ammunition on his or her
person would not fall within the proscriptions of 18 U.S.C. 922(e), as
there would be no ``delivery'' to the common or contract carrier.\3\ In
support of this interpretation, ATF also noted that the legislative
history of section 922(e) indicates that it was designed to make more
effective the succeeding subsection (18 U.S.C. 922(f)), which prohibits
a carrier from transporting or delivering a firearm or ammunition in
violation of 18 U.S.C. chapter 44.\4\ The possession of a firearm or
ammunition by a passenger would not affect that subsection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Stephen Halbrook, Firearms, The Fourth Amendment, and Air
Carrier Security, 52 J. Air L. & Com. 585, 664-672 (1987).
\4\ See H.R. Rep. No. 90-1577, at 14 (June 21, 1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1981, the agency changed its interpretation based on United
States v. Williams, 485 F.2d 1383 (4th Cir. 1973). In that case, the
defendant boarded a commercial airliner and handed his luggage to the
pilot who placed it in the nose cone of the airplane where it remained
throughout the duration of the flight. The defendant did not, however,
inform the pilot orally or in writing that a firearm was contained in
the luggage. Even though the defendant relinquished control of the
firearm, the court held that the exception within section 922(e) only
applies where the firearms or ammunition are delivered into the
carrier's custody in such a manner as to make the carrier aware of that
fact. But even Williams did not involve a firearm carried upon the
person throughout the duration of the trip.
The Fourth Circuit took the holding of Williams one step further in
United States v. Hartzog, 983 F.2d 604 (4th Cir. 1993), which affirmed
a defendant's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(e) when the defendant,
having firearms in bags slung across his back, placed at least one foot
on the steps of a train. The court rejected the defendant's argument
that control of the firearms must be relinquished to the carrier for
him to be in violation of 922(e), reasoning that the language of the
statue contemplates, by negative inference, that retention of control
of a firearm while aboard a common carrier would constitute a
``delivery'' and that to hold otherwise would be to permit arms
traffickers to escape the ambit of the statute merely by retaining
possession of the firearms while on board a carrier, which, the court
said, could not have been the intent of Congress.
The Fourth Circuit's decision in Hartzog appears to conflict with
the statutory text. A person who carries a firearm directly on his
person does not ``deliver . . . any package or other container'' within
the meaning of the statute. 18 U.S.C. 922(e). He delivers nothing to
the carrier. And in many cases (e.g., a firearm carried on the person),
he does not deliver a ``package'' or ``other container.'' He simply has
possession of the firearm.
ATF maintains that this textual interpretation does not create any
regulatory loophole. Section 922(e) requires individuals to alert
common carriers before they take custody or control of packages
containing firearms. Section 922(f) then imposes requirements on how
those common or contract carriers transport the firearms. Section
922(e) was never intended to act as a restriction against individuals
carrying accessible weapons on their person.\5\ Unlike the common
carrier or contract transportation of inaccessible firearms contained
in packages or baggage, the carriage of accessible weapons is heavily
regulated by state and local law, which usually regulates firearms
carried ``on'' or ``about'' the person. See, e.g., 11 Del. Code 1441;
N.C. Code 14-269; Va. Code 18.2-308. Federal law also governs the
carrying of accessible weapons aboard certain modes of transportation,
such as aircraft separately from section 922(e). See, e.g., 49 U.S.C.
46505. Therefore, ATF does not presume that section 922(e) also
regulates carrying accessible weapons without further specificity.
Moreover, common or contract carriers are generally free to prohibit or
regulate the possession or carrying of firearms on their property and
on board their vehicle. Section 922(e) is most reasonably read to
govern situations in which individuals relinquished firearms or
ammunition to a common or contract carrier, not when individuals
maintain direct, accessible control over the firearm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 3, supra, Halbrook at 664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does not appear that any other federal courts of appeal have
interpreted the meaning of ``delivery'' for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
922(e) as broadly and expansively as the Fourth Circuit did in Hartzog.
Indeed, ATF has not identified any cases other than Hartzog in which a
court determined that a person carrying a firearm or ammunition on a
common or contract carrier violated section 922(e). The far more common
scenario involves a passenger checking in luggage that contains
firearms or ammunition. See, e.g., United States v. Udofot, 711 F.2d
831 (8th Cir. 1983); United States v. Burton, 351 F. Supp. 1372 (W.D.
Mo. 1972), aff'd, 475 F.2d 469 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Dunn,
813 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); United States v.
Fortenberry, 914 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1990) (affirming conviction under
18 U.S.C. 922(e) when defendant checked in luggage containing firearm);
United States v. Flores, 753 F.2d 1499 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)
(affirming conviction under 18 U.S.C. 922(e) when defendant checked two
steamer trunks containing 22 revolvers as baggage for travel on an
airline without giving the notice required by that section); United
States v. Keuylian, 602 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1979) (affirming conviction
under 18 U.S.C. 922(e) where defendant packed firearms in his luggage
and gave the luggage to an airline passenger service representative to
be checked in).
In short, this proposed rule seeks to return to the earlier (and
most logical) interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 922(e), given that the case
law, with the exception of few cases from a singular circuit, supports
the agency's position that the phrase ``delivered to a contract
carrier'' does not encompass continuous possession of a firearm by an
individual on a contract carrier. This proposed rule is also supported
by Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). 90 FR
9503 (Feb. 7, 2025). In that Executive Order, the President set forth
that the ``Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security
and liberty'' and ``[b]ecause it is foundational to maintaining all
other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must
not be infringed.''
Further, section 922(e) clearly evidences an intent by Congress to
only include those common or contract carriers to which ``written
notice to the carrier'' may be provided prior to shipment or
transportation or which provide their customers the ability to
``deliver'' the firearm or ammunition into the custody of the pilot,
captain,
[[Page 24398]]
conductor or operator of such common or contract carrier. Accordingly,
ATF proposes to clarify that ``common or contract carrier'' for
purposes of the GCA does not include municipal and regional mass
transit vehicles, including those that cross state lines, for which a
passenger cannot deliver the firearm or ammunition to the operator of
the common or contract carrier nor provide effective written notice
prior to the transport or shipment. Examples would include a metro
train or metro bus. The statutory text of section 922(e), which
presumes the ability to place items in the custody of the carrier or
its employees, does not support its application to such forms of
transportation where there is an inability to provide written notice or
``delivery'' of the firearm and ammunition prior to the transportation
and where there is no checked baggage service. Similarly, ATF does not
believe that section 922(e) was intended to apply to public or private
for-hire vehicles (e.g., taxis, limousines, rideshares etc.) in which
customers do not customarily check baggage or provide written notice
about the contents of their baggage.
Finally, it must also be noted that liability under section 922(e)
is separate from any liability that may attach by reason of statutes or
regulations administered by other federal agencies or by state or local
government restricting possession of firearms on common or contract
carriers. It may be possible for an individual to be in violation of
statutes or regulations not enforced by ATF while being in compliance
with section 922(e). Thus, for example, federal law will continue to
restrict the carrying of accessible weapons aboard commercial aircraft.
49 U.S.C. 46505(b)(1); 14 CFR 135.119. State laws may also further
restrict firearms aboard buses and trains. See, e.g., N.M. Stat. 30-7-
13 (restricting carrying firearms aboard buses).
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.
This proposed rule would clarify that for purposes of the first
clause of 18 U.S.C. 922(e), a person who travels aboard a common or
contract carrier while in possession of a firearm or ammunition is not
considered to have ``delivered'' or ``caused to be delivered'' said
firearm or ammunition to the common or contract carrier so long as the
person possesses and maintains direct control over the firearm or
ammunition for the duration of the trip. The rule would also make clear
that common or contract carriers do not include municipal or regional
transit vehicles, or public or private for-hire vehicles (e.g.,
rideshares, taxis, or limousines), for which passengers do not deliver
the firearm or ammunition into the custody of the operator.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this rule would not be a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking provides qualitative benefits to
the public by providing more flexibility with respect to complying with
statutes and existing regulatory standards, but ATF does not have
sufficient information to calculate quantifiable savings. Therefore,
ATF requests more information from the public regarding the economic
effects that this rulemaking may have on the public and the regulated
industries.
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. However, this proposed rule would not be
an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and
it would not impose total costs greater than zero. ATF therefore
expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive
Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a
final action that imposes total costs less than zero) because it
provides qualitative savings. Under the rule, the public would have
more options with respect to transporting their firearms without
concern for violating the GCA and existing regulatory standards.
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.
The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed
rule
[[Page 24399]]
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it generally affects individuals who are moving
their firearms interstate and merely provides them more flexibility
with respect to complying with statutes and existing regulatory
standards. This proposed rule is deregulatory and would not impose any
additional costs.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in
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 will 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 would not create any new
information collection requirements or impact any existing ones covered
by the PRA.
I. Congressional Review Act
This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
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-AA84 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.
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-AA84. 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.
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 successfully uploading 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.''
[[Page 24400]]
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-AA84).
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. Add Sec. 478.31(e) to read as follows:
Sec. 478.31 Delivery by common or contract carrier.
* * * * *
(e) A person who travels aboard a common or contract carrier and
who possesses a firearm or ammunition is not considered to have
``delivered'' or ``caused to be delivered'' a ``package'' or ``other
container'' containing a firearm or ammunition when the person
maintains direct control over the firearm or ammunition for the
duration of the person's trip and does not relinquish possession or
custody to the common or contract carrier. Common or contract carriers
do not include public or private for-hire vehicles (e.g., taxis,
limousines, or rideshares etc.). Common or contact carriers also do not
include municipal or regional mass transit vehicles, including those
that cross state lines, for which passengers cannot deliver the firearm
or ammunition into the custody of the operator of the common or
contract carrier as provided for in paragraph (a) of this section.
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-08917 Filed 5-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P