This is a proposed rule (not final) that would clarify that certain training rounds are NOT considered “ammunition” under federal law, meaning they would no longer be regulated like ammunition or restricted for import.
Impact: Moderate and positive—expands availability and reduces import restrictions for training rounds.
Applies to: Primarily firearms industry (importers, manufacturers), with indirect benefits to individuals.
What this rule means
ATF is proposing to reverse its prior position and clarify that certain training rounds do not meet the legal definition of “ammunition.”
The key legal point:
- Federal law defines ammunition as something “designed for use in a firearm”
- ATF now acknowledges:
- Training rounds are not designed for use in firearms
- They are designed for special training devices (conversion kits / training guns)
Because of that:
- They should not be regulated as ammunition under the Gun Control Act or import laws
What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:
- Exclude training rounds from the definition of “ammunition”
- Adds a new exemption for:
- Fully assembled training rounds that are:
- Not designed for combat
- Not designed for use in a weapon/firearm
- Fully assembled training rounds that are:
- Remove import restrictions
- Currently:
- Training rounds are treated as ammunition → heavily restricted
- Under this rule:
- They could be freely imported
- No need for:
- ATF Form 6 (import permit)
- ATF Form 6A (import confirmation)
- Allow broader commercial sales
- Currently:
- Mostly limited to government/law enforcement use
- Under this rule:
- Can be imported and sold commercially
- Maintain distinction from other ammo types
- Less-lethal ammo (like rubber bullets, bean bags):
- Still considered ammunition
- Only true training rounds qualify for exemption
Important limitation:
- Just calling something a “training round” doesn’t make it exempt
- ATF will still evaluate:
- Design
- Function
- Intended use
What will change (real-world impact)
For Industry (Primary Impact):
- Importers:
- No longer need import permits for qualifying training rounds
- Reduced compliance burden and paperwork
- Estimated savings:
- ~$4,500/year in administrative costs (minimum estimate)
- Increased flexibility:
- Can import and sell more freely
- Increased competition:
- Foreign products may enter the U.S. market more easily
For Individuals:
- Likely increased availability of training rounds
- Potential for:
- Lower prices
- More access to realistic training tools
For domestic manufacturers:
- Potential downside:
- Increased foreign competition
- Possible price pressure on U.S.-made training rounds
For the system overall:
- Corrects ATF’s prior interpretation
- Aligns regulation with statutory language
- Reduces regulatory burden without affecting public safety (per ATF’s analysis)
Key Takeaways
- Training rounds ≠ ammunition (under this proposal)
- Removes import restrictions and paperwork requirements
- Expands commercial availability
- May increase competition and lower prices
- Still requires case-by-case evaluation of what qualifies
Proposed Rule to Be Published
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0071; ATF No. 2025R-10P]
RIN 1140-AA97
Importing Training Rounds
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
certain training rounds do not meet the definition of “ammunition” as defined by the Gun
Control Act and are not regulated by the Arms Export Control Act. Less-than-lethal
ammunition, which is distinct from training rounds, will still generally be considered
ammunition.
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-AA97, 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 RegulatoryAffairs; Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives; 99 New York Ave, NE; Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: RIN 1140-AA97.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-
AA97) 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-freenumber).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968
(“GCA”), as amended. This includes the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to
enforce the provisions of the GCA.1 See 18 U.S.C. 926(a). Congress and the Attorney
General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA to the
Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the
Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)–(2);
Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696–97 (June 10, 1972).2 Accordingly, the
Department and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the GCA in 27 CFR
part 478.
Under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), the President is
authorized, in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the
United States, to control the import, export, and brokering of defense articles and defense
services. 22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1). The AECA also authorizes the President to designate
items as defense articles and defense services for the purposes of section 38, and to
promulgate regulations for the import and export of such articles and services. Id.
Through Executive Order 13637, the President delegated to the Attorney General
authority under the AECA to control the permanent import of defense articles and
defense services. See E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n)(ii). In exercising that authority, the Attorney
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.General “shall be guided by the views of the Secretary of State on matters affecting world
peace, and the external security and foreign policy of the United States.” Id. The Attorney
General has delegated this AECA permanent import control authority to ATF. See 28
CFR 0.130(a)(6)(vi). ATF promulgated its AECA regulations at 27 CFR part 447. ATF’s
AECA regulations include the United States Munitions Import List (“USMIL”) at 27
CFR 447.21. The USMIL enumerates AECA defense articles and defense services that
are controlled by the Attorney General for permanent import purposes pursuant to the
AECA, 22 U.S.C. 2778, and Executive Order 13637.3
The AECA generally requires a license prior to exporting or importing defense
articles or defense services, issued in accordance with the AECA and regulations
promulgated thereunder. 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(2). Additionally, when permanently
importing4 items into the United States, the item must be importable under all applicable
laws and the importer must submit an ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import
Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6, part I”), to ATF and receive ATF
approval before doing so. See 27 CFR §§ 447.42, 478.112, 479.111.
The GCA at 18 U.S.C. 922(l) prohibits importing ammunition into the United
States unless it meets an exception under 18 U.S.C. 925(d).5 The GCA defines
“ammunition” as “ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder
3 Additionally, the President delegated authorities under the AECA to the Secretary of State, including
controls for the export, temporary import, and brokering of defense articles and defense services. E.O.
13637, sec. 1(n)(i), 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013). The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”),
22 CFR part 120 et seq., implement the Secretary of State’s delegated AECA authorities and enumerates
the defense articles and defense services the Secretary of State regulates for export and temporary import
purposes on the regulatory United States Munitions List (“USML”) at 22 CFR 121.1. While the defense
articles and services on the USML under ITAR for export and temporary import and the defense articles
and services on the USMIL for permanent import purposes are separate lists, there is some overlap of items
listed on the USML and USMIL. The USML at 22 CFR 121.1 and the USMIL at 27 CFR 447.21
collectively compose the United States Munitions List described at 22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(3). All defense
articles and defense services are controlled by the Department of State for purposes of brokering (see 22
CFR 129.1). In addition, the Department of State has delegated authority over other sections of the AECA
not relevant to this rulemaking.
4 References to imports in this preamble are to permanent imports controlled by ATF, unless specifically
preceded by the word “temporary,” which indicates control under the ITAR by Department of State.
5 With respect to ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 925(d) addresses a few scenarios where the Attorney General can
authorize its import. For example, ammunition can be imported if it is brought in for scientific or research
purposes or if it is suitable or readily adaptable for sporting purposes.designed for use in any firearm.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(A). The statutory definition of
“ammunition” includes the element that components are “for use in any firearm.” The
GCA defines a “firearm” as: “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is
designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or
firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique
firearm.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3). Congress specifically included starter guns “which will . . .
or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A). This provision prevented circumvention of the GCA by regulating
weapons that could be converted into fully functioning firearms by “boring a hole
through an obstruction in the barrel,” “substitution of a barrel,” or some other ready
means of “conver[sion] to fire a projectile.” See Federal Firearms Amendments of 1966,
S. Rep. 89–1866, at 73 (explaining earlier congressional proposal). As mentioned above,
the USMIL enumerates AECA defense articles and defense services that are controlled
by the Attorney General for permanent import purposes pursuant to the AECA. Category
III of the USMIL includes ammunition for arms in Category I of the USMIL. See 27 CFR
447.21. Category I of the USMIL includes nonautomatic and semiautomatic firearms, to
caliber .50 inclusive, combat shotguns, and shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches in
length, and all components and parts for such firearms. See id. For those AECA
authorities delegated to ATF, regulations at 27 CFR 447.11 define “firearms” as “a
weapon, and all components and parts therefor, not over .50 caliber which will or is
designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive
. . .” Under both the GCA and AECA, a “firearm” is a type of weapon. 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(3)(A); 27 CFR 447.11.
ATF’s prior position was that training rounds were “ammunition” because the
round included cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent powder. As such, there hasbeen a general prohibition on importing training rounds. However, there are a few
exceptions under which ammunition may be imported, including if the ammunition is
imported “for the use of” the federal, state, or local government (18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1); 27
CFR 478.115(b)) or if the ammunition is deemed suitable or readily adaptable for
sporting purposes (18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3)). ATF has received numerous inquiries from
regulated firearms industry members on the importability of training rounds that contain
ammunition components such as cartridge cases, primers, or propellant powder with the
only two general exceptions being importability by a licensee pursuant to the government
exception under section 925(a)(1) or by a licensee should the training round come within
the sporting purposes exception under 925(d)(3).
In reviewing the text of the definition, ATF has recognized that its initial analysis
is flawed and that training rounds do not come within the statutory definition of
“ammunition” because training rounds are not “designed for use in any firearm” which is
an element of the definition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(A). These training rounds do not
function in conventional firearms. Rather, they are designed to be fired from specially
adapted training guns, which usually consist of a conversion kit (including special slide
or bolt, barrel, or assembly and other components) that is placed on the firearm frame or
receiver. Therefore, ATF submits this proposal to clarify the definition of “ammunition.”
II. Proposed Rule
ATF proposes to clarify that training rounds are not “ammunition” because they
are not designed to be fired from a “firearm,” as defined by the GCA. Although training
rounds consist of cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, and projectiles, they are not
“designed for use in any firearm.”
As applicable here, the definition of “firearm” includes “any weapon (including a
starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A). Although “weapon” is not furtherdefined by the GCA or AECA, the Supreme Court in Bondi v. VanDerStok, explained
that the GCA’s definition of “firearm” demonstrates congressional intent to regulate
inoperable firearms and firearms capable of being readily converted to expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive. 145 S. Ct. 857, 868–69 (2025). The Court highlighted that
the statute indicates that a starter gun is a weapon prior to any attempted conversion.6 Id.
at 868–69. Additionally, the Court explained that a “weapon,” as it pertains to the
definition of firearms, is “an instrument of offensive or defensive combat.” Id. at 868. As
discussed below, training rounds are designed for use in, and are fired from, training
guns, which are not “firearms” within the meaning of the GCA.
First, unlike starter guns, Congress did not expressly regulate training guns as
weapons under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3). Moreover, training guns, unlike starter guns, are
generally not capable of being readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive.7 Under these two aspects of the definition, training guns do not fall within the
definition of “firearm.”
Second, training guns as assembled8 are not weapons designed for offensive or
defensive combat because they are incapable of firing conventional firearm ammunition.
The conversion kits used in a training gun are specifically designed so that the gun can
function only with a training round that has significantly less propellant powder than
conventional firearm ammunition, which allows the training round to safely and
effectively cycle the conversion kit bolt. Using conventional firearm ammunition in a
6 A starter gun is a firearm that normally fires blanks and is usually found at sporting events, not in combat.
United States v. Hall, 396 F.2d 841, 842, n. 2 (CA4 1968); United States v. Mullins, 446 F.3d 750, 755
(CA8 2006).
7 Should a training gun be designed or be able to incorporate components that make it readily convertible to
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, a separate analysis would be necessary to determine if it a
weapon and thus a “firearm” under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A).
8 Training guns are generally assembled by placing a conversion kit on the frame or receiver of the gun,
which limits the type of caliber and rounds the gun can expel. The GCA definition of “firearm” includes
“frame or receiver” of a weapon. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(B). The mere fact that a training gun includes a
component (i.e., frame or receiver) regulated as a statutory “firearm” does not transform the training gun
into a weapon capable of using ammunition as set out in section 921(a)(17)(A). The GCA does this because
the frame or receiver are the essential component parts of completed weapons, not because they are
independently capable of expelling projectiles.training gun would be unsafe. Thus, training guns are designed with additional safety
features including offset firing pins to ensure they can fire only training rounds in specific
calibers. In other words, the devices that fire training rounds are not “firearms” within the
meaning of the GCA or the AECA.
Additionally, with respect to the training round itself, the cartridges, when
discharged, produce low-energy projectiles that are designed to provide immediate
feedback to a trainee during a military or law enforcement training exercise. The
projectiles provide impact awareness for the shooter by providing imprint markings on
the target or provide immediate non-lethal feedback to a user in close-range reality-based
training scenarios often leaving bruising or welts on a person. These projectiles are not
intended to cause death or serious bodily injury, nor will they likely cause such injury
when used with proper safety equipment. Because they are low-energy, the projectiles are
also ineffective as “less-than-lethal” ammunition in riot control situations, unlike bean
bag rounds and rubber pellets that are used in weapons for nonlethal riot control. Given
that these training rounds are not useful for offensive or defensive combat, they are not
designed for use in instruments of offensive or defensive combat.
Moreover, based on the design of the cartridge, the training rounds themselves
typically have design features consistent with use in a training device and not for use in
unmodified firearms. For example, a training round for a 9mm training pistol or AR-type
training rifle (or device with a conversion kit) has insufficient propellant powder to cycle
a firearm’s slide or bolt. The training rounds are also not reloadable, i.e., they cannot be
altered to be lethal or less-than-lethal ammunition. The cartridge case of each training
round contains a plastic piston that, when removed, weakens and damages the casing so
the training round cannot be reloaded without being destroyed. Nevertheless, if a
manufacturer makes a “training round” that is designed for use only in a firearm, then the
round may be ammunition. ATF notes that an item marketed or advertised as a “traininground” would not by itself make it exempt from regulation as “ammunition.” Rather,
ATF must make a determination based on an examination of the item that the round is not
designed for use in offensive or defensive combat and in a firearm.
Accordingly, ATF proposes to amend the definition of “ammunition” by adding a
new paragraph (c) under the existing exemptions to clarify that the term would not
include “any fully assembled training round that is not designed (1) for offensive or
defensive combat and (2) to be used in a device that constitutes a weapon.”
Consequently, importers would not need to complete a Form 6, part I under 27
CFR parts 447 and 478 to bring training rounds into the United States.
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.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this
proposed rule would be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, although it would not be economically significant under section 3(f)(1).
OMB has therefore reviewed this rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply
with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. By clarifying that training rounds do not meet
the definition of “ammunition,” the effect of this proposed rule would be to codify a June
2025 Open Letter so that training rounds can continue to be imported without any future
restrictions. ATF has laid out the impacts of this proposed rulemaking in OMB’s A-4
accounting statement here, in Table 1. Table 1 also illustrates the range of futureestimates in a low, primary, and high range as part of ATF’s Circular A-4 sensitivity
analysis. ATF then provides its normal regulatory cost-benefit analysis.
Table 1. OMB Circular A-4 accounting statement ($ millions) and sensitivity
analysis
Units
Category Primary
estimate
Minimum
estimate
Maximum
estimate Dollar
year
Percent
discount
Period
covered
Benefits
Annualized
monetized
benefits n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
years
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
years
Annualized
quantified
benefits n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
years
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
years
Annualized
non-
monetized
benefits
Benefits to consumers who would see lower prices and importers
who would see higher profits. Disbenefits (i.e., adverse impacts) to
the domestic training rounds industry.
Costs
Annualized
monetized
costs
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025 7 10
years
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2025 3 10
years
Annualized
quantified
costs n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
years
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
years
Annualized
non-
monetized
costs
n/a
Transfers
Federal
annualized
monetized
transfers n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
years
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
years
From: federal government To: individuals
Other
annualized
monetized
transfers n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
years
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
years
Effects
State, local,
and/or tribal
governments
The rule would not impose an intergovernmental mandate or have
significant or unique effects on small governments, or have
federalism or tribal implicationsSmall
businesses
This rule will increase competition to domestic producers of training
rounds or high-end, realistic CO2 cartridges
Wages n/a
Growth n/a
Defining training rounds as ammunition. $0 cost and $0 benefits.
This was rejected as more stringent without any incremental benefit.
Alternatives Proposed alternative: $4,522 in cost savings. This alternative was
selected because the benefits exceed the costs.
Issuing Guidance Documentation. This alternative has already been
implemented, but this alternative was deemed not to have the same
force and effect of a regulation; therefore, this alternative was
rejected.
Net benefits
Annualized
monetized
net benefits n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
years
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
years
1. Need statement
This proposed rule reduces a regulatory burden on the public and responds to their
request to reduce administrative burdens by providing more flexibility for importing of
non-lethal ammunition types. As these cartridges are non-lethal and are not used in
firearms, ATF has determined that the need identified by the public request is valid and
has identified an area where ATF’s regulations impose unwarranted burdens that are not
statutorily required.
2. Benefits
This proposed rule would now clarify that training rounds do not meet the
definition of ammunition under the GCA. As ammunition, their import into the United
States is restricted except for the use of the United States, any department or agency
thereof, any state or any department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, or unless
excepted under 18 U.S.C. 925(d) (e.g., if the ammunition is considered sporting). By
stipulating that training rounds are not ammunition, these training rounds would no
longer fall under ATF purview or be subject to ATF regulations. Currently, importers
import training rounds only for governmental or law enforcement purposes under thegovernment exception 18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1). In other words, this proposed rule would
allow FFL importers to import training rounds and import them without needing to
complete and submit an ATF import forms (including the Form 6, part I application).9
This rule would also allow importers to sell training rounds for retail or commercial use
as well as law enforcement purposes.
ATF does not have information on the wholesale costs or value of imported
training rounds and thus does not incorporate the difference between wholesale costs
versus retail costs, nor does ATF have any data on the current domestic market for
training rounds. As a result, ATF is unable to make any quantitative assessments of the
benefits of this rulemaking. It is highly likely that there will be benefits to consumers
who face a lower price for training rounds and for importers who will have more
flexibility to import foreign training rounds. Accordingly, ATF requests any information
from the public regarding the economic effects that this rulemaking may have on the
public and the regulated entities.
Additionally, there are an estimated two domestic entities that may be affected by
this proposed regulation. One entity is a domestic subsidiary of a large business that
produces their training rounds abroad. The other is a small entity that produces their
training rounds domestically. Of these two entities, the business that produces
domestically is likely to experience disbenefits (i.e., adverse impacts) in the form of
lower prices and demand from foreign competition. The other business may indirectly
benefit because while they are a domestic company, they appear to manufacture overseas
and subsequently import into the United States, thus they would be able to import more
without restrictions and reduced burdens. Because this proposed rule may have an impact
on domestic manufacturers, ATF requests public comments regarding the overall
9 OMB-1140-0005, Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“ATF
Form 6, part I”), https://www.atf.gov/media/22521/download [https://perma.cc/5XCC-8G23?type=image]estimated revenue impact that this proposed rule would have on domestic manufacturers.
3. Cost Savings
In addition to the additional potential revenue this proposed rule would add to an
FFL importer’s business, ATF anticipates that there would be some cost savings to
importers because they no longer must complete a Form 6, part I to receive approval for
the items they wish to import and then subsequently complete an ATF Form 5330.3C,
Releasing/Receiving Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6A”)
to confirm the items imported. As mentioned above, ATF estimates that importers
brought in the equivalent of one import per year, thus completing one Form 6, part I.
ATF estimates for purposes of this analysis that not completing a Form 6, part I
would save a retail salesperson, who works for an FFL, an estimated 30 minutes in hourly
burden. To determine the monetized value of the hourly burden, ATF uses the unloaded
wage rate of $17.64 for a retail salesperson based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(“BLS”).10 To account for fringe employment benefits such as insurance, ATF
determined the average load rate based on BLS’s calculated national hourly
compensation (salaries/wages plus paid benefits) for all private-sector occupations
(average of $44.20 for 2024)11 divided by the national average hourly wages and salaries
without benefits (average of $31.10 for 2024),12 making a load rate of 1.42.13 ATF then
applied this load rate to the $17.64 to calculate their total compensation. Multiplying
BLS’s estimated hourly wage rate for a retail salesperson ($17.64) by the load rate of
1.42, ATF estimates that a rounded, loaded wage rate for a retail salesperson would be
10 41-2031 Retail Salespersons https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes412031.htm [https://perma.cc/V5T8-
T455].
11 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].
12 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/8WEJ-2TRW].
13 1.4 load rate = $44.20 total hourly compensation / 31.95 hourly wages and salaries.$25 and that an FFL would save $12.50 in loaded monetized time per hour under this rule
for submitting an ATF Form 6, part I.
For imports received, the importing FFL would subsequently submit a Form 6A,
which is estimated to take 35 minutes (0.583 hours). Using the same loaded wage rate of
$25 per hour, an FFL would save an hourly burden of $14.58 per Form 6A submittal,
with a combined total of $27.08 per import.
With a population of 167 importers, and assuming one less Form 6, part I
application and one less Form 6A submittal, ATF estimates that the cost savings for this
rule from no longer applying and submitting a Form 6, part I or Form 6A would be
$4,522 annually.14
ATF notes that this would be the minimum cost savings from this rule. There may
be additional cost savings with importers not needing to obtain and submit the
government or law enforcement agency contract and letter to show the import comes
under the government exception pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1). However, as
government and law enforcement agency procedures may vary, ATF seeks additional
comment on whether there are any additional steps, time, and burden that importers may
save by not having to submit additional documentation with the Form 6, part I. Overall,
this rule would provide an annual cost savings of $4,522 per year, or $45,215 over the
course of ten years.
4. Regulatory alternatives
Alternative 1. Maintaining the status quo (no action alternative).
ATF considered determining that these training rounds are considered
ammunition, which would prohibit importation of these training rounds unless an
exception applied under 18 U.S.C 925(d) or unless imported for governmental use under
14 $4,522= 167 importers * $25 loaded wage * (0.5 hours Form 6 part I application + 0.583 Form 6A
application).18 U.S.C. 925(a). While government and law enforcement are the primary users of these
training rounds, the ability for importers to import only pursuant to a government contract
severely limits the importer’s ability to retain sufficient stock in the event that state or
local law enforcement unexpectedly need more than requested. As a result, ATF currently
believes that retaining the status quo is not the best alternative as this does not provide the
most qualitative flexibility for importation.
Alternative 2 Issuing Guidance.
Another alternative ATF considered was only issuing guidance. Currently, this is
the status quo, and guidance has been in effect in the recent year. However, guidance
does not have the same force and effect of a regulation, so ATF is choosing to undertake
a regulation to solidify in regulation the interpretation it has provided in guidance.
Alternative 3: Rulemaking (proposed alternative).
Finally, an alternative that ATF considered is the proposed alternative. This is to
publish a regulation amending the definition of ammunition to make clear the term does
not include any fully assembled training round that is not designed for (1) offensive or
defensive combat; and (2) use in a device that constitutes a weapon. Items that meet this
description would no longer be restricted from import and thus importers would not need
to complete a Form 6, part I. This alternative is estimated to have qualitative benefits for
consumers who will face lower prices for training rounds and for importers who will have
more flexibility to import foreign training rounds. There are also estimated cost savings
of $4,552 per year from removing the need for importers to complete a Form 6, part I and
Form 6A to import these types of items. ATF believes this alternative provides the most
flexibility to importers or any business that deals or otherwise retails in training rounds
and reduces regulatory and administrative burdens.
B. Executive Order 14192
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires anagency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be
repealed or revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice-and-comment or
otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192
regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs
greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order
14192 requires that any new incremental costs associated with such new regulations
must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs
associated with at least ten prior regulations. Although this proposed rule would be a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, it would not count as
an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it has total costs less than zero. The
rule would add an exception to the definition of ammunition for training rounds, which
would allow persons to import training rounds without having to comply with the
restrictions and requirements on importing ammunition. ATF therefore expects this
proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that
imposes total costs less than zero).
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, therelationship 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
the Regulatory required Under a regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies are
to conduct flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including
a statement of the factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain
small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
ATF performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the potential impacts
on small businesses and other entities that would occur due to this proposed rule, if
finalized as proposed.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”)
The RFA establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit
regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations,
and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agenciesare required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions to ensure that such proposals are given serious consideration.”
Pub. L. 96-354, sec. 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider whether the proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether the proposed rule would have such
an impact. If the agency determines that it would, the agency must prepare an IRFA (or a
regulatory flexibility analysis for a final rule) as described in the Act. See 5 U.S.C.
603(b).
1. Describing the reasons why the agency is considering taking action
ATF is proposing this action to allow persons to import training rounds as an
exemption from general restrictions on importing ammunition, thereby increasing the
opportunities for importers and permitting more selection among consumers.
2. Succinctly stating the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule
The objective of this proposed rulemaking is to reduce the regulatory burden on
importers and the public by streamlining requirements to allow training rounds to be
imported for use in training guns Additionally, the goal of this rule is to avoid
unnecessary delays in the sale and transfer of non-lethal ammunition types from abroad.
For example, the existing framework, under which importers can generally import only
limited circumstances, severely limits importers’ ability to retain sufficient stock in the
event state and local law enforcement unexpectedly need more than requested.
3. Describing and, where feasible, estimating the number of small entities to which
the proposed rule would apply
Based on ATF’s Federal Firearm Licensing Center, there are 1,666 FFLs that
import firearms that may benefit from this proposed rule from no longer needing to
complete a Form 6, part I or Form 6A to import training rounds as they would no longerbe considered ammunition. The majority of these FFLs are likely to be small.
However, there are an estimated two domestic entities that may be indirectly affected by
this proposed regulation. One entity is a domestic subsidiary of a large business that
produces their training rounds abroad. The other is a small entity that produces their
training rounds domestically. Of these two entities, the business that produces
domestically is likely to experience disbenefits (i.e., adverse impacts) in the form of
lower prices and demand from foreign competition. The other business may indirectly
benefit because while they are a domestic company they appear to manufacture overseas
and subsequently import into the United States, thus they would be able to import more
without restrictions and reduced burdens.
Furthermore, there may be other small entities that may be indirectly affected due
to ATF’s decision to classify training rounds as not meeting the definition of ammunition.
These companies manufacture high-end air rifles and CO2 cartridges that also mimic
realistic firing. While training rounds might be considered to provide more realistic
firearm feedback than their CO2 counterparts, these CO2 cartridges sell for less than
training rounds.15,16,17 While training rounds retail for approximately $0.57 per cartridge,
CO2 cartridges are less expensive, selling for an average at retail of $0.37 per cartridge.
Furthermore, rifles that use CO2 cartridges retail for less than a firearm that needs a
conversion kit in order to use training rounds.
Entities indirectly affected by this proposed rule fall under Small Business
Administration (“SBA”) industry NAICs standard: 332992 for Small Arms Ammunition
Manufacturing. The SBA size standard for this industry is less than 1,300. These entities
have employee sizes of less than 1,000.
15 T4E guns, https://training.t4eguns.com/t4e-paintballs-43-blue-430-ct-2292119 [https://perma.cc/2VRX-
CK8Z]
16 Unit 4 Solutions https://unitsolutions.com/products/marking-round-value-
packs?variant=45703050625177 [https://perma.cc/S283-TPFG]
17 Byrna, https://byrna.com/collections/less-lethal-training-ammo [https://perma.cc/T8NM-SUAN]4. Describing the proposed rule’s projected reporting, record-keeping, and other
compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which
would be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary to
prepare the report or record
This rule would remove the reporting requirement that FFL importers file a Form
6, part I prior to importing training rounds pursuant to a government contract and remove
the subsequent need to complete a Form 6A upon importation of the goods. This rule
would provide cost savings of $27.08 per importer and would remove a restriction on the
public, with an added benefit of $174.6 million in increase retail sales. There are no
additional requirements or costs imposed by this proposed rule
5. Identifying, to the extent practicable, all relevant Federal rules which might
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule
This proposed rule would not duplicate or conflict with other federal rules.
6. Describing any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize and significant economic
impact the proposed rule might have on small entities
ATF has considered the alternative of maintaining the status quo and continuing
to restrict the import of training rounds. Compared to the status quo, the proposed
approach would benefit firearms importers, individuals would have more options on
places from where they could obtain training ammunition, and small entities would
benefit from being able to run their enhanced self-defense training courses with sufficient
quantities of training rounds. ATF notes, however, that this alternative will increase
competition for one or two domestic manufacturers of training rounds.
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 privatesector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it would not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Therefore, ATF has determined that no actions are necessary
under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
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 involves two existing information collections
under the PRA. These information collections, as currently approved by OMB, are OMB
control number 1140-0005, ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms,
Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6, part I”), and OMB control number 1140-
0007, ATF Form 5330.3C, Releasing/Receiving Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and
Defense Articles (“Form 6A”). The title and description of the information collection
impacted by this rule, a description of those who provide the information, and an estimate
of the total annual burden follow.
Impacted ICR 1
Title: ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and
Defense Articles (“Form 6, part I”)
OMB control number: 1140-0005
Summary of the information collection: Importation of firearms, ammunition, and defense
articles into the United States is subject to the provision of 18 U.S.C. 925(d) and (e), 22
U.S.C. 2778, and 26 U.S.C. 5844. Except as provided, or specifically authorized by the
Attorney General, the importation of articles coming within the purview of these statutes
is restricted or prohibited. In general, the importation of firearms is permitted only if thefirearms meet certain criteria and the Attorney General authorizes the importation.
Need for information and proposed use: Data provided on the Application and Permit for
Importation of Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles – ATF Form 6, part I allows
ATF to determine if the article(s) described on the application qualifies for importation
by the importer. It also serves as authorization for the importer. The approved form also
serves as authorization for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to allow the listed articles
entry into the United States. Many importers use the form for internal accounting
purposes. Information may be disclosed to other federal, state, foreign, and local law
enforcement and regulatory agency personnel, to verify information on the application.
Disclosure also aids them in the performance of their duties regarding the enforcement
and regulation of firearms and/or ammunition, where such disclosure is not prohibited by
law. The licensee is required to retain this form permanently
Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule: Importer FFLs
Number of current respondents: 1,666
Frequency of response: as needed
Number of responses: this proposed rule would decrease the number of responses by
1,666
Response time estimate: 0.5 hours
Burden of response: this proposed rule would decrease hourly burden by 833 hours.
Impacted ICR 2
Title: ATF Form 5330.3C, Release/Receipt of Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and
Defense Articles (“Form 6A”)
OMB control number: 1140-0007
Summary of the information collection: Under 18 U.S.C. 925(a), 22 U.S.C. 2778, and 26
U.S.C. 5844, the import of firearms, ammunition and defense articles coming within thepurview of these statutes is prohibited. The statutes also require that persons engaged in
the business of importing such articles be licensed and/or registered. Implementing
regulations in 27 CFR parts 447, 478, and 479, prescribe the forms and procedures
necessary to fulfill the import permit requirements. Through these requirements, the law
and regulations establish a comprehensive system for regulating the importation of
firearms, ammunition, and defense articles.
Need for information and proposed use: The data provided by this information collection
request are used by ATF to determine if articles imported meet the statutory and
regulatory criteria for importation and if the articles shown on the permit application have
actually been imported. Form 6A serves as the certification of release and receipt of the
articles described on the permit application. The form is used by FFLs (registered
importers, Federal firearms licensees other than importers), members of the U.S. Armed
Forces, and persons not licensed by or registered with ATF.
Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule: Importer FFLs
Number of current respondents: 1,666
Frequency of response: as needed
Number of responses: this proposed rule would decrease the current inventory by 1,666
responses
Response time estimate: 0.583 hours
Burden of response: this proposed rule would decrease hourly burden by 971 hours.
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 thosecosts and benefits.
All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA97 and, if
handwritten, must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete
first and last name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal
e-rulemaking portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully
review and follow the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you
submit comments online or by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as
an individual, any information you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code,
and phone will not be publicly viewable when ATF publishes the comment on
https://www.regulations.gov by ATF. However, if you include such personally
identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and
viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in the body of the
comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters should
review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII if
you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that
do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will
retain comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s
administrative record, but will not publish such documents on
https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not
acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to
handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may
not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before
the closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whethersubmitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public
viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who
do not want their name or other PII posted on the internet should submit their comments
with a separate cover sheet containing their PII. The separate cover sheet should be
marked with “CUI//PRVCY” at the top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy
Act. Both the cover sheet and comment must reference this RIN 1140-AA97. For
comments submitted by mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not appear
when posted on the internet, but any PII that appears within the body of a comment will
not be redacted by ATF and may appear on the internet. Similarly, commenters who
submit through the federal e-rulemaking portal and who do not want any of their PII
posted on the internet should omit such PII from the body of their comment and any
uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the online fields designated for name,
email, and other contact information will not be posted or viewable online.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or
confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF handle this information as
controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), the commenter must place any portion of a
comment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law or regulation
on pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each page prominently marked
“CUI//PROPIN” at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in
compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it
receives, but will disclose that the commenter provided proprietary or confidential
business information that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not
have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this information, it will treat it
as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition,ATF will disclose such proprietary or confidential business information to the extent
required by other legal process.
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-AA97).
List of subjects in 27 CFR part 478Administrative 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. Revise the definition of “Ammunition” in § 478.11 to read as follows:
§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Ammunition. Ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellent
powder designed for use in any firearm other than an antique firearm. The term does not
include —
(a) any shotgun shot or pellet not designed for use as the single, complete
projectile load for one shotgun hull or casing;
(b) any unloaded, non-metallic shotgun hull or casing not having a primer; or
(c) any fully assembled training round that is not designed:
(1) for offensive or defensive combat; and
(2) to be used in a device that is a weapon.
* * * * *
Robert Cekada,
Director.