Removing Triplicate Filing Requirement for Importing Plastic Explosives

This rule removes the requirement to submit three copies (triplicate) of a statement when importing plastic explosives.
Impact: Minimal, administrative-only change that slightly reduces paperwork.
Applies to: Very narrow segment of industry (explosives importers), not typical FFLs or individual gun owners.

What this rule means
ATF is eliminating an outdated paperwork requirement tied to importing plastic explosives. Previously, importers had to submit a written certification in triplicate along with their import application (Form 6). Now, they only need to submit it once.

This change reflects modernization—ATF no longer processes these forms in a way that requires multiple physical copies. 

What the rule actually does

• Removes the requirement that the written certification be submitted “in triplicate”
• Keeps the underlying requirement intact:
  • Importers must still certify (under penalty of perjury) that:
    • The explosive contains required detection agents, or
    • It qualifies for a limited exemption (e.g., research/testing)
• Updates outdated language (e.g., references to older dates and formatting)
• Aligns the process with:
  • Electronic filing (ATF eForms)
  • Modern document handling

What will change (real-world impact)

For Industry (Explosives Importers):

• Slightly less paperwork:
  • No need to print/sign multiple copies
• Slightly faster and simpler application process
• No change to:
  • Substantive requirements
  • Safety or compliance obligations

Notably:

• ATF reports zero plastic explosive import applications in the last 3 years, so this is a very niche scenario

For FFLs / Firearms Industry:

• No impact

For Individuals:

• No impact

For the system overall:

• Pure “housekeeping” rule
• Reflects transition from paper-based to digital processes
• Reduces unnecessary administrative burden (even if minimal)

Key Takeaways

• No policy change—only procedural simplification
• Does not affect firearms, accessories, or ownership
• Applies to a very small, specialized category of importers
• Another example of ATF removing outdated requirements

Rule to be published:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 555

[ATF No. 2025R-38F]

RIN 1140-AA74

Removing Triplicate Filing Requirement for Importing Plastic Explosives

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of

Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) is

amending Department of Justice explosives regulations on importing plastic explosives

by removing the requirement to submit the required attestation in triplicate.

DATES: This final rule is effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by

email at ORA@atf.gov, by mail at Office of Regulatory Affairs; Enforcement Programs

and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 99 New York Ave,

NE; Washington, DC 20226, or by telephone at 202-648-7070 (this is not a toll-free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (“OCCA”), Pub. L. 91–452,

84 Stat. 922 (1970), added chapter 40 (Importation, Manufacture, Distribution, andStorage of Explosive Materials) to 18 U.S.C.1 One of the stated purposes for title XI was

to reduce the “hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or insecure

storage of explosive materials.” Pub. L. 91–452, sec. 1101, 84 Stat. at 952. The Attorney

General is responsible for implementing title XI. See 18 U.S.C. 847. The Attorney

General has delegated that responsibility to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to

the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.2 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). Regulations in 27 CFR part 555 implement title XI.

Persons importing explosive materials into the United States must abide by the

general provisions set forth in 27 CFR 555.108. Importers of plastic explosives into the

United States are subject to the additional requirements at § 555.183. Id. at § 555.108(d).

Under § 555.183, importers of plastic explosives that file an ATF Form 5330.3A,

Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6, part

I”),3 must also attach a written statement, prepared in triplicate, declaring, under penalty

of perjury, that the plastic explosive they intend to import contains a detection agent as

required by § 555.180(b) or that the plastic explosive is a “small amount” to be used for

research, training, or testing purposes and is exempt from § 555.182’s detection agent

requirements.

II. Final Rule

1 Some 18 U.S.C. chapter 40 provisions still refer to the “Secretary of the Treasury.” However, the

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the functions of ATF from

the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney

General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of reference, this final rule refers to

the Attorney General where relevant.

2 In Attorney General Order Number 6353-2025, the Attorney General delegated authority to the Director

to issue regulations pertaining to matters within ATF’s jurisdiction, including under OCCA, the National

Firearms Act, and the Gun Control Act. ATF’s jurisdiction also includes those portions of sec. 38 of the

Arms Export Control Act pertaining to permanently importing defense articles and services and the

Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.

3 A Form 6, part I application to import is generally required for articles on the United States Munitions

Imports List (“USMIL”). See 27 CFR 447.41. If importing plastic explosives that fall under USMIL,

importers would be required to file a Form 6, part I application and submit the additional information as

required by § 555.183. 27 CFR 447.42(a)–(b).ATF is removing from its regulations at § 555.183 the requirement that importers

of plastic explosives attach three copies of their written statement to their Form 6, part I

applications. ATF used to require that Form 6, part I applications be submitted in

triplicate, therefore making three copies of the additional statement in § 555.183

necessary. As ATF has modernized its processing systems, ATF no longer requires this

form to be submitted in triplicate, nor does ATF use the extra copies of the statement

when processing the Form 6, part I applications. The triplicate filing requirement has

therefore become unnecessary for ATF. While ATF has not received Form 6, part I

applications to import plastic explosives in the past three years, removing the requirement

to file in triplicate reduces a burden on importers should they import plastic explosives in

future. ATF is not removing the requirement to submit the written statement; it is simply

removing the requirement to submit the statement in triplicate.

Accordingly, the final rule removes from § 555.183 the phrase, “prepared in

triplicate,” and an obsolete reference to “on or after April 24, 1997,” in the first

paragraph. The final rule also updates the section heading by removing the obsolete

reference to “on or after April 24, 1997” and modernizes it to read “Importing plastic

explosives.”

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Administrative Procedure Act

Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires that agencies

publish a notice of a proposed rulemaking and give interested persons an opportunity to

participate in the rulemaking by submitting comments on it. See 5 U.S.C. 553(c).

However, the APA provides limited exceptions to its notice-and-comment requirements.

One such exception is for “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(A); see also Am. Fed’n of Lab. & Cong. of Indus. Orgs. (AFLCIO) v. Nat’l Lab.

Rels. Bd., 57 F.4th 1023, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (“[A]s the text of the APA makes clear,not all rules that might be categorized as procedural are exempted; the limited carveout is

intended for ‘internal house-keeping measures organizing agency activities.’” (citing Am.

Hosp. Ass’n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987))). The courts have

described this exception as covering “agency actions that do not themselves alter the

rights or interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the parties

present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.” Id. (citing James V. Hurson

Assoc., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks

omitted)). “[I]t is always within the discretion of . . . an administrative agency to relax or

modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of business.” Am. Farm

Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv. 397 U.S. 532, 539 (1970) (citations omitted).

By removing the requirement that the attestation on plastic explosives be

submitted in triplicate with the Form 6, part I, ATF is neither imposing a substantive

requirement on industry or the public, nor relieving industry or the public from any

substantive requirements. ATF no longer needs additional copies of the attestation

because ATF does not need the Form 6, part I to be in triplicate. The import application is

available on ATF’s eForms platform, and a majority of importers submit their

applications electronically. When submitting electronically, users complete the Form 6,

part I application once. While ATF still accepts paper applications, ATF also no longer

needs the Form 6, part I in triplicate and, at the time of this rule, is amending the form’s

instructions to reflect this. Overall, removing the requirement to file the attestation in

triplicate is a procedural housekeeping measure that decreases the administrative burden

for both industry and ATF without effectuating any substantive change or adversely

impacting the broader public.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to

assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation isnecessary, 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 final rule amends 27 CFR 555.183 to remove the requirement that a written

statement be submitted in triplicate as it is unnecessary to process the Form 6, part I

application to import plastic explosive materials. The Office of Management and Budget

(“OMB”) has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under

Executive Order 12866. Although ATF finds that this rule can forgo notice-and-comment

because it a procedural, housekeeping rule under 5 U.S.C 553(b)(A), ATF nonetheless

includes a brief benefits-costs discussion to illustrate the benefits and deregulatory nature

of removing the requirement to submit in triplicate when licensees import plastic

explosives.

1. Benefits

The benefits ATF expects to result from this rule would be primarily qualitative in

nature and de minimis. Form 6, part I serves as the application form for importing plastic

explosives, but also for other items that contain explosive materials, such as propellant

for sporting ammunition, propellant for nonsporting ammunition (rounds over 50 caliber,

tracer, or incendiary), and destructive devices (for example bombs, mines, grenades,

ammunition rounds larger than 23mm, if they contain more than 4 oz of explosive

material). Based on ATF data, there have been 55 Form 6 applications submitted over the

past three years to import items that contain explosive materials, with an annual average

of approximately 18 per year.

Removing the requirement that importers of plastic explosives attach three copies

of their written statement with their Form 6, part I application would save importers the

marginal burden of printing and signing three copies of the required forms. Where thesetriplicate forms were once collected on carbon copied physical forms, any additional

burden was nonexistent. As the carbon copies were phased out and replaced by physical

or electronic forms, a marginal burden emerged where the applicant was required to

produce redundant copies of the application. However, the entire form never had to be

completed three times. An electronic form could be printed three times instead of once, or

a physical form could be photocopied and signed instead of completed again. While no

import applications have been submitted for plastic explosives in the past three years, this

rule would eliminate any such de minimis burden in the event of a future import of plastic

explosives. For the above reasons, ATF expects benefits to be primarily qualitative in

nature and quantitatively de minimis.

2. Costs

ATF does not expect any compliance costs to result from the rule, as it is a

deregulatory action that would result in marginal benefits and transfers.

C. Executive Order 14192

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an

agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be

repealed or revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice-and-comment or

otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192

regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs

greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order

14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with such new regulations

must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs

associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this rule is not an Executive Order

14192 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined by

Executive Order 12866 and it does not impose total costs greater than zero. This rulequalifies as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action as it removes a requirement

for applicants to submit three copies of an attestation with their Form 6, part I application

to import plastic explosives.

D. Executive Order 14294

Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations)

requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially

subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal

enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each

element of those offenses. This final rule does not create a criminal regulatory offense

and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

E. Executive Order 13132

This final 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

rule does 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.

F. Executive Order 12988

This final rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)

of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, ATF has

considered whether this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises certain small

businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operatedand are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of

less than 50,000.

In accordance with sections 603 and 604 of the RFA, a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis is not required for this final rule because ATF was not required to publish a

general notice of proposed rulemaking for this matter. However, there are no additional

costs to the public as it removes an unnecessary regulatory requirement; therefore, the

Director certifies, after consideration, that this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This final 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.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521,

agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any information

collection requirements a rule creates or any impacts it has on existing information

collections. An information collection includes any reporting, record-keeping,

monitoring, posting, labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of ten or more

persons within any 12-month period. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This rule does not create any

new information collection requirements. There is no existing information collection

associated with this triplicate filing requirement because it has not involved ten or more

respondents within a 12-month period. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i); 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4).

J. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., ATF hasdetermined that this rule does not meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) to constitute a

major rule. This rule is not a major rule because it would not result in an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant

adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on

the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in

domestic and export markets.

List of subjects in 27 CFR part 555

Administrative practice and procedure, Explosives, Freight, Hazardous

substances, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Safety,

Security measures, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation, Warehouses.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF amends 27 CFR part 555 as

follows:

PART 555 – COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES

1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 555 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847.

2. Amend § 555.183 by revising the section heading and introductory text to read as

follows:

§ 555.183 Importing plastic explosives.

Persons filing a Form 6 application to import plastic explosives must attach to the

application the following written statement executed under the penalties of perjury:

* * * * *

Robert Cekada,

Director.