The Privacy Act of 1974  1 establishes a code of fair information practice principles that govern Federal agencies' collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of an individual's personal information. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records,” defined as a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. 2

In addition to establishing a code of fair information practice principles, the Privacy Act restricts disclosure of records containing personal information that an agency maintains. 3 The Privacy Act also grants individuals an increased right of access to records maintained about themselves as well as the right to request amendment of those records upon a showing that they are not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. 4

FDA is proposing to amend certain terminology in Title 21 of the CFR to remove the term “gender” wherever it appears, to either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable, and make other editorial changes to the relevant sections for readability. FDA is taking this action to comply with E.O. 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”  1

The proposed rule would remove the term “gender” wherever it appears, to either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable, and make other editorial changes for readability, in the following regulations in Title 21 of the CFR: 21 CFR 10.65, 56.107, 106.121, 201.57, 251.18, 310.305, 312.33, 312.42, 314.50, 314.80, 329.100, 600.80, 803.32, 803.42, 803.52, 862.1840, 866.3215, 866.5950, 870.1415, 870.2200, 870.2210, 870.2220, 870.5600, 882.1455, 882.1471, 1114.3, and 1114.41.

FDA proposes to issue this rule under the following authorities: The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) at 21 U.S.C. 321 et seq. and specifically, sections 321-397; the Public Health Service (PHS Act) at 42 U.S.C. 201, 216, 241, 242(a), 262, 263a, 263b, 264; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461; 5 U.S.C. 551-558, 701-706; 21 U.S.C. 141-149, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; and section 111 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-103), 136 Stat. 49 at 789. FDA also has general authority to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act and the PHS Act under section 701 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371) and section 351(j) of the PHS Act.

FDA is proposing to remove the term “gender” wherever it appears, and either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable, and make other editorial changes for readability. This proposed rule reflects editorial changes that affect FDA and does not impact industry practices. Consequently, we do not anticipate any measurable change in industry resulting from this proposed rule. We also expect the economic impact on FDA to be minimal. This proposed rule will produce no quantifiable savings, costs, or transfers. We do not expect any loss of public health benefits as a result of this rule. We estimate that the annualized benefits over 10 years would be $0 at both 3 and 7 percent discount rate. The annualized costs would also be $0 at both 3 and 7 percent discount rate.

This proposed rule, if finalized, is not expected to be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. We estimate that this proposed rule would generate $0 in net cost savings.

On January 20, 2025, the President issued E.O. 14168, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which, among other things, requires executive agencies to use the term “sex” and not “gender” when administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, in all applicable Federal policies and documents.

Accordingly, this proposed rule would, if finalized, amend certain terminology in FDA regulations, specifically by removing the word “gender” wherever it appears, to either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable, and make other appropriate editorial changes for readability.

The terms “gender” and “sex” appear in various contexts in FDA regulations, including in requirements related to Institutional Review Board (IRB) membership (see 21 CFR 56.107), records and reporting requirements for product applications and approvals (see, e.g., 21 CFR 312.42, 314.50, 314.80, 600.80, 803.32), and device classification regulations (see, e.g., 21 CFR 862.1840, 866.3215, 866.5950). Section 2(a) of E.O. 14168 defines “sex” as referring to an individual's immutable biological classification as either male or female. Section 3(c) of E.O. 14168 requires, among other things, that “[w]hen administering or enforcing sex-based distinctions, every agency and all Federal employees acting in an official capacity on behalf of their agency shall use the term “sex” and not “gender” in all applicable Federal policies and documents.” After reviewing them, FDA is modifying regulations to remove the term “gender” wherever it appears, to either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable.

FDA is proposing this rule under the authority granted to it by the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. ),the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ), 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461; 5 U.S.C. 551-558, 701-706; 21 U.S.C. 141-149, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; and section 111 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The statutory authorities supporting this rulemaking are those authorizing the regulations which are to be amended. Specifically, FDA is proposing this rule under the following statutes and public laws: 21 U.S.C. 321-397; 42 U.S.C. 201, 216, 241, 242(a), 262, 263a, 263b, 264; 15 U.S.C. 1451-1461; 5 U.S.C. 551-558, 701-706; 21 U.S.C. 141-149, 467f, 679, 821, 1034; 28 U.S.C. 2112; and section 111 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022. By delegation from the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, FDA is authorized to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371) and section 351(j) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(j)). Any final rule upon which this proposal is based would help with the efficient enforcement of provisions relating to the following: (1) IRBs; (2) infant formula; (3) human and animal drugs, biological products, and medical devices; (4) drug, biological product, and device labeling and reporting; (5) drug importation; and (6) premarket tobacco product applications.

We propose to amend regulations concerning IRBs; infant formula; human and animal drugs, biological products, and medical devices; drug, biological product, and device labeling and reporting; drug importation; and premarket tobacco product applications by removing the term “gender” wherever it appears, to either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable, and make other appropriate editorial changes for readability in Title 21 of the CFR:

We propose that any final rule resulting from this rulemaking would become effective 30 days after the date of the final rule's publication in the Federal Register .

We have examined the impacts of the proposed rule under E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, E.O. 14192, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all benefits and costs of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Rules are economically significant under E.O. 12866 if they have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

E.O. 14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with certain significant regulatory actions “shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations.” This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to be an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because the proposed rule reflects editorial changes and does not add any new regulatory burden on the industry, we propose to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $193 million, using the most current (2025) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This proposed rule would not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

FDA is proposing to remove the term “gender” wherever it appears, and either replace it with the term “sex,” or delete reference to gender, as applicable, and make other editorial changes for readability. This proposed rule reflects editorial changes that affect FDA and does not impact industry practices. Consequently, we do not anticipate any measurable change in industry resulting from this proposed rule. We also expect the economic impact on FDA to be minimal. This proposed rule will produce no quantifiable savings, costs, or transfers. We do not expect any loss of public health benefits as a result of this rule.

Table 1 summarizes the estimated benefits and costs of the proposed rule. We estimate that the annualized benefits over 10 years would be $0 at both 3 and 7 percent discount rate. The annualized costs would also be $0 at both 3 and 7 percent discount rate. We request comments on our estimates of benefits, costs, and transfers of this proposed rule.

In line with E.O. 14192, in Table 2 we estimate present and annualized values of costs, cost savings, and net costs over a perpetual time horizon. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is not expected to be an E.O. 14192 regulatory action. We estimate that this proposed rule would generate $0 in net cost savings.

FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required.

We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not normally have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in E.O. 13132. We have determined that this proposed rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the E.O. and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

We have analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the principles set forth in E.O. 13175. We have tentatively determined that the rule does not contain policies that would have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. The Agency solicits comments from tribal officials on any potential impact on Indian Tribes from this proposed action.

Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, we propose that 21 CFR parts 10, 56, 106, 201, 251, 310, 312, 314, 329, 600, 803, 862, 866, 870, 882, and 1114 be amended as follows:

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (“AECA”) at 22 U.S.C. 2778 authorizes the President of the United States to control importing and exporting defense articles and defense services in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States. In 2013, the President delegated relevant AECA functions to the Secretary of State through Executive Order 13637, Administration of Reformed Export Controls, 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013), including a broad delegation of the functions under section 38 of the AECA, except as otherwise provided in section 1(n)(ii) of Executive Order 13637.

The broad delegation of the President's AECA section 38 authorities to the Secretary of State included, in relevant part, providing foreign policy guidance to persons of the United States involved in exporting and importing defense articles. See 22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1); E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n), 78 FR 16130. The Department of State promulgates regulations pursuant to its delegated AECA section 38 authorities in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), at 22 CFR parts 120-130 et seq. The Department of State's ITAR provisions include AECA foreign policy provisions, which in relevant part provide that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in certain countries.” See 22 CFR 126.1. Section 126.1 identifies those countries and the prohibitions that apply to them.

Within Executive Order 13637, the President delegated functions that relate to controlling permanently importing defense articles under section 38 of the AECA to the Attorney General. However, that delegation mandates that in carrying out such permanent import control functions, “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.” E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n)(ii), 78 FR 16130; 27 CFR 447.55. This important qualification in the Attorney General's permanent import control delegation is also consistent with the broader delegation of AECA section 38 authorities to the Secretary of State as to foreign policy guidance for AECA defense articles.

The Attorney General, in turn, has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing section 38 of the AECA (relating to importing items on the United States Munitions Imports List and importing defense articles and defense services)  1 to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(6)(vi), (c). 2 ATF thus implements U.S. policies denying applications to permanently import defense articles and services from certain countries and includes a list of these countries under 27 CFR 447.52(a)-(b).

In making any such determinations that affect “world peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United States,” as provided in Executive Order 13637, the regulation at 27 CFR 447.55 reiterates that ATF will be “subject to the guidance” of the Secretary of State with regard to how it administers its permanent import control authority. The Department of State is responsible for determining restrictions on imports of defense articles and services based on country or geographic region and regularly updates its policies in 22 CFR 126.1, listing proscribed countries for which it establishes a policy of denying imports and exports. Because ATF has no independent role in U.S. international affairs or foreign policy and defers to the Department of State on such matters, ATF's proscribed-country list has historically mirrored the Department of State's list. However, ATF has not kept 27 CFR 447.52(a)—which lists the countries subject to AECA import restrictions—updated since 2007. ATF believes it will be more effective and will reduce compliance burdens to align its list with 22 CFR 126.1.

Accordingly, this rule proposes to remove the current content of ATF's regulations at 27 CFR 447.52(a) and replace it with a general statement of the U.S. policy on restricting imports from certain countries that would inform the public that ATF will base its arms import decisions on the Department of State's policies and lists in 22 CFR 126.1. This change would ensure that the list of proscribed countries and conditions will remain consistent across Departments. It will also better inform importers of defense articles under the AECA and help ensure consistent application of foreign policy.

This rule also proposes to amend 27 CFR 447.52(b), which provides a list of countries for which all applications to permanently import firearms and ammunition manufactured or located in those countries must be denied (except for certain specifically exempted firearm models). The current list, which was added to the regulation in 1997, reflects a Department of State policy adopted after the United States entered into a Voluntary Restraint Agreement (“VRA”) with the Russian Federation in 1996. The list comprises the Russian Federation and the former Soviet countries of Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Thirty years later, this policy—and, by extension, the list in 447.52(b)(1)—reflects outdated trade and security concerns. Lifting these restrictions will ensure consistency with current U.S. foreign policy as directed by the Department of State, see 22 CFR 126.1(a), and allow ATF to transition from a policy of denying all requests to import firearms from certain countries to a policy that permits ATF to review license applications on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, as the terms of the VRA remain in effect, ATF will continue to restrict certain firearms and ammunition imports from the Russian Federation.

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 rule would amend 27 CFR 447.52(a) to remove ATF's list of proscribed countries and to instead inform the public that ATF will deny applications for permanent imports from countries based on Department of State policy, which is set forth at 22 CFR 126.1. The rule would also amend 27 CFR 447.52(b) to remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, leaving only the Russian Federation as a proscribed country of origin for these imports.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This rule would simply remove lists that are outdated and lift a blanket ban on importing defense articles from former Soviet countries. This rule would ensure consistency with current U.S. foreign policy as directed by the Department of State and thus inform the public of ATF's basis for denying applications for permanent imports. This proposed rule would not generate any costs for the public. ATF believes the rule would provide qualitative benefits to the public in the form of regularly updated and consistent information between Departments as well as increased flexibility in the countries from which importers can obtain firearms.

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 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 OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero) because it would remove an out-of-date, duplicative list, and remove outdated references to countries for which applications to permanently import firearms and ammunition must be denied.

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.

This 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 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.

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies are required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 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 of the proposed rule on small businesses and other entities, if finalized as proposed.

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, section 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).

ATF prepared the following IRFA assessing the proposed rule's impact on small entities.

ATF is proposing this action to provide consistency for importers by aligning ATF's list of proscribed countries with the Department of State's list in 22 CFR 126.1. ATF's list has remained out of date for numerous years, and because ATF defers to the Department of State on matters of international affairs and foreign policy, it is reasonable to align ATF's list with the Department of State's list. ATF is also proposing to remove former Soviet countries from a proscribed list because it reflects outdated trade and security concerns. ATF does not anticipate that this rule would create significant economic costs for small entities, as it would provide beneficial deregulatory savings to federal firearms licensee (“FFL”) importers that would be able to import from previously proscribed countries.

The objective of this proposed rule is to reduce regulatory confusion and align ATF regulations with those of the Department of State, which is responsible for determining restrictions on imports of defense articles and services based on country or geographic region and which regularly updates its policies in 22 CFR 126.1.

Based on ATF's Federal Firearms Licensing Center, there are an estimated 1,666 Type 08 FFL importers. If Type 08 FFL importers track the size of other FFLs, then most of these importers are likely to be small businesses, per the Small Business Administration's size standard. All importers would benefit from this proposed rule because it would align ATF's list of prohibited countries with the Department of State's list and ensure consistent application of foreign policy. Furthermore, it would allow all importers to import from formerly prohibited countries, thereby conferring a benefit in regulatory flexibility by increasing importing options. Finally, this rule would not impose any monetary costs.

However, there are approximately 21,499 domestic firearms manufacturers (Type 07 FFL manufacturers) that may be indirectly and negatively affected by this proposed rule due to increased competition from importers that would gain access to new foreign markets. ATF is unable to currently assess the significance of this negative impact and requests public comment from small entities that manufacture and/or sell domestic firearms.

There are no additional requirements or direct costs imposed by this proposed rule on importers. Nor are there direct costs or compliance requirements for manufacturers.

This proposed rule would not duplicate or conflict with other federal rules.

ATF has not identified other alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives. The proposed rule is the only way to remove the outdated list and ensure consistency of foreign policy across Departments. To the extent that the rule could significantly impact small businesses, it would alleviate significant hurdles rather than impose new ones. ATF believes that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the potential impacts on domestic small businesses, who may or may not be indirectly affected by this proposed rule.

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, ATF has determined that no actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 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 are OMB control number 1140-0005: Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles, which includes ATF Form 5330.3A (“Form 6, part I”), and OMB control number 1140-0007: Releasing/Receiving Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles, which includes ATF Form 5330.3C (“Form 6A”). This rule may increase the overall number of imported firearms, which would increase the frequency of responses for Form 6 and Form 6A by a corresponding amount.

ATF requests public comments regarding the anticipated overall impact this proposed rule would have on importers.

The proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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.

All comments must reference this document's RIN 1140-AA91 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.

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-AA91. 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 in 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.

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.”

Copies of this proposed rule and any comments received in response to it are available through the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA91), and a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 447 as follows:

(a) It is the policy of the United States to deny imports of defense articles originating from the following countries:

(1) Countries identified in 22 CFR 126.1(d)(1),

(2) Countries subject to a policy of denying imports of defense articles as specified in 22 CFR 126.1(d)(2), and

(3) In any case where an import would not be in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the appropriate ATF officer will deny applications to import into the United States the following firearms and ammunition located or manufactured in the Russian Federation:

(1) Any firearm that is not one of the models listed below:

(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(2) Ammunition that is 7.62 x 25mm caliber (also known as 7.63 x 25mm caliber or .30 Mauser); or

(3) * * *

The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (“AECA”) governs importing and exporting defense articles and services. 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq. Defense articles and services include firearms, firearm parts, ammunition, and certain other military equipment subject to the AECA. Section 38 of the AECA, codified at 22 U.S.C. 2778, authorizes the President of the United States to control such imports and exports in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States. In 2013, through Executive Order 13637, 1 the President delegated to the Secretary of State the AECA section 38 function except as otherwise provided in section 1(n) of the order. The delegation includes, in relevant part, providing foreign policy guidance to persons of the United States involved in exporting and importing defense articles and services. See 22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1); E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n), 78 FR 16130. The Department of State promulgates regulations pursuant to its delegated AECA section 38 authorities in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), at 22 CFR parts 120-130.

Within Executive Order 13637, the President also delegated to the Attorney General the AECA section 38 functions that relate to controlling permanent imports of defense articles and services. In turn, the Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing section 38 of the AECA (relating to importing items on the United States Munitions Imports List and importing defense articles and services) to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(6)(vi), (c). 2 3

In carrying out such functions, the Attorney General, and, pursuant to the Attorney General's delegated authority, the Director “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.” E.O. 13637, sec. (1)(n)(ii), 78 FR 16130; see also 27 CFR 447.55.

ATF enumerates defense articles and services subject to the AECA's permanent importing provisions in its regulations under the United States Munitions Imports List (“USMIL”). See 27 CFR 447.21. Defense articles under the USMIL also include the “components,” “accessories,” “attachments,” and “parts” of the defense article. For example, USMIL Category I-Firearms includes “[n]onautomatic 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,” as well as “[a]utomatic firearms and all components and parts for such firearms to caliber .50 inclusive.” 27 CFR 447.21 (emphasis added). However, the USMIL regulation does not define these compositional terms, nor do ATF's other AECA regulations.

The Department of State's ITAR provisions regulate defense articles and services enumerated on the United States Munitions List (“USML”). 22 CFR 121.1. Like the USMIL, the USML includes “[p]arts, components, accessories, and attachments” of defense articles. 22 CFR 121.1. But unlike the USMIL and ATF's other implementing regulations, the ITAR defines these compositional terms. 22 CFR 120.40.

When ATF examines importing applications that include accessories, attachments, components, or parts, ATF uses either a determination previously made by the Department of State regarding whether a defense article is an accessory, attachment, component, or part; or ATF's Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division classifies the article relying on the ITAR definitions set forth in 22 CFR 120.40. Because ATF is guided by and largely relies on the Department of State's views on foreign policy and matters of national security for purposes of the AECA, 4 ATF proposes to add the compositional terms defined in 22 CFR 120.40—“accessories and attachments,” “component,” and “part”—to its AECA regulations so that ATF's regulations include definitions for these terms and the definitions align with those in the ITAR.

Applying the ITAR's definition of “part” to the USMIL, however, would require ATF to clarify the defense articles included under Category I—Firearms. 27 CFR 447.21. That category regulates “components and parts” but not “accessories and attachments.” 27 CFR 447.21. Yet the ITAR definition for “part” would include “any single unassembled element of a major or a minor component, accessory, or attachment . . .” 22 CFR 120.40 (emphasis added). Fully applying the ITAR definition of “part” to the USMIL Category I—Firearms would consequently lead to the result that unassembled accessories or attachments (falling under the definition of “part”) would be regulated while complete accessories or attachments would not. Therefore, ATF proposes to use paragraph (e) of Category I—Firearms, which is currently reserved, to add a sentence clarifying that “components and parts” does not include unassembled elements of an accessory or attachment. Category I—Firearms would thus include components of regulated firearms as well as unassembled elements of a component, but it would exclude assembled or unassembled attachments and accessories.

Adding the ITAR's definitions would better inform importers of defense articles under the AECA and enable ATF to define these terms consistently when approving or denying import applications. The changes would also ensure that ATF and the Department of State align in how they use these compositional terms with respect to the USMIL and USML. And the proposed clarification within the USMIL would retain the current scope of defense articles regulated under USMIL Category I—Firearms.

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 the current regulation at 27 CFR 447.11 to include the definitions of “component,” “accessories and attachments,” and “part,” and to track those definitions with the Department of State's ITAR provisions at 22 CFR 120.40.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed rule would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule. This proposed rule would simply add three well-established definitions, with a minor adjustment to one term, to ATF's regulations, but it would make no additional changes to existing obligations, required by the Department of State. This rulemaking would provide qualitative benefits to the public in the form of consistency across Departments.

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. It imposes no costs and is also not significant because it incorporates definitions from the ITAR for consistency between agencies without changing importer requirements.

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.

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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 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. 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or any entities because it utilizes definitions already used by the industry and ATF for importing and exporting defense articles.

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. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.

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 created by a rule or any impacts it has on existing information collections. An information collection includes any reporting, recordkeeping, 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.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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-AA77 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.

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-AA77. 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.

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.”

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-AA77).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 447 as follows:

The additions read as follows:

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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, 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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 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.

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.

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.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.”

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ATF is choosing to undertake a regulation to solidify in regulation the interpretation it has provided in guidance.

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.

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).

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.

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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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.

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 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 CO 2 cartridges that also mimic realistic firing. While training rounds might be considered to provide more realistic firearm feedback than their CO 2 counterparts, these CO 2 cartridges sell for less than training rounds. 15   16   17 While training rounds retail for approximately $0.57 per cartridge, CO 2 cartridges are less expensive, selling for an average at retail of $0.37 per cartridge. Furthermore, rifles that use CO 2 cartridges retail for less than a firearm that needs a conversion kit in order to use training rounds.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

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 27 CFR part 478.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.†, 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 “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.

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.

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.

For illustrative purposes, ATF estimates that an FFL manager may be paid an hourly wage rate of $53.42 per 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.

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).

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.

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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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.

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.

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 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.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

The revisions and addition read as follows:

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 27 CFR part 478.

Since its enactment, the GCA has required FFLs to maintain, at their place of business, importing, producing, shipping, receiving, selling, and other disposition records for firearms (“A&D records”), in accordance with prescribed regulations. Section 923(g)(1)(A) of the GCA requires licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers to maintain these records for “such period” and in such form as prescribed by regulation. Licensed collectors, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(2), are required to maintain the records in a bound volume, the nature of which may be prescribed by regulation. Section 923(g)(4) of the GCA requires licensees, upon absolutely discontinuing a business, 3 to deliver required records to the Attorney General within 30 days after discontinuing business. Regulations implementing the record-keeping requirements of sections 923(g)(1)(A), 923(g)(2), and 923(g)(4) are contained primarily in 27 CFR part 478, subpart H. Requirements for retaining records and for handling a discontinued business's records are in 27 CFR 478.129 and 478.127, respectively.

With certain exceptions, an FFL may not sell or otherwise dispose of, temporarily or permanently, any firearm to any unlicensed person unless the FFL records the transaction on ATF Form 5300.9, Firearms Transaction Record (“Form 4473”). See 27 CFR 478.124. Forms 4473 are therefore one of the records licensees are required to retain under 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1). Specifically, § 478.129(b) currently requires licensees to retain each Form 4473 until they discontinue the business or licensed activity.

Prior to July 29, 1985, the GCA's implementing regulations required FFLs to permanently retain records of firearms transactions and deliver those records, with limited exception, to ATF when they discontinued a firearms business. See 26 CFR 178.121(a), 178.127 (1969). On June 28, 1985, ATF published a final rule, 4 effective July 29, 1985, amending the record retention requirements codified at 27 CFR 478.129 to eliminate the permanent retention requirement for licensed dealers and collectors and to reduce the retention period to not more than 20 years, dating back to December 16, 1968. The 1985 final rule also authorized licensed manufacturers and importers to destroy their disposition records after retaining such records for 20 years beginning December 16, 1968. The final rule provided that “[b]ecause of the diminished frequency in utilizing records over 20 years of age in tracing firearms used in crimes, the requirement to maintain permanent records of all firearms transactions is not justifiable based on the cost and administrative burden to both the firearms industry and the Government.”  5

Manufacturers and importers, however, were required to retain, on a permanent basis, their manufacturing, importing, and other firearms acquisition records, including those from prior to 1968. These records proved helpful for a variety of purposes. They were relevant for criminal prosecutions because they helped prove that a firearm moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce. The records could also be used to establish the age of a firearm and, thus, its classification as an antique or curio and relic. The records also lacked the privacy concerns raised by dealer records because they did not record the ultimate owner of most manufactured or imported firearms.

In 2022, ATF published a final rule, 6 effective on August 24, 2022, that amended the record retention requirements in 27 CFR 478.129. Specifically, it amended § 478.129(b) to require that licensees retain each ATF Form 4473 until they discontinue the business or licensed activity. Section 478.129(d) continued to require licensees to retain manufacturing, importing, or other acquisition records for firearms until they discontinue the business or licensed activity, but it imposed the same records retention requirement on licensed importers' and licensed manufacturers' sale or other disposition records. Section 478.129(e) was also amended to require licensed dealers and collectors to retain their sale or other disposition records for firearms and the corresponding receipt record for such firearm until they discontinue the business or licensed activity. These amendments remain in effect today. When FFLs absolutely discontinue a business, 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) and 27 CFR 478.127 continue to require them to deliver the required records within 30 days after they discontinue business to the ATF Out-of-Business Records Center. The GCA and its regulations do not address how long ATF retains out-of-business records (“OOB records”). Currently, ATF maintains all OOB records indefinitely.

Table 1 summarizes the records retention requirements for each type of licensee over time.

The record retention requirements imposed on most licensee records have been based on two principles. For investigating criminal activity, records retained by FFLs allow ATF to trace, by firearm serial number and firearm identifying information, ownership of firearms recovered at or used in crimes, a function particularly important in support of federal, state, and local law enforcement. Retained records also help enforce federal regulatory requirements. When prosecuting criminal cases for violations of the GCA, the government may also rely on licensee records to establish through record-keeping that the firearm has moved between FFLs of different states or countries. More importantly, licensed importer and manufacturer acquisition (“I&M acquisition”) records identify the location from which the firearm was manufactured or imported to demonstrate the firearm's introduction and movement in commerce and the firearm's age.

Likewise, ATF uses OOB records submitted to ATF and maintained by NTC to respond to crime gun trace requests. NTC converts OOB records into digital images after it receives them and stores them in the Enterprise Content Management (“ECM”) Image Repository for use in the tracing process. All images that are electronically stored in the ECM repository are retrievable in accordance with law, regulation, and policy, but are not searchable by an individual's name or other personal identifiers or through character recognition. For fiscal year (“FY”) 2024, NTC conducted 614,995 traces and as of June 11, 2025 when this proposed rule was first drafted, had conducted 420,762 traces for FY 2025. At that same time, NTC held approximately 1.3 billion images of records and as of June 11, 2025, NTC received approximately 6.8 million OOB records per month in FY 2025. The NTC estimates that 500 million images in the OOB records are older than 20 years.

ATF is proposing revisions to §§ 478.127 and 478.129 to adjust the records retention periods for licensee A&D records, Forms 4473, other licensee records, and NTC's out-of-business records, as discussed in detail below. In addition, ATF is proposing some structural changes to the sections to better clarify the different record provisions, and is proposing some minor technical edits to conform with plain writing requirements and updates to ATF forms, numbers, and titles.

As of FY 2024, there were 128,960 active FFLs faced with the costs of retaining, on a permanent basis, A&D records for firearms. Electronic record-keeping systems compliant with ATF's past requirements often require a financial investment in computer hardware, software, and training. The older the firearm, the more likely it has been transferred on the secondary market. As a result, the ability to trace crime guns to a purchaser or determine their movement in interstate or foreign commerce decreases with time because licensee records do not cover transfers on the secondary market. As a result, the utility of older records for tracing firearms does not outweigh the increased cost of permanently retaining electronic or paper records.

Statistical data maintained by NTC establishes that there has been a steady increase since FY 2014 in the percentage of completed traces to a purchaser using records up through 20 years old. In FY 2014, approximately 73 percent (153,629 of 210,312) of completed traces identified a purchaser using records up through 20 years old. Tables 2, 3, and 4 below show the remaining total number of traces completed using records over 20 years old in FY 2014, FY 2019, and FY 2024 and 2025, respectively. Column two in each table contains the subset of column 1's traces that use records over 25 years old, and column three contains the subset of column 2's traces that use records over 30 years old, illustrating the diminishing number of records used in traces as firearms get older.

In FY 2019, approximately 82 percent (253,239 of 308,660) of traces identified a purchaser using records less than 20 years old.

More recent data, for FY 2024 and FY 2025, shows a further decline in records over 20 years old used in traces, as approximately 89 percent (414,405 of 464,325) of successful traces in FY 2024 identified a purchaser using records less than 20 years old, and the same in FY 2025 (426,429 of 477,401).

Thus far, NTC's most recent data indicates that this trend has continued in FY 2026, with approximately 89 percent (203,927 of 228,812) of successful traces in the first half of FY 2026, as of March 31, 2026, requiring records less than 20 years old.

Similarly, prior to implementing 2022's expanded permanent retention period, the small percentage of traces that could not be completed due to lack of records over 20-years old showed an overall decline. ATF uses a specific closure designation for traces when a licensee informs ATF that it does not have records for that firearm because the records were more than 20 years old and had been destroyed. In FY 2014, ATF conducted 350,063 traces. Of these, 0.34 percent, or 1,175, were closed for this reason. Of 469,842 total traces in FY 2020, only 0.31 percent, or 1,463, traces were closed for the above reason, and FY 2021 saw another decline in traces closed with this designation to 0.26 percent, or 1,349, out of 528,058 traces.

The declines in both the percentage of traces using records over 20 years old and those closed because the dealer did not maintain records beyond the 20-year requirement indicate a diminishing need to access records older than 20 years. This is attributable, in part, to an increase in the share of traced firearms with a time-to-crime interval (“TTC”) less than 20 years. A firearm's TTC is the length of time between the date of a firearm's last known purchase to the date law enforcement recovers it as a crime gun. ATF calculated the TTC for nearly all (1,479,046) of the 1,482,861 firearms traced to a purchaser between 2017 and 2021. For the entire period, over 87 percent of the traced crime guns had a TTC of 20 years or less. The median TTC for all firearms was 1,293 days or slightly more than three years, meaning that half of the traced crime guns were purchased within this time period. And approximately 24 percent of all firearms were purchased within one year of their recovery. Between 2017 and 2021, the percentage of firearms with a TTC of less than one year and less than three years steadily increased. In 2017, 19.3 percent of recovered firearms had a TTC of less than one year and 40 percent had a TTC of less than three years. By 2021, those percentages increased to 32.3 percent of recovered firearms with a TTC of less than one year and 53.9 percent with a TTC of less than three years. 7

The decreasing need to utilize records over 20 years old, and the even greater decrease in utility of records more than 30 years old, to trace a firearm to a purchaser—caused in part by shorter TTC periods and lower median age of recovered firearms—demonstrate that a 20-year or 30-year records retention period and reducing the volume of older records maintained by NTC would not have a significant impact on ATF's capability to trace crime guns. As a result of these facts and the administrative burdens on the firearms industry and the government from retaining records indefinitely, ATF is proposing to reduce the records retention periods in § 478.129 for all firearms acquisition and disposition records except I&M acquisition records  8 to 20 or 30 years. ATF is considering whether to establish the retention period at 20 years or 30 years as an appropriate balance between the cost of maintaining records for longer periods and the public safety interest in being able to trace more crime guns and to more quickly apprehend perpetrators of crimes involving firearms. Although fewer records 26-30 years old or over 30 years old have been necessary to trace crime guns in recent years, there are still traces that involve these older records. For example, the data in Table 4 shows that in 2024, roughly 39,229 traces involved records over 25 years old and 29,377 traces involved records over 30 years old. This means that, in 2024, the percentage of successful crime gun traces increased from 89 to 94 percent when records up to 30 years old were available, resulting in almost 10,000 additional successful traces.

ATF seeks comments on whether the costs of retaining these records for an extra ten years (30 years instead of 20) would be sufficiently offset by the public safety benefit of maintaining this traceability. See further discussion in this section (above) and in section III.A of this preamble for more information on the age distribution of records used for firearms tracing over the past ten years.

This rule proposes to remove the requirement in § 478.129(b) that FFLs must retain Forms 4473 permanently and replace it with a requirement that FFLs retain Forms 4473 for either 20 or 30 years. Currently, § 478.129(b) states that “Licensees shall retain each Form 4473 until business or licensed activity is discontinued, either on paper, or in an electronic alternate method approved by the Director, at the business premises readily accessible for inspection under this part.” ATF proposes to replace this provision with “FFLs must retain each Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) for no less than 20 [or 30] years from the date on which they sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm.”

Paragraph § 478.129(b) also states that the records must be maintained in either paper or an electronic alternate method approved by the Director, at the business premises, and readily accessible for inspection under this part. These requirements would remain but in separate sentences that include some minor plain writing edits for readability.

In addition, ATF is proposing to separate into two sub-paragraphs the general requirements for retaining the Forms 4473 mentioned above and the existing records provisions for retaining Forms 4473 associated with non-completed transactions, including headings to help distinguish them. The requirements for retaining forms associated with non-completed transactions would remain the same but would have minor plain writing edits to make them easier to read.

In another rulemaking, ATF is proposing to incorporate into its regulations the ability for licensees to use Forms 4473 when they conduct background checks for private parties transferring a firearm between themselves, and when licensees conduct voluntary firearm handler background checks (“FHCs”) of certain current or prospective employees. Although licensees may use Forms 4473 when they facilitate private-party transfers, that has not been in ATF's regulations, and the FHC use is new. ATF proposes to clarify, as part of incorporating these uses into the regulations, that these records are not part of a licensee's required A&D records and are thus not subject to other regulatory and enforcement requirements. This has been a source of confusion for licensees using Forms 4473 for private-party transfers.

As a result, ATF also proposes adding two new sub-paragraphs that would specify the minimum length of time FFLs must retain Forms 4473 used to facilitate a private-party transfer process or to conduct a voluntary FHC. In both cases, ATF proposes that licensees would retain those Forms 4473 for no less than 90 days (three months) from the date on which they initiate the associated background check. Three months corresponds with the time until the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) purges transaction information. During that period, NICS can research a “delayed” response and has that period to research and resolve the check, so retaining the forms for that period would be consistent with the time to resolve open FHC or private party checks. ATF would also be able to research issues in other contexts, for example, an FBI NICS audit log that shows an extra background check the licensee conducted but for which there is no Form 4473 in the licensee's records; ATF would be able to use these temporary forms to clarify that the licensee conducted the background check to facilitate a private-party transfer. Similarly, ATF would be able to clarify that a transaction involving a missing firearm from licensee inventory was incorrectly checked as a private-party transfer on the form and verify that the licensee did indeed complete the required form and background check for that transaction. However, ATF would not inspect these forms as records in their own right (unless they happen to be erroneously marked as private-party transfers when they are not) because they do not involve FFL transactions, and licensees therefore do not need to retain them longer than three months.

ATF believes that allowing licensees to destroy these records after 90 days would best provide for public safety. A short retention period would encourage more individuals to perform voluntary background checks before transferring firearms on the secondary market. A longer, or permanent, sales record retention period could raise privacy concerns among private party sellers and purchasers. This privacy interest could cause private parties to choose to sell their firearms without a background check if licensees were required to retain them for longer periods. These transactions have also not historically been subject to any records retention period under federal law, so a short retention period does not materially change the status quo when it comes to tracing.

However, the paragraph on private-party transfers would also include a five-year retention period for Forms 4473 associated with NICS background checks that receive a “denied” response from NICS because the prospective transferee would be a prohibited person under law. This five-year retention period for transactions with a “denied” response is consistent with the relevant statute of limitations under federal law, 18 U.S.C. 3282, and would facilitate investigations and prosecutions for unlawful possession, disposition, or attempted unlawful purchase or possession under applicable federal, state, and local laws.

Paragraph (d) of § 478.129 addresses I&M acquisition records, which, as discussed above, would continue to have an indefinite, or permanent, retention period under this proposed rule for the legal process reasons discussed in the preamble. ATF would retain this paragraph essentially as is but would incorporate into it the requirement implicit in § 478.129(a) that such records include those from prior to 1968, because ATF is proposing to remove § 478.129(a). These sentences would include some minor plain writing edits to make them easier to read, and to remove old language.

Similarly, to Forms 4473, ATF is proposing to remove the requirement in § 478.129(e) that licensees must retain firearms A&D records permanently and is instead proposing that FFLs would retain all such records (other than those covered under § 478.129(d)) for either 20 or 30 years. Currently, § 478.129(e) requires licensed dealers and collectors to retain firearm sales or disposition records and corresponding acquisition records until the business or licensed activity is discontinued. ATF proposes to replace this provision with “Licensees must retain records required by this part for no less than 20 [or 30] years from the date on which they sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm.” ATF also proposes to add a second sentence with language that helps better clarify the types of records covered by this provision, but that does not substantively change the content currently in this paragraph: “For each firearm, retained records include the firearm's acquisition records (purchase, receipt, or other acquisition), and corresponding disposition records (sale or other disposition).” The paragraph would also continue to require that “Licensees must maintain the records in either paper or an electronic alternate method approved by the Director, at the business premises, and readily accessible for inspection under this part.” These sentences also include some minor plain writing edits to make them easier to read, and to remove old language.

Along with these changes, ATF also proposes removing the off-site storage provision from § 478.129(d) if ATF changes the records retention period for these records to 20 years but would revise it if ATF changes the records retention period to 30 years. The provision currently allows FFLs to store paper records at a separate location provided the records have no open dispositions and do not have a disposition recorded within 20 years. If ATF changes the retention period to 20 years, this provision would no longer be necessary because FFLs would no longer retain these records longer than 20 years. If ATF elects to establish a 30-year retention period instead, ATF would revise the sentence to read, “Licensees may store paper records that do not contain any open entries and with no acquisitions recorded within 20 years at a separate warehouse, which ATF will consider as part of the business premises for this purpose and which will be subject to inspection under this part.”

However, because licensees expressed confusion in the past—when records were previously retained for 20 years—about how to determine the 20-year point for a record containing multiple transactions, which often span years, ATF is proposing a replacement provision to address this subject, which would apply to either retention period. ATF therefore proposes adding a sentence clarifying that the 20-year-point [or 30-year-point] for such records would be 20 years [or 30 years] after the most recent disposition date in the record.

Although § 478.129(c) is not undergoing a change to the records retention period for these reports, ATF is proposing to add ATF Form 3310.12, Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles, and to remove references to ATF Form 5300.35, Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun. Form 3310.12 already has a five-year retention period, as do the other forms in this paragraph, but it has not been specifically listed with the other multiple sale report for pistols and handguns, ATF Form 3310.4, because it was not in place when the regulatory provision was last drafted. ATF proposes rectifying this for clarity. In § 478.129(c), ATF therefore proposes to amend the paragraph by adding “and Form 3310.12 (Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles)” to the sentence “Licensees must retain each copy of Form 3310.4 (Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers) for no less than five years after the date they sell or otherwise dispose of the firearms.” In addition, ATF proposes to amend the paragraph heading to remove the clause “of pistols and revolvers” to reflect that it would include both kinds of multi-sale reports.

With regard to removing references to Form 5300.35, ATF proposes to further amend the heading of § 478.129(c) by removing the clause “Statement of intent to obtain a handgun” and proposes to remove from the paragraph the sentence, “Licensees shall retain each Form 5300.35 (Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun(s)) for a period of not less than 5 years after notice of the intent to obtain the handgun was forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer, as defined in § 478.150(c).” ATF is proposing these changes because Form 5300.35 was a predecessor form to Form 4473 and is obsolete.

ATF is also proposing to remove § 478.129(a) and (f) because they are obsolete. Paragraph (a) was included in the regulation to clarify which A&D records generated prior to 1968 were subject to the provisions of the GCA passed that year. It has been almost 60 years since this paragraph was added, and this provision is no longer necessary for most records, especially because ATF is also proposing to reduce the retention period for most records to 20 [or 30] years. ATF proposes to remove paragraph (a) and to move the portion of paragraph (a) that pertains to I&M acquisition records to paragraph (c), which covers such records. Along with removing § 478.129(a), this proposed change would include redesignating the subsequent paragraphs from (b) through (e) to (a) through (d).

Paragraph (f), on semiautomatic assault weapon records, was added in 1994, to reflect the assault weapons ban incorporated in subtitle A of title XI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322, 110101, 108 Stat. 1796, 2011 (1994)). However, the assault weapons ban expired ten years later, in 2004, at which time the statutory requirements ceased. As a result, this corresponding regulatory provision is obsolete, and ATF proposes removing it.

The GCA's requirement that licensees provide their records to ATF when they discontinue business has historically been subject to considerable scrutiny and legislative activity. For 33 years, FY 1979 to FY 2011, ATF's annual appropriations included a proviso prohibiting ATF to expend appropriated funds in connection with consolidating or centralizing firearms records maintained by FFLs. In FY 2012, the restriction was made permanent. 9 In 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act amended the GCA to prohibit a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms traffic. 10 Public Law 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, 459 (1986). A 2016 Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) audit examined ATF's compliance with these, and other, registry prohibitions. The audit was initiated due to perceptions that ATF's Out-of-Business Record Imaging System (“OBRIS”) was not in compliance with the laws and prohibitions, though GAO found otherwise. 11 Despite this finding, recent bills, such as the Shall Not Be Infringed Act of 2023  12 (preventing registry expansion through eTrace modernization efforts) and the No Retaining Every Gun In a System That Restricts Your Rights Act  13 (requiring destruction of all OOB records) highlight ongoing concerns with ATF retaining OOB records and trace information. Changing the current retention period would significantly reduce the volume of records retained by ATF and alleviate concerns that ATF might have established or will establish a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.

ATF records indicate that the number of OOB traces that use OOB records over 20 years old has decreased steadily since 2011. In 2011, approximately 39 percent (41,652) of OOB traces used records over 20 years old. In 2024, approximately 21 percent (48,319) of OOB traces used records over 20 years old, and approximately 12 percent (29,060) of OOB traces used records over 30 years old. In 2025, approximately 20 percent (50,869) of OOB traces used records over 20 years old and approximately 12 percent (30,934) of OOB traces used records over 30 years old. The trend since 2011 has been a decrease in the percentage of OOB records used that are more than 20 or 30 years old.

ATF is therefore proposing to limit the period NTC retains OOB records to no longer than 20 years [or 30 years] from the date it receives the records. Specifically, ATF proposes revising § 478.127 to include this retention period for OOB records and to update the existing language to be more streamlined and in plain writing. This proposed section would continue to state that licensees that discontinue operations do not have to transfer records to ATF when a successor assumes the business, but it would maintain the requirement that FFLs that discontinue business absolutely must transfer their records. It would also continue to include the location to which the business must transfer the records and specify that the chief of ATF's Federal Firearms Licensing Center may arrange for the records to instead be delivered to another authority when required by state law or local ordinance. This information is not changing in substance from current requirements. However, the 20[or 30]- year retention period would not apply to I&M acquisition records, for the legal reasons described above. These records also lack the concerns raised by some parts of the public about gun owner privacy and having a de facto sales registry. This is because I&M acquisition records in general reflect disposition to a wholesaler or retail dealer, but rarely to a consumer, and I&M acquisition records in particular reflect acquisition from or manufacture by another FFL or company, not a consumer. These records, thus, have no utility for determining which citizens own particular firearms. In addition, ATF would include the provision discussed above on retaining such records at ATF: “ATF will retain records delivered to and maintained at ATF's Out-of-Business Records Center for no longer than 20 [or 30] years from the date they receive the records.” ATF seeks comments on the length of the proposed records retention period, whether 20 or 30 years, for licensee records.

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 amends 27 CFR 478 to reduce the current requirement for licensees to retain firearms A&D records permanently down to retaining such records for 20 [or 30] years. A similar 20-year retention period existed before 2022, and this change represents a cost savings to industry. The proposed rule also establishes a similar retention period for out-of-business records transferred to ATF, which does not have a cost on regulated industry but may have a cost impact on the public in the form of marginally greater public safety risk.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed 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 Orders 12866 and 13563.

While existing federal regulations (§ 478.129(b), (c), and (d)) require licensees to retain manufacturing, importing, or other acquisition records, and sale or other disposition records, for firearms until they discontinue the business or licensed activity, the requirements were term-limited to 20 years for all records—except importer and manufacturer acquisition records, which were indefinite—from 1985 until ATF's 2022 rulemaking that began requiring indefinite periods for other A&D records as well.

Records retained by licensees allow ATF to trace ownership of firearms recovered at or used in crimes, a function particularly important in support of federal, state, and local law enforcement. However, statistical data maintained by NTC establishes that there has been a steady increase since FY 2014 in the percentage of completed traces to a purchaser using records less than 20 years old, and a corresponding decrease in the need to utilize records over 20 years old to trace a firearm to a purchaser—caused in part by short TTC periods and lower median age of recovered firearms. Since 2022, however, approximately 128,960 active FFLs have been facing costs of retaining, on a permanent basis, A&D records for firearms. The older the firearm, the more likely it has entered the secondary market and may have been transferred multiple times. As a result, the ability to trace crime guns through licensee records decreases over time because licensee records do not cover transfers on the secondary market. As a result, the utility of older records does not outweigh the increased cost of permanently retaining electronic or paper records.

Reducing the records retention period for licensee A&D records and Forms 4473 from permanent to 20 or 30 years would benefit FFLs. Based on current ATF data on active FFLs, out of 79,378 licensees, only 13,729 had their license originally issued prior to December 31, 2005 (20 years ago). Accordingly, only 17 percent of all FFLs have been licensed for 20 years or more. This minority of licensees were also offered several accommodations when regulations were finalized in 2022 requiring a permanent records retention period, including an accommodation for electronic storage of records older than 20 years, and allowance for off-site storage to accommodate the printed records that they would start to retain. These accommodations make it less likely that this proposed rule would help licensees recover sunk costs, such as those for expanding storage facilities or converting to digitized retention or electronic records, of compliance with the current rule. Further, ATF estimates only a de minimis number of FFLs incurred these costs because it is likely that large dealers maintain established record-keeping systems capable of complying with the current or proposed regime equally. On the other hand, smaller dealers—though having faced less than three years of new records (which would not be impacted by the proposed rule because they are still younger than 20 years)—would have facilitated their compliance by using digital or off-site accommodations based on their level of operations and storage needs. The cost savings are thus difficult to quantify precisely as many costs associated with increased storage would have been incurred going forward under the current rule but may not have yet accrued. Therefore, ATF expects a qualitative benefit to accrue to the industry, yet of unknown magnitude and number of beneficiaries.

ATF expects that reducing the required record retention period from permanent to the 20-year [or 30-year] limit that was in effect prior to 2022 would have a limited number of costs and potential risks to public safety.

The primary source of any potential risk would be the possibility that ATF is unable to complete a small portion of firearm trace requests from federal, state, and local law enforcement if they pertain to a firearm sold over 20 [or 30] years ago. These failed trace requests may include high-profile urgent traces. However, firearms of that age may be more commonly involved in inheritance transfers and secondhand sales, for which ATF has no data, and thus a lesser ability to trace.

To better determine this potential risk, ATF must first examine the frequency of such traces that stem from firearms over 20 [or 30] years old.

Based on data from ATF's National Tracing Center, Table 4 shows the distribution of firearm tracing requests based on the age of the firearm records utilized to identify a purchaser.

Based on the above distribution, the age of the firearms being traced is predominantly less than five years old, followed by those aged between five and ten years, 10 to 15 years, and 15 to 20 years. After 20 years, firearms are generally traced less frequently, but inconsistently so, and the reduction is not always linear. For example, in 2024 more traces involved firearms between 30 and 35 years old than those aged 25 to 30 years, and in 2022 there were more traces for firearms aged 25 to 30 years old than for those aged 20 to 25 years, while in 2019 there were more aged 25 to 30 years old than aged 20 to 25 years. Generally, however, the older the gun, the fewer the traces received for it. Presented as a percentage, Table 5 includes this distribution in more aggregate terms.

As shown in Table 5, the vast majority of traces requested used records within the 20-year-old age group. In 2024, 89 percent of traces requested used records under 20 years old, 92 percent used records under 25 years old, and 94 percent used records under 30 years old. The percentage of successful crime gun traces increased from 89 to 94 percent when records up to 29 years old were available, resulting in almost 10,000 additional successful traces.

Table 6 calculates the inverse, with the numbers and percentage of firearm traces that were received that used records older than 20 years, 25 years, and 30 years, which in 2024 amounted to 11 percent, 8 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. Therefore, based on volume from the most recent 2024 fiscal year, under a 20-year retention limit, 49,920 additional traces would be unsuccessful because they would need records over 20 years old (Table 6). If there was a 25-year retention period, then the additional unsuccessful traces would be reduced from 49,920 to 39,229. And finally, if there was a 30-year retention period, the number would be 29,377 unsuccessful traces. While inference on risks to public safety are difficult to make definitively, and most traces occur within the first 20 years as shown above, the remaining traces that would be unsuccessful as a result of the proposed rule could delay or hinder federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts to track and stop violent offenders.

ATF considered issuing guidance on records retention periods, as well as not issuing a rulemaking on the issue, also known as the no-action alternative. The decreasing need to utilize records over 20 years old—caused in part by short TTC periods and lower median age of recovered firearms—demonstrate that a 20-year or 30-year records retention period and reducing the volume of older records maintained by NTC would not have a significant impact on ATF's capability to trace crime guns. Accordingly, the requirement to maintain permanent records of all firearms transactions is not justifiable based on the cost and administrative burden to both the firearms industry and the government. ATF also considered the alternative of affecting the proposed change through guidance instead of rulemaking. However, because the requirement is already in a regulation, revising the requirement must also be accomplished via rulemaking.

ATF considered reducing the records retention period to 20 years, as it was prior to 2022, or to 30 years. Considerations in favor of 20 years were predominantly based on the longstanding practice and precedent that had been in place prior to 2022, except for I&M acquisition records. Returning to this retention period would offer familiarity and thus greater ease of compliance to industry. Alternatively, proposing a 30-year retention requirement would similarly reduce storage burdens compared to the current post-2022 baseline of indefinite records, but would secure an additional ten years of records to facilitate possible traces for ATF and federal, state, and local law enforcement. The difference in estimated benefits and costs between the 20- and 30-year retention periods appears to be marginal, according to ATF tracing data presented above. ATF invites public comment on these two possible retention periods to further inform ATF's decision between these options. ATF will decide on one of these periods for the final rule.

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).

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.

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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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. This proposed rule is deregulatory in nature and would provide savings to the regulated industry. It reduces the length of time persons would have to store records, which reduces costs to small entities, and it imposes no additional burdens or costs.

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.

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). If this proposed rule is finalized, ATF would create an information collection request associated with 27 CFR 478.127 because the requirement contained in § 478.127 requires FFLs to transfer acquisition and disposition records to ATF's Out-of-Business Records Center when the FFL discontinues business absolutely, and would constitute an information collection under the PRA.

In addition, if this rule is finalized as proposed, ATF would revise four existing information collections. The information collection requirements in § 478.129 are the FFL record-keeping retention requirements in current paragraphs (b) through (e) of that section (which would be redesignated as paragraphs (a) through (d) under this proposed rule). These record retention requirements are subject to the PRA and would need to be updated to reflect the new retention period. They were previously established as an information collection under OMB control numbers 1512-0544, 1512-0520, 1512-0006, 1512-0524, and 1512-0129, from prior to when ATF transferred to the Department of Justice from the Treasury Department. But it appears they were not continued under a Department of Justice information collection action after the transfer and remain cited in the regulation under the old Treasury number. As a result, ATF would also update these information collections to reflect ATF OMB control numbers as part of the same process. ATF expects to combine these § 478.129 records-retention period requirements into existing information collection requests for the corresponding records: 1140-0020, Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473); 1140-0031, Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Registered Importers of Arms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles on the US Munitions Import List; 1140-0032, Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Dealers of Type 01/02 Firearms, and Collectors of Type 03 Firearms; and 1140-0067, Licensed Firearms Manufacturers' Records of Production, Disposition, and Supporting Data. Although this rule involves the existing ICRs, the proposed changes would not add to the burdens imposed on the respondent beyond existing, OMB-approved requirements because ATF is proposing to reduce the retention periods.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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-AA95 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 identifiable 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.

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-AA95. 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.

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.”

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.

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-AA95).

Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised in this proposed rule may be finalized, or not, independently of each other, after consideration of comments received. ATF has determined that this proposed rule implements and is fully consistent with governing law. However, in the event this proposed rule is finalized, if any provision of that final rule, an amendment or revision made by that rule, or the application of such provision or amendment or revision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, the remainder of that final rule, the amendments or revisions made by that rule, and application of the provisions of the rule to any person or circumstance shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give them the maximum effect permitted by law.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

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 27 CFR part 478.

The GCA, at 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and as implemented at 27 CFR 478.41(a), makes it unlawful for any person, except a federal firearms licensee (“FFL” or “licensee”)—that is a licensed dealer, manufacturer, or importer—to “engage in the business” of dealing in, manufacturing, or importing firearms. A person may file an application with and receive such a license from ATF, to which the Attorney General has delegated the licensing function. See 18 U.S.C. 923(a); 27 CFR 478.41(b). Licensees are generally required to conduct background checks on prospective firearm recipients through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) to prevent prohibited persons from receiving firearms. See 18 U.S.C. 922(t). Licensees also must maintain firearms transaction records for crime-gun tracing purposes. See 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1)(A).

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (“FOPA”), Public Law 99-308 (1986), in which it defined the term “engaged in the business” for purposes of the GCA as applied to a dealer. 3 The statute defined a dealer engaged in the business as “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) (2020). FOPA also defined the phrase “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to mean “that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection.” FOPA, Public Law 99-308, sec. 101 (adding paragraphs (21)(C) and (22) to 18 U.S.C. 921(a)); see also 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22) (2020). FOPA's definition of “engaged in the business” as a dealer was incorporated into ATF's implementing regulations at 27 CFR 178.11  4 (now § 478.11) as “Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker.” 27 CFR 478.11.

On June 25, 2022, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”), Public Law 117-159. Among other provisions, section 12002 of BSCA broadened the statutory definition of “engaged in the business” by eliminating the requirement that a person's “principal objective” of purchasing and reselling firearms must include both “livelihood and profit” and replacing it with a requirement that the person must intend “to predominantly earn a profit.” The statute now provides that, as applied to a dealer in firearms, the term “engaged in the business” means “a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) (emphasis added). BSCA defined the term “predominantly earn a profit” to mean that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of a firearm is for pecuniary gain rather than for other purposes, such as selling a personal firearms collection. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22). Prior to BSCA, this term required the principal objective of selling or disposing firearms to be both for profit and, in addition, maintaining a livelihood. BSCA's statutory amendment to the term “predominantly earn a profit” shifts the primary focus to the intended pecuniary gain from selling or disposing firearms even when such activity is not the person's main source of income.

When drafting regulations to implement BSCA, the Biden Administration directed the Department to further clarify, through rulemaking, the meaning of the term “engaged in the business.” Specifically, President Biden issued Executive Order 14092, which required the Attorney General to develop and implement a plan to, in relevant part, “clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to become [FFLs], in order to increase compliance with the federal background check requirement for firearm sales, including by considering a rulemaking, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law; [and] prevent former FFLs whose licenses have been revoked or surrendered from continuing to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.”  5 The Biden Administration attempted to implement policy changes that went far beyond the regulatory changes necessary to implement BSCA.

The Department published a final rule, titled “Definition of `Engaged in the Business' as a Firearms Dealer,” 89 FR 28968 (Apr. 19, 2024) (“EIB rule”), which became effective on May 20, 2024. The EIB rule amended the regulations in 27 CFR part 478 to (1) incorporate BSCA's definition of the term “engaged in the business,” (2) provide clarification and guidance on what it means to be “engaged in the business” and to have the requisite intent to “predominantly earn a profit,” and (3) identify conduct that was presumed to constitute “dealing” and to show relevant intent. See 89 FR 28968. The EIB rule also defined the term “responsible person” and addressed the procedures former licensees must follow when they liquidate business inventory when their license is terminated. Id.

Although the EIB rule purported to provide clarification and guidance, many provisions of the rule were—and are—at odds with the statutory text. By broadly defining the concept of unlawful dealing, for instance, the Biden Administration began to approach a system of universal background checks through administrative regulation. For example, one definition narrowed the range of firearms that could permissibly be deemed part of a “personal collection,” and thus, that may be liquidated by unlicensed persons. The Department also adopted fact-pattern presumptions that many objectors believed, in practice, would relieve the Government of its burden of proof to demonstrate unlawful dealing.

The EIB rule was immediately the subject of litigation. On June 12, 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas enjoined ATF from enforcing the rule as to the plaintiffs—one individual, four advocacy groups, and the States of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Utah—for the pendency of the litigation. 6 In addition, the district court found that several regulatory presumptions in the EIB rule conflict with the statute. 7 In particular, it found that ATF had no authority to use administrative regulations to expand the zone of firearms-dealing subject to regulation beyond that which Congress statutorily created. In subsequent litigation, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion for preliminary injunction, on both standing and the merits, 8 as did the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama with respect to standing. 9 However, on September 30, 2025, the Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The Northern District of Alabama found that the plaintiffs had established standing. On the merits, the court determined that ATF exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the final rule and that the rule improperly expanded the statutory definition of “engaged in the business.”  10

On further review, ATF agrees that the EIB rule is replete with procedural and substantive problems. Consequently, ATF proposes repealing those sections of the EIB rule that do not correctly implement the GCA and BSCA. ATF does not propose, however, to repeal the EIB rule in its entirety. Some sections of the EIB rule will be retained—for example, those providing for the discontinuance of business operations—although this rule proposes to amend some of those provisions.

The EIB rule created fact-pattern presumptions that a person was engaged in the business. These presumptions were intended to be used to determine whether a person was engaged in the business as a dealer and whether a person had the intent to predominantly earn a profit. See 89 FR 28975-80. For example, a person would be presumed to be engaged in the business when a person repetitively resells or offers for resale firearms—

(i) within 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or

(ii) within one year after the person purchased the firearms if they are—

(A) new, or like new in their original packaging; or

(B) the same make and model, or variants thereof.

The EIB rule's stated intent was to (1) license more persons; (2) deter others from engaging in the business without a license; (3) increase the number of background checks by increasing the licensed population; and (4) expand the reach of crime-gun trace requests by increasing the licensed population. See 89 FR 28968.

With respect to the first two purposes, ATF's position is the presumptions created by the EIB rule were largely unnecessary because the statutory definition is readily comprehensible. For dealers, the core of being engaged in the business requires the intent to profit from the repeated buying and selling of firearms. In other words, a person must be a wholesaler or retailer of new or used goods. For example, a person who buys ten models of the same handgun, with the predominant intent to resell for a profit, and then proceeds to sell any number of them repetitively three days later at a flea market is engaged in the business within the statutory definition. See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) (applying the definition of “engaged in the business” as a dealer). That person would be engaged in the business from the moment he made repetitive sales with the intent to profit. Even if the individual sold only two firearms, the individual intended to engage in a course of business dealings and then began doing so. Courts have held that such activity requires a license because the statute reaches those who hold themselves out as retail sources of firearms. 11 In contrast, selling two firearms from a personal collection in two isolated transactions does not rise to the level of engaging in the business because there is no intent to engage in repetitive buying and selling for profit.

More importantly, the existence of these presumptions created a serious risk of abuse in civil and administrative proceedings. The court of appeals cases relied upon by the EIB rule used the strong form of rebuttable presumptions: the fact will be presumed to exist until the defendant offers enough evidence to disprove it. See 89 FR 29007. The citations in the EIB rule indicate—or at the very least, raise the risk that courts might erroneously conclude—that the EIB rule was intended to do more than simply shift the burden of production. Potentially shifting the burden of proof to the defendant raised concerns among the regulated public, Members of Congress, and others that ATF illegitimately attempted to relieve the Government of its burden of proof in civil and administrative proceedings. Indeed, in Texas v. ATF, the district court found the presumptions to be highly problematic because “they flip the statute on its head by requiring that firearm owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt.”  12 It further stated that “[p]resumptions, especially in administrative proceedings that may generate institution-destroying liability, cannot be a matter of Department ipse dixit.”   13 Thus, on further review, ATF agrees that the risk that the presumptions could have been used erroneously to relieve the Government of its burden of proof justifies discarding the presumptions.

While the Department disclaimed that the presumptions were designed to relieve the Government of its burden of proof (and the EIB rule stated that “the rebuttable presumptions apply only to shift the burden of production,” 89 FR 29007), that disclaimer rests on a questionable foundation. The presumptions all involved fact patterns from which a fact finder could find that a person was engaged in the business. Given that the presumptions already involved facts sufficient to create a prima facie case, the defendant would already be exposed to a legal judgment unless he came forward with sufficient facts to explain the plaintiff's case. Switching only the burden of production would have had no further effect. In light of the foregoing, the rule could be reasonably perceived as shifting the burden to the individual to disprove the presumption. At minimum, even if the EIB rule truly meant to shift only the burden of production—and nothing else—then the presumptions were unnecessary.

To be clear, discarding the presumptions does not mean that a person who engages in behavior identified by the presumptions will not be found to be engaged in the business. The actions identified by the presumptions in EIB provide circumstantial evidence from which a fact finder could potentially find that a person was engaged in the business. Removing the EIB rule's legal presumptions simply prevents this evidence from being given dispositive effect unless the firearm seller can carry the burden of disproving that he was engaged in the business.

Furthermore, ATF has not used the EIB rule's presumptions in civil proceedings, showing they were in fact unnecessary in practice. An anecdotal survey of ATF's field divisions uncovered no instances in which the presumptions were cited in civil proceedings in the time since the EIB rule became effective. ATF may revoke a license or deny a renewal application in a civil administrative proceeding if the licensee willfully violated 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), which prohibits a person from engaging in the business as a dealer without a license, or aided and abetted others in willfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license. Since publishing the EIB rule in April 2024, ATF has brought two such proceedings against licensees. A review of these proceedings reflects that none of the presumptions set forth in 27 CFR 478.13 were cited or referenced by ATF in support of these actions. Given that the presumptions have not actually proven to be significant to or applied in ATF proceedings, and likewise do not appear to have had the expected effect of increasing the number of licensees, see infra, rescinding the presumptions is warranted to preserve public confidence in ATF proceedings and avoid a perception that such proceedings are or may be biased.

Moreover, mandatory presumptions have little role in the enforcement of the GCA's provisions against dealing without a license. The EIB rule suggested that the presumptions could be used “to determine whether to deny or revoke a federal firearms license.” 89 FR 28969. But ATF's administrative adjudications, which usually involve license revocations, operate only on those who are already licensed. The EIB rule also suggested that they might have application “in civil asset forfeiture proceedings,” 89 FR 28969, but ATF has no anecdotal or statistical information that indicates it has used any of the presumptions in a civil forfeiture matter involving dealing without a license since the EIB rule was published. As a matter of policy, ATF has concerns about seizing property through the use of regulatory presumptions.

Individuals who engage in dealing without a license are primarily subject to criminal sanction. In criminal proceedings, the presumptions were intended to be useful to courts to the extent that jury instructions could incorporate permissible inferences if the case involved a fact pattern that matched one of the presumptions. 89 FR 28976, 28982, 29014. But ATF is not aware of the presumptions facilitating criminal enforcement. As the EIB rule recognized, see 27 CFR 478.13(h), mandatory presumptions cannot be employed in criminal proceedings. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979). Further, as with the civil revocation proceedings mentioned above, ATF is not aware of any criminal proceedings where presumptions have been invoked as permissible inferences since the EIB rule was published. Instead of presumptions or permissive inferences, judges may simply instruct jurors on the factors relevant to determining whether someone is engaged in the business—an instruction that judges already give. See, e.g., Pattern Jury Instruction, 5th Circuit, 2024 922(a)(1)(A) “engaged in the business”;  14 Pattern Jury Instructions, 9th Circuit, 14.3—922(a)(1)(A). 15

Other aspects of the EIB rule may create confusion around conduct that falls outside the GCA's definition of being engaged in the business. For example, as discussed in the EIB rule, courts have stated that an isolated firearm transaction would not require a license when other factors were not present. 16 Nor are persons engaged in the business when they engage in repeated sales of firearms if the predominant intent is something other than earning a profit; for example, collectors who buy and sell repeatedly to enhance their personal collections. See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C). In these circumstances, the GCA does not require persons to obtain a license. Congress made a considered judgment that it did not intend federal law to extend to the noncommercial, intrastate market. See GCA, Public Law 90-618, sec. 101, 82 Stat. 1213, 1213-14 (1968) (reenacted chapter analysis without change) (declaring that the GCA was enacted to “provide for better control of the interstate traffic of firearms” and that Congress' purpose in creating the GCA was “not . . . to place any undue or unnecessary federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms”).

ATF has been diligent in providing guidance to the licensed and unlicensed communities to ensure they consistently apply the legal standards associated with licensing requirements. 17 Similarly, as the EIB rule explained, there is an established set of case law that clarifies the factors courts consider regarding whether an individual needs to be licensed. See, e.g., 89 FR 28976-77, 28978-79, & nn.67-68, 72, 75-77, 82.

ATF recognizes that there is no bright line at which a person may cross the threshold from engaging in personal sales to being engaged in the business of dealing firearms. The GCA's definition of “engaged in the business” is a standard, not a rule. The standard must be applied to the factual scenario of each case. And as with any standard, there are paradigm cases on either side, but no perfectly defined line between them. Nor is there any magic number of sales that can make a person “engaged in the business.” 89 FR 29016. Persons who sell two firearms can be engaged in the business, if they couple that sale with labor and intent to engage in repeated commercial transactions for profit. 18 Persons who sell 50 firearms may not be engaged in the business if they are liquidating their personal collections, at least in the absence of facts militating in the opposite direction. 19 As the Supreme Court has recognized, Congress may legislate “us[ing] imprecise terms,” Sessions v. Dimaya, 548 U.S. 148, 159 (2018), or a “qualitative standard,” Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 604 (2015).

The core concept of being engaged in the business is clear: the intent to engage in a course of repeated buying and selling predominantly motivated by profit. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C). Individuals often meet this standard without question, particularly in cases that lead to criminal prosecutions. In addition, criminal prosecutions under the GCA require a showing of a willfulness mens rea, 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(D), which requires showing that an individual acted with knowledge that the individual's conduct was unlawful. See Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 189 (1998) (maintaining that “the willfulness requirement of § 924(a)(1)(D) requires knowledge that the conduct is unlawful”). With respect to EIB, Congress's preference for an effort- and intent-based definition, over a bright numerical threshold, does not merit retaining these presumptions as part of the definition or other supposed clarifications in the EIB rule.

Some critics incorrectly suggested that the prior Administration used the EIB rule to try to establish “universal background checks” by expanding the statutory definition to capture additional transactions as retail sales requiring a license. 20 But, the GCA allows a non-licensee to transfer a firearm to another non-licensee within the same state without conducting a background check. 21 Both the GCA and FOPA left the noncommercial, intrastate market primarily regulated by state law. BSCA did not change that basic decision. BSCA was designed to provide clarification by changing the wording of the statutory definition about when a person should be licensed. According to BSCA's sponsors, the Act's change to the definition was driven by “confusion about the GCA's definition of `engaged in the business,' as it pertained to individuals who bought and resold firearms repetitively for profit, but possibly not as the principal source of their livelihood.”  22 The sponsors “maintain[ed] that these changes clarif[ied] who should be licensed, eliminating a `gray' area in the law, ensuring that one aspect of firearms commerce is more adequately regulated.”  23

The EIB rule thus could not, and did not, impose universal background check requirements. And, as discussed, in light of Congress' changes to carefully crafted clarifications of the statutory language through BSCA's amendments, it is unnecessary to supplement or confuse the statutory language with further regulatory language.

Additionally, ATF has determined that the rule proved ineffective in its attempt to increase the number of dealer licenses. In the time since the EIB rule went into effect, ATF has not seen an increase in licenses and background checks. ATF has reviewed the number of new applications the Federal Firearms Licensing Center received for Type 01 licenses (Dealer in Firearms Other Than Destructive Devices) for fiscal years (“FYs”) 2021 through 2025, the four years preceding the EIB rule, and the one year since the rule was published. See Table 1. Once issued, a federal firearms license is valid for a three-year period unless terminated sooner, so there are more total Type 01 licensees in each year than the number of applications persons submit to ATF in the same year. 18 U.S.C. 923(c), 27 CFR 478.49.

As Table 1 indicates, since FY 2021, there has been a decrease in both applications for Type 01 licenses and the total number of Type 01 licensees in each fiscal year. The EIB rule was intended to facilitate the recognition by more people that they must acquire a license, which ATF expected would increase the number of persons becoming licensed as dealers. However, that expected outcome has not occurred since the EIB rule became effective. Instead, the number of Type 01 applications filed after the EIB rule continued to decline, as did the number of Type 01 licensees. In FY 2024, ATF received 4,350 Type 01 applications and listed 47,776 Type 01 licensees. In FY 2025, ATF received a total of 4,160 Type 01 applications and listed 46,072 Type 01 licensees. As a result, contrary to ATF's intended expectation from the EIB rule, the EIB rule did not result in an increase in Type 01 licensees.

The EIB rule created a general definition of “personal collection” in 27 CFR 478.11 to identify the kinds of firearms that fall into the statutory exception to the definition of engaged in the business. Section 478.13(a) states that the term “engaged in the business” does not “include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person's personal collection of firearms.” This exception mirrors the statutory text, which created this narrow, predetermined exception to the general rule that applies to all firearms (and which still only requires a license if a person devotes time, attention, and labor to repetitively purchasing and reselling firearms in the regular course of business with predominant intent to profit). This narrow statutory exception to the general rule was created by Congress to recognize that persons who collect firearms or own them for hobby purposes might occasionally purchase and resell those firearms to enhance or liquidate their collection and would be unlikely to be doing so as a profit-making course of business.

The general rule in the statute sets out a test for determining when firearms are being sold in such a manner as to qualify as being engaged in the business. That test includes, as a key element, intending predominantly to earn a profit from purchasing and reselling firearms—without distinguishing what kind of firearm, who owns the firearm, or listing all the other reasons persons might own the firearms. It is only in the exception that Congress specified a particular set of firearms owned for particular purposes—personal collecting or hobbies—which, if resold only occasionally, would automatically be treated as not being engaged in the business.

The EIB rule added two parts to the definition of “personal collection” in § 478.11. First, the rule defined “personal collection” to mean “[p]ersonal firearms that a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition ( e.g., collecting curios or relics, or collecting unique firearms to exhibit at gun club events), or for a hobby ( e.g., noncommercial, recreational activities for personal enjoyment, such as hunting, skeet, target, or competition shooting, historical re-enactment, or noncommercial firearms safety instruction).” Second, the rule provided: “In addition, the term shall not include firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection: Provided, that nothing in this definition shall be construed as precluding a person from lawfully acquiring firearms for self-protection or other lawful personal use.” There are strong arguments that the rule improperly attempted to narrow the categories of accumulated firearms that would constitute a collection.

The EIB rule adopted a narrower conception of what purposes in gathering firearms might qualify for a “personal collection” by reading “personal collection” in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) with reference to the definition of “collector” in section 921(a)(13). On reflection, ATF believes that that interpretation overreads section 921(a)(13). Although the words have the same root (“collect”), the definition of “personal collection” in section 921(a)(21)(C) materially differs from the definition of “collector” in section 921(a)(13) because of the separate functions that each provision serves. The function of “collector” and “licensed collector” in paragraph (a)(13) is to designate a person who collects a limited class of historical firearms (those defined as “curios or relics”), for which the GCA establishes special licensing rules to facilitate noncommercial interstate buying and selling. In contrast, the function of “personal collection” in section 921(a)(21)(C) is to create a safe harbor for when an individual sells multiple firearms that he had previously accumulated for personal, noncommercial use—with for personal, noncommercial use being the key distinction. Consequently, there is no inconsistency between understanding “personal collection” to mean firearms held by a person for private, noncommercial purposes, while recognizing that certain types of collectors do not qualify as statutory “collectors” and, thus, cannot utilize the special licensing provisions for those who collect curio and relic firearms. This definition also harmonizes the GCA provision for licensees to have a “personal collection of firearms,” 18 U.S.C. 923(c)—that is, firearms the licensee maintains for personal, noncommercial use.

The EIB rule rested its amendments, in part, on narrow definitions of “collection.” See 89 FR 28980 and n.88 (relying on Merriam-Webster's definition to restrict a personal collection to only those objects “gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a hobby”); 89 FR 29038, n.216 (relying on Encyclopedia Britannica's definition, “a group of interesting or beautiful objects brought together in order to show or study them or as a hobby”). Given these narrow definitions, the Department previously concluded that a personal collection is limited to firearms “that a person accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition . . . , or for a hobby.” 27 CFR 478.11. Indeed, the Department specifically excluded “firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection” as not part of a personal collection. Id.

ATF now believes that the definitions identified by the EIB rule are too restrictive. Individuals are engaged in the business when their relationship with the firearms is primarily commercial—they are buying and selling for profit rather than for personal, noncommercial use for self-defense, target shooting, gun collecting, hunting, and other lawful uses. To avoid any contrary suggestion, ATF proposes rescinding subsection (1) of the definition.

Although ATF proposes rescinding subsection (1) of the definition of “personal collection,” ATF believes subsection (2) of the definition, which defines licensee personal collections, clearly and informatively sets out the actions licensees can take to distinguish a personal firearm from a business one and comply with 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C). This aspect of the definition provides greater clarity that aids the public in complying with the statute, and ATF is therefore proposing to retain this portion of the definition.

In conjunction with the licensee personal collection definition, the EIB rule also added a definition in § 478.11 for “former licensee inventory” and set out guidelines a licensee must follow to dispose of its firearms inventory when it is discontinuing business, particularly if its license is revoked. The regulation treats all firearms purchased as part of a licensee's business inventory while licensed as retaining that classification indefinitely because “they were purchased repetitively before the license was terminated as part of a licensee's business inventory with the predominant intent to earn a profit.” This definition, together with §§ 478.57 (discontinuance of business) and 478.78 (operations by licensee after notice), limits a former licensee to disposing of the inventory within 30 days after it discontinues business and effectively prevents former licensees from reclassifying inventory purchased repetitively with the intent to resell for profit while licensed as personal firearms in a “personal collection” after they become unlicensed. See 27 CFR 478.57(b)(2) (providing that a licensee may “[t]ransfer the former licensee inventory to a responsible person of the former licensee to whom the receipt, possession, sale, or other disposition is not prohibited by law,” but that any such transfer “does not negate the fact that the firearms were repetitively purchased, and were purchased with the predominant intent to earn a profit by repetitive purchase and resale”). The EIB rule explicitly authorized former licensees to sell firearms only (1) “within 30 days [of termination of a license], or such additional period approved by the Director for good cause,” or (2) on an “occasional” basis “thereafter to a licensee.” 27 CFR 478.78(b)-(c). In other words, outside the 30-day window (and barring an extension for good cause), former licensees were restricted from selling business inventory to anyone, except for occasional sales to current FFLs.

Although some process for addressing the inventory of former licensees is appropriate, the effectively permanent restraint on firearms sales after the 30-day period is arguably unlawful. For example, upon winding down operations, a former licensee could absorb twenty firearms from his business inventory into his personal collection in good faith. A former licensee who sold one or two such firearms years later to a non-licensee would not be engaged in the business under the statutory definition, and the GCA does not by its terms restrict occasional sales of such firearms only to other FFLs. Such conduct stands in contrast to a former licensee who immediately continues selling firearms acquired as business inventory in repeated transactions after his license is discontinued. ATF recognizes concerns about former licensees attempting to hold “fire sales” of large swathes of inventory without adhering to recordkeeping and background check requirements. However, such scenarios are clearly covered by statutory language, which prohibits engaging in the business without a license. 24 By contrast, a situation where a former licensee sells an occasional firearm in a private sale years later does not constitute the repetitive purchasing and selling that the GCA was intended to cover. The GCA does not authorize former licensees to engage in the business. But it also does not impose encumbrances on all firearms that were previously part of a business's inventory.

For all these reasons, this rule proposes to amend regulations in 27 CFR part 478 that were created or changed by the EIB rule as described below.

For the reasons discussed above, ATF is proposing the following regulatory changes related to the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer as implemented in §§ 478.11 and 478.13 via the EIB rule. ATF proposes to (1) move the current definition of “engaged in the business as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker,” set forth in §§ 478.13(a) to 478.11, and (2) rescind § 478.13(b)-(h). Paragraphs (b) through (h) of § 478.13 include: (b) a statement that whether a person is engaged in the business as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker is a fact-specific inquiry, (c) specific fact-patterns establishing presumption that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer, (d) the definition of “predominantly earn a profit,” (e) a list of conduct that does not support a presumption, (f) evidence that may be used to rebut a presumption, (g) clarification that itemized presumptions, conduct, and rebuttal evidence are not exhaustive lists, and (h) clarification that the rebuttable presumptions do not apply to criminal proceedings.

ATF also proposes to retain the definition of “predominantly earn a profit” from § 478.13, with some revisions, and move it to § 478.11. The rest of § 478.13 would be removed, except as provided in the following paragraph. ATF is also proposing to change the definition of “personal collection” and remove the definition of “former licensee inventory,” both in § 478.11. These proposed changes are described in detail below.

ATF proposes removing all of § 478.13 except: (1) the portion of the definition of “engaged in the business as dealer in firearms other than gunsmith or pawnbroker” that duplicates statutory language in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C); (2) the added exception for auctioneers who provide only auction services on a commission by assisting persons to liquidate firearms in an estate-type sale;  25 and (3) a revised version of the definition of “predominantly earn a profit.” Because these remaining portions of § 478.13 would no longer be long enough to warrant a separate definition section, ATF proposes moving all three of these remaining portions from § 478.13 to § 478.11 (meaning of terms), where other relatively short definitions are located.

ATF would place the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer under paragraph (3) in the definition of “engaged in the business,” and the existing language in paragraph (3), which references § 478.13, would be removed. The paragraph would retain the same heading and would read, “A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. The term does not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms to enhance a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person's personal collection of firearms.”

ATF would also move the auctioneer exception to paragraph (3) within the definition of “engaged in the business” under § 478.11, at the end of the new paragraph described above. Historically, licensees and non-licensees seeking guidance on the proper and lawful way to liquidate firearms, both in the regular course of their business or as an isolated occurrence, have commonly raised questions about auctioneers. Because ATF has regularly provided consistent guidance on what type of auction activity crosses the threshold to constitute engaging in the business of dealing in firearms, the portion of the definition that incorporates that exception into the regulation provides definitional clarity to the public and licensed community. Therefore, ATF proposes retaining the portion of § 478.13 that codifies ATF's historical position, thus ensuring consistency for industry members. Modifying or removing this part of the definition would likely cause undue and unnecessary confusion. This proposed change would therefore add the following text to the end of paragraph (3): “In addition, the term does not include an auctioneer who provides only auction services on commission to assist in liquidating firearms at an estate-type auction, as long as the auctioneer does not purchase the firearms or take possession of the firearms for sale or consignment.”

ATF would move the text of the definition in § 478.13 of “predominantly earn a profit” to a location under the same definitional heading in § 478.11, and it would remove the text currently under that heading, which references § 478.13. It is necessary to retain this definition to distinguish between, on the one hand, what constitutes engaging in the business as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker; and, on the other hand, engaging in the business as a gunsmith, pawnbroker, manufacturer, or importer—all of which continue to require the “principal objective of livelihood and profit” that applied to dealers prior to BSCA. The definition of “predominantly earn a profit” tracks the statutory definition; however, ATF proposes making a minor change to one sentence of the definition, so it is easier to read, without changing the meaning. Specifically, ATF proposes changing the sentence, “ Provided, that proof of profit, including the intent to profit, shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism,” to “However, proof of profit, including the intent to profit, is not required in cases in which the person engaged in regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.” This change is in line with one of the purposes for ATF's implementing regulations, which is to aid the public in understanding and complying with statutory provisions, and it is consistent with laws requiring plain writing. It does not modify or expand on the statutory meaning.

In addition, ATF proposes to remove the last sentence of the definition as it currently exists in § 478.13, which reads, “For purposes of this section, a person may have the intent to profit even if the person does not actually obtain the intended pecuniary gain from the sale or disposition of firearms,” because this sentence is not in the statutory definition. The proposed new definition of “predominantly earn a profit” would thus be “The intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. However, proof of profit, including the intent to profit, is not required in cases in which the person engaged in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.”

In addition to the above changes to § 478.13, ATF proposes two changes directly to § 478.11. Specifically, for the reasons discussed in section II.A of this preamble, ATF proposes removing paragraph (1) of the definition of “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection),” moving paragraph (2) up to replace paragraph (1) with changes necessary to conform it to regulatory paragraph designations, changing the definition's title to reflect the remaining content, and removing the definition “former licensee inventory” entirely. The proposed heading for the definition of “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection)” would instead be “licensee personal collection (or personal collection of licensee).” The rest of the definitional text would remain the same as currently in § 478.13, but the paragraph designation would change because it would no longer be paragraph (2).

In addition, the rule proposes to make changes to § 478.57 (Discontinuance of business). The proposed rule would remove from paragraphs § 478.57(b)(2) and (c) the relevant sentences that effectively restrict former licensees from reselling their firearms without being presumed to be engaged in the business. Specifically, it would remove from § 478.57(b)(2) the sentence that reads: “Any such transfer, however, does not negate the fact that the firearms were repetitively purchased, and were purchased with the predominant intent to earn a profit by repetitive purchase and resale.” And it would remove from § 478.57(c) the second sentence that provides that a former FFL who resells any of its former business inventory is subject to the provisions of § 478.13. Because this rule proposes to remove § 478.13, the provisions in these paragraphs would no longer be relevant. And because these provisions are also found in § 478.78 (Operations by licensee after notice), this rule proposes to remove from § 478.78(b)(2) and (c) the same sentences.

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 retain the definition of “engaged in the business” as specifically revised and defined in BSCA. In addition, this proposed rule would revise 27 CFR 478.13 to rescind paragraphs (b)-(h), which includes rebuttable presumption fact patterns as to whether a person is engaged in the business as a dealer and whether a person has predominant intent to profit, a list of conduct that does not support a presumption, evidence that may be used to rebut a presumption, and other provisions related to applying the presumptions. In addition, the rule also proposes to retain the definition of “predominantly earn a profit” with some revisions, to change the definition of “personal collection” to apply only to licensee personal collections and remove the definition of “former licensee inventory.” These provisions were included in the EIB rule to aid persons in understanding and applying the statutory change from BSCA. In addition, the EIB rule did not result in the anticipated increase in the number of licensees. As a result, removing or revising these additional provisions does not generate a cost to the public.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that, although this rule would not be economically significant under section (3)(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, it would be a “significant regulatory action” under the Order. OMB has therefore reviewed this rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. This proposed rule would revert the definition of “engaged in the business” to the one outlined specifically by statute, without the additional provisions added by the previous rule. As a result, this proposed rule would provide qualitative benefits to the public in the form of reduced confusion and reduced concerns about perceived risk of over-enforcement, as well as qualitative costs in the form of potential increase in persons who should be licensed remaining unlicensed. This rule would not create quantifiable costs or burdens for the public.

The EIB rule included provisions in addition to the statutory definitional change from BSCA, and those provisions did not result in the projected increase in licensees. As illustrated in Table 2, the number of all FFL applications has been decreasing since 2021. Between the time the NPRM for the EIB rule was published in 2023 and was later finalized in 2024, the number of applications for all FFLs decreased overall.

The intended clarifying provisions instead created confusion and raised concerns by commenters on the rule that the provisions could be misapplied and misunderstood in ways that would constitute violations of law. As a result, ATF has determined that these provisions should be removed or revised and that the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer should be primarily limited to the statutory definition. The only way to make these regulatory adjustments is through a rulemaking.

This proposed rule would align with the definition of “engaged in the business” as defined in the statute. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, many firearms sales fall outside the GCA's definition of being engaged in the business. Nor are persons engaged in the business if they repeatedly buy and sell primarily in order to maintain and enhance their personal firearms collection rather than for profit. One of the qualitative cost savings of the proposed rule is that it would reduce confusion and reduce the perceived risk of over-enforcement. ATF, however, lacks the data necessary to quantify such savings.

Based on the historical data in Table 1 above, there were no incremental increases in FFL dealer applications in the year and a half since the EIB rule was published; therefore, the projected costs of that original rule, see 89 FR 29072-73 (analyzing expected costs for unlicensed persons to become licenses), were not incurred. Furthermore, this rule would maintain the minimum definitions as required by the statute. Costs arising from these statutory definitions were already accounted for in the EIB rule. As a result, this proposed rule would not have any quantifiable monetary cost savings.

Potential qualitative disbenefits ( i.e., adverse impacts) to this proposed rule may include a de minimis increase in risk to public safety. In the EIB rule, ATF described conditions in which an individual might be considered “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. Some individuals who might have been active firearms sellers prior to the EIB rule might have refrained from selling firearms after the EIB rule out of concern that their conduct rose to the level of being “engaged in the business” because it would subject them to the GCA's requirements ( e.g., record-keeping, conducting background checks, inspections). If parts of the regulations implemented by the EIB rule are rescinded, these persons might resume selling firearms actively without becoming licensed, just as they had prior to publication of the EIB rule. This could mean that any risks regarding unlicensed sellers that Congress perceived when initially enacting the GCA would not be addressed through regulations clarifying the GCA's requirements.

During the previous Administration, ATF published the EIB rule, in which ATF included the statutorily revised definition of engaged in the business as a dealer and additional regulatory provisions to further define and clarify the term and how persons could determine its application. Upon further consideration, ATF has determined that the ensuing confusion from these additional provisions may impose additional risks on members of the public, who might interpret the rule as prohibiting them from purchasing firearms for self-defense or protection and might make them feel chilled in purchasing and reselling personal firearms occasionally without predominant intent to profit, as intended by Congress. Because these provisions were added to ATF's regulations, they would remain in effect unless ATF were to engage in rulemaking to revise them. Therefore, ATF rejects maintaining the status quo as an alternative due to the risk of chilling lawful firearms activities.

ATF considered the alternative of rulemaking to revise or remove non-statutorily required provisions in the current regulatory definition of engaged in the business as a dealer. This would cause the regulatory definition to consist primarily of the statutory definition as revised by Congress in BSCA. Based on historical data, there would be no additional quantifiable costs or benefits incurred to the public from this proposed alternative. Revising these regulatory provisions may reduce confusion that the added regulatory provisions may have caused; however, it could conversely increase risk from active sellers, who are not licensed, who resume sales and thus do not conduct background checks to ensure that prohibited persons do not acquire firearms on the secondary market. Nevertheless, ATF believes that the potential impact on public safety is de minimis. A solution, such as guidance, would not have the same effect on existing regulatory provisions, as guidance cannot contradict the regulations. As a result, ATF has determined that rulemaking is the best alternative and the only way to remove the provisions that were causing confusion.

This alternative was considered but rejected. While this alternative would not impose any additional costs, it would not rescind the presumptions currently published in regulation or correct the other issues with the regulatory supplement to the “engaged in the business” definition. As mentioned above, maintaining the legal presumptions in regulations would continue to create concerns among the regulated public that ATF is illegitimately attempting to relieve the Government of its burden of proof in civil and administrative proceedings. One court has already opined that the presumptions are highly problematic because “they flip the statute on its head by requiring that firearm owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt.”  26 Thus, ATF has determined that removing presumptions from the regulations avoids the risk that, in real-world practice, the presumptions could have been used to relieve the Government of its burden of proof. Leaving the presumptions in the regulations while issuing guidance alone would not remedy the problems as discussed. Therefore, issuing guidance as an alternative in lieu of removing the regulatory language at issue was rejected.

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. Although it would be a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, it would not impose total costs greater than zero. This proposed rule would provide qualitative benefits by reducing confusion and concerns about perceived over-enforcement, specifically entailing qualitative benefits to current and future firearm owners. Although it is possible that removing the proposed provisions would result in some risk to public safety from persons who would no longer feel constrained in dealing in firearms without a license, such a risk is qualitative and speculative, imposing no quantifiable costs. Therefore, as discussed above, this rule would not impose any additional quantifiable monetized costs, and total costs would be less 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).

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.

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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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. This proposed rule is deregulatory and would not impose any additional costs, including on small entities. The proposed rule would remove or amend certain provisions related to the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer, the provisions of which expanded the scope of the definition beyond the statute. The confusion and perceptions about these provisions have caused many individuals to believe they might have to obtain a license in order to sell personal firearms from their personal collections, for example. Although the EIB rule anticipated that the rule would cause some persons operating unlicensed small businesses to become licensed as dealers of firearms, ATF—as explained above in section II.A of this preamble—has not observed an actual increase in the rate of licensure since the issuance of the EIB rule. In light of the EIB rule's apparent lack of effect on the operation of small businesses, ATF does not believe that repealing certain provisions of EIB rule as proposed in this rule would affect such businesses. Therefore, ATF does not believe that this proposed rule, if finalized, would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ATF nonetheless welcomes comments on any potential effects of this proposed rule on small entities.

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.

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, recordkeeping, monitoring, posting, labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule would impact four existing information collections covered under the PRA. Although this rule involves the existing information collections, the proposed changes to the rule would not add to or change the burden imposed on the information collection respondent as compared to existing, OMB-approved requirements.

Numbers and titles: OMB control number 1140-0018, Application for a Federal Firearms License, ATF Form 5310.12/5310.16 (“Form 7/7CR”), and OMB control number 1140-0019, Application for a Federal Firearms License—Renewal Application, ATF Form 5310.11 (“Form 8”).

Abstract: 18 U.S.C. chapter 44 prohibits any person from engaging in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in either firearms or ammunition without first obtaining a license to do so. These activities are licensed for a specific period. The statute also provides for a collector's license. Persons who need to obtain a license submit Form 7/7CR to ATF, and licensees who wish to continue to engage in the aforementioned firearms activities without interruption, must renew their license by filing Form 8 before the current license period expires.

Purpose: ATF uses Form 7 to identify the applicant and determine eligibility to obtain a firearms license, and ATF uses Form 8 to identify the applicant and determine eligibility to retain the license. Without these information collections, ATF would not be able to issue or renew licenses to persons required by law to have a license to engage in the business of dealing in firearms or shipping or transporting firearms in interstate or foreign commerce in support of that business, or acquire curio and relic firearms from out of state. The proposed rule does not change the requirements or purposes covered under these information collections.

Numbers and titles: OMB control number 1140-0020, Firearms Transaction Record, ATF Form 5300.9 (“Form 4473”), and OMB control number 1140-0032, Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Dealers of Type 01/02 Firearms, and Collectors of Type 03 Firearms.

Abstract: 18 U.S.C. 922 and 923, and implementing regulations at 27 CFR 478.124, prohibit certain persons from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms. All persons, including FFLs, are therefore prohibited from transferring firearms to such persons. FFLs are also subject to additional restrictions on disposing of a firearm to an unlicensed person under the GCA. For example, age and State of residence also determine whether a person may lawfully receive a firearm. Form 4473 enables FFLs to determine if they may lawfully sell or deliver a firearm to the prospective transferee, and to alert the buyer or other transferee of certain restrictions on receiving and possessing firearms. The licensee must determine the transaction's lawfulness and maintain proper records of the transaction. The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 923, also requires that licensees must keep records of each firearm they acquire and dispose of, and ATF implementing regulations in 27 CFR 478.23(c)(1) and (2) set forth the details required for those records, which are in addition to the Form 4473, the purpose of which is primarily for a licensee to determine whether the requested sale is lawful.

Purpose: The Form 4473 information collection aids licensees in obtaining the necessary information from which to make that determination and to use when submitting a required NICS background check, and also serves as a record of the transaction, all of which are necessary for the licensee to comply with the statutory requirements. The acquisition and disposition record-keeping requirements ICR permits ATF to examine records during inspections to ensure that licensees are complying with statutory and regulatory requirements, and also serve as records licensees may search in response to a crime-gun trace request from law enforcement agencies conduction investigations into crimes in which a firearm was used.

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-AB01 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.

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-AB01. 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.

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.”

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.

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-AB01).

Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised in this proposed rule may be finalized, or not, independently of each other, after consideration of comments received. ATF has determined that this proposed rule implements and is fully consistent with governing law. However, in the event this proposed rule is finalized, if any provision of that final rule, an amendment or revision made by that rule, or the application of such provision or amendment or revision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, the remainder of that final rule, the amendments or revisions made by that rule, and application of the provisions of the rule to any person or circumstance shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give them the maximum effect permitted by law.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

The revisions read as follows:

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 27 CFR part 478.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (“Brady Act”), which amended the GCA, generally requires federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”) to initiate a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) background check before transferring a firearm to a person who is not an FFL, i.e., a non-licensee. 18 U.S.C. 922(t). The Department delegated oversight of NICS to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). See 28 CFR part 25. However, the Brady Act contains exceptions, codified at 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3), to the NICS check requirement, including an exception for persons who have certain state permits that authorize them to possess or acquire firearms. Specifically, the exceptions provide that the NICS check is not required if the non-licensee transferee presents a license or permit that: (1) allows that person to possess or acquire a firearm; (2) was issued not more than five years earlier by the state in which the transfer is to take place; and (3) the law of the state provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by such other person would be in violation of law. ATF implemented this provision of the statute in 27 CFR 478.102(d) in 1998. 3

In May 2025, after conducting a review of the laws and regulations of all U.S. states and territories, ATF issued an open letter to all FFLs on the NICS alternate permit exception (“Open Letter”) providing updated guidance regarding which state firearms permits meet the conditions to qualify under the exception to the NICS background check. 4 As part of this review, ATF examined whether the laws of each state require the issuing authority to (1) check available information, including conducting a NICS background check, and (2) not issue a permit when the available information indicates that the applicant is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal, state, or local law. ATF also published on its website an accompanying chart showing its assessment of qualifying and non-qualifying NICS alternate permits. 5

The Open Letter addressed the process FFLs should follow if a non-licensee presents a qualifying NICS alternate permit. This process includes verifying that the permit was issued or renewed not more than five years earlier by the state in which the transfer is to occur and that the permit has not expired under state law. The Open Letter reminded FFLs that while certain permits, including “lifetime” permits, may be valid under state law for more than five years, these only qualify as NICS alternatives for five years from the date they were issued. FFLs are responsible for verifying the date the permit was issued or its renewal date before treating the transaction as NICS-exempt.

The Open Letter cautions FFLs that they should conduct a NICS check whenever they are unable to confirm the validity of the permit or the date a permit that is valid for more than five years was issued. See Open Letter at 2. Federal law does not require an FFL to accept a firearm permit as an alternate even if they are able to confirm the permit's validity and that the permit is less than five years old.

This proposed rulemaking would amend the language of 27 CFR 478.102(d) regarding when a state's firearms-related permit meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3) such that a NICS check does not need to be conducted. This rule proposes to add the word “unexpired” in § 478.102(d)(1) as a condition of a qualifying permit because, under certain state law or in certain circumstances, some permits are considered valid even after they have expired. However, expired permits cannot be used as an alternative to conducting a NICS check under federal firearms law. To address potential confusion, this rule proposes to add the word “unexpired” after “valid” to clarify that such permits must be both valid and unexpired.

This proposed rule would also clarify the information ATF considers for a permit to qualify as an alternative to a NICS check. First, the proposal would clarify when ATF considers a permit to be issued within the previous five years. Specifically, “lifetime” permits and permits nominally issued for more than five years may qualify as alternate permits if the state's law requires a state official to verify or reverify via NICS that the permit-holder is not prohibited from possessing a firearm, or otherwise confirm that the permit-holder is not prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, within the previous five years and the government official complies with that requirement. When those conditions are met, the license is effectively reissued, in the same way as if the permit-holder had reapplied. For example, Alabama issues a concealed carry lifetime permit and the state's law requires that, “[A]t least once every five years from the date of issuance, each sheriff shall conduct a background check on each individual with a lifetime carry permit issued within his or her county . . . .” Ala. Code 13A-11-75(h). These permits qualify because Alabama law requires the state official to conduct a background check on a five-year recurring basis.

Second, the proposed rule would define the phrase “only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official” to mean that the state statute(s) provides that an authorized government official verifies information available to such official, to include a background check through NICS or otherwise confirms that the permit-holder is not prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, in order to determine whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal, state, or local law. In a near majority of instances, states issue qualifying NICS alternate permits through a state criminal justice agency (“CJA”). However, if a state issues permits through a non-CJA, there may be difficulty directly accessing NICS because of FBI regulations, which limit NICS access to “criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related . . . permit or license.” 28 CFR 25.6(j)(1). Nevertheless, a non-CJA may still access relevant criminal history information to conduct a qualifying background check equivalent to a NICS check before issuing any such permits. For instance, Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issues concealed weapons licenses for the state. Although the Florida concealed weapons permit does not qualify as a NICS alternative permit for other reasons, 6 nevertheless a NICS background check is completed because the Florida Department of Law Enforcement runs a NICS check on behalf of Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

However, in the event that a non-CJA does not have the ability to access NICS or their state's point of contact for NICS, this rule proposes to provide an exception that the authorized government official need only search and review all information otherwise available to such official to determine if possession, acquisition, or carrying of the firearm would be lawful. Additionally, the proposed rule would provide that information otherwise available to the government official does not need to include information that requires extraordinary effort, expense, or means to obtain ( e.g., sending an investigator to go to a courthouse to research records). A misdemeanor assault conviction, for example, could be disqualifying depending on whether it was a crime of domestic violence. See 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9). But many criminal justice records specific to misdemeanor assault convictions are often not complete enough to determine if there is a qualifying relationship under federal law that would make the applicant a prohibited possessor. Often additional research is required to include supporting court documents that are not available in NICS or a state's criminal history records. Therefore, this section would clarify that government officials are not required to use or undertake extraordinary effort, expense, or means when further research is required when a NICS check (or its equivalent) is not available to conduct a background check. They need only base their permitting decisions on the information that is readily accessible to them—for example, information readily accessible through NICS, state agencies or databases, or state or local courts.

Third, the proposed rule would inform the public that the relevant inquiry in determining whether a state permit is acceptable as an alternative to a NICS check when acquiring a firearm is whether the language of the state statute(s) conforms with the requirements under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3)(A)(ii). Specifically, the proposed amendments would provide that when verifying whether an alternate permit qualifies under 18 U.S.C. 922(t), ATF considers the law of the state, state regulation, any precedential judicial opinions, and any opinions of the executive branch that are binding and have the force and effect of law. The proposal clarifies that a permit that is erroneously granted does not, by itself, establish the law of the state.

This provision is necessary to redress confusion about certain permit audits. In the past, the federal government has audited states to see whether they issued permits to prohibited persons. In response to some audits ( e.g., involving Alabama and Michigan), ATF withdrew recognition of the states' permits as a valid NICS alternative because, in part, licensing officials in those states had issued permits to prohibited persons. But not recognizing permits as NICS alternatives on this basis was not consistent with the Brady Act because the Act only requires that “the law of the State provides that such a permit is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by such other person would be in violation of law.” 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3)(A)(ii). The mere fact that permits may have been erroneously granted by an authorized state official does not, by itself, establish that “the law of the state” authorized permits to be issued to prohibited persons. Nor does the Brady Act contemplate that state officials will be perfect in issuing licenses. The NICS system is itself imperfect; even after an exhaustive search of records, NICS is unable to resolve about 3 to 5 percent of background checks each year. State and local licensing officials will occasionally have to issue licenses on less than perfect information, despite running a comprehensive background check.

Fourth, the proposed rule would address circumstances in which states offer multiple applying and issuing procedures to obtain firearm permits (or licenses). In some jurisdictions, the same type of firearm permit may be alternatively issued pursuant to a procedure that would (or would not) qualify under 18 U.S.C. 922(t) as a NICS alternative permit. For example, a state might exempt a law enforcement officer or judge from the background check requirement when obtaining a concealed weapons license. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. 790.06(5)(b); Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 sec. 1448D (c)(1), (h); Md. Pub. Safety Code sec. 5-305(g) (exempting employees of armored car companies). While the state-issued permit for that law enforcement officer or judge would be valid under state law for its dedicated purposes, it would not qualify as a NICS alternate permit because the state law does not require the licensing official to verify that the permit holder may lawfully possess a firearm.

In these cases, the proposed amendments to the regulation make clear that ATF will only recognize the subset of permits that meet the requirements under § 478.102(d), provided that those permits are distinguishable from other permits that do not qualify. This formalizes ATF's prior practice. In Alaska, for example, a person who wants his concealed handgun permit to exempt him from the NICS background check requirement must fill out a supplemental application form. Alaska will mark that subset of concealed handgun permits as “NICS Exempt.” Although ATF does not recognize all Alaska concealed handgun permits as Brady alternatives, ATF has recognized the subset labeled “NICS Exempt.” See Alaska Stat. 18.65.700; ATF Open Letter to All Alaska Federal Firearms Licensees (Oct. 17, 2005) (Rescinded). 7 States that do not conduct background checks on certain categories of individuals could also separately label those permits ( e.g., “Not NICS Exempt” or “Judicial/Peace Officer Concealed Weapon License”).

The proposed rule would also amend the section heading of 27 CFR 478.102 to remove “on or after November 30, 1998” because that was more than 25 years ago and the date trigger is no longer needed. Finally, the proposed rule would add a paragraph heading to § 478.102(e) to make it consistent with the other paragraphs and to be in accord with CFR drafting requirements.

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 rule proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.102(d) to clarify what information ATF considers in assessing whether a state's firearms permit qualifies as an alternative to the NICS background check requirement and what information an authorized government official is to consider when verifying that a given transferee possessing a firearm does not violate law. These clarifications will reduce confusion that has occurred in recent years due to different state processes, and they do not impose any costs or quantitative benefits.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed rule would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule.

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 clarify what information ATF considers in assessing whether a state's firearms permit qualifies as an alternative to the NICS background check requirement and what information an authorized government official is to consider when verifying that a given transferee possessing a firearm does not violate law. In addition, 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).

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.

This proposed rule will 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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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 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. This proposed rule merely clarifies information so as to reduce confusion that has occurred in recent years due to different state processes. This rule is deregulatory and would not impose any additional costs.

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.

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 one existing information collection under the PRA. The information collection associated with this proposed rule is OMB control number 1140-0020: Firearms Transaction Record, which includes ATF Form 5300.9 (“Form 4473”). Form 4473 is completed when an FFL transfers a firearm to a non-licensee. Although this rule is associated with the existing information collection, the proposed changes would not add or change the burden or requirements imposed on the respondent beyond existing, OMB-approved requirements.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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-AA85 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 identifiable 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.

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether submitted electronically or on paper, 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-AA85. 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 in 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.

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.”

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.

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-AA85).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

The revisions and additions read as follows:

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 Attorney General and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the GCA in 27 CFR part 478.

Section 926A of the GCA provides that: “Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a state or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.” (Emphasis added).

The implementing regulation at 27 CFR 478.38 contains substantively identical language. Neither the statute nor the regulation addresses transit when a person is between modes of transportation or when a firearm or ammunition is no longer in “transport” due to incidental activities arising during the person's continuous transport. The Department has previously advised that section 926A applies when (1) a person is traveling from somewhere he lawfully may possess and carry a firearm; (2) en route to the airport when the firearm is unloaded and not accessible from the passenger compartment of his car; (3) the person transports the firearm directly from his vehicle to the airline check-in desk without any interruption in the transportation; and (4) while carrying the firearm to the check-in desk, it is unloaded and in a locked container. See Letter to the Honorable Don Young, U.S. House of Representatives, from William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice (Feb. 18, 2005). However, ATF has not codified this advice, nor has ATF extended section 926A to delays or a break in travel. ATF also has not codified how section 926A applies to the transportation of accessories, such as ammunition magazines, that would ordinarily be transferred with the firearm.

Under two independent theories, ATF believes that section 926A properly encompasses some transportation of a firearm outside of a transporting vehicle.

First, ATF believes that this is the best reading of the statute's plain text. Section 926A provides that a person may transport an unloaded firearm if “neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle.” 18 U.S.C. 926A. These provisions may be read independently: a requirement that firearms transported in vehicles not be “directly accessible from the passenger compartment” and a second requirement that firearms carried by means other than vehicles not be “readily accessible.” See Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 730 F.3d 252, 258-59 (3d Cir. 2013) (Jordan, J., concurring in the judgment).

Legal and textual arguments support this conclusion. A firearm that is not “directly accessible from the passenger compartment”—primarily, one stored in the vehicle trunk or truck bed—would already not be “readily accessible” because it would not be accessible for immediate use as a weapon. See Henderson v. United States, 687 A.2d 918, 922 (D.C. 1996) (holding that a firearm was not “on or about” the defendant's person when it was located in the trunk of his car for purposes of a D.C. Code violation); id. at 922 n.9 (explaining that “the clear weight of authority in other jurisdictions” holds that a firearm in a trunk is not readily accessible). If “readily accessible” modified only vehicular carry, it would be surplusage because it would already be covered by the requirement that the firearm and ammunition be stored outside the vehicle compartment (or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console). The statute also repeats the word “is,” which gives some textual indication that these two disjunctive provisions are meant to be separate. See Ass'n. of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc., 730 F.3d at 259 (Jordan, J., concurring). The statute also connects the vehicle to “directly accessible” when it states that the firearm may not be “directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle.” 18 U.S.C. 926A. Relatedly, reading these provisions independently gives “or” its usual disjunctive application, i.e., signaling separate meanings. And while the term “can sometimes introduce an appositive—a word or phrase that is synonymous with what precedes it . . . —its ordinary use is almost always disjunctive, that is, the words it connects are to be given separate meanings.” United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31, 45 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351, 357 (2014) (“As we have recognized, that term's ordinary use is almost always disjunctive, that is, the words it connects are to be given separate meanings. Yet [Petitioner] would have us construe the two entirely distinct statutory phrases that the word `or' joins as containing an identical element. And in doing so, his interpretation would make [the statute's] second clause a mere subset of its first . . . [This] construction thus effectively reads `or' to mean `including'—a definition foreign to any dictionary we know of.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Nor does ATF read the proviso as altering the above analysis, in that the “Provided” language specifically references the clause directly preceding it, i.e., “in the case of a vehicle,” and clarifies the unusual situation where a vehicle has a glove compartment or console but no trunk or truck bed. See Las Vegas Sun, Inc. v. Adelson, 147 F. 4th 1103, 1119 (9th Cir. 2025) (“As an initial matter, it is a well-established canon of construction that `a proviso usually is construed to apply to the provision or clause immediately preceding it.' ” (quoting Pacificorp v. Bonneville Power Admin., 856 F.2d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1988)) (quoting 2A Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.33, at p.245 (4th ed. 1984)); see also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: the Interpretation of Legal Texts at 154 (2012) (stating that, under the “proviso canon,” a “proviso conditions the principal matter that it qualifies—almost always the matter immediately preceding”).

Second, even assuming arguendo that these arguments are wrong—that the statute governs “only transportation of a firearm in a vehicle,” Ass'n. of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc., 730 F.3d at 255 (majority op.)—ATF still believes that some non-vehicle transportation would be authorized under section 926A as incidental to the power to transport firearms in vehicles. The power to do an act carries with it incidental powers necessary to the act. For example, the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase arms and ammunition. See Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871). A right to have a lawyer under the Sixth Amendment includes the right to pay that lawyer. See Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5, 27 (2016) (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment). As Justice Thomas explained in Luis, “Constitutional rights thus implicitly protect those closely related acts necessary to their exercise.” Id. at 26.

This statement is true not just for constitutional rights, but for statutory rights as well. If federal law grants a right to do an act, it also grants the right to do those incidental acts necessary to make one's exercise of the right effective. Here, federal law already permits the interstate transportation of firearms in vehicles and aboard commercial aircraft, provided the firearms and ammunition are unloaded and not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the transporting vehicle (with a special rule for vehicles without a separate compartment). 18 U.S.C. 926A (all vehicles); see also 49 U.S.C. 46505(d)(3) (aircraft baggage); 18 U.S.C. 922(e) (regulating firearms aboard all common or contract carriers). If section 926A covers transporting a firearm in the trunk of a motor vehicle and the baggage hold of a commercial aircraft, there are strong arguments that section 926A also covers transferring the firearm between the car and the airplane. See Stephen P. Halbrook, Firearms Law Deskbook, Section 4:9 (Oct. 2025 update) (In discussing section 926A, “[t]he mode of transportation is not limited to any specific type and may encompass motor vehicles, airlines, trains, and other forms. Activities incidental to transportation, such as checking baggage with firearms at airports, stopping for fuel and eating, and similar activities are protected.”). ATF, thus, seeks comment on this understanding.

Courts attempting to determine the scope of section 926A have excessively narrowed its application. In Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the plaintiff, a Utah resident flying through New Jersey to Pennsylvania in 2005, missed his connecting flight and was forced to collect his baggage and spend the night in a hotel. 598 F.3d 128, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2010). The following morning, after declaring the unloaded firearm, he was arrested for illegal possession of a handgun and ammunition under New Jersey law. Id. at 131. Revell sued the arresting agency, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the arresting officer under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and appealed the subsequent district court's decisions against him. Id. at 132-34. Although the court recognized that Revell had been placed in “a difficult predicament through no fault of his own” and had notified the airline about the firearm, the court found Revell's actions were beyond the scope of section 926A because “the gun and ammunition were readily accessible to Revell during his stay in New Jersey.” Id. at 136-37. The court further suggested that “[s]tranded” gun owners like Revell also had the option to go to airport law enforcement or airport personnel before retrieving their luggage to request that they hold their firearms overnight. Id. at 137-38. Such options, however, are not ordinarily available. Airlines generally refuse to accept baggage more than a few hours before a flight, 3 and airport law enforcement does not customarily hold firearms, even for delayed passengers. In fact, the court in Revell recognizes that the idea to go to airport law enforcement was merely a “suggestion” and “this suggestion leaves unanswered the question of what the gun owner should do if the law enforcement officers decline to assist him.” Id. at 138 n.18.

In a companion case, Ass'n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc., supra, the Association sought injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enjoin the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey from enforcing certain New Jersey statutes that prohibit possession of a firearm without a permit and possession of certain ammunition against non-resident members of the Association who are entitled to transport firearms through New Jersey pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 926A. 730 F.3d at 253. The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief and held that “the statute protects only transportation of a firearm in a vehicle” and thus “an ambulatory plaintiff who intends to transit through Newark Airport is outside the coverage of the statute.” Id. at 255.

The Revell and Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs opinions cited above create illogical and unintended restrictions on a citizen's right to transport firearms interstate in the Third Circuit. The power to transport firearms in a continuous interstate journey via automobiles and aircraft also includes the incidental power to transit the firearm from one mode of transportation to the next. Indeed, individuals may find themselves transiting multiple vehicles during an interstate trip.

Take, for example, persons traveling by car from Maine, which generally does not require a permit to carry or possess firearms, to an airport in Massachusetts, a state requiring such permits, and then flying to West Virginia, where a permit is generally not required. It is clear that during any continuous travel by car, an individual meeting the conditions described would fall within the ambit of section 926A. It is equally clear that 18 U.S.C. 922(e) and 49 U.S.C. 46505 authorize passengers to transport their firearms aboard commercial aircraft, provided certain conditions are met. But under Third Circuit jurisprudence, section 926A seemingly offers no protection if a person lands at an airport outside their jurisdiction of origin, where they cannot possess or carry a firearm, but is delayed from boarding their flight to their ultimate destination until the next day; this person is without protection under 926A from the time he exits the airport until the next day when he checks the firearm in locked baggage to the airline in compliance with section 922(e). Congress sought to assure the right of individuals to travel in and between states with a firearm in passing section 926A; it is doubtful that Congress intended to open a window of criminal liability for travelers stranded through no fault of their own.

Similarly, individuals could be temporarily stranded because of vehicle problems. A person whose car breaks down or is involved in a car accident may have a need to transport a firearm from the broken-down vehicle to a new vehicle that is functioning ( e.g., a rental). Again, the best reading of section 926A—even a reading limited to vehicular carry—is that the power to travel interstate includes incidental acts that are reasonably necessary to facilitate that travel. These acts include stopping for fuel or rest or picking up or discharging passengers; otherwise, the statute would ignore the realities of interstate travel and protect only those fortunate enough to have an interstate journey that required no refueling or rest. Similarly, the power to transport firearms and ammunition includes incidental acts, such as the power to transport ammunition magazines that feed the ammunition into the firearm.

The doctrine of constitutional avoidance also supports this conclusion. Both the Third Circuit decisions narrowing section 926A were decided before New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), where the Supreme Court specifically recognized the Second Amendment's protection to firearms possession outside of the home. While neither of the above opinions addressed the Second Amendment, their interpretation of section 926A may not comport with the Supreme Court's precedent on the Second Amendment, including Bruen's recognition that the right extends to publicly carrying firearms for self-defense. If individuals have a right to carry loaded, accessible firearms for self-defense at their places of origin and destination, it necessarily follows that they have, at a minimum, a right to transport unloaded firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes at their place of destination. An excessively narrow interpretation of section 926A would not protect travelers from state or local laws that infringe on their right to bear arms. See United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 692 (2024) (“Even when a law regulates arms-bearing for a permissible reason, though, it may not be compatible with the right if it does so to an extent beyond what was done at the founding.”); cf. Higbie v. James, 795 F. Supp. 3d 307, 342-343 (N.D.N.Y. 2025) (holding that New York cannot exclude nonresidents from applying for a carry license in New York). As one commentator (who shares the Bruen dissent's restrictive understanding of the right to bear arms in public) explains, “the general rule was that the law must be flexible enough to allow individuals some means to transport their firearms for lawful purposes, especially during travels from one destination to another.” Patrick J. Charles, The Second Amendment and the Basic Right to Transport Firearms for Lawful Purposes, 13 Charleston L. Rev. 125, 150 (2018).

The proposed rule, thus, responds to the lack of clarity surrounding the interstate transportation of firearms and aims to prevent law-abiding persons from facing travel delays or arrest despite complying with ATF's reading of section 926A. See Torraco v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 539 F. Supp. 2d 632 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2010). Litigation in the wake of these instances has resulted in an overly narrow and burdensome application of the statute.

Based on current case law addressing section 926A regarding the right of a citizen to travel interstate with a firearm as well as cases recognizing that the Second Amendment, in part, secures the right to bear arms in public, ATF believes it is imperative to clarify the intended scope of section 926A in the accompanying regulation. Accordingly, the proposed rule amends 27 CFR 478.38 to clarify that incidental activities that are reasonably necessary to a person's interstate transportation are considered “transport” and thus within the scope of activities protected by 18 U.S.C. 926A and 27 CFR 478.38. This would include, but not be limited to, staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, transiting between modes of transportation, or moving a firearm at the beginning of a journey from a fixed address to a vehicle for transportation or at the end of a journey from a vehicle to a fixed address. Because section 926A provides a “safe harbor” for travelers and “[a]ny regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated,” see E.O. 13132(4)(c), the proposed rule only protects reasonably necessary incidents of travel, such as stopping for fuel or temporary rest. The rule does not authorize, however, someone to have an extended break in transportation, for reasons unrelated to travel, in a jurisdiction where possession of the firearm or ammunition would be prohibited.

To ensure firearms are stored or transported in a manner consistent with sections 926A or 922(e), as the case may be, the proposed rule lays out the storage provisions depending on the mode of transportation ( e.g., by vehicle, by common or contract carrier) during travel. Additionally, the proposed rule addresses storage where there is an activity incidental to the original transportation that requires a break in continuous transit ( e.g., an overnight stay at a hotel), and storage in a vehicle is not possible. In this scenario, the proposed rule would stipulate that the firearm must be unloaded and must be in a locked container that makes it and any ammunition not readily accessible for immediate use. This is consistent with section 926A's admonition that “during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible.”

Additionally, the proposed rule would make clear that the right to transport firearms also includes the concomitant incidental right to transport accessories and attachments of such firearms, such as ammunition, sights, and magazines. ATF believes this is the best interpretation of section 926A. Section 926A would not serve its intended purpose if state and local governments could indirectly restrict the transportation of firearms by enforcing transportation restrictions of items that are constituent parts and accessories of the firearms being transported, including ammunition and firearm magazines. Indeed, section 926A already implies that ammunition is covered by the entitlement to transport firearms when it states, “and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, that in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.” It would be a strange interpretation if federal law authorized the transportation of the firearm and the ammunition, but not the magazine that would feed the ammunition into the firearm. And the same impracticalities would apply to other accessories such as firearm sights.

The incidental power granted by this section would only apply to the transportation of lawfully possessed accessories. Accessories would not fall within the incidental protection offered by section 926A and this regulation if they were illegal under federal law ( e.g., an unregistered machinegun conversion device, see 18 U.S.C. 922(o)), or if they were illegal at the place of origin or destination. For example, a person could not claim protection by transporting a magazine over ten rounds of ammunition if his place of destination forbade such accessories.

Finally, this rule would include a severability paragraph in 27 CFR 478.38. Because the full scope of a person's incidental power to transport firearms, ammunition, and accessories in interstate commerce has not been elucidated through judicial review, the severability paragraph would provide that any invalid part of the regulation or any invalid application of the regulation should be severed and the remainder of the regulation would not be affected. This inclusion of the severability paragraph in section 478.38 should not be construed to suggest that other regulations in part 478 are inseverable. ATF has included (or intends to include) a severability discussion in the preamble of other proposed rules. The explicit severability paragraph in this section should not create a negative severability inference for any other rule or regulation.

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 rule proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.38 to clarify the scope of 18 U.S.C. 926A in order to make clear that it covers the activities and breaks that are incidental to the original transportation and decreases the likelihood that a person traveling with their firearm or ammunition interstate will be charged for violating state firearm laws.

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 clarifying how to comply with statutory provisions and existing standards on transporting firearms and ammunition interstate. However, 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.

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. In addition, ATF expects this 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).

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.

ATF has concluded that this rulemaking may have some federalism implications as provided in Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) because it implements 18 U.S.C. 926A's statutory preemption provision, which creates a safe harbor for individuals transporting their firearm for a lawful purpose from any place where they may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place they may lawfully possess and carry such firearm regardless of any other provision of law or regulation of a state or any political subdivision. Nevertheless, this proposed rule abides by the principle of section 4(c) of Executive Order 13132, which states that “[a]ny regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated.” The proposed rule protects incidental activities that are reasonably necessary to a person's transport—for example, as stated above, food, fueling, lodging, an emergency, or medical treatment, or an unscheduled overnight stop due to airline or weather disruptions—consistent with section 926A's safe harbor provision.

ATF believes that rule would restrict preemption of state law to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of section 926A as described above and that it would not impose a financial cost to state or local agencies. Further, ATF anticipates that this rule would provide qualitative benefits to the public by providing the best reading of the federal provisions and clarifying how individuals may lawfully transport their firearms and ammunition interstate. However, ATF recognizes that some states may have more restrictive laws that could be impacted by this rule, but ATF does not have sufficient information to assess the scope of state regulation or the costs on states that could be impacted. Therefore, ATF is soliciting comments from state and local governments on any potential preemption impacts stemming from ATF's proposed interpretation of section 926A's safe harbor provision.

ATF notes that it had an opportunity to inform some state officials of this proposed rule during a Federal Bureau of Investigation Criminal Justice Information Service System Officers meeting and encouraged them to comment on any potential federalism impacts that the rule might have on states. One state representative commented that section 926A should extend to overnight breaks in travel to accommodate rest breaks. ATF agreed and has included overnight breaks in this proposed rule.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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 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 because it would not impose any additional costs and only clarifies the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 926A, which concern the rights of individuals who are lawfully transporting firearms and ammunition interstate.

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.

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.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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-AA73 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 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.

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-AA73. 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 it 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.

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 and 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.”

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.

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-AA73).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

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); 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.

The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921-934, is a comprehensive federal firearms regulatory scheme. For example, section 922 prohibits certain firearm transactions and makes certain individuals ineligible to possess or receive a firearm; section 923 sets forth the licensing requirements for certain individuals and organizations engaged in the firearms business and their legal obligations during a firearm transfer to an unlicensed person; and section 924 sets forth the penalties for substantive statutory violations.

When an individual seeks to acquire a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (“FFL”), the parties must comply with a series of statutory and regulatory requirements, to include identification verification requirements. This allows FFLs to verify that the person receiving the firearm at the point of purchase/transfer ( i.e., the immediate transferee) may lawfully possess the firearm. Additionally, properly identifying the immediate transferee of the firearm in the FFL's records is a critical step in aiding law enforcement with tracing a firearm used in violent crime. A straw purchase case arises when the immediate transferee provides false information on the ATF Form 5300.9, Firearms Transaction Record (“Form 4473”) that is material to the lawfulness of the firearm transfer, or the immediate transferee purchases a firearm with intent to convey the firearm to a prohibited person, a person who intends to commit a felony, federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime, or a person who intends to transfer the firearm to a prohibited person. Commonly, the true purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm is ineligible to lawfully purchase a firearm; or, for any other reason does not want to undergo a background check, complete the required Form 4473, and be documented as the purchaser. The use of a straw purchaser effectively hides the identity of the true purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm and circumvents the regulatory requirements for a firearm transfer by forgoing background checks and impeding the ability of law enforcement to trace guns involved in the commission of a crime to the true purchaser/ultimate recipient.

Traditionally, federal law did not define the term “straw purchase” in statute or regulation. The legal doctrine concerning straw purchase currently involves three federal provisions: 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), 924(a)(1)(A), and 932. Prior to the enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”) in 2022, sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) encompassed the criminal conduct of providing false information to an FFL as part of a straw purchase. Criminal conduct under these sections is commonly known as “lying and buying” because section 922(a)(6) criminalizes a person, in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of a firearm or ammunition from an FFL, knowingly making any false or fictitious statement or exhibiting false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, which is intended or likely to deceive the FFL with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. chapter 44.

Similarly, section 924(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful to knowingly make any false statement or representation with respect to the information required to be kept in the records of an FFL. Both statutory provisions criminalize “straw purchasing” by focusing on the false statement or representation by the immediate transferee to the FFL. Commonly, a false statement by the immediate transferee on the Form 4473 that they are the actual buyer when buying the firearm for someone else is the basis for criminal prosecution because the immediate transferee causes the FFL to record the incorrect transferee in the acquisition and disposition record that the FFL is required to maintain.

The straw-purchase doctrine that grew around these criminal provisions had an ambiguity concerning materiality. Initially, ATF maintained a narrower interpretation of straw purchasing because it viewed it as occurring only when a person purchased a firearm on behalf of the actual purchaser who was a prohibited person. This is the “narrower” understanding of a straw purchase. In other words, ATF did not deem purchasing a firearm on behalf of an eligible buyer to be a materially false statement to the transaction. See ATF Industry Circular 79-10 (Aug. 7, 1979), reprinted in (Your Guide To) Federal Firearms Regulation 78, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/your-guide-firearms-regulation-1978 [ https://perma.cc/VDF9-3LSM ]. This position changed in 1994 when ATF adopted a broader understanding of the term straw purchase. There is case law to support the position that 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) can be charged where the actual purchaser participating in the straw purchase is qualified to purchase a firearm and a false statement is made concerning the true purchaser of the firearm. This false statement is “material to the lawfulness of the sale.” See United States v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973, 979 (5th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Carter, 60 F.3d 825 (4th Cir. 1995).

Congress codified the narrower understanding of the straw purchase doctrine, i.e., a purchase for a prohibited person or person falling into other categories identified by Congress, when it passed BSCA in 2022. In BSCA, Congress added 18 U.S.C. 932, which prohibits any person from knowingly purchasing, or conspiring to purchase, any firearm in or otherwise affecting interstate or foreign commerce for, on behalf of, or at the request or demand of another person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe such other person is prohibited from possessing firearms; intends to use or carry the firearm in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism or a drug trafficking crime; or intends to sell or give the firearm to any person who is prohibited or a person who intends to use or carry the firearm in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime. Notably, unlike sections 924(a)(1)(A) and 922(a)(6), this section applies to any purchase or disposition of a firearm, not just transfers from FFLs.

As mentioned above, it was in 1994 when ATF concluded that purchasing a firearm on behalf of another person qualified as a materially false statement even if the other person (the actual purchaser or ultimate recipient) was not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. In reaching this conclusion, ATF noted that these types of purchases inhibited the ability to trace firearms and resulted in the failure to complete a background check mandated by the Brady Act on the actual purchaser or recipient of the firearm.

In 2014, the Supreme Court agreed with the broader understanding of straw purchase. In Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), the Supreme Court held that a transferee's false statement to an FFL dealer that he was the actual purchaser on a Form 4473 was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) regardless of whether the true purchaser and ultimate recipient could legally possess the firearm. Like ATF, the Court noted that these statements inhibited background checks and firearm tracing. Following Abramski, a straw purchase under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) hinges on false statements by the individual involved in the firearms transaction to the FFL regardless of whether the true purchaser and ultimate recipient of the firearm is prohibited from receiving a firearm under federal law.

In accordance with the broader understanding of straw purchasing, versions of the Form 4473 issued after 1994 have required the transferee to certify that he is the “actual transferee/buyer” of the firearm. The Form 4473 has included instructions, which have evolved over time, as to when a person is the “actual transferee/buyer.” As of this drafting, the current Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) advises that a person is an actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing or acquiring a firearm for him/herself ( e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner) or if purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. The Form 4473 also advises that a “gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.” The Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) continues with examples of when a person is not considered the “actual transferee/buyer” of the firearm. Specifically,

ATF has always understood the broader straw purchase doctrine to exclude certain firearm acquisitions on behalf of another. Most notably, a straw purchase does not occur when a person purchases a firearm as a bona fide gift for another as the gift giver ( i.e., the actual purchaser) receives nothing of value for the firearm from the gift recipient. If, however, a person receives money or other value from the intended recipient, then the purchase is not a gift, and the intended recipient is the true purchaser.

Additionally, ATF has long understood the straw-purchase doctrine to exclude instances where parents purchase firearms on behalf of their minor children. See Firearms Regulation Guide (1978) at 82 (“A parent or guardian may purchase firearms and ammunition for a juvenile. GCA age restrictions are intended only to prevent juveniles from acting without their parents' or guardians' knowledge.”)]; see also Firearms Regulation Guide (1988-89) at 84 (advising the same). In this scenario, the parent purchases the firearm and takes responsibility for the weapon. The age restrictions in the GCA were designed to stop the unsupervised acquisition of firearms by minors; the GCA was not intended to prevent lawful possession or use by a minor. See S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 79 (1968) (explaining that under the GCA “a minor or juvenile would not be restricted from owning or learning the proper usage of the firearm,” as any firearm “which his parent or guardian desired him to have could be obtained for the minor or juvenile by the parent or guardian.”). There are additional scenarios that are not considered straw purchases, including pawn redemption or consignment and storage pick-up. The instructions on the current Form 4473 provide: “For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is . . . acquiring the firearm for him/herself. ( e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner.).” Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Revised Aug. 2023), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download [ https://perma.cc/H2R2-G6PR ].

ATF has also permitted the retrieval of firearms left for repair for another person provided the person receiving the firearm is not prohibited. The Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) under Question 21.a. currently provides that, “[i]f you are only picking up a repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a.,” which asks whether the individual is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm listed on the form. Although the individual acquiring the firearm from the FFL is not the actual transferee or ultimate recipient, ATF does not consider a straw purchase to have occurred in these kinds of limited scenarios.

ATF has recently received inquiries regarding the gift of firearms or the purchase of firearms as marital property. This has led to some confusion among FFLs whether a purchase may be completed using money from a spouse or with a spouse present. ATF also continues to receive questions seeking clarification regarding who the actual transferee or purchaser of a firearm is for transactions involving redemptions from pawn, gunsmith repairs, consignment, storage, and bona fide gifts. In light of the need for more clarity to distinguish between the illegal conduct that constitutes a straw purchase and other behavior that does not come within ATF's historical understanding of a straw purchase, this rule proposes to add 27 CFR 478.105 to clarify the legal distinctions between unlawful straw purchases and lawful third-party transfers.

The rule proposes to create a new section in part 478 that would restate the law of straw purchasing. Paragraph (a) of the new section would make clear that a buyer of a firearm may not obtain a firearm from an FFL by being a straw purchaser and an FFL may not sell a firearm to a person who he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a straw purchaser.

The remainder of the new section would describe who a “straw purchaser” is to explain two types of straw purchases. The new section would clearly demarcate two types of straw purchasing: (1) straw purchasing by making a material misstatement, which is elaborated by paragraphs (b)-(d), and (2) straw purchasing by purchasing for a prohibited person, which is elaborated by paragraph (e).

Paragraphs (b) and (c) would explain the longstanding interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) as applied to straw purchasing, consistent with federal case law and the broader understanding of straw purchase ( i.e., purchasing on behalf of another person even if that person is not a prohibited person under the GCA). Particularly, paragraph (c) would delineate categories of lawful transactions that do not constitute straw purchases under paragraph (b), such as bona fide gifts, parental purchases for a “minor child” (which would be defined in paragraph (d)), purchases among spouses, and redemption or repair of firearms by their lawful owners. Importantly, these exceptions cover only straw purchases by material misstatement.

Paragraph (e) would address a different kind of straw purchasing: the purchase of a firearm for a prohibited person. Congress codified this kind of straw purchasing as a criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 932. This regulation reiterates and clarifies those prohibited transactions. Paragraph (e) would clarify that the exceptions listed in paragraph (c) to straw purchases by material misstatements do not apply to the prohibition against making straw purchases for a prohibited person. This clarification is important especially in cases of spousal transfers. A common straw purchase transaction involves one spouse purchasing on behalf of a prohibited spouse. This rule would make clear that such conduct is prohibited. On the other hand, among two spouses who may lawfully possess firearms and live at the same address, it does not matter which spouse fills out the form or hands over the money. Both the firearm and the funds used to pay for it will likely be martial property. For tracing purposes, the form will identify the name of a responsible adult who acquired the firearm and the correct address where that person lives. The exceptions to straw purchasing for spouses and for minor children under age 21 reflect that ATF will not micromanage family affairs. ATF retains an interest in such transactions only when a member of the family is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.

As discussed above, the GCA is a comprehensive federal firearms regulatory scheme that was enacted to reduce violent crime by preventing felons and other prohibited persons from acquiring firearms. It ensures that the federal government can trace firearms involved in a crime to locate the perpetrator(s) through accurate records of FFLs showing the actual purchasers of the firearms and provide crime gun intelligence to locate and disrupt firearm trafficking networks using multiple sale reports with accurate purchaser information. ATF uses the crime gun intelligence model because it focuses on generating actionable intelligence related to connecting, identifying, and disrupting firearms violence through evidence-based methods using forensics and law enforcement investigations. 3 These objectives are enforced through a combination of background checks, identification verification, and accurate record-keeping by FFLs, all of which depend on truthful identification of the actual transferee or purchaser. Straw purchasing undermines the statutory objectives of the GCA by subverting this regulatory framework.

While such conduct must remain clearly unlawful, not all third-party acquisitions are improper. As described above, longstanding ATF guidance has acknowledged that individuals may purchase firearms as bona fide gifts for others, provided no compensation is received and the recipient is not otherwise prohibited. Federal law does not bar private transfers or gifts between unlicensed persons residing in the same state as long as neither party is a prohibited person and such transfer does not violate any state or federal laws. Federal law does not bar private transfers or gifts between unlicensed persons residing in different states as long as the transfer is facilitated by an FFL in each of the respective states. As the Supreme Court emphasized in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000), statutory interpretation must be guided by common sense.

Accordingly, ATF believes that by articulating these distinctions in regulation, the proposed § 478.105 will enhance industry compliance, assist law enforcement, and reduce confusion regarding the legality of common firearm transfers. It would also ensure consistent terminology and reinforce the GCA's goals without impeding lawful conduct.

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 27 CFR part 478 to provide clarity to both FFLs and non-licensees regarding conduct that has been recognized by the courts and ATF as rising to the level of a straw purchase, which is prohibited by federal law.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed rule would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule. This proposed rulemaking provides qualitative benefits to the firearms industry and firearms purchasers by providing clarity on the scope of what constitutes unlawful straw purchasing. However, ATF does not have sufficient information to calculate quantifiable savings and thus requests more information from the public regarding the economic effects this rulemaking may have on the public and the regulated industries.

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.

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.

This proposed rule will 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.

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

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 because it would simply provide clarity on the scope of what constitutes unlawful straw purchasing based on existing case law and long-standing agency guidance. This proposed rule will not impose any additional costs.

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.

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.

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

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. ATF also 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-AA78 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://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.

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 RIN 1140-AA78. 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.

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.”

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.

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-AA78).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478 as follows:

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), as amended, and the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended. 1 This includes the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A)(ii), 7805(a). Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA and NFA 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 implementing both the GCA and the NFA in 27 CFR parts 478, 479. ATF's Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (“FATD”), Office of Enforcement Programs and Services (“EPS”), classifies firearms pursuant to the GCA and NFA. FATD supports the firearms industry and the general public by, among other things, responding to technical inquiries and by testing and evaluating firearms voluntarily submitted to ATF for classification under federal law.

Firearms are treated differently under the GCA and the NFA. Congress passed the NFA to regulate certain weapons that were viewed as especially adaptable to criminal misuse. As a result, NFA firearms must be registered with ATF. 26 U.S.C. 5811, 5821, 5841, 5845. Additionally, NFA firearms were generally subject to special making and transfer taxes. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act became law on July 4, 2025, and it amended the NFA to require that the making and transfer taxes for all NFA firearms, other than machine guns and destructive devices, be reduced to $0 effective January 1, 2026. A weapon classified as a “firearm” under only the GCA is not subject to transfer taxes or additional registration, even though it is still subject to record-keeping requirements, serialization, interstate controls, and potential taxation under 26 U.S.C. 4181. Because of these differences, it matters a great deal whether a firearm falls under the NFA.

One kind of firearm covered by the NFA is “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length,” or “a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), (a)(4). Therefore, determining whether a firearm falls under the NFA sometimes turns on whether a firearm is classified as a “rifle.”

The GCA defines “rifle” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(7). Similarly, the NFA defines “rifle” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). For a long time, ATF's regulations incorporated these different statutory definitions. See 27 CFR 478.11; 27 CFR 479.11.

On November 8, 2012, a federal firearms licensee submitted the first firearm “stabilizing brace” to ATF, asking if adding its prototype device to a heavy pistol, such as an AR-type pistol, would change the pistol's classification to a rifle under federal firearms laws. The submitter described the brace device as designed to assist people with disabilities or limited strength or mobility in firing heavy pistols safely and comfortably. FATD ultimately concluded that attaching the brace would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm and thus would not subject them to the provisions of the NFA. In the years following this initial classification, FATD received a number of inquiries regarding other firearms equipped with braces of varying designs and materials, some of which FATD concluded were “rifles.”

On June 10, 2021, ATF issued an NPRM seeking to clarify and define “rifle” to include pistols with an attached “stabilizing brace” if the weapon “has objective design features and characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire,” as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999. 3 ATF received over 237,000 comments on the NPRM, many of which criticized the proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 as being too confusing and unnecessarily complex.

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces' ” (“2023 final rule”). The 2023 final rule did not adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999, but it outlined the factors ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” (or other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a “rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to regulation under the NFA. The 2023 final rule was published in the Federal Register . 4 Those possessing firearms with a stabilizing brace that were considered short-barreled rifles under the 2023 final rule, and thus subject to the registration requirements of the NFA, had until May 31, 2023, to register the firearm tax free.

Specifically, the 2023 final rule amended definition of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 to provide that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment ( e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides surface area allowing the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other factors are: (1) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles; (2) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment that is consistent with similarly designed rifles; (3) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as designed; (4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations; (5) the manufacturer's direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and (6) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the general community. Those affected by the 2023 final rule who did not want to register their firearms were given the following options: (1) remove the short barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm; (2) permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; (3) turn the firearm into the local ATF office; or (4) destroy the firearm. 5

Within weeks of the 2023 final rule's effective date, several lawsuits had been filed, all of which alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). In several of these lawsuits, United States District Courts in Texas granted motions to preliminarily enjoin the 2023 final rule. 6 The Eighth Circuit and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida also enjoined ATF from enforcing the final rule, and the Northern District of Texas ultimately vacated the final rule in its entirety in June 2024. In short, the 2023 final rule was preliminarily enjoined in multiple jurisdictions prior to the vacatur on the merits in June 2024.

The Fifth Circuit. In the Northern District of Texas, William T. Mock, Maxim Defense Industries, LLC, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., moved to preliminarily enjoin the 2023 final rule. On March 30, 2023, the district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction. 7 The plaintiffs appealed the order to the Fifth Circuit, and on May 23, 2023, a motions panel of the Fifth Circuit issued an injunction pending appeal of the 2023 final rule as to the plaintiffs. 8 Other district courts in Texas soon followed suit and granted preliminary injunctions to additional plaintiffs pending the Mock appeal. 9 By mid-June 2023, ATF was preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the 2023 final rule as to two manufacturers and their customers, four nationwide advocacy groups and their members, one state's employees and agencies, and eight individuals. 10 On August 1, 2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction in Mock, held that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits, and remanded the case to the district court. 11 The district court subsequently entered a preliminary injunction as to the plaintiffs in that case. Then, on November 8, 2023, a separate district court in the Northern District of Texas universally stayed the 2023 final rule under 5 U.S.C. 705 in its entirety nationwide. 12 Several months later, on June 13, 2024, the district court in Mock granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, denied the Government's motion for summary judgment, and universally vacated the final rule. On August 26, 2024, the Fifth Circuit dismissed all pending appeals regarding preliminary injunctions in Texas district courts as moot after the June 13, 2024, decision in Mock. 13

The Eleventh Circuit. On January 26, 2024, the Middle District of Florida granted a preliminary injunction that has effectively prevented the Government from enforcing the 2023 final rule against the named plaintiffs and past and future customers of the plaintiffs residing in Florida. 14 The district court found there would be irreparable harm to plaintiffs challenging the 2023 final rule and that the final rule likely violated the APA's notice and comment requirement. 15

The Eighth Circuit. On August 9, 2024, the Eighth Circuit, considering an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction, found that plaintiffs challenging the 2023 final rule were likely to succeed on the merits and remanded the case to the district court with instruction to reconsider the motion, consistent with the court's opinion. 16 Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. 17

In sum, in less than four months after the effective date of the 2023 final rule, ATF had been enjoined from enforcing it against several groups of plaintiffs, and on November 8, 2023, it was universally vacated. Because of the ongoing litigation and the various injunctions, for all intents and purposes, ATF has never actively enforced the 2023 final rule. In other words, no further classifications were issued as to industry members or the public and no one was investigated based solely on possessing a braced firearm.

Additionally, the goal of the 2023 final rule was to alleviate confusion by clarifying ATF's position and analysis on firearms with attached stabilizing braces and help the public understand FATD's underlying analysis in classifying firearms equipped with stabilizing braces; however, the result was confusion as individual makers were unsure how to apply highly technical criteria to their firearms. In light of the ambiguity created by the regulations, it would have been challenging for individuals who make or possess braced weapons to determine whether their firearms qualified as a “rifle” based on the existence of a stabilizing brace or would fall within the purview of the NFA or GCA. As an example, the factors in the final rule may have been overinclusive or underinclusive and thus difficult to apply in particular cases. Given the difficulties in applying the 2023 final rule, owners of weapons that would be considered “rifles” under the final rule might not have been on notice before it was vacated and enjoined.

Moreover, two courts addressed the merits of the final rule, holding that parts of the rule were arbitrary and capricious. 18 The Eighth Circuit took issue with the rule because it lacked a standard for measuring whether a brace provided enough “surface area” to allow a weapon to be fired from the shoulder. In particular, it found that ATF failed to “provide some range of flexibility in explaining the total surface area that allows for shouldering a weapon.”  19 The Eighth Circuit also took issue with two of the final rule's factors to determine whether a weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder. Specifically, the court held that the final rule did not address how ATF would evaluate marketing materials and community use of the weapon, nor what was relevantly “representative” of community use. 20 In summary, the Eighth Circuit noted that an “agency may promulgate a `holistic, multi-factor, weight-of-the-evidence test,' but only if that test `define[s] and explain[s] the criteria the agency is applying.' ”  21 “The Final Rule misses that mark.”  22 The district court in Mock, supra, went a step further and found all of the six factors “impermissibly vague,” and that the six-factor test “provides no meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.”  23 Thus, whatever clarity the agency hoped to provide, it was not successful in the view of reviewing courts.

ATF is not issuing a new rule at this time. Each firearms submission to FATD is unique in some way, and ATF has concluded that a pre-determined factored approach that may or may not be relevant to the classification at issue is not the best method to begin such classification of a firearm. Each submission will have unique characteristics that make the firearm designed to be fired with one hand versus designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Due to the confusion generated by the 2023 final rule, the courts' conclusions that it was arbitrary and capricious, concerns about sufficient notice, and the benefits of case-by-case classifications based on the unique designs of each firearm, ATF proposes to rescind the changes made by the 2023 final rule and rely on the statutory language without further elaboration. Additionally, the proposed rule is necessary to conform ATF's regulatory provisions in parts 478 and 479 to the court decision vacating the rule. Following the rule's vacatur, ATF has been prevented from enforcing the rule nationwide, so revising the relevant definitions will provide clarity and confirm for regulated parties that the 2023 regulation change is no longer in effect. ATF has determined that it is a waste of resources to continue defending and trying to enforce the 2023 final rule.

Accordingly, this proposed rule would remove the revised portions of the regulatory definitions of “rifle” that further defined the term “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The regulatory definitions of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 would be as they were prior to the 2023 final rule. The pre-2023 definition of “rifle” tracked the GCA's and NFA's statutory definitions and did not further define “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

Upon finalization of this rule, the resulting definition of “rifle” in § 478.11 would read, “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger.” Likewise, upon finalization of this rule, the resulting definition of “rifle” in § 479.11 would read, “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.”

ATF seeks comments on all aspects of this proposed rule and its costs and benefits.

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” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 because it would have an impact on the economy of more than $100 million in one year. The effect of this proposed rule would be to rescind the changes made by the 2023 final rule and for the regulatory definitions of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 to rely on the statutory language without further elaboration. This proposed rule is necessary to conform ATF's regulatory provisions in parts 478 and 479 to the court decision vacating the rule. Revising the relevant definitions would provide clarity and confirm for regulated parties that the 2023 regulation change is no longer in effect. Pursuant to this change, individuals would be able to purchase firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” and forgo registration, fingerprinting, and photograph costs and burdens, if the firearm is not intended to be fired from the shoulder and does not otherwise fall within the statutory definition of “firearm” under the NFA. These savings would result in an impact to the economy of more than $100 million.

ATF has laid out the impacts of this proposed rulemaking in 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 ATF's Circular A-4 sensitivity analysis. ATF then provides its normal regulatory cost-benefit analysis.