This is a proposed rule (not final) that clarifies you are not “delivering” a firearm to a carrier simply by traveling with it as long as you maintain control over it.
Impact: Moderate and positive—reduces legal risk and confusion for travelers.
Applies to: Primarily individuals, with minimal impact on FFLs.
What this rule means
Federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(e)) makes it illegal to “deliver” a firearm or ammo to a common carrier (like an airline or shipping company) without notifying them.
The problem:
- The law never clearly defined what “deliver” means
- Some interpretations suggested that just being on a bus, train, or plane with a firearm could count as “delivery”
This rule clarifies that:
- If you keep possession and control of your firearm, you have NOT “delivered” it to the carrier
- Therefore, you are not violating the law simply by traveling with it
What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:
- Clarify that “delivery” requires:
- Giving up control or custody of the firearm to the carrier
- Explicitly state that:
- Carrying a firearm on your person or in your direct control is NOT delivery
- Confirm that the rule applies only when:
- You retain possession the entire time
It also clarifies what is NOT a “common or contract carrier” for this law:
- Rideshares (Uber, Lyft)
- Taxis, limos
- Public transit (buses, metro, trains)
These are excluded because:
- You don’t formally “deliver” anything to the operator
- There is no system for notice or custody transfer
What will change (real-world impact)
For Individuals (Primary Impact):
- Reduces risk of accidental felony exposure
- Clarifies that:
- Simply traveling with a firearm ≠ illegal delivery
- Particularly relevant for:
- Bus/train travel
- Carrying firearms in backpacks or on your person
Important distinction:
- If you check a bag with a firearm:
- You ARE delivering it → notification rules still apply
- If you keep it with you:
- You are NOT delivering it → no notification required under this law
Critical caveat:
- This does NOT override:
- TSA rules
- Airline policies
- State/local carry laws
- For example:
- Carrying on a plane is still heavily restricted under other federal laws
For FFLs / Industry:
- No meaningful impact
For the system overall:
- Returns ATF to a more common-sense interpretation of the law
- Rejects broader interpretations (like one federal circuit case) that expanded “delivery” too far
- Reduces ambiguity in a criminal statute
Key Takeaways
- Clarifies—not expands or restricts—existing law
- Focuses on control vs. transfer as the key distinction
- Helps prevent unintentional violations
- Still requires compliance with other laws governing firearm transport
Proposed Rule to be Published:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0007; ATF No. 2025R-23P]
RIN 1140-AA84
Clarifying Delivery to a Common or Contract Carrier When Transporting Firearms
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) proposes
amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations to clarify that, for purposes of
the Gun Control Act of 1968, a person who travels aboard a common or contract carrier
while in possession of a firearm or ammunition is not considered to have “delivered” or
“caused to be delivered” said firearm or ammunition to the common or contract carrier,
provided that the person possesses and maintains direct control over the firearm or
ammunition for the duration of the trip.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on or before (or, if
mailed, must be postmarked on or before) [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Commenters should be aware that the
federal e-rulemaking portal comment system will not accept comments after midnight
Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by RIN 1140-AA84, by either of the
following methods —
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• Mail: ATF Rulemaking Comments; Mail Stop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory Affairs;Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives;
99 New York Ave, NE; Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: RIN 1140-AA84.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-
AA84) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”). ATF may post
all properly completed comments it receives from either of the methods described above,
without change, to the federal e-rulemaking portal, https://www.regulations.gov. This
includes any personally identifying information (“PII”) or business proprietary information
(“PROPIN”) submitted in the body of the comment or as part of a related attachment they
want posted. Commenters who submit through the federal e-rulemaking portal and do not
want any of their PII posted on the internet should omit it from the body of their comment
and any uploaded attachments that they want posted. If online commenters wish to submit
PII with their comment, they should place it in a separate attachment and mark it at the top
with the marking “CUI//PRVCY.” Commenters who submit through mail should likewise
omit their PII or PROPIN from the body of the comment and provide any such information
on the cover sheet only, marking it at the top as “CUI//PRVCY” for PII, or as
“CUI//PROPIN” for PROPIN. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov.
Commenters must submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by
emailing the address set forth in the following paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email at
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
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).
1 Some GCA 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 proposed rule refers to the Attorney General where relevant.
2 In Attorney General Order Number 6353–2025, the Attorney General delegated authority to the Director to
issue regulations pertaining to matters within ATF’s jurisdiction, including under the National Firearms Act,
GCA, and Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act. ATF’s jurisdiction also includes those portions of sec.
38 of the Arms Export Control Act pertaining to permanently importing defense articles and services and the
Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.Congress did not provide a definition as to what circumstances do or do not qualify as
having “delivered” or “caused to be delivered” any firearm or ammunition to any common or
contract carrier for purposes of the first clause of section 922(e). Thus, ATF proposes this
rule to clarify what circumstances do not qualify as having “delivered” or “caused to be
delivered” any firearm or ammunition to any common or contract carrier for purposes of
section 922(e). Specifically, this rule would clarify that if an individual possesses a firearm
that is being transported aboard any common or contract carrier for movement with the
passenger in interstate or foreign commerce, and that individual maintains direct control and
possession of the firearm or ammunition, such actual possession does not result in a
“delivery” to the common or contract carrier under section 922(e), and would therefore not
amount to a violation of that provision.
II. Proposed Rule
ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.31 by adding a new paragraph (e) to explain that
persons who travel aboard a common or contract carrier and who possess a firearm or
ammunition on their person or in baggage under their immediate control are not to be
considered to have “delivered” or “caused to be delivered” a “package” or “other container”
containing a firearm or ammunition when the person maintains direct control over the
firearm or ammunition for the duration of the person’s trip and does not relinquish possession
or custody to the common carrier. The new paragraph also explains that common or contract
carriers do not include public or private for-hire vehicles (e.g., taxis, limousines, rideshares
etc.), or municipal or regional mass transit vehicles, including those that cross state lines, for
which passengers do not deliver the firearm or ammunition into the custody of the operator
of the common or contract carrier.
As explained above, this proposed change provides greater clarification as to
circumstances that do not come within the ambit of 18 U.S.C. 922(e). The term “delivery” is
defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) as follows: “[t]he formal act of voluntarilytransferring 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 andthat 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.
3 Stephen Halbrook, Firearms, The Fourth Amendment, and Air Carrier Security, 52 J. Air L. & Com. 585,
664–672 (1987).
4 See H.R. Rep. No. 90-1577, at 14 (June 21, 1968).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
5 See footnote 3, supra, Halbrook at 664.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 contractcarrier” 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 orcontract carriers. It may be possible for an individual to be in violation of statutes or
regulations not enforced by ATF while being in compliance with section 922(e). Thus, for
example, federal law will continue to restrict the carrying of accessible weapons aboard
commercial aircraft. 49 U.S.C. 46505(b)(1); 14 CFR 135.119. State laws may also further
restrict firearms aboard buses and trains. See, e.g., N.M. Stat. 30-7-13 (restricting carrying
firearms aboard buses).
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes
the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing
rules, and promoting public flexibility.
This proposed rule would clarify that for purposes of the first clause of 18 U.S.C.
922(e), a person who travels aboard a common or contract carrier while in possession of a
firearm or ammunition is not considered to have “delivered” or “caused to be delivered” said
firearm or ammunition to the common or contract carrier so long as the person possesses and
maintains direct control over the firearm or ammunition for the duration of the trip. The rule
would also make clear that common or contract carriers do not include municipal or regional
transit vehicles, or public or private for-hire vehicles (e.g., rideshares, taxis, or limousines),
for which passengers do not deliver the firearm or ammunition into the custody of the
operator.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule would
not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This rulemaking
provides qualitative benefits to the public by providing more flexibility with respect tocomplying with statutes and existing regulatory standards, but ATF does not have sufficient
information to calculate quantifiable savings. Therefore, ATF requests more information
from the public regarding the economic effects that this rulemaking may have on the public
and the regulated industries.
B. Executive Order 14192
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an
agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed or
revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates
a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in
OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this
requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs
associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by
eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this
proposed rule would not be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it would not impose
total costs greater than zero. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to
qualify as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-
25-20 as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero) because it provides qualitative
savings. Under the rule, the public would have more options with respect to transporting their
firearms without concern for violating the GCA and existing regulatory standards.
C. Executive Order 14294
Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations)
requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially
subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal
enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each elementof those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory offense and is
thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.
D. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, the
relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that this
proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not
warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement.
E. Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies are
required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to notice-
and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including a
statement of the factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain small
businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it generally
affects individuals who are moving their firearms interstate and merely provides them moreflexibility with respect to complying with statutes and existing regulatory standards. This
proposed rule is deregulatory and would not impose any additional costs.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in expenditure by state,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Therefore, ATF has determined that no actions are necessary under the provisions of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521,
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any information collection
requirements a rule creates or any impacts it has on existing information collections. An
information collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting, labeling,
or other similar actions an agency requires of the public. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed
rule would not create any new information collection requirements or impact any existing
ones covered by the PRA.
I. Congressional Review Act
This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
IV. Public Participation
A. Comments sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF
specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made
easier to understand. In addition, ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the
proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and
benefits.All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA84 and, if handwritten,
must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last
name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking
portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow
the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or
by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information
you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly
viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you
include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,
it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in
the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters
should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII
if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that
do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain
comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record
but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all
comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF
cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the
closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether
submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public
viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not wanttheir name or other PII posted on the Internet should submit their comments with a separate
cover sheet containing their PII. The separate cover sheet should be marked with
“CUI//PRVCY” at the top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy Act. Both the
cover sheet and comment must reference this RIN 1140-AA84. For comments submitted by
mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear when posted on the internet,
but any PII that appears within the body of a comment will not be redacted by ATF and may
appear on the internet. Similarly, commenters who submit through the federal e-rulemaking
portal and who do not want any of their PII posted on the internet should omit such PII from
the body of their comment and any uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the
online fields designated for name, email, and other contact information will not be posted or
viewable online.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or
confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF handle this information as
controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), the commenter must place any portion of a
comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law or regulation on
pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each page prominently marked
“CUI//PROPIN” at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in
compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it receives,
but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential business
information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not have access. If
ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it as any other
request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose
such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required by other legal
process.C. Submitting comments
Submit comments using either of the two methods described below (but do not
submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted.
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments to
ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if
large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be
viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is provided
after successfully uploading your comment.
• Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12-point font size, include the
commenter’s first and last name and full mailing address, and may be of any length. See also
section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality.”
D. Request for hearing
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public
hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 90-day
comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all
circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response to it are available
through the federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov (search for RIN
1140-AA84).
List of subjects in 27 CFR part 478
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Freight,
Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel,Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,
Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478
as follows:
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).
2. Add § 478.31(e) to read as follows:
§ 478.31 Delivery by common or contract carrier.
* * * * *
(e) A person who travels aboard a common or contract carrier and who possesses a
firearm or ammunition is not considered to have “delivered” or “caused to be delivered” a
“package” or “other container” containing a firearm or ammunition when the person
maintains direct control over the firearm or ammunition for the duration of the person’s trip
and does not relinquish possession or custody to the common or contract carrier. Common or
contract carriers do not include public or private for-hire vehicles (e.g., taxis, limousines, or
rideshares etc.). Common or contact carriers also do not include municipal or regional mass
transit vehicles, including those that cross state lines, for which passengers cannot deliver the
firearm or ammunition into the custody of the operator of the common or contract carrier as
provided for in paragraph (a) of this section.
Robert Cekada,
Director.