This is a proposed rule (not final) that would allow individuals making NFA firearms (like SBRs or suppressors from existing guns) to use the original manufacturer’s markings instead of adding their own engraving.
Impact: Moderate and positive—reduces cost, hassle, and confusion for Form 1 makers.
Applies to: Primarily individuals (Form 1 makers), with some indirect impact on FFLs (gunsmiths).
What this rule means
Right now, if someone takes an existing firearm (like a standard rifle) and converts it into an NFA firearm (like a short-barreled rifle), they must:
- Keep the original manufacturer’s markings AND
- Add their own:
- Name
- City/state
- Sometimes additional identifying info
This proposed rule would allow the maker to skip adding their own markings and instead rely on the existing manufacturer/importer markings already on the firearm, as long as those markings meet legal requirements.
What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:
- Allow Form 1 makers (people making NFA items from existing firearms) to:
- Use the original serial number and markings already on the firearm
- Remove the requirement to:
- Engrave their own name, city, and state onto the firearm
Important limitation:
- This ONLY applies when modifying an existing firearm
- It does NOT apply to:
- Firearms made from scratch (those still must be marked by the maker)
What will change (real-world impact)
For Individuals (Primary Impact):
- No more need to:
- Pay for engraving services
- Find space on already-crowded receivers
- Estimated savings:
- ~$50 per firearm
- ~$3.5 million annually across all Form 1 makers
- Reduces confusion:
- No multiple serial numbers or markings cluttering the firearm
- Still fully compliant:
- The firearm remains traceable through existing markings and registration records
For FFLs / Industry:
- Indirect negative impact for:
- Gunsmiths who offer NFA engraving services
- But:
- This is a small portion of overall gunsmith revenue
- No new compliance requirements
For the system overall:
- Maintains traceability:
- ATF states tracing relies primarily on manufacturer/importer markings anyway
- Reduces unnecessary regulatory burden
- Simplifies NFA compliance without reducing enforcement capability
Key Takeaways
- This is a deregulatory, pro-consumer change
- Eliminates a widely viewed “annoyance requirement”
- Keeps all core NFA tracking and registration intact
- Only affects Form 1 makers modifying existing firearms
Proposed Rule to be Published:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR part 479
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0005; ATF No. 2025R-17P]
RIN 1140-AA70
Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act Firearms
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) proposes
amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations to allow persons making
National Firearms Act (“NFA”) firearms to adopt certain markings previously placed on the
firearm to comply with NFA marking requirements.
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 60 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-AA70, 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-AA70.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-AA70) 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 National Firearms Act(“NFA”), as amended, 26 U.S.C. chapter 53.1 Congress and the Attorney General have
delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the NFA to the Director of ATF
(“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney
General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)–(2); Treas. Order No.
221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696–97 (June 10, 1972).
2 Accordingly, the Department and ATF
have promulgated regulations to implement the NFA in 27 CFR part 479.
The NFA regulates only certain statutorily defined firearms, such as machine guns,
short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns (“NFA firearms”). 26 U.S.C. 5845.
Although “manufacturer” and “maker” are synonymous in ordinary language, the NFA uses
technical language to distinguish a “manufacturer” from a “maker” of an NFA firearm. A
“manufacturer” is a federally licensed firearms manufacturer who is authorized to
manufacture NFA firearms by virtue of being a “special (occupational) taxpayer.” See, e.g.,
26 U.S.C. 5801, 5802, 5841. The NFA refers to an individual who makes NFA firearms
without being a special (occupational) taxpayer as a firearms “maker.” See, e.g., 26 U.S.C.
5821, 5822, 5841, 5842.
A person can “make” an NFA firearm in one of two ways. First, the person can make
a firearm from raw materials, such as a block of metal. Second, the person can alter an
existing firearm regulated by the Gun Control Act (“GCA firearm”).3 For example, a person
can take a rifle with a barrel of 20 inches and shorten the barrel to 14 inches, thereby making
a short-barreled rifle. This proposed rule concerns only those who make NFA firearms by
altering existing GCA firearms.
1 Some NFA 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 NFA, Gun Control Act,
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.
3 A GCA firearm is a firearm that is regulated only by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and not subject, in its
present configuration, to the purview of the NFA.Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5842, manufacturers, importers, and anyone making an NFA
firearm must identify each firearm (other than a destructive device) they manufacture,
import, or make by marking it with (1) a serial number that may not be readily removed,
obliterated, or altered, (2) the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and (3) such
other identification as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe. The corresponding
federal regulation that implements these marking requirements is 27 CFR 479.102. This
regulation at § 479.102 prescribes required markings that importers, manufacturers, and
makers must place on an NFA firearm, including the serial number, and the name, city, and
state where a manufacturer or importer maintains a place of business, or, if a maker — i.e.,
not a manufacturer or importer — where the firearm was made.
Further, ATF has previously exercised the regulatory discretion granted to the
Attorney General pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5842 to codify alternative marking procedures or
exceptions to the regulatory marking requirements, including authorizing manufacturers to
adopt existing “serial number[s] and other identifying markings previously placed on a
firearm by another manufacturer,” subject to certain conditions. 27 CFR 479.102(b)(3)(i).
For example, the exceptions contained in § 479.102(b)(3)(ii) for remanufactured or imported
firearms allow manufacturers or importers to adopt a pre-existing serial number, provided
they either mark the firearm with their name, city, and state or with their name and
abbreviated federal firearms license number.
However, § 479.102 does not allow a maker to adopt the manufacturer’s markings
already stamped on the maker’s GCA firearm when that person then applies to make a GCA
firearm into an NFA firearm and register the resulting firearm.4 Instead, pursuant to §
479.102(a)(1), a maker must place on the firearm a new serial number and “Your name (or
recognized abbreviation), and . . . in the case of a maker, where you made the firearm[.]”
4 The maker does this by submitting ATF Form 5320.1, Application to Make and Register NFA Firearm (“Form
1”).II. Proposed Rule
ATF has determined that this additional marking requirement for a maker is
burdensome and unnecessary, and that it does not enhance public safety. The requirement is
burdensome and unnecessary because individuals must stamp their name, city, and state onto
the frame or receiver of the firearm, which may be crowded with existing markings from the
original manufacturer. Further, many makers do not have the necessary equipment to stamp
their own firearms in a manner that satisfies § 479.102, thus imposing a burden to pay for
services from a gunsmith or other individual to meet such requirements. As noted, ATF
requires the existing firearm to have been marked with the name of the original
manufacturer, and the manufacturer’s city, state, and a serial number. Moreover, a maker
must include their name and other identifying information on the Form 1 application and
ATF then retains that information in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record
(“NFRTR”).5 27 CFR 479.63, 479.101.
This proposed rule would not affect an NFA firearms maker who manufactures a
firearm from raw materials not regulated by the GCA. Such firearms lack existing
manufacturer markings and serial numbers. Those firearms would continue to be marked by
the maker as required under § 479.102. Thus, all NFA firearms would still be properly
marked in accordance with NFA requirements.
This rule therefore proposes to amend § 479.102(b)(3) to authorize persons who make
an NFA firearm by remanufacturing or altering an existing firearm to adopt the original
manufacturer’s markings already on the underlying firearm. The new language would merely
extend exceptions to the marking requirements already contained within § 479.102(b)(3).
Specifically, this rule would amend § 479.102(b)(3) by adding a new paragraph (iv) to
address makers of firearms that are remanufactured or altered from existing firearms. The
5 For example, the applicant’s name and mailing address are required as part of box 3b on the pre-2026 version
of Form 1 (the form is being revised in 2026).new exception would provide that “[m]akers that remanufacture or alter an existing firearm
may adopt the serial number or other identifying markings previously placed on the firearm if
the markings otherwise meet the requirements of this section.”
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 rule would
not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not
review this rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Orders
12866 and 13563.
1. Need statement
This proposed rule would amend § 479.102(b)(3) to rescind the requirement, for
individuals making an NFA firearm by remanufacturing or altering an existing firearm, to
have to subsequently re-mark the resulting firearm with their own personal NFA marking,
and would instead allow them to adopt the serial number or other identifying markings
previously placed on the firearm, as long as those markings otherwise comply with marking
requirements. Currently, persons who make NFA firearms by altering existing firearms must
add their own markings to manufacturer and importer markings already on the firearm. This
creates difficulties due to lack of space on the frame or receiver and adds costs and burdens
to such makers that are unnecessary. Many makers do not have the necessary equipment to
stamp their own firearms in a manner that satisfies § 479.102, thus imposing a burden onthem to pay for services from a gunsmith or other individuals to meet such requirements.
2. Benefits
Currently, individuals who choose to make an NFA firearm by remanufacturing or
altering an existing firearm employ professional gunsmithing services to re-mark the newly
made NFA firearm with markings required under 27 CFR 479.102 in addition to the GCA
markings already on the firearm in question. Based on a search of available information
regarding professional NFA marking services, ATF estimates that a federal firearms licensee
(“FFL”) may charge $54 in order mark a firearm.6 To determine the number of firearms that
would be affected by this proposed rule, ATF used data on the number of Form 1
applications submitted, since makers submit a Form 1 for each NFA firearm they make.
Based on information from ATF’s National Firearms Act Division, the average number of
Form 1 applications between the years 2016 to 2025 submitted by makers was 64,618,
making the annualized savings for this rule approximately $3.5 million.7
Benefits from this proposed rule would also include reducing confusion regarding
what constitutes the firearm’s serial number when there are multiple numbers engraved on
the frame or receiver and reducing burdensome requirements. Although a person may modify
an existing GCA weapon into an aftermarket NFA weapon, the newly created NFA weapon
would still be traceable by means of the existing markings and would be registered in the
NFRTR.
3. Costs
6 See, e.g., RS Shooting Sports, NFA Engraving Services,
https://www.rsshootingsports.com/engraving076ea072 [https://perma.cc/A7SY-FR67], Capitol Armory, NFA
Laser Engraving- Form 1, https://www.capitolarmory.com/sbr-sbs-nfa-firearm-laser-engraving-form1.html (last
visited Jan. 5, 2026), SA Lasers, NFA Engraving Service for SBRS, SBSS, Silencers and Suppressors,
[https://perma.cc/S3K4-MFL6], EOD Gear, NFA Engraving, https://www.eod-gear.com/nfa-
engraving/?srsltid=AfmBOoqjJTPbsR-N4G0VH12Ij2TEry_qsQ4IAutH5JPgXOBfpTY9bwIs
[https://perma.cc/9NBT-Y7RU].
7 $3,489,372 in annual savings = $54 NFA marking services * 64,618 Form 1 applicationsThe potential costs from this proposed rule would be an increased risk that this type
of NFA firearm might not be traceable if the maker’s markings are not also included.
However, ATF does not anticipate that allowing makers to adopt the existing manufacturer’s
markings would negatively impact law enforcement’s ability to trace an NFA firearm. If law
enforcement were to recover an NFA firearm and need to trace it, the firearm could still be
traced to the first retail purchaser based on the manufacturer’s or importer’s markings8
because the tracing process relies on the records that FFLs maintain pursuant to the GCA
(and not information in the NFRTR). Thus, requiring additional markings by a maker is
unnecessary for public safety purposes.
Moreover, the number of NFA firearms, excluding machine gun conversion devices,
that are recovered from a crime scene is a very small subset of the overall firearms traced. In
FY25, for example, the total number of firearms traces was 654,879, and of those, 3,195
were coded as NFA firearms; specifically, 196 destructive devices, 1,512 machine guns
(excluding machine gun conversion devices), and 1,487 silencers. As a result, even if an
NFA firearm is made by adopting the existing markings and is recovered at a crime scene but
could not be traced using the original manufacturer markings, the number of such firearms
would be exceedingly small.
4. Regulatory alternatives
Alternative 1. Maintaining the status quo (no-action alternative).
This alternative would require a person to add markings in addition to the existing
markings for any GCA firearm that is modified to become an NFA weapon. This alternative
has no additional costs or benefits since it would maintain the existing requirements.
However, makers of NFA firearms would continue to incur the burdens and costs inherent in
8 Upon recovering the firearm, law enforcement completes the trace request on the firearm based on the
markings on the firearm, including the manufacturer or importer name, city, state, and serial number. ATF can
then trace the firearm through licensees’ acquisition and disposition records from the original licensed
manufacturer or importer to the licensed wholesaler, to the licensed retailer, and then to the first unlicensed
purchaser.having to add markings to those already existing on the firearms. As a result, ATF rejected
this alternative as it would not address those costs.
Alternative 2. Rulemaking (the proposed alternative).
ATF alternatively considered proposing a rule to rescind the requirement that
individuals making an NFA firearm by remanufacturing or altering an existing firearm must
subsequently re-mark the resulting firearm with their own personal NFA marking, and to
instead allow them to adopt the original manufacturer or importer’s markings required under
27 CFR 478.92. While these newly made NFA weapons would not have markings added by
the maker of the NFA weapon under this proposal, registration of these NFA weapons would
still exist using the existing GCA markings, which the maker would submit to the NFRTR.
This alternative was chosen because the firearm would still have a serial number with which
it could be registered with ATF and traced in the event that the firearm is recovered from a
crime scene. This alternative was also chosen because it would reduce the number of serial
numbers on a given firearm, reducing confusion for tracing purposes. Furthermore, it would
provide savings to individuals who choose to modify a GCA weapon into an NFA weapon.
No quantifiable costs were assessed since traceability would still be maintained.
Alternative 3. Issuing guidance.
This alternative was considered but rejected. While this alternative would not impose
any additional costs, it would not rescind the requirement that makers of NFA weapons add
marks of identification when remanufacturing or altering an existing GCA firearm. This
alternative does not have the force and effect of a regulation and would thus not effectuate
the desired change; therefore, this alternative was rejected.
Alternative 4. Removing marking requirements for all NFA makers.
This alternative was also considered but rejected. Other persons who make NFA
firearms do so from scratch. As a result, these types of firearms do not already have markings
from manufacturers or importers. Permitting these makers to not mark the NFA firearms theymake would result in unmarked firearms, which would violate the law, make it impossible to
register the firearms in the NFRTR, or trace the firearms, thus posing a risk to public safety.
As a result, ATF did not select this alternative.
B. Executive Order 14192
Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an
agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulations to be repealed or
revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates
a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in
OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory action under 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 proposed rule would have an annualized deregulatory
savings of $3.5 million. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify
as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-25-20
as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero).
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 direct economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is
deregulatory and would not impose any additional direct costs or burdens on small
businesses in the firearms arena. However, it is possible that the proposed rule could
indirectly have an impact on small businesses that provide NFA marking services, such as
gunsmiths, because this rule would no longer require NFA makers who modify existingfirearms to add maker markings, which they usually do by hiring a gunsmith.
Therefore, ATF performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis of the indirect
impacts that small gunsmith businesses and other entities might incur due to this proposed
rule, if finalized as proposed. Based on the information from this analysis, ATF found —
• Direct costs and savings: there are no direct costs or savings to small businesses or
entities. Direct costs and savings from this proposed rule would apply only to individuals.
• Indirect costs: an unknown number of FFLs who provide NFA marking services. This
proposed rule would indirectly cause an unknown reduction in revenue for an unknown
number of businesses due to individuals no longer performing NFA markings on aftermarket
GCA firearms.
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, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions to ensure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” Pub. L. 96–354,
section 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider whether the proposed rule would
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Agencies must
perform a review to determine whether the proposed rule would have such an impact. If the
agency determines that it would, the agency must prepare an IRFA (or a regulatory flexibility
analysis for a final rule) as described in the RFA.
ATF determined that the proposed rule may affect a subset of small businesses that
operate in the firearms business (see item 3 below). Based on the requirements above, ATF
prepared the following IRFA assessing the proposed rule’s impact on small entities.1. Describing the reasons why the agency is considering taking action
This proposed rule would reduce burdens and costs to individuals because it would no
longer require persons who make NFA firearms by modifying existing GCA firearms to add
their own markings alongside existing manufacturer and importer markings on those
firearms. The existing requirement makes it confusing as to which number is the correct
serial number, presents difficulties due to the limited space on the frame or receiver, and
costs time and money because makers generally must hire marking services from gunsmiths.
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 those
who make NFA firearms. The NFA requires markings on the firearm, and the markings are
critical for tracing guns used in crimes, but the statutory requirements would still be met by
allowing persons who make NFA firearms by altering an existing firearm to adopt the
original manufacturer or importer markings because tracing can still easily be accomplished
using those numbers. Therefore, ATF would no longer require persons who make NFA
firearms by altering an existing firearm to add their own markings to the firearm. However,
other NFA makers who make their NFA firearms from scratch would still be required to add
markings to their firearms.
3. Describing and, where feasible, estimating the number of small entities to which the
proposed rule would apply
The proposed rule directly affects individuals, not small entities, so there would be no
direct impact to small entities from this rule. However, it is possible that there may be
indirect costs to gunsmiths who provide NFA marking services to persons who make NFA
firearms by modifying an existing GCA firearm. According to ATF’s Federal Firearms
Licensing Center, there are approximately 45,000 Type 1 (dealers) FFLs, of which an
unknown subset may be providing aftermarket NFA firearm marking services. These
gunsmiths would continue other gunsmithing business activities they provide, such asrepairing firearms, marking firearms for manufacturers and other NFA firearm makers, and
other kinds of work on other firearms. According to ATF subject matter experts, marking
NFA firearms made from GCA firearms represents a small portion of their business.
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
There are no additional requirements or costs being imposed by this proposed rule.
This rule would remove costs and requirements to the public.
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, overlap, 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 any significant economic
impact the proposed rule might have on small entities
ATF has considered the alternative of maintaining the status quo with respect to NFA
maker marks even when the person makes an NFA firearm from an existing GCA firearm.
Maintaining the status quo would alleviate the indirect costs to companies that facilitate NFA
marking services. However, ATF has determined that the direct, economic benefits to the
public would outweigh the indirect costs to a few businesses incurred from the proposed rule
as this proposed rule would only apply to aftermarket GCA firearms being converted into
NFA weapons and not NFA weapons in general. According to ATF subject matter experts,
such converted firearms represent a small portion of gunsmith business activities, and ATF
estimates that the impact would be low.
ATF has also considered eliminating the existing marking requirements for NFA
firearms that are made from scratch rather than made by converting a GCA firearm into onesubject to the NFA. ATF rejected this alternative because such NFA firearms made from
scratch do not already have markings on them. This would not only violate the NFA, but it
also would make it impossible to trace such firearms if used in crimes.
ATF also considered issuing guidance instead of a rule, but because the existing
requirements are in a regulation, guidance would not be able to change the regulatory
requirements. In addition, for purposes of this IRFA, it would still result in the same indirect
impact on gunsmiths who provide NFA markings services.
G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule might have an indirect economic impact on a small subset of FFLs
that serialize aftermarket GCA weapons made into NFA weapons. Because this proposed
rule would not impose additional compliance activities (it reduces compliance activities),
ATF does not anticipate imposing any enforcement activities against any small entity
affected by this proposed rulemaking.
H. 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, ATF has determined that no actions are necessary under the
provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521,
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any information collection
requirements created by a rule or any impacts it has on existing information collections. An
information collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting, labeling,
or other similar actions an agency requires of the public. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).This proposed
rule involves one existing information collection under the PRA. That information collectionis OMB control number 1140-0011, Application to Make and Register NFA Firearm, which
includes ATF Form 5320.1 (“Form 1”). Although this rule is associated with information
being collected under this existing ICR, the proposed changes would not add or change the
burden imposed on the respondent beyond existing, OMB-approved requirements.
J. 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-AA70 and, if handwritten,
must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last
name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking
portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow
the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or
by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information
you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly
viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you
include such personally identifiable information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,
it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in
the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters
should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PIIif you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that
do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain
comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record,
but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all
comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF
cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.
ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the
closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether
submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public
viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom
of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not 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-AA70. 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 orconfidential 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 alsosection IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality.”
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-AA70).
List of subjects in 27 CFR part 479
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Imports,
Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Seizures and
forfeitures, Taxes, Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part 479
as follows:
PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 479 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5801–5812; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805.
2. Amend § 479.102 by:
a. Revising the section heading and the paragraph heading for paragraph (b)(3); and
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(iv).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
§ 479.102 Identifying/marking firearms.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Adopting identifying markings.* * *
(iv) Makers. Makers that remanufacture or alter an existing firearm may adopt the
serial number or other identifying markings previously placed on the firearm if the markings
otherwise meet the requirements of this section.* * * * *
Robert Cekada,
Director.