This is a proposed rule (not final) that allows FFLs to treat adjacent or adjoining properties as a single licensed business premises, eliminating the need for multiple licenses in those situations.
Impact: Moderate and positive—reduces licensing costs and administrative burden.
Applies to: FFLs / firearms industry only.
What this rule means
Under current rules, FFLs often need a separate license for each physical location, even if those locations are right next to each other.
The problem:
- Businesses with multiple nearby buildings or units (e.g., across the street or in the same shopping center) may need:
- Multiple licenses
- Multiple fees
- Additional compliance overhead
This rule clarifies that certain nearby properties can be treated as one “business premises” for licensing purposes.
What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:
- Expand the definition of “business premises”
- Includes properties that:
- Adjoin each other (touching boundaries), OR
- Are adjacent (close/near) AND share:
- The same parking lot, sidewalk, or road
- Allow one license to cover multiple nearby properties
- Examples:
- Two buildings next to each other → one license
- Two locations across the street → one license
- Two units in the same shopping center → one license
- Maintain limits
- Does NOT apply if properties are:
- Too far apart (e.g., miles away)
- Each situation still evaluated case-by-case
- Keep existing rules intact
- Does NOT change:
- Inspection authority
- Recordkeeping requirements
- Need for a licensed premises
- Still allows:
- Variance requests if needed
What will change (real-world impact)
For FFLs / Industry (Primary Impact):
- Reduced licensing costs:
- No need to pay for multiple licenses for nearby locations
- Estimated savings:
- ~$150–$300 per additional location
- Reduced administrative burden:
- Fewer applications and renewals
- More flexibility in business layout:
- Easier to expand into nearby units or buildings
For Individuals:
- No impact
For the system overall:
- Aligns regulations with how businesses actually operate
- Reflects prior ATF variances and guidance
- Reduces unnecessary duplication without reducing oversight
Key Takeaways
- Expands what counts as a single “business premises”
- Allows one license for multiple nearby properties
- Saves money and reduces paperwork for FFLs
- Still requires locations to be truly adjacent or adjoining
Proposed Rule to Be Published:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0011; ATF No. 2025R-36P]
RIN 1140-AA69
Definition of Business Premises
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) proposes
amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations to clarify that the term “business
premises” includes properties that adjoin each other; or that are adjacent to each other and
adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on or before (or, if
mailed, must be postmarked on or before) [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: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1140-AA69, by either of the
following methods —
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments.
• Mail: ATF Rulemaking Comments; Mail Stop 6N-518, Office of Regulatory Affairs;
Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives;
99 New York Ave, NE; Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: RIN 1140-AA69.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-AA69) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”). ATF may post
all properly completed comments it receives from either of the methods described above,
without change, to the federal e-rulemaking portal, https://www.regulations.gov. This
includes any personally identifying information (“PII”) or business proprietary information
(“PROPIN”) submitted in the body of the comment or as part of a related attachment they
want posted. Commenters who submit through the federal e-rulemaking portal and do not
want any of their PII posted on the internet should omit it from the body of their comment
and any uploaded attachments that they want posted. If online commenters wish to submit
PII with their comment, they should place it in a separate attachment and mark it at the top
with the marking “CUI//PRVCY.” Commenters who submit through mail should likewise
omit their PII or PROPIN from the body of the comment and provide any such information
on the cover sheet only, marking it at the top as “CUI//PRVCY” for PII, or as
“CUI//PROPIN” for PROPIN. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov.
Commenters must submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by
emailing the address set forth in the following paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email at
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 regulationsnecessary 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
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.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.
II. Proposed Rule
Because these situations can arise, ATF is proposing to amend 27 CFR 478.11 and 27
CFR 478.50 to clarify that “business premises” includes properties that adjoin (i.e., touch)
each other or properties that are adjacent (i.e., lying near or close) to each other and adjoin
the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road. The proposed amendments to these sections would
allow FFLs to apply for and maintain one license for their business if they own or lease more
than one property or location that (i) adjoin (i.e., touch) each other; or (ii) are adjacent (i.e.,
lying near or close) to each other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road.
As explained above, this rule will provide greater clarification as to circumstances
that qualify as “business premises” under the GCA. For purposes of this proposed rule, ATF
is relying on the plain meaning of the terms “adjoin” and “adjacent” as defined in Black’s
Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). There, the term “adjoin” is defined as “touching; sharing a
3 This definition is nearly identical to the original definition of “business premises” in the initial rules
promulgated in 1968. As provided in the 1968 rule, “business premises” was defined as “[t]he property on
which firearms or ammunition importing, manufacturing, or dealing in business is or will be conducted. A
private dwelling, no part of which is open to the public, shall not be recognized as coming within the meaning
of the term.” 33 FR 18557 (Dec. 14, 1968).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
4 This is also consistent with Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968), published the same year in which 18
U.S.C. 923 was enacted, in which “adjoining” is defined as follows: “The word in its etymological sense, means
touching or contiguous, as distinguished from lying near to or adjacent.”
5 This is also consistent with Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1968), which defined “adjacent” as follows:
“Lying near or close to; sometimes contiguous; neighboring.” Further, “[a]djacent implies that the two objects
are not widely separated, though they may not actually touch . . ., while adjoining imports that they are so
joined or united to each other that no third object intervenes.”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”), Pub. L. 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 multiplelicenses 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
6 ATF, Guidance on Business Premises, (Apr. 10, 2020), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/atf-
business-premises-guidance-letter-4-10-2020/download [https://perma.cc/4B76-52YW].
7 Id. at 2-3.the FFL would not hinder the administration of the GCA; nor does it impede ATF’s ability to
trace firearms or interfere with ATF’s Industry Operations Investigators’ ability to conduct
inspections to ensure regulatory compliance with the GCA. ATF submits that this is also true
for properties that are adjacent to each other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or
road. Further, it reduces burden on the industry and saves the costs of having to maintain two
separate licenses.
ATF’s proposed rule also aligns with the President’s Executive Order 14206,
Protecting Second Amendment Rights, issued on February 7, 2025. In that Executive Order,
the President set forth that “[t]he Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of
security and liberty.” E.O. 14206, sec. 1, 90 FR 9503 (Feb. 7, 2025). Further, “[b]ecause it is
foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear
arms must not be infringed.” Id.
Finally, ATF notes that each FFL application will continue to be evaluated on the
specific facts underlying each application. If an FFL application is denied on the grounds that
an FFL’s premises does not meet the amended definition of “business premises” under 27
CFR 478.11 or 27 CFR 478.50, ATF reminds the public that licensees can ask ATF for an
alternate method or procedure (known as a variance request) to fulfill their regulatory
obligations. This process is set forth in 27 CFR 478.22.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to
select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes
the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing
rules, and promoting public flexibility.This proposed rule would amend ATF regulations at 27 CFR 478.11 and 27 CFR
478.50 to clarify that the term “business premises” includes properties that (i) adjoin each
other; or (ii) are adjacent to each other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road.
This rulemaking would provide qualitative benefits to the industry by providing more
flexibility in complying with statutes and existing regulatory standards.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule would
not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not
review this rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Order 12866
and 13563. Although an overall industry savings was not calculated, ATF estimates that a
per-entity savings, which may range from $150 to $300, could occur from an FFL not having
to apply and pay for more than one license.8 Furthermore, ATF estimates an hourly time-
burden savings of 1 hour.
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 $22513 to $37514 (rounded) per adjoining or adjacent location. However,
8 ATF.gov, Federal Firearms Licenses, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licenses
[https://perma.cc/QWX8-R3MK].
9 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2023, for 11-3013 Facilities
Managers, https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes113013.htm [https://perma.cc/M4G8-6YJL].
10 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Total compensation cost per hour worked for private industry workers
(2023–2025), https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CMU2010000000000D [https://perma.cc/T2ZL-
2UUB].
11 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wages and salaries cost per hour worked for private industry workers
(2023–2025), https://data.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/CMU2020000000000D [https://perma.cc/FF2D-
7VRA].
12 1.4 load rate = $44.20 total hourly compensation / 31.95 hourly wages and salaries.
13 $225 per location time savings = $75 loaded wage rate (rounded) * 3 hours of time savings.
14 $375 per location time savings = $75 loaded wage rate (rounded) * 5 hours of time savings.ATF requests more information from the public regarding 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 as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of
this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental
costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be
offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. However,
this proposed rule would not be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not
a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and it would not impose
total costs greater than zero. This rule would save FFLs from having to apply and pay for two
licenses if the FFL’s business premises is adjacent or adjoining to each other. Therefore, ATF
expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action (defined OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that imposes total
costs less than zero).
C. Executive Order 14294
Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations)
requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially
subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal
enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element
of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory offense and is
thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.D. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, the
relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that this
proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not
warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement.
E. Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies are
required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to notice-
and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including a
basis, that the statement of the factual small entities. Small entities impact on proposed rule would not have a significant economic
a substantial number of 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 aloaded 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.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the
expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector,
of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, the ATF has determined that no actions are necessary under the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521,
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any information collection
requirements a rule creates or any impacts it has on existing information collections. An
information collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting, labeling,
or other similar actions an agency requires of the public. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed
rule would impact two existing information collections under the PRA: OMB control number
1140-0018: Application for Federal Firearms License, which includes ATF Form 5310.12
(“Form 7”); OMB control number 1140-0019: Federal Firearms Licensee Renewal
Application-Part II, which includes ATF Form 5310.11 (“Form 8”). This proposed rule
would likely reduce the number of respondents applying for a firearms license on a Form 7
and the number of respondents renewing their license Form 8. This would occur because this
proposed rule would allow licensees to maintain one license instead of two to cover business
premises that either adjoin each other or are adjacent to each other and adjoin the 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
15 See footnotes 9–12, supra, for wage rate information.change these information collections. ATF will provide more details about the information
collections in any final rule.
I. Congressional Review Act
This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
IV. Public Participation
A. Comments sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF
specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made
easier to understand. In addition, ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the
proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and
benefits.
All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA69 and, if handwritten,
must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last
name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking
portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow
the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or
by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information
you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly
viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you
include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,
it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in
the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters
should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII
if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that
do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retaincomments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record
but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all
comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF
cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the
closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether
submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public
viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not want
their name or other PII posted on the internet should submit their comments with a separate
cover sheet containing their PII. The separate cover sheet should be marked with
“CUI//PRVCY” at the top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy Act. Both the
cover sheet and comment must reference this RIN 1140-AA69. For comments submitted by
mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear when posted on the internet,
but any PII that appears within the body of a comment will not be redacted by ATF and may
appear on the internet. Similarly, commenters who submit through the federal e-rulemaking
portal and who do not want any of their PII posted on the internet should omit such PII from
the body of their comment and any uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the
online fields designated for name, email, and other contact information will not be posted or
viewable online.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or
confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF handle this information as
controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), the commenter must place any portion of acomment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law or regulation on
pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each page prominently marked
“CUI//PROPIN” at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in
compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it received
but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential business
information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not have access. If
ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it as any other
request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose
such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required by other legal
processes.
C. Submitting comments
Submit comments using either of the two methods described below (but do not
submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted.
• Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments to
ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions. Comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if
large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be
viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that is provided
after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
• Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12-point font size, include the
commenter’s first and last name and full mailing address, and may be of any length. See also
section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality.”D. Request for hearing
Any interested person who desires an opportunity to comment orally at a public
hearing should submit his or her request, in writing, to the Director within the 90-day
comment period. The Director, however, reserves the right to determine, in light of all
circumstances, whether a public hearing is necessary.
Disclosure
Copies of this proposed rule and the comments received in response to it are available
through the federal e-rulemaking portal, at https://www.regulations.gov (search for RIN
1140-AA69).
List of subjects in 27 CFR part 478
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Freight,
Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel,
Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,
Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 478
as follows:
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. In § 478.11, revise the definition of “Business premises” to read as follows:
§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Business premises. The property on which a licensee will manufacture, import, or deal in
firearms or ammunition. A business premises includes the following:
(i) Properties that adjoin each other; or(ii) Properties that are adjacent to each other and adjoin the same parking lot,
sidewalk, or road. A private dwelling does not fall within the meaning of the term
if it has no part open to the public.
* * * * *
3. Amend § 478.50 by:
a. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and
b. Adding a new paragraph (e).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
§ 478.50 Locations covered by license.
* * * * *
(c) A licensee may conduct business at a gun show pursuant to provisions in §
478.100;
(d) A licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer may engage in the business of
dealing in curio or relic firearms with another licensee at any location pursuant to provisions
in § 478.100; or
(e) A licensee may conduct business at a separate property parcel the licensee owns or
uses, without obtaining another license for the separate property, if that property adjoins the
FFL’s other licensed location(s) or the location is adjacent to the FFL’s other licensed
location(s) and adjoins the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road as the other licensed
location(s).
Robert Cekada,
Director.