[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24408-24413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08925]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0011; ATF No. 2025R-36P]
RIN 1140-AA69
Definition of Business Premises
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 the term ``business premises'' includes
properties that adjoin each other; or that are adjacent to each other
and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road.
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-AA69, 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-AA69.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
number (RIN 1140-AA69) 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 responsibility includes the
authority to promulgate regulations necessary to
[[Page 24409]]
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 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 18 U.S.C. 923(a), persons cannot engage in the business of
importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or
manufacturing ammunition, unless they have first filed an application
with and received a license to do so from the Attorney General.
Further, 18 U.S.C. 923(d) provides that an application submitted under
section 923(a) shall be approved if, among other things, ``the
applicant has in a State . . . premises from which he conducts business
subject to license under this chapter or from which he intends to
conduct such business within a reasonable period of time.''
Additionally, the law requires that each applicant pay a fee for
obtaining a license and that a separate fee be paid for each place in
which the applicant is to do business. See 18 U.S.C. 923(a). As early
as 1968, when the GCA was enacted and initial rules were promulgated,
the term ``business premises'' has been defined to implement the
provisions of the GCA. Pursuant to 27 CFR 478.11, a ``business
premises'' is defined as ``[t]he property on which the manufacturing or
importing of firearms or ammunition or the dealing in firearms is or
will be conducted. A private dwelling, no part of which is open to the
public, shall not be recognized as coming within the meaning of the
term.'' \3\ Id. In addition, 27 CFR 478.50 sets forth a number of
exceptions to the general rule that a separate license must be obtained
for each location at which a firearms or ammunition business or
activity requiring a license is conducted. The term ``business
premises'' is used throughout the GCA. However, Congress did not define
``business premises.'' Although the Department promulgated a definition
of ``business premises'' in 27 CFR 478.11, as described above, ATF has
become aware of situations in which a federal firearms licensee
(``FFL'') owns or leases properties adjoining (i.e., touching) each
other or properties that are adjacent (i.e., lying near or close) to
each other and adjoin a common parking lot, sidewalk, or road.
Currently, in those situations, FFLs have been required to apply for
separate licenses for each property or otherwise seek a variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This definition is nearly identical to the original
definition of ``business premises'' in the initial rules promulgated
in 1968. As provided in the 1968 rule, ``business premises'' was
defined as ``[t]he property on which firearms or ammunition
importing, manufacturing, or dealing in business is or will be
conducted. A private dwelling, no part of which is open to the
public, shall not be recognized as coming within the meaning of the
term.'' 33 FR 18557 (Dec. 14, 1968).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposed Rule
Because these situations can arise, ATF is proposing to amend 27
CFR 478.11 and 27 CFR 478.50 to clarify that ``business premises''
includes properties that adjoin (i.e., touch) each other or properties
that are adjacent (i.e., lying near or close) to each other and adjoin
the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road. The proposed amendments to
these sections would allow FFLs to apply for and maintain one license
for their business if they own or lease more than one property or
location that (i) adjoin (i.e., touch) each other; or (ii) are adjacent
(i.e., lying near or close) to each other and adjoin the same parking
lot, sidewalk, or road.
As explained above, this rule will provide greater clarification as
to circumstances that qualify as ``business premises'' under the GCA.
For purposes of this proposed rule, ATF is relying on the plain meaning
of the terms ``adjoin'' and ``adjacent'' as defined in Black's Law
Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). There, the term ``adjoin'' is defined as
``touching; sharing a common boundary.'' \4\ Thus, if an FFL owns or
leases two properties and their boundary lines touch each other at any
point, such properties would adjoin each other for purposes of this
proposed rule and would constitute a single ``business premises.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This is also consistent with Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.
1968), published the same year in which 18 U.S.C. 923 was enacted,
in which ``adjoining'' is defined as follows: ``The word in its
etymological sense, means touching or contiguous, as distinguished
from lying near to or adjacent.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, ``adjacent'' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as
``lying near or close to, but not necessarily touching.'' \5\ Thus, if
properties are non-contiguous (i.e., the property lines do not touch
each other) but are ``near or close to'' each other and adjoin the same
parking lot, sidewalk, or road, these properties would also qualify as
a single ``business premises.'' As an example, if an FFL owns or leases
two locations that are directly across the street from each other -- in
other words, the properties would be adjoining but for a bisecting road
-- ATF's proposed rule would treat those two locations as adjacent and
as a single ``business premise.'' Another example is where an FFL owns
or leases more than one location in a shopping outlet where the stores
are separated by other business entities, but they both share the same
parking lot; in this example, ATF's proposed amendments would treat the
multiple locations as adjacent and as a single ``business premise.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This is also consistent with Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.
1968), which defined ``adjacent'' as follows: ``Lying near or close
to; sometimes contiguous; neighboring.'' Further, ``[a]djacent
implies that the two objects are not widely separated, though they
may not actually touch . . . , while adjoining imports that they are
so joined or united to each other that no third object intervenes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, however, the FFL's ``adjacent'' properties are not sufficiently
close to each other, those locations would not qualify as a single
``business premise.'' For example, if an FFL owns or leases two
locations on a major highway, and the locations are located miles apart
from each other, the locations would not qualify as a single ``business
premise'' because they would not be ``lying near or close to'' each
other. These are general scenarios and each situation would need to be
evaluated based on its circumstances.
These proposed parameters align with Supreme Court interpretations
of ``adjoin'' and ``adjacent.'' See, e.g., United States v. St. Anthony
R. Co., 192 U.S. 524 (1904). In St. Anthony R. Co., the Court evaluated
whether lands were ``adjacent'' for purposes of a federal statute
granting railroads the right to cut timber from ``public lands
adjacent'' to a railroad right of way. Id. at 526 n.[dagger], 530. In
discussing relevant case law, the Court held that the word ``adjacent''
had been used ``in connection with the words `contiguous' and
`adjoining,' so as to give an impression that it is almost, though not
entirely, synonymous with those words.'' Id. at 533. The Court agreed
that ``adjacent'' need not be
[[Page 24410]]
``adjoining or actually contiguous, but it must be, as said, near or
close at hand.'' Id.
More recently, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598
U.S. 651, 676 (2023), the Court recognized that ``[d]ictionaries tell
us that the term `adjacent' may mean either `contiguous' or `near.' ''
Although statutory context required a narrow reading of ``adjacent'' as
used in the Clean Water Act for it to be ``compatible with the rest of
the law,'' the Court acknowledged that the term could have broader
definitional scope. See id. at 676-78 (internal quotation and citation
omitted); see also id. at 711 (Kagan, J., concurring) (``[i]n ordinary
language, one thing is adjacent to another not only when it is
touching, but also when it is nearby.''); id. at 716 (Kavanaugh, J.,
concurring) (`` `adjacent' and `adjoining' have distinct meanings.'').
Again, ATF's proposed change here aligns with the Supreme Court's
general understanding of ``adjoin'' and ``adjacent.''
The proposed change is also consistent with other GCA amendments
and ATF guidance concerning ``business premises.'' The Firearms Owners'
Protection Act of 1986 (``FOPA''), Public Law 99-308 (1986), amended
the GCA to allow FFLs to conduct business temporarily at a location
other than the location specified on the license if such temporary
location is the location for a gun show or event sponsored by any
national, state, or local organization, or any affiliate of any such
organization devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other
sporting use of firearms in the community, and such location is in the
state which is specified on the license. ATF's proposed regulatory
amendment does not change the fact that the location must be licensed
but merely clarifies that an FFL does not need multiple licenses for
multiple locations if the locations (i) adjoin each other; or (ii) are
adjacent to each other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or
road.
The proposed change is also consistent with guidance ATF issued on
April 10, 2020, in which ATF clarified that under the GCA, an FFL
could, in qualifying circumstances, carry out certain activities on any
part of the business premises, including the exterior of the brick-and-
mortar structure, provided that the activity otherwise complied with
applicable laws and regulations.\6\ The specific requested activities
in that guidance were (i) verifying customer identity and permitting
the completion of paperwork, including for purposes of the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System; (ii) accepting payment; and
(iii) delivering firearms to customers. For these requested activities,
ATF indicated that FFLs could do so (i) through a drive-up or walk-up
window or doorway where the customer is on the licensee's property on
the exterior of the brick-and-mortar structure at the address listed on
the license; and (ii) from a temporary table or booth located in a
parking lot or other exterior location on the licensee's property at
the address listed on the license, but any such activities must occur
in a location where the licensee has the authority to permit ATF's
entry for inspection purposes.\7\ FFLs were not permitted to carry out
the requested activities from nearby spaces that were not located on
the licensee's property. Again, this proposed rule does not change the
fact that properties must be licensed; it merely clarifies the limited
situations in which one license is sufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ATF, Guidance on Business Premises, (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-business-premises-guidance-letter-4-10-2020/download [https://perma.cc/4B76-52YW].
\7\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF's proposed rule also aligns with certain variances that the
agency has provided to FFLs. For example, variances have been given to
allow one license to cover an additional location if it was adjoining
with the FFL's other licensed locations. This has been true even in
circumstances where the addresses are separated by a public road. In
these variance scenarios, ATF concluded that allowing one license to
cover an adjacent property owned by the FFL would not hinder the
administration of the GCA; nor does it impede ATF's ability to trace
firearms or interfere with ATF's Industry Operations Investigators'
ability to conduct inspections to ensure regulatory compliance with the
GCA. ATF submits that this is also true for properties that are
adjacent to each other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or
road. Further, it reduces burden on the industry and saves the costs of
having to maintain two separate licenses.
ATF's proposed rule also aligns with the President's Executive
Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, issued on February 7,
2025. In that Executive Order, the President set forth that ``[t]he
Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and
liberty.'' E.O. 14206, sec. 1, 90 FR 9503 (Feb. 7, 2025). Further,
``[b]ecause it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by
Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.'' Id.
Finally, ATF notes that each FFL application will continue to be
evaluated on the specific facts underlying each application. If an FFL
application is denied on the grounds that an FFL's premises does not
meet the amended definition of ``business premises'' under 27 CFR
478.11 or 27 CFR 478.50, ATF reminds the public that licensees can ask
ATF for an alternate method or procedure (known as a variance request)
to fulfill their regulatory obligations. This process is set forth in
27 CFR 478.22.
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 amend ATF regulations at 27 CFR 478.11 and
27 CFR 478.50 to clarify that the term ``business premises'' includes
properties that (i) adjoin each other; or (ii) are adjacent to each
other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road. This
rulemaking would provide qualitative benefits to the industry by
providing more flexibility in complying with statutes and existing
regulatory standards.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this rule would not be a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule. ATF
provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Order 12866
and 13563. Although an overall industry savings was not calculated, ATF
estimates that a per-entity savings, which may range from $150 to $300,
could occur from an FFL not having to apply and pay for more than one
license.\8\ Furthermore, ATF estimates an hourly time-burden savings of
1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ATF.gov, Federal Firearms Licenses, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licenses [https://perma.cc/QWX8-R3MK].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For illustrative purposes, ATF estimates that an FFL manager may be
paid an hourly wage rate of $53.42 per
[[Page 24411]]
hour.\9\ To account for fringe benefits such as insurance, ATF
calculated a load rate based on total hourly compensation (average
$44.20 for 2024) \10\ and divided the average total compensation by the
average hourly wages and salaries (average $31.95 for 2024) \11\ making
a load rate of 1.42.\12\ Multiplying the estimated hourly wage rate for
an FFL ($53.42) by the load rate of 1.42, ATF estimates that a loaded
monetized hour that an FFL would save in monetized time per hour would
be of $74.79. In total, an FFL may be able to save between $225 \13\ to
$375 \14\ (rounded) per adjoining or adjacent location. However, ATF
requests more information from the public regarding economic effects
that this rulemaking may have on the public and the regulated
industries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and
Wages, May 2023, for 11-3013 Facilities Managers, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes113013.htm [https://perma.cc/M4G8-6YJL].
\10\ 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].
\11\ 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/FF2D-7VRA].
\12\ 1.4 load rate = $44.20 total hourly compensation/31.95
hourly wages and salaries.
\13\ $225 per location time savings = $75 loaded wage rate
(rounded) * 3 hours of time savings.
\14\ $375 per location time savings = $75 loaded wage rate
(rounded) * 5 hours of time savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 as defined in 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. This rule
would save FFLs from having to apply and pay for two licenses if the
FFL's business premises is adjacent or adjoining to each other.
Therefore, ATF expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify
as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined 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.
The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As discussed above, while an overall industry
savings was not calculated, ATF estimates that a per-entity savings,
which may range from $150 to $300, may occur from not having to apply
and pay for more than one license. Furthermore, ATF estimates an hourly
time-burden savings of 1 hour or a loaded monetized hour of $74.79.\15\
In total, an FFL may be able to save $225 to $375 (rounded) per
adjoining or adjacent location. This proposed rule is deregulatory and
would not impose any additional costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See footnotes 9-12, supra, for wage rate information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, the 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 impact two existing
information collections under the PRA: OMB control number 1140-0018:
Application for Federal Firearms License, which includes ATF Form
5310.12 (``Form 7''); OMB control number 1140-0019: Federal Firearms
Licensee Renewal Application-Part II, which includes ATF Form 5310.11
(``Form 8''). This proposed rule would likely reduce the number of
respondents applying for a firearms license on a Form 7 and the number
of respondents renewing their license Form 8. This would occur because
this proposed rule would allow licensees to maintain one license
instead of two to cover business premises that either adjoin each other
or are adjacent to each other and adjoin the
[[Page 24412]]
same parking lot, sidewalk or road. As a result of this change, the
number of respondents would likely decrease if this proposed rule
becomes final. The proposed rule would not otherwise change these
information collections. ATF will provide more details about the
information collections in any final rule.
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-AA69 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-AA69. 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 received but will disclose that the
commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information
that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not
have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this
information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such
proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required
by other legal processes.
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 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-AA69).
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 record-keeping
requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27
CFR part 478 as follows:
[[Page 24413]]
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. In Sec. 478.11, revise the definition of ``Business premises'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 478.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Business premises. The property on which a licensee will
manufacture, import, or deal in firearms or ammunition. A business
premises includes the following:
(i) Properties that adjoin each other; or
(ii) Properties that are adjacent to each other and adjoin the same
parking lot, sidewalk, or road. A private dwelling does not fall within
the meaning of the term if it has no part open to the public.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 478.50 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (e).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 478.50 Locations covered by license.
* * * * *
(c) A licensee may conduct business at a gun show pursuant to
provisions in Sec. 478.100;
(d) A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may engage in the
business of dealing in curio or relic firearms with another licensee at
any location pursuant to provisions in Sec. 478.100; or
(e) A licensee may conduct business at a separate property parcel
the licensee owns or uses, without obtaining another license for the
separate property, if that property adjoins the FFL's other licensed
location(s) or the location is adjacent to the FFL's other licensed
location(s) and adjoins the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road as the
other licensed location(s).
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-08925 Filed 5-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P