This is a proposed rule (not final) that removes ATF’s outdated list of banned import countries and instead defers to the State Department’s current list, while also lifting blanket import bans on most former Soviet countries (except Russia).Impact: Moderate and positive—expands import opportunities and aligns rules with current foreign policy.Applies to: Primarily firearms industry (importers, manufacturers), with indirect effects on consumers.What this rule meansATF currently maintains its own list of countries from which firearm and defense article imports are banned—but:

Proposed Rule to be Posted:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 447

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0232; ATF No. 2025R-04P]

RIN 1140-AA91

Update to Proscribed Countries for Import Restrictions

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”) is

proposing to amend Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations to remove the

existing, outdated list of proscribed countries from which ATF denies applications to

permanently import defense articles and services and update it to reference a Department

of State list of proscribed countries. The rule also proposes to remove the list of former

Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import

most firearms and ammunition, leaving only the Russian Federation as the proscribed

country of origin for these imports.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing 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-AA91, by either of

the following methods —

• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions 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-AA91.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN

1140-AA91) 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 Programsand 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

Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (“AECA”) at 22 U.S.C. 2778

authorizes the President of the United States to control importing and exporting defense

articles and defense services in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign

policy of the United States. In 2013, the President delegated relevant AECA functions to

the Secretary of State through Executive Order 13637, Administration of Reformed

Export Controls, 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013), including a broad delegation of the

functions under section 38 of the AECA, except as otherwise provided in section 1(n)(ii)

of Executive Order 13637.

The broad delegation of the President’s AECA section 38 authorities to the

Secretary of State included, in relevant part, providing foreign policy guidance to persons

of the United States involved in exporting and importing defense articles. See 22 U.S.C.

2778(a)(1); E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n), 78 FR 16130. The Department of State promulgates

regulations pursuant to its delegated AECA section 38 authorities in the International

Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), at 22 CFR parts 120–130 et seq. The Department

of State’s ITAR provisions include AECA foreign policy provisions, which in relevant

part provide that “[i]t is the policy of the United States to deny licenses and other

approvals for exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or

originating in certain countries.” See 22 CFR 126.1. Section 126.1 identifies those

countries and the prohibitions that apply to them.

Within Executive Order 13637, the President delegated functions that relate to

controlling permanently importing defense articles under section 38 of the AECA to theAttorney General. However, that delegation mandates that in carrying out such

permanent import control functions, “the Attorney 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.” E.O. 13637, sec. 1(n)(ii), 78 FR 16130; 27 CFR

447.55. This important qualification in the Attorney General’s permanent import control

delegation is also consistent with the broader delegation of AECA section 38 authorities

to the Secretary of State as to foreign policy guidance for AECA defense articles.

The Attorney General, in turn, has delegated the responsibility for administering

and enforcing section 38 of the AECA (relating to importing items on the United States

Munitions Imports List and importing defense articles and defense services)1 to the

Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the

Deputy Attorney General. See 28 CFR 0.130(a)(6)(vi), (c).2 ATF thus implements U.S.

policies denying applications to permanently import defense articles and services from

certain countries and includes a list of these countries under 27 CFR 447.52(a)–(b).

II. Proposed Rule

In making any such determinations that affect “world peace, and the external

security and foreign policy of the United States,” as provided in Executive Order 13637,

the regulation at 27 CFR 447.55 reiterates that ATF will be “subject to the guidance” of

the Secretary of State with regard to how it administers its permanent import control

authority. The Department of State is responsible for determining restrictions on imports

of defense articles and services based on country or geographic region and regularly

updates its policies in 22 CFR 126.1, listing proscribed countries for which it establishes

a policy of denying imports and exports. Because ATF has no independent role in U.S.

1 The delegation does not include enforcing “violations relating to exportation, in transit, temporary import,

or temporary export transactions.” 28 CFR 0.130(a)(6)(vi).

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, Gun Control Act, and Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act. ATF’s jurisdiction also includes

the AECA and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.international affairs or foreign policy and defers to the Department of State on such

matters, ATF’s proscribed-country list has historically mirrored the Department of State’s

list. However, ATF has not kept 27 CFR 447.52(a) — which lists the countries subject to

AECA import restrictions — updated since 2007. ATF believes it will be more effective

and will reduce compliance burdens to align its list with 22 CFR 126.1.

Accordingly, this rule proposes to remove the current content of ATF’s

regulations at 27 CFR 447.52(a) and replace it with a general statement of the U.S. policy

on restricting imports from certain countries that would inform the public that ATF will

base its arms import decisions on the Department of State’s policies and lists in 22 CFR

126.1. This change would ensure that the list of proscribed countries and conditions will

remain consistent across Departments. It will also better inform importers of defense

articles under the AECA and help ensure consistent application of foreign policy.

This rule also proposes to amend 27 CFR 447.52(b), which provides a list of

countries for which all applications to permanently import firearms and ammunition

manufactured or located in those countries must be denied (except for certain specifically

exempted firearm models). The current list, which was added to the regulation in 1997,

reflects a Department of State policy adopted after the United States entered into a

Voluntary Restraint Agreement (“VRA”) with the Russian Federation in 1996. The list

comprises the Russian Federation and the former Soviet countries of Georgia,

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Thirty years later, this policy — and, by extension, the list in 447.52(b)(1) —

reflects outdated trade and security concerns. Lifting these restrictions will ensure

consistency with current U.S. foreign policy as directed by the Department of State, see

22 CFR 126.1(a), and allow ATF to transition from a policy of denying all requests to

import firearms from certain countries to a policy that permits ATF to review license

applications on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, as the terms of the VRA remain ineffect, ATF will continue to restrict certain firearms and ammunition imports from the

Russian Federation.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This rule would amend 27 CFR 447.52(a) to remove ATF’s list of proscribed

countries and to instead inform the public that ATF will deny applications for permanent

imports from countries based on Department of State policy, which is set forth at 22 CFR

126.1. The rule would also amend 27 CFR 447.52(b) to remove the list of former Soviet

countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most

firearms and ammunition, leaving only the Russian Federation as a proscribed country of

origin for these imports.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule

would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. This rule

would simply remove lists that are outdated and lift a blanket ban on importing defense

articles from former Soviet countries. This rule would ensure consistency with current

U.S. foreign policy as directed by the Department of State and thus inform the public of

ATF’s basis for denying applications for permanent imports. This proposed rule would

not generate any costs for the public. ATF believes the rule would provide qualitative

benefits to the public in the form of regularly updated and consistent information between

Departments as well as increased flexibility in the countries from which importers canobtain firearms.

B. Executive Order 14192

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this proposed rule would not be

an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and would not impose total costs greater than

zero. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive

Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action

that imposes total costs less than zero) because it would remove an out-of-date,

duplicative list, and remove outdated references to countries for which applications to

permanently import firearms and ammunition must be denied.

D. Executive Order 14294

Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations)

requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially

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

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

element of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory

offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.E. Executive Order 13132

This 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

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.

F. Executive Order 12988

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

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 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 of

the proposed rule on small businesses and other entities, 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, 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 Act. See 5 U.S.C 603(b).

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

ATF is proposing this action to provide consistency for importers by aligning

ATF’s list of proscribed countries with the Department of State’s list in 22 CFR 126.1.

ATF’s list has remained out of date for numerous years, and because ATF defers to the

Department of State on matters of international affairs and foreign policy, it is reasonable

to align ATF’s list with the Department of State’s list. ATF is also proposing to remove

former Soviet countries from a proscribed list because it reflects outdated trade and

security concerns. ATF does not anticipate that this rule would create significant

economic costs for small entities, as it would provide beneficial deregulatory savings to

federal firearms licensee (“FFL”) importers that would be able to import from previously

proscribed countries.

2. Succinctly stating the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule

The objective of this proposed rule is to reduce regulatory confusion and align

ATF regulations with those of the Department of State, which is responsible for

determining restrictions on imports of defense articles and services based on country orgeographic region and which regularly updates its policies in 22 CFR 126.1.

3. Describing and, where feasible, estimating the number of small entities to which

the proposed rule would apply

Based on ATF’s Federal Firearms Licensing Center, there are an estimated 1,666

Type 08 FFL importers. If Type 08 FFL importers track the size of other FFLs, then most

of these importers are likely to be small businesses, per the Small Business

Administration’s size standard. All importers would benefit from this proposed rule

because it would align ATF’s list of prohibited countries with the Department of State’s

list and ensure consistent application of foreign policy. Furthermore, it would allow all

importers to import from formerly prohibited countries, thereby conferring a benefit in

regulatory flexibility by increasing importing options. Finally, this rule would not impose

any monetary costs.

However, there are approximately 21,499 domestic firearms manufacturers (Type

07 FFL manufacturers) that may be indirectly and negatively affected by this proposed

rule due to increased competition from importers that would gain access to new foreign

markets. ATF is unable to currently assess the significance of this negative impact and

requests public comment from small entities that manufacture and/or sell domestic

firearms.

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 direct costs imposed by this proposed rule

on importers. Nor are there direct costs or compliance requirements for manufacturers.

5. Identifying, to the extent practicable, all relevant federal rules which might

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed ruleThis proposed rule would not duplicate or conflict with other federal rules.

6. Describing any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplishes

the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and which minimizes any significant

economic impact the proposed rule might have on small entities

ATF has not identified other alternatives that would accomplish the stated

objectives. The proposed rule is the only way to remove the outdated list and ensure

consistency of foreign policy across Departments. To the extent that the rule could

significantly impact small businesses, it would alleviate significant hurdles rather than

impose new ones. ATF believes that the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the

potential impacts on domestic small businesses, who may or may not be indirectly

affected by this proposed rule.

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 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 are OMB control number 1140-0005:

Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles, whichincludes ATF Form 5330.3A (“Form 6, part I”), and OMB control number 1140-0007:

Releasing/Receiving Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles, which

includes ATF Form 5330.3C (“Form 6A”). This rule may increase the overall number of

imported firearms, which would increase the frequency of responses for Form 6 and

Form 6A by a corresponding amount.

ATF requests public comments regarding the anticipated overall impact this

proposed rule would have on importers.

J. Congressional Review Act

The proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

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.

All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA91 and, if

handwritten, must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete

first and last name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal

e-rulemaking portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully

review and follow the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you

submit comments online or by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as

an individual, any information you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code,

and phone will not be publicly viewable when ATF publishes the comment on

https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you include such personally identifying

information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and viewable

online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in the body of the comment,it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters should review section

IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII if you do not want

it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet

these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain

comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative

record but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will

treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In

addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before

the closing date.

B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether

submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public

viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who

do not 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-AA91. 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 in 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 ofthis 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.”

Disclosure

Copies of this proposed rule and any comments received in response to it are

available through the Federal e-rulemaking portal, at www.regulations.gov (search for

RIN 1140-AA91), and a summary of this rule may be found at

List of subjects in 27 CFR part 447

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Chemicals, Customs

duties and inspection, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements,

Scientific equipment, Seizures and forfeitures.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part

447 as follows:

PART 447—IMPORTATION OF ARMS, AMMUNITION, AND IMPLEMENTS

OF WAR

1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 447 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2778; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129 (March 8, 2013).

2. In § 447.52, revise paragraph (a) and (b) to read as follows:

(a) It is the policy of the United States to deny imports of defense articles

originating from the following countries:

(1) Countries identified in 22 CFR 126.1(d)(1),

(2) Countries subject to a policy of denying imports of defense articles as

specified in 22 CFR 126.1(d)(2), and

(3) In any case where an import would not be in furtherance of world peace and

the security and foreign policy of the United States.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the appropriate ATF officer will

deny applications to import into the United States the following firearms and ammunition

located or manufactured in the Russian Federation:

(1) Any firearm that is not one of the models listed below:

(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(2) Ammunition that is 7.62 x 25mm caliber (also known as 7.63 x 25mm caliber

or .30 Mauser); or

(3) * * *

* * * * *

Robert Cekada,

Director.

The post New Proposed Rule: Update to Proscribed Countries for Import Restrictions appeared first on FFL+.

This is a proposed rule (not final) that simplifies and clarifies how post-1986 machine guns can be transferred between FFL/SOTs, especially for dealer samples, government requests, and when going out of business.Impact: Moderate and positive—reduces paperwork, loosens overly strict interpretations, and aligns rules more closely with the statute.Applies to: FFLs / SOTs only (no impact on individual gun owners).What this rule meansCurrent ATF regulations around post-1986 machine guns (post-samples) have become:

Proposed rule to be posted:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 479

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0006; ATF No. 2025R-19P]

RIN 1140-AA75

Transferring Machine Guns Between Qualified Licensees

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 update the procedure for

transferring machine guns between qualified manufacturers, importers, or dealers.

Specifically, the proposed rule would simplify the regulatory requirements for such machine

gun transfers pursuant to requests to demonstrate firearms to a government entity or due to a

licensee discontinuing business. The proposed changes would allow the implementing

regulations to more closely mirror the statutory authority provided by the Gun Control Act.

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-AA75, 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: ATF 1140-AA75.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-

AA75) 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 in any uploaded attachments that they want posted. If online commenters wish to submit

PII with their comment, they should place it in a separate attachment and mark it at the top

with the marking “CUI//PRVCY.” Commenters who submit through mail should likewise

omit their PII or PROPIN from the body of the comment and provide any such information

on the cover sheet only, marking it at the top as “CUI//PRVCY” for PII, or as

“CUI//PROPIN” for PROPIN. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and

additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters must submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by

emailing the address set forth in the following paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email at

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

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

DC, 20226, or by telephone at 202-648-7070 (this is not a toll-free number).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), as

amended, and the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended.1 This includes the authority

to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and NFA. See 18

U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7805(a). Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the

responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA and 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 implementing both the GCA and the NFA in 27 CFR parts 478

and 479.

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (“FOPA”), Pub. L.

99–308, 100 Stat. 449, which amended and added provisions to the GCA to include 18

U.S.C. 922(o), which generally makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a

machine gun. The general restrictions on transferring and possessing machine guns under

section 922(o) do not apply in two situations. The first is a “transfer to or by, or possession

by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State,

or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.” The second is lawfully transferring

or possessing a machine gun that was lawfully possessed before the date the FOPA provision

went into effect. See 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(A)–(B). Section 922(o) became effective on May

1 Some NFA and 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 notice of proposed rulemaking 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, 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.19, 1986. Accordingly, all machine guns manufactured or imported after that date are subject

to the restrictions imposed by section 922(o).

Section 922(o) does not specifically provide an exemption for transferring or

possessing any machine gun manufactured or imported after May 19, 1986, (commonly

referred to as a “post-86 machine gun”) other than by a government entity or a person acting

under its authority. However, since 1988, the regulation implementing section 922(o), 27

CFR 479.105, has interpreted the statute as allowing qualified licensees to make, transfer,

and possess such machine guns under limited circumstances, including transferring a post-86

machine gun when a licensee discontinues business.3

Section 479.105(c) authorizes qualified manufacturers and importers to manufacture

or import machine guns on or after May 19, 1986, to sell or distribute them to any

department or agency of the United States, or any state or political subdivision thereof.

Paragraph (c) is silent as to whether the manufacturer or importer may maintain an inventory

of machine guns or must wait until there is a specific government contract or purchase order

before manufacturing or importing a machine gun. Clearly, though, Congress did not intend

for government entities to wait until after a specific need arises to manufacture or import

machine guns, particularly when such government entities typically do not manufacture or

import their own machine guns. The authority-of-government exemption is designed to

ensure military and law enforcement agencies have enough machine guns for times of war or

national emergency.

In 2014, ATF published ATF Ruling 2014-1, which authorized manufacturers to

stockpile machine guns, i.e., maintain an inventory of manufactured machine guns, provided

that subsequent transfers of such machine guns are to a federal, state, or local government

3 ATF final rule, “Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition,” 53 FR 10480, 10510 (Mar. 31, 1988).entity for official use.4 ATF reasoned that manufacturers must be able to maintain an

inventory of manufactured machine guns because section 922(o) authorizes machine gun

transfers after May 19, 1986, to government entities. The stockpiling authorization was

specifically granted to manufacturers because of the breadth of section 922(o)(A)’s

“possession . . . under the authority of” a government entity, and the fact that the statute

contemplates manufacturers possessing machine guns prior to transferring to a government

entity.

Pursuant to 27 CFR 479.105(d), ATF may approve applications to transfer and

register a post-86 machine gun to a qualified dealer if the qualified dealer can establish that a

government entity requests them to demonstrate the weapon (i.e., a dealer sales sample).

Section 479.105(d) provides that qualified dealers need to identify the governmental

customers who would require them to demonstrate the weapon and provide information on

the dealer’s ability to fill any subsequent orders for the machine gun. Additionally, the

qualified dealer must provide letters from the government entities expressing a need for a

particular model or interest in seeing a particular weapon demonstrated (a “law letter”). As

described more fully below, currently the qualified dealer can use ATF Form 5320.24,

Description of Firearm and Information on Request for Demonstration (“Form 5320.24”), as

an alternative to a law letter drafted by a potential government customer. Applications to

transfer more than one machine gun of a particular model to a dealer must also establish the

dealer’s need for the quantity of samples sought. Such dealer sales sample transfers fall under

the exception provided by 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(A) as transferring and possessing “under the

authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or department,

agency, or political subdivision thereof.”

In an attempt to prevent misuse of this dealer sales sample transfer procedure, ATF

4 ATF Ruling 2014-1, Marking Variance for Government Defense Contractors (Sept. 4, 2014),

military/download (last visited July 16, 2025) [https://perma.cc/BH8G-4VVN].issued an open letter in 2023 titled “Machinegun Dealer Sales Sample Letters”5 (“2023 open

letter”) to all federal firearms licensees (“FFLs”). The purpose of the letter was to further

explain and expand the law letter requirement contained in 27 CFR 479.105(d).

The open letter explained that ATF had been receiving legally insufficient law letters

that delayed the process of transferring, importing, and demonstrating machine guns to

interested government customers. Accordingly, the open letter explained what to include in a

law letter for it to be legally sufficient under 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(A) and 27 CFR 479.105(d).

The open letter also explained that ATF would issue a form that qualified dealers could use

as an alternative to a law letter drafted by a potential government customer. In November

2023, ATF issued Form 5320.24 for that purpose. The open letter and accompanying form

established a guide for licensees to adequately articulate in their law letter submissions the

government entity’s bona fide interest in purchasing machine guns.

II. Proposed Rule

While it is true that the dealer sales sample transfer procedure established by 27 CFR

479.105(d) can be misused by unscrupulous dealers or law enforcement, ATF has reviewed

the regulation and the 2023 open letter and determined that the regulation’s interpretation of

the 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(A) exception departs from statutory language. Section 922(o)(2)(A)

simply requires that transferring or possessing in this context be “under the authority of the

United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or department, agency, or

political subdivision thereof.” ATF has determined that the plain text of the statute does not

require an in-depth analysis of the government entity’s intent or reason for requesting the

demonstration.

For these reasons, ATF proposes simplifying its current regulatory language while

incorporating some aspects of the open letter requirements to prevent fraud in or abuse of the

5 ATF, Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees Regarding Machinegun Dealer Sales Sample Letters

(Jan. 11, 2023), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-jan-2023-open-letter-machinegun-dealer-

sales-sample-letters/download [https://perma.cc/4CF9-RDQZ].dealer sales sample exception. Accordingly, ATF proposes to strike § 479.105(d)’s

requirements that qualified dealers include the availability of the machine gun to fill future

orders and establish the need for the requested quantity of machine guns. ATF proposes to

require in § 479.105(d) only the basic information necessary in a law letter for ATF to

approve a qualified dealer’s application to transfer and register post-86 machine guns. The

proposed rule would also incorporate into regulations the current process that ATF uses to

confirm with the government entity that the law letter is a bona fide request.

In conjunction with the proposed amendments to § 479.105(d), ATF would also

clarify throughout this section that the term “government entity” refers to the United States or

any department or agency thereof, or a state, or department, agency, or political subdivision

thereof. To this end, ATF is proposing to include this definition at the end of § 479.105(a)

and to substitute the term “government entity” in paragraphs (a) and (c) where the definition

is currently written in full multiple times. Along with this technical edit to these two

paragraphs, ATF also proposes some minor plain writing edits to make them easier to read,

and a plain writing edit to the section heading for the same reason.

Paragraph (e) of 27 CFR 479.105 also addresses 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(A)’s exception

regarding possessing post-86 machine guns. Specifically, 27 CFR 479.105(e) allows persons

to apply to make and register a post-86 machine gun at the request and on behalf of a

government entity if it is established by specific information that the machine gun is

“particularly suitable for use by Federal, State or local governmental entities and that the

making of the weapon is at the request and on behalf of such an entity.”

As outlined above, 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(2)(A) contains no requirement as to the intent of

a requesting government entity. ATF has determined that the clause “particularly suitable” is

too vague and is unnecessary to implement the statutory exception. Therefore, ATF proposes

to strike the requirement in § 479.105(e) that the maker establish that the machine gun is

particularly suitable for use by a federal, state, or local governmental entity. The amendedprovision would require only that the application establish that making and registering the

post-86 machine gun is at the request and on behalf of a federal, state, or local government

entity.

Paragraph (f) of 27 CFR 479.105 allows a licensee to orderly liquidate inventory

when going out of business. Specifically, it allows a qualified manufacturer, importer, or

dealer to transfer post-86 machine guns to a federal, state, or local governmental entity, or

another qualified manufacturer, importer, or dealer, when the qualified licensee discontinues

business. Over time, ATF has received inquiries concerning the procedure to transfer post-86

machine guns by licensees that relinquish special occupational taxpayer (“SOT”) status but

remain in business as an FFL under the GCA. As currently written, the regulation can be

interpreted to require that licensees completely discontinue all business under both the GCA

and NFA before they are eligible to avail themselves of this process under § 479.105(f).

Because the relevant inquiry is whether the licensee is discontinuing its NFA

business, not whether the licensee intends to relinquish its GCA license as well, ATF has

allowed licensees to maintain their GCA license as they transfer post-86 machine guns under

§ 479.105(d) when they intend to discontinue the NFA side of their business. Accordingly,

ATF has determined that it is necessary to clarify in § 479.105(f) that a licensee may transfer

post-86 machine guns when they discontinue their NFA firearms business and that the

licensee can relinquish the SOT or let it expire while continuing business under a GCA

license.

To expedite the transfer process, ATF further proposes to add language to §

479.105(f) to clarify the process for a licensee who wishes to transfer post-86 machine guns

upon relinquishing SOT status. Under the proposed rule, licensees would use ATF Form

5320.3, Application to Transfer/Register NFA Firearm (Tax Exempt) to Special

Occupational Taxpayer (“Form 3”) to both request approval to transfer their firearms and

notify ATF of their intent to discontinue their NFA business. This change would obviate theneed for these SOTs to provide two separate notices to ATF. Accordingly, if this rule is

finalized as proposed, ATF would update Form 3 to include how SOTs may indicate that the

transfer is pursuant to § 479.105(f)’s provision on discontinuing their NFA business.

Last, the industry frequently encounters scenarios in which a United States

government entity wishes to furnish its own machine guns to a licensee for a number of

reasons, such as further manufacturing, repairing, or testing. Because the United States

government is not required to register its machine guns under the NFA, qualified licensees,

who generally must have machine guns in their possession registered, currently may not

lawfully receive U.S. government-furnished machine guns for such work. Accordingly, ATF

proposes to create a new paragraph (g) under § 479.105 clarifying that a contract or letter

from the government department or agency, written on the agency’s or department’s

letterhead, may authorize the licensee to receive and possess the government-furnished,

unregistered, NFA firearm for such work, as long as the letter or contract also stipulates that

the firearm will be returned to the government.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to

select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes

the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing

rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This proposed rule would amend 27 CFR 479.105 to bring regulations implementing

the general statutory restriction on the possession and transfer of machine guns in line with

the statute and to reduce burdens on the industry by simplifying the information licensees

would need to provide on a law letter in order to receive approval of an application totransfer and register a post-86 machine gun. It would also reduce the burden on licensees to

submit two notices when discontinuing their NFA business. The rule would instead allow

them to use Form 3 to both request approval to transfer their firearms and notify ATF of their

intent to discontinue their NFA business.

This proposed rule would provide qualitative benefits to the industry by providing

more flexibility in complying with statutes and existing regulatory standards, but ATF does

not have sufficient information to calculate quantifiable savings. Therefore, ATF requests

more information from the public regarding economic effects this rule may have on the

public and the regulated industries. 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.

B. Executive Order 14192

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an

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

revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates

a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in

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

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of

this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental

costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be

offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. However,

this proposed rule would not be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not

a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it would not impose

total costs greater than zero. This proposed rule would bring the existing regulations on the

possession and transfer of machine guns in line with the statute and would reduce burdens on

the industry by simplifying the information licensees would need to provide on a law letter inorder to receive approval of an application to transfer and register a post-86 machine gun. It

would also reduce the burden on licensees when discontinuing their NFA business. In

addition, because this information would streamline requirements for FFLs, ATF 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

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

basis, that the impact on proposed rule would not statement of the factual small entities. Small entities have a significant economic

a substantial number of include certain small

businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than

50,000.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule

would simplify the regulatory requirements for machine gun transfers to a dealer in response

to a request by a government entity, and would reduce burdens when a licensee discontinues

its NFA business. This proposed rule would therefore not impose any costs and would be

deregulatory.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector,

of $100 million or more in any one year, and it 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 would impact two existing information collections under the PRA. One information

collection that would be impacted by this proposed rule is OMB control number 1140-0124:

Description of Firearm and Information on Request for Demonstration, which includes ATF

Form 5320.24. This proposed rule would require qualified dealers to submit a law letter from

the government entity to demonstrate that the transfer to, and possession by, the dealer is

occurring under the authority of the government entity. This is already part of the existing

process, but the rulemaking reduces the amount of information that would be provided in the

letter. In addition, the proposed rule would eliminate Form 5320.24 as an alternative to

submitting the law letter. As a result, the existing information collection would be revised to

remove the Form 5320.24. This change would reduce this information collection’s time

burden because the rule would reduce the amount of information the dealers must submit for

this purpose, but it would not have any other effect.

This proposed rule would also impact OMB control number 1140-0013: Application

to Transfer/Register NFA Firearm (Tax Exempt) to Special Occupational Taxpayer, which

includes ATF Form 5320.3 (“Form 3”). Currently, this information collection requires

licensees to use this form as the mechanism by which they request approval to transfer NFA

firearms and register them to another qualified licensee when they discontinue their NFA

business. This proposed rule would require qualified licensees to also use Form 3 to notify

ATF of their intent to discontinue their NFA firearms business, prior to the lapse or

relinquishment of their special occupational taxpayer status. The form would be updated to

allow licensees to notify ATF of their intent to discontinue and the planned date for doing so,

thereby obviating the current requirement that they provide that information to ATF

separately. The hourly burden would be transferred from a separate notice method to a

statement in this form, so this change would reduce this collection’s time burden, if finalizedas proposed, by cutting out the time it would take to complete a separate notice while also

completing this Form to transfer the firearms.

I. Congressional Review Act

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments sought

ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF

specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made

easier to understand. In addition, ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the

proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and

benefits.

All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA75 and, if handwritten,

must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last

name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking

portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow

the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or

by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information

you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly

viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you

include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,

it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in

the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters

should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII

if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that

do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retaincomments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record,

but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all

comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF

cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the

closing date.

B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether

submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public

viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom

of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not want

their name or other PII posted on the internet should submit their comments with a separate

cover sheet containing their PII. The separate cover sheet should be marked with

“CUI//PRVCY” at the top to identify it as protected PII under the Privacy Act. Both the

cover sheet and comment must reference this RIN 1140-AA75. 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 in any uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the

online fields designated for name, email, and other contact information will not be posted or

viewable online.

A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary or

confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF handle this information as

controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), the commenter must place any portion of acomment that is proprietary or confidential business information under law or regulation on

pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each page prominently marked

“CUI//PROPIN” at the top of the page.

ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information submitted in

compliance with these instructions available when disclosing the comments that it 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.”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-AA75).

Severability

Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised in this proposed

rule may be finalized, or not, independently of each other, after consideration of comments

received. ATF has determined that this proposed rule implements and is fully consistent with

governing law. However, in the event that this proposed rule is finalized, if any provision of

that final rule, an amendment or revision made by that rule, or the application of such

provision or amendment or revision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or

unenforceable by its terms, the remainder of that final rule, the amendments or revisions

made by that rule, and application of the provisions of the rule to any person or circumstance

shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give them the maximum effect permitted

by law.

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 § 479.105 by:

a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f); and

b. Adding paragraph (g).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

§ 479.105 Transferring and possessing machine guns.

(a) General. As provided by 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 26 U.S.C. 5822, an application to

make or transfer a firearm must be denied if making, transferring, receiving, or possessing

the firearm would place the maker or transferee in violation of law. Section 922(o), Title 18,

U.S.C., makes it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun, except that a

government entity may transfer, receive, or possess a machine gun and persons may transfer

to them under the government entity’s authority; or persons may lawfully transfer or possess

a machine gun that was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986. Therefore, notwithstanding

any other provision of this part, no application to make, transfer, or import a machine gun

will be approved except as provided by this section. For purposes of this section, the term

“government entity” means the United States or any department or agency thereof, or a state,

or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof.

(b) * * * * *

(c) Importing and manufacturing. Subject to compliance with the provisions of this

part, importers and manufacturers qualified under this part may import and manufacture

machine guns on or after May 19, 1986, to sell or distribute them to any government entity,

or for qualified dealers to use as sales samples pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.

Importers and manufacturers may only register and subsequently transfer machine guns they

imported or manufactured under this provision if they sell or distribute such weapons to a

government entity for its official use, and do so solely for that purpose. Subject to

compliance with the provisions of this part, qualified manufacturers may manufacture

machine guns on or after May 19, 1986, to export them in compliance with the Arms ExportControl Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) and implementing regulations prescribed by the Department of

State.

(d) Transferring to, and possession by, qualified dealers.

(1) Subject to compliance with the provisions of this part, ATF will approve

applications to transfer and register a machine gun manufactured or imported on or after May

19, 1986, to dealers qualified under this part if the dealers establish by specific information

that they are requesting to transfer and possess the machine gun under a government entity’s

authority.

(2) Dealers may show they have such authority by a letter from a government entity,

which must:

(i) Be written on the government entity’s letterhead;

(ii) Include a request from the government entity that the dealer obtain a

particular machine gun;

(iii) Affirm that transferring to the dealer, and the dealer possessing the

machine gun is under the authority of the requesting government entity; and

(iv) Be signed by a person with authority to sign on behalf of the government

entity, to include such person’s contact information.

(3) ATF will confirm with the signing government official that the letter is a bona

fide request by the government entity.

(e) Making machine guns on or after May 19, 1986. Subject to compliance with the

provisions of this part, ATF will approve applications to make and register machine guns on

or after May 19, 1986, for the benefit of a government entity if the applicant establishes by

specific information that they are making the weapon at the request and on behalf of the

government entity. Making a weapon on behalf of a government entity includes making

weapons intended for actual sale to a government entity, developing an invention orprototype for possible future use by a government entity, and making a weapon in connection

with research and development on behalf of a government entity.

(f) Discontinuing NFA business. Because 18 U.S.C. 922(o) makes it unlawful to

transfer or possess a machine gun except as provided in the law, any qualified manufacturer,

importer, or dealer intending to discontinue business involving firearms regulated by this part

must notify ATF of their intent before relinquishing or allowing their special occupational

taxpayer status to lapse. The licensee must also transfer, in compliance with the provisions of

this part, any machine gun manufactured or imported after May 19, 1986, to a government

entity or to a qualified manufacturer, importer, or dealer. The licensee must use ATF Form

5320.3, Application to Transfer/Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Exempt) to Special

Occupational Taxpayer (“Form 3”) to notify ATF that they are discontinuing business and

transferring the firearms.

(g) Transfers from U.S. government to a qualified licensee. The U.S. government may

transfer an unregistered machine gun in its possession to any qualified licensee pursuant to a

valid government contract or letter drafted on government letterhead. The contract or letter

must specify that the U.S. government department or agency is transferring the government-

furnished machine gun to the licensee to possess it under the department or agency’s

authority for a government purpose. Such purpose may include further manufacture, repair,

or testing. For purposes of this paragraph, the licensee does not need to register the machine

gun while they possess the machine gun, provided the government contract or letter states

that the machine gun will be subsequently returned to the U.S. government.

Robert Cekada,

Director.

The post New Proposed Rule: Transferring Machine Guns Between Qualified Licensees appeared first on FFL+.

What this rule means
ATF forms (like the Form 4473, Form 1, Form 4, etc.) have long required applicants to list their “sex,” but the term was never explicitly defined in regulation.

This rule clarifies that:

• “Sex” means biological sex (male or female)
• It does not include gender identity

This aligns ATF regulations with a recent executive order and what ATF describes as the “ordinary meaning” of the term. 

What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:

1. Define “sex” in ATF regulations

• Applies across:
  • Firearms (27 CFR Part 478)
  • NFA items (Part 479)
  • Explosives (Part 555)
• Specifies:
  • “Sex” = biological classification (male or female)
  • Not gender identity

2. Require individuals to select biological sex on forms

• Applies to forms such as:
  • Form 4473 (retail firearm transfers)
  • Form 1 / Form 4 (NFA items)
• Clarifies how to answer—not adding a new question

3. Add “penalty of perjury” language for consistency

• Ensures all forms clearly state they are:
  • Completed under penalty of perjury

4. Make minor technical corrections

• Updates regulatory citations and wording for clarity

What will change (real-world impact)

For Individuals:

• Clear instruction on how to answer the “sex” field
• No new steps, forms, or requirements
• No impact on eligibility, background checks, or approvals

For FFLs:

• Slight clarification when assisting customers with forms
• No change to:
  • Transfer procedures
  • Recordkeeping
  • Compliance obligations

For the system overall:

• Eliminates ambiguity in how ATF interprets “sex”
• Standardizes responses across all ATF-regulated forms
• No cost or economic impact (per ATF analysis)

Key Takeaways

• Clarification only—not a substantive regulatory change
• Defines “sex” as biological male/female for ATF forms
• Applies across firearms, NFA, and explosives forms
• No impact on approvals, background checks, or legality

Proposed rule to be published:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR parts 478, 479, 555

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0010; ATF No. 2025R-33P]

RIN 1140-AA64

Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms

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 make clear that when

individuals complete ATF forms for firearms or explosives, they should select their

biological sex under the question on “sex.”

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-AA64, 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: ATF 1140-AA64.Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-

AA64) 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. BackgroundThe Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act (“GCA”), as

amended, and the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended.1 This includes the authority

to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and NFA. See 18

U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A)(ii), 7805(a). Congress and the Attorney General

have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA and 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); 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 implementing both the GCA and the NFA in 27 CFR parts

478, 479.

Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (“OCCA”), Pub. L. 91–452, 84

Stat. 922 (1970), added chapter 40 (Importation, Manufacture, Distribution, and Storage of

Explosive Materials) to title 18 of the U.S.C.3 One of the stated purposes for title XI was to

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

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

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

has delegated that responsibility to the Director, 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).

Regulations in 27 CFR part 555 implement title XI.

1 Some NFA and 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 NFA, 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.

3 See id.ATF’s regulations at 27 CFR 478.21, 479.21, and 555.21 authorize the Director to

prescribe forms required to implement the GCA, NFA, and federal explosives laws. For

example, prior to making an over-the-counter transfer of a firearm to a non-licensee who

resides in the same state as where a licensee is located, the licensee is required to obtain a

ATF Form 5300.9, Firearms Transaction Record, (“Form 4473”) “showing the transferee’s

name, sex, residence address . . . , and date and place of birth . . . .” 27 CFR 478.124(c). ATF

added “sex” as a requirement in the regulations in 1998 as part of implementing the Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103–159 (1993). ATF understands the term “sex”

as used in its regulations to mean the binary, biological distinctions between male and

female. See, e.g., Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 85 F. Supp. 2d 509, 515–16

(E.D. Pa. 2000) (discussing the definition of “sex” as the difference between male and female

by referring to a 1993 edition of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).

On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14168,

Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the

Federal Government, which stated that “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable

biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not

include the concept of ‘gender identity.’” Thus, consistent with Executive Order 14168 and

the ordinary meaning of the word “sex” as used in statutes and regulations, ATF proposes a

rule to resolve any potential confusion on how to fill out ATF forms. The rule would make

clear that ATF seeks biological sex, consistent with the ordinary meaning of the regulatory

language.

II. Proposed Rule

This proposed rule would amend the language of 27 CFR 478.21, 479.21, and 555.21

to explain that “sex” as required by any ATF form (1) means an individual’s immutable

biological classification as either male or female, and (2) is not a synonym for and does not

include the concept of gender identity. ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.21(a) and555.21(a) by adding two sentences that make clear that “sex” on ATF forms refers to an

individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female and does not include

the concept of gender identity and that individuals should select their biological sex. ATF

also proposes adding to § 478.21(a) and § 555.21(a) a sentence that reads, “Each form shall

be executed under penalties of perjury, if the form or the regulation so provide.” A “penalties

of perjury” clause is already present in § 479.21(a), and this rule would simply add this

language for consistency and clarity in parts 478 and 555.

For 27 CFR 479.21(a), ATF proposes adding a sentence to explain that “sex” on ATF

forms refers to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female

and does not include the concept of gender identity and that persons completing the form

should select their biological sex. Additionally, ATF proposes to amend the existing

“penalties of perjury” language for clarity so it reads, “Each form shall be executed under

penalties of perjury, if the form or the regulation so provide.”

This rule also proposes to make a technical edit to correct the authority citation line

for 27 CFR part 478 to read as: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921–934; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).

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 proposed rule would amend 27 CFR 478.21, 479.21, and 555.21 to clarify the

meaning of “sex” on ATF firearms and explosives forms in accordance with Executive Order

14168.The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule would

not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, as the rule merely

proposes to clarify the ordinary meaning of a word in ATF’s regulations. There are no

changes to ATF standards or compliance requirements; therefore, ATF anticipates no costs or

benefits accruing from this proposed rule.

B. Executive Order 14192

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an

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

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

promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action

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

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In

furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new

incremental costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law,

also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.

However, this proposed rule would not be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action

because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it

would not impose total costs greater than zero.

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, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies are required to

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment

rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including a statement of the

a significant economic impact on a

factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have small entities. Small entities include certain small businesses, small

substantial number of not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant

in fields, and governmental of less than 50,000.

their jurisdictions with populations The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule

would not impose any additional costs because it merely makes clear that when individuals

complete ATF firearms or explosives forms, they should select their biological sex under the

question on “sex.”G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector,

of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, 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). While this

proposed rule clarifies the meaning of “sex” for purposes of ATF information collections that

have an attached form, this rule would not impact any existing information collections.

I. Congressional Review Act

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments sought

ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF

specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made

easier to understand. In addition, ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the

proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and

benefits.

All comments must reference this document’s RIN 1140-AA64 and, if handwritten,

must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and lastname and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking

portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow

the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or

by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information

you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly

viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you

include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,

it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in

the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters

should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII

if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that

do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain

comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record,

but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all

comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF

cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the

closing date.

B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether

submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public

viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom

of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not 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-AA64. 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 on the webpage. 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-AA64).

List of subjects

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.

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.

27 CFR part 555

Administrative practice and procedure, Explosives, Freight, Hazardous substances,

Imports, Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Safety, Security measures,

Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation, Warehouses.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR parts 478,

479, and 555 as follows:

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION

1. Revise the authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921–934; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).

§ 478.21 [Amended]

2. In § 478.21, add at the end of paragraph (a): “The term ‘sex’ on ATF forms required by

this part refers to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female

and does not include the concept of gender identity. Individuals completing forms required

by this part should select their biological sex. Each form must be executed under penalties of

perjury, if the form or the regulation so provide.”

PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER

FIREARMS3. The authority citation for 27 CFR Part 479 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5801–5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805.

§ 479.21 [Amended]

4. In § 479.21, remove from paragraph (a) the fourth sentence and add in its place after the

third sentence: “The term ‘sex’ on ATF forms required by this part refers to an individual’s

immutable biological classification as either male or female and does not include the concept

of gender identity. Individuals completing forms required by this part should select their

biological sex. Each form shall be executed under penalties of perjury, if the form or the

regulation so provide.”

PART 555—COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES

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

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847.

§ 555.21 [Amended]

6. In § 555.21, add at the end of paragraph (a): “The term ‘sex’ on ATF forms required by

this part refers to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female

and does not include the concept of gender identity. Individuals completing forms required

by this part should select their biological sex. Each form must be executed under penalties of

perjury, if the form or the regulation so provide.”

Robert Cekada,

Director

The post New Proposed Rule: Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms appeared first on FFL+.

What this rule means
Right now, when someone applies to:

• Make an NFA firearm (Form 1), or
• Transfer an NFA firearm (Form 4),

They must send a copy of that application to their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO).

Important:

• This is NOT approval (that was removed in 2016)
• It is just a notification requirement

ATF is proposing to remove this entirely because:

• CLEOs don’t use the information
• It doesn’t meaningfully help investigations
• ATF already performs its own background checks and legal review 

What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:

1. Remove CLEO notification requirement

• No more sending:
  • Form 1 copies
  • Form 4 copies
  • Responsible Person Questionnaires (Form 23)
• Eliminates the need to:
  • Identify the correct CLEO
  • Mail or deliver paperwork

2. Update NFA regulations accordingly

• Removes CLEO notification language from:
  • 27 CFR 479.62 (making NFA firearms)
  • 27 CFR 479.84 (transferring NFA firearms)

3. Maintain all core approval requirements

• This does NOT change:
  • Background checks
  • ATF approval process
  • Registration requirements
• ATF still:
  • Reviews legality under federal/state/local law

What will change (real-world impact)

For Individuals (Primary Impact):

• Simpler NFA process:
  • One less step when filing Form 1 or Form 4
• Saves time and minor cost:
  • ATF estimates ~$7 per application in time savings
• Eliminates confusion:
  • No need to figure out:
    • Who the correct CLEO is
    • What to do with the notification

For Trusts / Legal Entities:

• Same benefit applies to:
  • Responsible persons (Form 23)
• Reduces administrative burden for multi-person entities

For FFLs / Industry:

• Minor indirect benefit:
  • Fewer questions and confusion from customers
• No operational changes

For Law Enforcement (CLEOs):

• Stops receiving large volumes of unused paperwork
• ATF notes:
  • CLEOs generally discard these notices anyway

For the system overall:

• Removes a requirement that:
  • Costs time and money
  • Provides little to no practical benefit
• Estimated savings:
  • ~$11.4 million annually across applicants

Key Takeaways

• Eliminates CLEO notification requirement entirely
• Does NOT change approval or background checks
• Reduces paperwork and confusion
• Reflects reality that CLEOs don’t use the information

Proposed Rule to be Posted:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 479

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0004; ATF No. 2025R-15P]

RIN 1140-AA65

Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act

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 remove the requirement that a

copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm subject to the National Firearms Act,

and the specified form for responsible persons, as applicable, be forwarded to the chief law

enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant/transferee or responsible person is

located.

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-AA65, 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-AA65.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-

AA65) 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 in 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. BackgroundThe Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the National

Firearms Act (“NFA”), 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.

A. Application to make a firearm

Section 5822 of the NFA prohibits any person from making a firearm unless the

person has: (1) filed with the Attorney General a written application, in duplicate, to make

and register the firearm; (2) paid any tax required to make the firearm and affixed the proper

tax stamp to the original application form;3 (3) identified the firearm in the application form

in such manner as prescribed by regulation; (4) identified themself in the application form in

such manner as prescribed by regulation, and that, if such person is an individual, the

identification must include the individual’s fingerprints and photograph; and (5) obtained the

Attorney General’s approval on the form to make and register the firearm. 26 U.S.C. 5822.

Applications must be denied if making or possessing the firearm would place the person

making the firearm in violation of law. For purposes of the NFA, the term “person” means

“an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” 26 U.S.C.

7701(a)(1).

Regulations implementing 26 U.S.C. 5822 are set forth in 27 CFR part 479, subpart

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 Effective January 1, 2026, the tax for making NFA firearms (other than machine guns and destructive devices)

is $0. Pub. L. 119–21, sec. 70436 (July 4, 2025).E. The regulations provide, at 27 CFR 479.62, that no person may make a firearm unless the

person has filed with the Director an ATF 5320.1, Application to Make and Register an NFA

Firearm (“Form 1”), and has received the Director’s approval to make the firearm.

Approving the application also registers the firearm to the applicant in the National Firearms

Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”). Prior to submitting the application to the

Director, all applicants and responsible persons must currently forward a complete copy of

Form 1 or a complete copy of ATF Form 5320.23, NFA Responsible Person Questionnaire

(“Form 23”), respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer (“CLEO”) of the locality in

which the applicant or responsible person is located. The CLEO is defined at 27 CFR

479.62(c) as the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the state police, or state or local

district attorney or prosecutor.

B. Application to transfer a firearm

Section 5812(a) of the NFA provides that a firearm may not be transferred unless: (1)

the firearm’s transferor has filed a written application, in duplicate, to transfer and register

the firearm to the transferee, using the prescribed application form; (2) the transferor has paid

any tax required, and affixed the proper tax stamp to the original application form;4 (3) the

application form identifies the transferee in such manner as prescribed by regulation, and

that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include the individual’s

fingerprints and photograph; (4) the application form identifies the transferor in such manner

as prescribed by regulation; (5) the application form identifies the firearm in such manner as

prescribed by regulation; and (6) the application form shows that the Attorney General has

approved the transfer and that the firearm has been registered to the transferee. Applications

will be denied if transferring, receiving, or possessing the firearm would place the transferee

in violation of law. 26 U.S.C. 5812(a). Section 5812(b) of the NFA provides that the

4 Effective January 1, 2026, the transfer tax for NFA firearms (other than machine gun and destructive devices)

is $0. Pub. L. 119-21, sec. 70436 (July 4, 2025).transferee may not take possession of the firearm unless the Attorney General has approved

the transfer and registered the firearm to the transferee.

Regulations implementing 26 U.S.C. 5812 are set forth in 27 CFR part 479, subpart

F. In general, § 479.84 provides that no firearm may be transferred in the United States

unless an application, ATF 5320.4, Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax

Paid) (“Form 4”), has been filed and approved by the Director. Prior to submitting the

application to the Director, all transferees and responsible persons must forward a complete

copy of Form 4 or Form 23, respectively, to the CLEO of the locality in which the applicant

or responsible person is located. The CLEO is defined at § 479.84(c) as the local chief of

police, county sheriff, head of the state police, or state or local district attorney or prosecutor.

II. Proposed Rule

Before 2014, ATF required individuals applying to make or transfer a firearm under

the NFA to receive a certification from the CLEO of the jurisdiction in which the applicant

resided. Certifications on Form 1 and Form 4 requested that CLEOs confirm that they had no

information indicating the maker or transferee would use the firearm or device described on

the application for other than lawful purposes and, further, that CLEOs had no information

that receiving or possessing the firearm or device would place the maker or the transferee in

violation of state or local law.5

In 2009, ATF received a petition for rulemaking from the National Firearms Act

Trade and Collectors Association (“NFATCA”) that requested, in part, that ATF eliminate

the required CLEO certification for making and transferring NFA firearms.6 The petitioner

5 See, e.g., ATF Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm, (draft 12-31-13), available at

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=201401-1140-001&icID=12720 (last visited April 22,

2026).

6 The term “NFA firearm” means firearms and other weapons to which the NFA applies — specifically,

machine guns, shotguns having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length, rifles having a barrel or

barrels of less than 16 inches in length, weapons made from a rifle having an overall length of less than 26

inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length or weapons made from a shotgun with an overall

length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length, silencers, destructive devices,

and any other weapon as defined by the Act. 26 U.S.C. 5845(a).cited the lack of CLEO cooperation as reason for eliminating the requirement. Additionally,

the petitioner asserted that ATF did not accept the CLEO certification as prima facie

evidence that the applicant lawfully possesses the NFA firearm because ATF verifies that the

applicant may lawfully possess an NFA firearm under state and federal law. In response to

this petition, the Department issued an NPRM in 2013 titled, “Machine Guns, Destructive

Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a

Corporation, Trust or Other Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a

Firearm,” to extend NFA requirements, including CLEO certifications, to responsible

persons of legal entities. See 78 FR 55014, 55016–17 (Sept. 9, 2013).

The comments in response to the NPRM echoed the NFATCA petition. See

Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for

Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a

Firearm, 81 FR 2658, 2680 (Jan. 15, 2016) (“2016 final rule”). Commenters explained that,

in practice, many applicants struggled to obtain CLEO sign-off. CLEOs would refuse to sign

for a variety of reasons. Some CLEOs feared civil liability should weapons be misused.

Others were ideologically opposed to persons possessing certain weapons. Applicants would

respond by going to different CLEOs in their jurisdiction to find one who would sign.

Alternatively, they would form a trust or legal entity because ATF did not require CLEO

sign-off for trusts and legal entities. But when individuals formed entities, ATF also did not

perform a background check on individuals authorized to possess NFA firearms under the

auspices of the entity.

ATF changed both practices in the 2016 final rule when it required responsible

persons of an entity to submit to a background check and also changed the CLEO

certification requirement to a notice-based system. See 81 FR 2658. Specifically, ATF

changed its regulations to require that applicants forward a copy of their application to a

CLEO in their jurisdiction and to allow CLEOs who had objections to making or transferringa firearm to forward their objections to ATF for review. As part of the change, ATF amended

its regulations to no longer require CLEO consent to approve an application to make or

transfer an NFA firearm. See 27 CFR 479.62, 479.84.

Now, ATF proposes to discontinue this notification practice. ATF has no information

that the CLEO notification meaningfully aids criminal investigations or serves a significant

purpose for local law enforcement. Additionally, ATF does not need the notices for purposes

of approving or disapproving firearm transfers. When the CLEO certification requirement

was first imposed, ATF relied on local law enforcement to help determine whether a person

could lawfully possess NFA firearms. Now, all applicants to make or transfer NFA firearms

are subject to a thorough background check through the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System. ATF makes its own assessment of state and local law to

determine whether specific NFA firearms are lawful in the maker’s or transferee’s

jurisdiction and no longer relies on local law enforcement for that information.

In the 2016 final rule, the Department rejected fully eliminating the CLEO

requirement. The Department wrote that the CLEO notice provided “awareness that a

resident of the CLEO’s jurisdiction has applied to make or obtain an NFA weapon and

affords the CLEO an opportunity to provide input to [ ] ATF of any information that may not

be available during a federal background check indicating that the applicant is prohibited

from possessing firearms.” 81 FR 2682.

In the nearly ten years this system has been in place, it has not worked as intended.

During this time period, ATF is not aware of CLEOs performing independent background

checks or filing objections to making or transferring a firearm. The general feedback to ATF

regarding the CLEO notification has been that law enforcement agencies simply discard

these notices. However, ATF encourages public comments from CLEOs on whether these

notices provide a benefit to them.

These notices are not costless. In the 2016 final rule, ATF estimated that the noticerequirement would cost applicants (individuals and entities) nearly $5.8 million annually. 81

FR 2713. That cost is higher today because of the increase in NFA transfers and inflation. In

section III.A of this preamble, ATF estimates the savings from removing this requirement to

be approximately $11.4 million annually.

There are also no legal impediments to removing the CLEO notice. The CLEO notice

is not in the statutory requirements for applying to make or transfer NFA firearms. This

requirement, instead, has been upheld as an implied power based on ATF’s “broad authority

to promulgate regulations governing application forms.” Lomont v. O’Neill, 285 F.3d 9, 16

(D.C. Cir. 2002). Thus, removing the notification requirement would lessen the burden on

applicants and be consistent with the statutory requirements for approving applications to

make or transfer a firearm.

Accordingly, ATF proposes amending 27 CFR 479.62 and 479.84 to remove the

requirement that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm, and the specified

form for responsible persons, as applicable, be forwarded to the CLEO of the locality in

which the maker, transferee, or responsible person is located.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to

select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes

the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing

rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This proposed rulemaking responds to the inquiries ATF has received regarding the

purpose of the CLEO notification, and further addresses confusion expressed by CLEOs as to

whether their respective law enforcement agency qualifies as the chief law enforcementagency, or whether that agency can be removed as the chief law enforcement agency. The

Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed 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

CLEO notification may not meaningfully aid criminal investigations or serve a

significant purpose for local law enforcement that outweighs the burdens imposed by the

rule; therefore, this proposed rule would amend 27 CFR part 479 to remove the requirement

to submit a completed NFA application form or responsible person questionnaire to CLEOs,

thereby lessening the burdens on persons who make or transfer such firearms. ATF’s current

understanding is that CLEOs do not make use of these notifications. However, ATF

encourages public comments from CLEOs as to whether receiving such notices provides

benefits to them.

2. Population

ATF maintains a record of applications to make or transfer NFA firearms. Over the

last ten years, the number of NFA applications has increased.7 Table 1 shows the number of

applications by year from 2015 through 2024.

Table 1. Historical number of applications

Year Estimated CLEO

notifications

2015 307,524

2016 548,235

2017 259,147

2018 339,278

2019 370,347

2020 487,745

2021 689,822

2022 764,814

2023 1,061,068

7 National Firearms Act Division, ATF, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-firearms-act-division

[https://perma.cc/9TRZ-63BV].2024 1,170,028

ATF determined the average rate of change from one year to the next in Table 1’s

data, then used statistical software to forecast the number of future applications for years

2025 to 2034 applying that same rate of change. Table 2 provides the anticipated increase in

Form 4 applications over the next ten years.

Table 2. Projected number of CLEO notifications

Future years Projected CLEO

notifications

1 1,243,806

2 1,335,050

3 1,426,295

4 1,517,540

5 1,608,785

6 1,700,030

7 1,791,275

8 1,882,519

9 1,973,764

10 2,065,009

3. Benefits and savings

This proposed rule would no longer require individuals to notify CLEOs by

submitting a copy of their NFA applications. ATF anticipates this proposed rule would

primarily affect individuals who make or transfer NFA items for personal use. For purposes

of this analysis, ATF estimates that it would take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) for an individual to

copy the relevant form prior to submitting the original to ATF.

Furthermore, individuals applying to purchase an NFA firearm would likely be doing

so during their leisure time; therefore, ATF estimated a leisure wage rate based on

methodology from the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), updated to

account for the latest available data.8 The HHS methodology is to first obtain the average

8 https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/257746/VOT.pdf.U.S. median non-leisure weekly wage from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”), and

divide it by 40 hours to derive the median hourly non-leisure wage. Step two is to obtain the

average U.S. real household income before taxes and after taxes from the Census Bureau,

and divide one by the other to determine the net household income rate. Step three applies

the net income rate to the median non-leisure hourly rate derived in step one, to calculate the

hourly leisure wage. Table 3 shows the steps and data ATF used under this methodology to

determine an updated leisure wage.

Table 3. Calculating leisure wage

Inputs for

leisure wage

rate

Numerical

inputs Source

1a. Median non-

leisure weekly

wage

$1,214

News Release, BLS, Usual Weekly Earnings for Wage and

Salary Workers https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2025/median-

weekly-earnings-were-1076-for-women-1333-for-men-in-

third-quarter-2025.htm

(https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_04162025

.pdf)

1b. Median non-

leisure hourly

wage

$30.35

$1,214 / 40 hours a week = $30.35

2a. Real

household

income pre-tax

$83,730

U.S. Census Bureau, Median Household Income

286.html

2b. Real

household

income post-tax

$72,330

U.S. Census Bureau, Median Household Income

https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%

2F%2Fwww2.census.gov%2Fprograms-

surveys%2Fdemo%2Ftables%2Fp60%2F286%2FtableB1.xlsx

&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

2c. Net

household

income rate

86 percent $72,330 post-tax income / $83,730 pre-tax income = .86 net

household income rate

3a. Hourly

leisure wage $26.10 $30.35 hourly non-leisure wage * .86 net household income

rate = $26.10 hourly leisure wage

3b. Rounded

hourly leisure

wage

$26

Based on the methodology outlined by HHS, the estimated leisure wage is $26 perhour, which ATF then used to calculate the hourly savings. At 0.25 hours to copy per

application, ATF estimates that this proposed rule would provide a $7 (rounded) hourly time

savings per application.

Table 4. Deregulatory savings over ten years*

Year Undiscounted 3-percent discount 7-percent discount

2025 $8,706,642 $8,453,050 $8,137,049

2026 $9,345,350 $8,808,889 $8,162,591

2027 $9,984,065 $9,136,834 $8,149,971

2028 $10,622,780 $9,438,202 $8,104,068

2029 $11,261,495 $9,714,265 $8,029,290

2030 $11,900,210 $9,966,239 $7,929,612

2031 $12,538,925 $10,195,293 $7,808,612

2032 $13,177,633 $10,402,545 $7,669,502

2033 $13,816,348 $10,589,080 $7,515,178

2034 $14,455,063 $10,755,924 $7,348,221

Total $115,808,511 $97,460,322 $78,854,095

Annualized $11,425,323 $11,227,049

* The “Undiscounted” column represents totals from the underlying costs. Consistent with guidance

provided by OMB in Circular A-4, the “3-percent discount rate” and “7-percent discount rate” columns result

from applying an economic formula to the number in each row of the “Undiscounted” column to show how

these future costs over time would be valued today; they do not contain totals from other tables.

By multiplying the $7 savings by the number of applications by year, ATF anticipates

this proposed rule would have a total, ten-year undiscounted, savings of $115.8 million or

annualized savings of $11.4 million at a 3 percent discount rate and $11.2 million at a 7

percent discount rate.

This NPRM’s proposals would alleviate the burden on individuals and CLEOs from

providing and receiving, respectively, NFA applicant and responsible person notifications.

As stated above, CLEOs are confused about the purpose for the notification requirement and

what they should do with these forms when they receive them. This proposed rulemaking

would remove that confusion in a manner that would not hinder public safety.

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 orrevised when the agency publicly proposes for notice-and-comment or otherwise

promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action

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

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In

furtherance of this requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new

incremental costs associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law,

also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations.

However, this proposed rule would not be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action

because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it

would not impose total costs greater than zero. This proposed rule would remove the

previous regulatory requirement to notify CLEOs about applications to make or transfer NFA

firearms and save the public from the costs and burdens of complying with them. 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 withsection 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 impact on proposed rule would not have a significant economic

a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain small

businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than

50,000.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule

does not negatively impact small entities; it removes the burden for individuals who currently

have to notify CLEOs when they apply to make or transfer an NFA firearm, and does the

same for responsible persons. Because entities have responsible persons, this rule would

reduce the burden for those persons, and thereby reduce the burden for the entities by

extension. This proposed rule would thus result in a minor indirect benefit to entities from the

time saved by their responsible persons. It does not create costs or burdens and does not

generate a barrier to entry for small businesses.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995This 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 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 would not create any new information collection requirements, but it would impact three

existing information collections covered under the PRA. As discussed above, this proposed

rule would require ATF to remove the sections of Form 1 (OMB control number 1140-0011),

Form 4 (OMB control number 1140-0014), and Form 23 (OMB control number 1140-0107)

that require applicants to submit a copy of the form to the CLEO and to certify that they have

done so, along with accompanying instructions. ATF anticipates the impacts from this rule

would reduce respondents’ time burden to complete the forms.

Impacted ICR 1:

Title: Application to Make and Register NFA Firearm

OMB control number: 1140-0011

Form number: ATF Form 5320.1 (“Form 1”)

Summary of the information collection: Any person other than a qualified manufacturer who

wishes to make and register an NFA firearm must submit a written application to ATF on a

form prescribed by ATF. 26 U.S.C. 5822. They must also identify the firearm they are

making, themselves as the maker, and, if an individual, must include their fingerprints and aphotograph with the application. In § 479.62, ATF prescribed ATF Form 5320.1 (“Form 1”),

Application to Make and Register NFA Firearm, for these required purposes.

Need for information and proposed use: ATF’s NFA Division uses the information on this

form to determine whether the applicant may legally make and register the firearm under

federal, state, tribal, and local law. Section 5822 provides that ATF cannot approve an

application if making or possessing the firearm would place the person making the firearm in

violation of law. The form asks an individual applicant to respond, under penalties of perjury,

to questions to determine whether they are prohibited by federal law from possessing

firearms. For a trust or legal entity, which cannot answer these questions on the Form 1

because they are not an individual, each responsible person for that trust or legal entity

instead provides this information when they submit Form 5320.23, NFA Responsible Person

Questionnaire (covered by 1140-0107, below).

Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule: Individuals or households

Number of respondents: 148,975 annually

Frequency of response: once

Response time estimate: 12 minutes (overall reduction from 30 minutes, due to conversion to

eForm, changes proposed in this rule, and other related changes)

Burden of response: 29,795 hours total for all respondents

Impacted ICR 2:

Title: Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid)

OMB control number: 1140-0014

Form number: ATF Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”)

Summary of the information collection: Persons with an NFA firearm must apply to ATF for

approval to transfer and register the firearm as required by the NFA (26 U.S.C. 5812). ATF

Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”), is the prescribed means for submitting this application, facilitatesand records the firearms transfer, and also serves as proof of registration once approved.

Need for information and proposed use: ATF’s NFA Division uses the information on this

form to determine whether the applicant may legally make and register the firearm under

federal, state, tribal, and local law. The form also identifies the transferor, transferee, and

firearm(s). 26 U.S.C. 5812 provides that ATF cannot approve an application if receiving or

possessing the firearm would place the person receiving the firearm in violation of law. The

form asks an individual transferee to respond, under penalties of perjury, to questions to

determine whether they are prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. For a trust or

legal entity, which cannot answer these questions on the Form 4 because they are not an

individual, each responsible person for that trust or legal entity instead provides this

information when they submit Form 5320.23, NFA Responsible Person Questionnaire

(covered by 1140-0107, below).

Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule: Individuals or households

Number of respondents: 546,424 annually

Frequency of response: once

Response time estimate: 12 minutes (overall reduction from 30 minutes, due to conversion to

eForm, changes proposed in this rule, and other related changes)

Burden of response: 109,285 hours total for all respondents

Impacted ICR 3:

Title: NFA Responsible Person Questionnaire

OMB control number: 1140-0107

Form number: ATF Form 5320.23 (“Form 23”)

Summary of the information collection: When a trust or other legal entity (including

corporations, etc.) must submit Form 1 as the maker, or is identified as the transferee on

Form 4 or ATF Form 5320.5 (“Form 5”), Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm(Tax-Exempt), they are not able to submit individually identifying information for purposes

of a background check. When one of these forms is filled out by an entity other than an

individual, the entity provides the information on the Forms 1, 4, or 5. In such cases, each

responsible person for that entity must provide the same information that is requested for an

individual on the Form 1, 4, or 5, but provides this information on a separate form. This is to

ensure that each person is legally permitted to make, transfer, or receive an NFA firearm. As

a result, ATF Form 5320.23 (“Form 23”) is required for any responsible person (as defined in

27 CFR 479.11) who is part of such trust or other legal entity.

Need for information and proposed use: ATF’s NFA Division uses the information on this

form to determine whether the applicant may legally make, possess, or receive the firearm

under federal, state, tribal, and local law. Sections 5812 and 5822 provide that ATF cannot

approve an application if making or possessing the firearm would place the person in

violation of law. The form asks the responsible person to respond, under penalties of perjury,

to questions to determine whether they are prohibited by federal law from possessing

firearms.

Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule: Entity responsible persons

Number of respondents: 749,242 annually

Frequency of response: once

Response time estimate: 12 minutes (overall reduction to 30 minutes, due to conversion to

eForm, changes proposed in this rule, and other related changes)

Burden of response: 149,848 hours total for all respondents

I. Congressional Review Act

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review

Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments soughtATF 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. ATF also 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-AA65 and, if handwritten,

must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last

name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking

portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow

the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or

by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information

you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly

viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you

include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,

it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in

the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters

should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII

if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that

do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain

comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record

but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all

comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF

cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the

closing date.

B. ConfidentialityATF 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-AA65. 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 in 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 otherrequest 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.”

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-AA65).

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 479as 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.

§ 479.62 [Amended]

2. Amend § 479.62 by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph

(c).

§ 479.84 [Amended]

3. Amend § 479.84 by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph

(c).

Robert Cekada,

Director.

The post New Proposed Rule: Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act appeared first on FFL+.

Impact: Very high—effectively ends the brace rule and removes NFA treatment for most braced firearms (unless they independently meet the statutory definition).

Applies to: Both individuals and the firearms industry (FFLs).What this rule means is that ATF is proposing to undo its 2023 stabilizing brace rule after multiple courts found it unlawful and blocked its enforcement.

Key reasons:

• Courts ruled the rule was likely arbitrary and capriciousThe rule created confusion and unclear standardsATF acknowledges the “multi-factor test” was difficult to apply

So instead of trying to fix it, ATF is:

• Removing the rule entirely
• Returning to the plain statutory definition of “rifle”
• Going back to case-by-case classification decisions

What the rule actually does. If finalized, this rule would:

1. Delete the 2023 brace rule language

• Removes the added factors used to determine if a firearm with a brace is a rifle
• Eliminates the “designed to be fired from the shoulder” expanded interpretation

2. Restore the original definition of “rifle”

• Returns to the statutory definition only:
  • A firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder
• No additional ATF-created tests or factors

3. End the “factor-based” classification system

• No more:
  • Weight/Length Comparisons
  • Length-of-pull Measurements
  • Marketing Analysis
  • “Community Use” Analysis

4. Return to case-by-case determinations

• ATF will evaluate firearms individually based on:
  • Design
  • Function
• Without a rigid checklist or scoring system

What will change (real-world impact)

For Individuals (Major Impact):

• Most firearms with stabilizing braces will:
  • No longer be treated as NFA items
  • No longer require registration, fingerprints, nor approval
• You can:
  • Buy and own braced firearms similar to pre-2023 practices
• Estimated Impact:
  • Millions of firearms (ATF estimates up to ~7 million in circulation)

For FFLs / Industry (Major Impact):

• Manufacturers and retailers can:
  • Resume normal production and sales of braced firearms
• Reduced compliance burden:
  • No NFA classification for most braced firearms
• Significant Economic Effect:
  • ATF estimates ~$144 million/year in savings from avoided NFA compliance costs

For the system overall:

• Major rollback of a high-profile ATF rule
• Reinforces limits on:
  • Agency-created multi-factor tests without clear statutory backing
• Reintroduces:
  • Some uncertainty (no bright-line rules)
• Bur reduces:
  • Overly complex and vague regulatory standards

Important caveat:

• This does NOT mean all braced firearms are automatically legal under NFA
• If a firearm is:
  • Actually designed to be fired from the shoulder → still a rifle/SBR
• Determination becomes:
  • Fact-specific, not checklist-based

Key Takeaways:

• Fully removes the 2023 stabilizing brace rule
• Returns to simple statutory definition of “rifle”
• Eliminates confusing multi-factor analysis
• Major deregulatory impact for industry and consumers
• Shifts back to case-by-case determinations

Proposed rule to be posted:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR parts 478 and 479

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0335; ATF No. 2025R-11P]

RIN 1140-AA98

Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces”

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”) is

proposing to amend Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations on firearms with

attached stabilizing braces. Courts have found that ATF’s revisions in the 2023 final rule

on the same topic violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Several courts have

enjoined, stayed, or vacated the final rule, which has rarely been in effect. ATF is

therefore proposing to remove from the regulatory definitions of “rifle” the two

paragraphs added by the 2023 final rule that defined the term “designed or redesigned,

made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

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-AA98, by either of

the following methods—

• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions

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-

AA98.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN

1140-AA98) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”). ATF

may post all properly completed comments it receives from either of the methods

described above, without change, to the federal e-rulemaking portal,

https://www.regulations.gov. This includes any personally identifying information (“PII”)

or business proprietary information (“PROPIN”) submitted in the body of the comment

or as part of a related attachment they want posted. Commenters who submit through the

federal e-rulemaking portal and do not want any of their PII posted on the internet should

omit it from the body of their comment and any uploaded attachments that they want

posted. If online commenters wish to submit PII with their comment, they should place it

in a separate attachment and mark it at the top with the marking “CUI//PRVCY.”

Commenters who submit through mail should likewise omit their PII or PROPIN from

the body of the comment and provide any such information on the cover sheet only,

marking it at the top as “CUI//PRVCY” for PII, or as “CUI//PROPIN” for PROPIN. For

detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the

rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a

summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov. Commenters must

submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by emailing the

address set forth in the following paragraph.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by

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

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

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

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act (“GCA”),

as amended, and the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended.1 This includes the

authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and

NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A)(ii), 7805(a). Congress and the

Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the

GCA and 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 implementing both

the GCA and the NFA in 27 CFR parts 478, 479. ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition

Technology Division (“FATD”), Office of Enforcement Programs and Services (“EPS”),

classifies firearms pursuant to the GCA and NFA. FATD supports the firearms industry

and the general public by, among other things, responding to technical inquiries and by

testing and evaluating firearms voluntarily submitted to ATF for classification under

1 Some NFA and 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 NFA, 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.federal law.

Firearms are treated differently under the GCA and the NFA. Congress passed the

NFA to regulate certain weapons that were viewed as especially adaptable to criminal

misuse. As a result, NFA firearms must be registered with ATF. 26 U.S.C. 5811, 5821,

5841, 5845. Additionally, NFA firearms were generally subject to special making and

transfer taxes. However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act became law on July 4, 2025, and

it amended the NFA to require that the making and transfer taxes for all NFA firearms,

other than machine guns and destructive devices, be reduced to $0 effective January 1,

2026. A weapon classified as a “firearm” under only the GCA is not subject to transfer

taxes or additional registration, even though it is still subject to record-keeping

requirements, serialization, interstate controls, and potential taxation under 26 U.S.C.

4181. Because of these differences, it matters a great deal whether a firearm falls under

the NFA.

One kind of firearm covered by the NFA is “a rifle having a barrel or barrels of

less than 16 inches in length,” or “a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as

modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16

inches in length.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), (a)(4). Therefore, determining whether a firearm

falls under the NFA sometimes turns on whether a firearm is classified as a “rifle.”

The GCA defines “rifle” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade,

and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or

remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled

bore for each single pull of the trigger.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(7). Similarly, the NFA defines

“rifle” as “a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired

from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of

the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for

each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readilyrestored to fire a fixed cartridge.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(c). For a long time, ATF’s regulations

incorporated these different statutory definitions. See 27 CFR 478.11; 27 CFR 479.11.

On November 8, 2012, a federal firearms licensee submitted the first firearm

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ to ATF, asking if adding its prototype device to a heavy pistol, such

as an AR-type pistol, would change the pistol’s classification to a rifle under federal

firearms laws. The submitter described the brace device as designed to assist people with

disabilities or limited strength or mobility in firing heavy pistols safely and comfortably.

FATD ultimately concluded that attaching the brace would not alter the classification of a

pistol or other firearm and thus would not subject them to the provisions of the NFA. In

the years following this initial classification, FATD received a number of inquiries

regarding other firearms equipped with braces of varying designs and materials, some of

which FATD concluded were “rifles.”

On June 10, 2021, ATF issued an NPRM seeking to clarify and define “rifle” to

include pistols with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ if the weapon ‘‘has objective design

features and characteristics that facilitate shoulder fire,’’ as indicated on ATF Worksheet

4999.3 ATF received over 237,000 comments on the NPRM, many of which criticized the

proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 as being too confusing and unnecessarily complex.

On January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F,

“Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” (“2023 final rule”).

The 2023 final rule did not adopt the proposed Worksheet 4999, but it outlined the factors

ATF would consider when evaluating firearms equipped with a “stabilizing brace” (or

other rearward attachment) to determine whether these weapons would be considered a

“rifle” or “short-barreled rifle” under the GCA, or a “rifle” or “firearm” subject to

regulation under the NFA. The 2023 final rule was published in the Federal Register.

4

3 See 86 FR 30826.

4 See Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” 88 FR 6478 (Jan. 31, 2023).Those possessing firearms with a stabilizing brace that were considered short-barreled

rifles under the 2023 final rule, and thus subject to the registration requirements of the

NFA, had until May 31, 2023, to register the firearm tax free.

Specifically, the 2023 final rule amended definition of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11

and 479.11 to provide that the term “designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended

to be fired from the shoulder” includes a weapon that is equipped with an accessory,

component, or other rearward attachment (e.g., a “stabilizing brace”) that provides

surface area allowing the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided other factors, as

listed in the definition, indicate the weapon is designed and intended to be fired from the

shoulder. These other factors are: (1) whether the weapon has a weight or length

consistent with the weight or length of similarly designed rifles; (2) whether the weapon

has a length of pull, measured from the center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder

stock or other rearward accessory, component or attachment that is consistent with

similarly designed rifles; (3) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with

eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in order to be used as

designed; (4) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the

shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory,

component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations; (5)

the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and promotional materials indicating the

intended use of the weapon; and (6) information demonstrating the likely use of the

weapon in the general community. Those affected by the 2023 final rule who did not

want to register their firearms were given the following options: (1) remove the short

barrel and attach a 16-inch or longer rifled barrel to the firearm; (2) permanently remove

and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; (3) turn

the firearm into the local ATF office; or (4) destroy the firearm.5

5 Id.Within weeks of the 2023 final rule’s effective date, several lawsuits had been

filed, all of which alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). In

several of these lawsuits, United States District Courts in Texas granted motions to

preliminarily enjoin the 2023 final rule.6 The Eighth Circuit and the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Florida also enjoined ATF from enforcing the final rule,

and the Northern District of Texas ultimately vacated the final rule in its entirety in

June 2024. In short, the 2023 final rule was preliminarily enjoined in multiple

jurisdictions prior to the vacatur on the merits in June 2024.

The Fifth Circuit. In the Northern District of Texas, William T. Mock, Maxim

Defense Industries, LLC, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., moved to preliminarily

enjoin the 2023 final rule. On March 30, 2023, the district court denied the motion for

preliminary injunction.7 The plaintiffs appealed the order to the Fifth Circuit, and on May

23, 2023, a motions panel of the Fifth Circuit issued an injunction pending appeal of the

2023 final rule as to the plaintiffs.8 Other district courts in Texas soon followed suit and

granted preliminary injunctions to additional plaintiffs pending the Mock appeal.9 By

mid-June 2023, ATF was preliminarily enjoined from enforcing the 2023 final rule as to

two manufacturers and their customers, four nationwide advocacy groups and their

members, one state’s employees and agencies, and eight individuals.10 On August 1,

2023, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in

Mock, held that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits, and remanded the case

to the district court.11 The district court subsequently entered a preliminary injunction as

6 Mock v. Garland, No. 4:23-CV-00095-O, 2024 WL 2982056, at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2024), appeal

dismissed as moot sub nom., Watterson v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, No. 23-

11157, 2024 WL 3935446 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024).

7 Mock v. Garland, 666 F. Supp. 3d 633 (N.D. Tex. 2023).

8 Order, Mock v. Garland, No. 23-10319 (5th Cir. May 23, 2023), Dkt. 52.

9 See, e.g., Second Amend. Found. v. ATF, No. 3:21-CV-0116-B, 2023 WL 4504587, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May

31, 2023).

10 See id.; Order, Britto v. ATF, No. 2:23-CV-019-Z (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2023), Dkt. 59; Order, Texas v.

ATF, No. 6:23-CV-00013 (S.D. Tex. May 31, 2023), Dkt. 51; Order, Watterson v. ATF, No. 4:23-cv-80

(E.D. Tex. June 7, 2023), Dkt. 37.

11 Mock v. Garland, 75 F.4th 563 (5th Cir. 2023).to the plaintiffs in that case. Then, on November 8, 2023, a separate district court in the

Northern District of Texas universally stayed the 2023 final rule under 5 U.S.C. 705 in its

entirety nationwide.12 Several months later, on June 13, 2024, the district court in Mock

granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denied the Government’s motion

for summary judgment, and universally vacated the final rule. On August 26, 2024, the

Fifth Circuit dismissed all pending appeals regarding preliminary injunctions in Texas

district courts as moot after the June 13, 2024, decision in Mock.

13

The Eleventh Circuit. On January 26, 2024, the Middle District of Florida granted

a preliminary injunction that has effectively prevented the Government from enforcing

the 2023 final rule against the named plaintiffs and past and future customers of the

plaintiffs residing in Florida.14 The district court found there would be irreparable harm to

plaintiffs challenging the 2023 final rule and that the final rule likely violated the APA’s

notice and comment requirement.15

The Eighth Circuit. On August 9, 2024, the Eighth Circuit, considering an appeal

of a denial of a preliminary injunction, found that plaintiffs challenging the 2023 final

rule were likely to succeed on the merits and remanded the case to the district court with

instruction to reconsider the motion, consistent with the court’s opinion.16 Subsequently,

the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.17

In sum, in less than four months after the effective date of the 2023 final rule,

ATF had been enjoined from enforcing it against several groups of plaintiffs, and on

November 8, 2023, it was universally vacated. Because of the ongoing litigation and the

12 Britto v. ATF, No. 2:23-CV-019-Z, 2023 WL 7418291, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2023), appeal dismissed

as moot sub nom. Watterson v. ATF, No. 23-11157, 2024 WL 3935446 (5th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024). The

Government later appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit, but the parties stipulated to dismiss the

appeal, which the court granted. Jt. Stip., Mock v. Bondi, No. 24-10743 (5th Cir. July 17, 2025), Dkt. 80.

13 Watterson v. ATF, 2024 WL 3935446.

14 Colon v. ATF, No. 8:23-CV-223-MSS-UAM, 2024 WL 309975, at *22 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2024).

15 Id. at *10–21.

16 Firearms Regul. Accountability Coal. v. Garland, 112 F.4th 507, 526 (8th Cir. 2024).

17 Order, Firearms Regul. Accountability Coal. v. Garland, No. 1:23-cv-024 (D.N.D. Nov. 20, 2024), Dkt.

144.various injunctions, for all intents and purposes, ATF has never actively enforced the

2023 final rule. In other words, no further classifications were issued as to industry

members or the public and no one was investigated based solely on possessing a braced

firearm.

Additionally, the goal of the 2023 final rule was to alleviate confusion by

clarifying ATF’s position and analysis on firearms with attached stabilizing braces and

help the public understand FATD’s underlying analysis in classifying firearms equipped

with stabilizing braces; however, the result was confusion as individual makers were

unsure how to apply highly technical criteria to their firearms. In light of the ambiguity

created by the regulations, it would have been challenging for individuals who make or

possess braced weapons to determine whether their firearms qualified as a “rifle” based

on the existence of a stabilizing brace or would fall within the purview of the NFA or

GCA. As an example, the factors in the final rule may have been overinclusive or

underinclusive and thus difficult to apply in particular cases. Given the difficulties in

applying the 2023 final rule, owners of weapons that would be considered “rifles” under

the final rule might not have been on notice before it was vacated and enjoined.

Moreover, two courts addressed the merits of the final rule, holding that parts of

the rule were arbitrary and capricious.18 The Eighth Circuit took issue with the rule

because it lacked a standard for measuring whether a brace provided enough “surface

area” to allow a weapon to be fired from the shoulder. In particular, it found that ATF

failed to “provide some range of flexibility in explaining the total surface area that allows

for shouldering a weapon.”19 The Eighth Circuit also took issue with two of the final

rule’s factors to determine whether a weapon is designed and intended to be fired from

the shoulder. Specifically, the court held that the final rule did not address how ATF

18 See Mock v. Garland, 2024 WL 2982056, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2024); Firearms Regul.

Accountability Coal., Inc. v. Garland, 112 F.4th 507, 519 (8th Cir. 2024).

19 112 F. 4th at 521.would evaluate marketing materials and community use of the weapon, nor what was

relevantly “representative” of community use.20 In summary, the Eighth Circuit noted

that an “agency may promulgate a ‘holistic, multi-factor, weight-of-the-evidence test,’

but only if that test ‘define[s] and explain[s] the criteria the agency is applying.’”21 “The

Final Rule misses that mark.”22 The district court in Mock, supra, went a step further and

found all of the six factors “impermissibly vague,” and that the six-factor test “provides

no meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.”23 Thus,

whatever clarity the agency hoped to provide, it was not successful in the view of

reviewing courts.

ATF is not issuing a new rule at this time. Each firearms submission to FATD is

unique in some way, and ATF has concluded that a pre-determined factored approach

that may or may not be relevant to the classification at issue is not the best method to

begin such classification of a firearm. Each submission will have unique characteristics

that make the firearm designed to be fired with one hand versus designed to be fired from

the shoulder.

II. Proposed Rule

Due to the confusion generated by the 2023 final rule, the courts’ conclusions that

it was arbitrary and capricious, concerns about sufficient notice, and the benefits of case-

by-case classifications based on the unique designs of each firearm, ATF proposes to

rescind the changes made by the 2023 final rule and rely on the statutory language

without further elaboration. Additionally, the proposed rule is necessary to conform

ATF’s regulatory provisions in parts 478 and 479 to the court decision vacating the rule.

Following the rule’s vacatur, ATF has been prevented from enforcing the rule

20 Id. at 524.

21 Id.

22 Id. (internal citation omitted).

23 Mock v. Garland, 2024 WL 2982056, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 13, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted).nationwide, so revising the relevant definitions will provide clarity and confirm for

regulated parties that the 2023 regulation change is no longer in effect. ATF has

determined that it is a waste of resources to continue defending and trying to enforce the

2023 final rule.

Accordingly, this proposed rule would remove the revised portions of the

regulatory definitions of “rifle” that further defined the term “designed or redesigned,

made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The regulatory definitions

of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 would be as they were prior to the 2023 final

rule. The pre-2023 definition of “rifle” tracked the GCA’s and NFA’s statutory

definitions and did not further define “designed or redesigned, made or remade, and

intended to be fired from the shoulder.”

Upon finalization of this rule, the resulting definition of “rifle” in § 478.11 would

read, “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from

the shoulder, and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the

explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the

trigger.” Likewise, upon finalization of this rule, the resulting definition of “rifle” in §

479.11 would read, “A weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to

be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the

energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled

bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be

readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.”

ATF seeks comments on all aspects of this proposed rule and its costs and benefits.

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 isnecessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this

proposed rule would be a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f)(1) of

Executive Order 12866 because it would have an impact on the economy of more than

$100 million in one year. The effect of this proposed rule would be to rescind the changes

made by the 2023 final rule and for the regulatory definitions of “rifle” in 27 CFR 478.11

and 479.11 to rely on the statutory language without further elaboration. This proposed

rule is necessary to conform ATF’s regulatory provisions in parts 478 and 479 to the

court decision vacating the rule. Revising the relevant definitions would provide clarity

and confirm for regulated parties that the 2023 regulation change is no longer in effect.

Pursuant to this change, individuals would be able to purchase firearms with an attached

“stabilizing brace” and forgo registration, fingerprinting, and photograph costs and

burdens, if the firearm is not intended to be fired from the shoulder and does not

otherwise fall within the statutory definition of “firearm” under the NFA. These savings

would result in an impact to the economy of more than $100 million.

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 future

estimates in a low, primary, and high range as 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 Dolla

r year

Disc Period

covered

Benefits

n/a n/a n/a 2025 7% 10 yearsAnnualized

monetized benefits

($ millions/ year)

n/a n/a n/a 2025 3% 10 years

Annualized

quantified n/a n/a n/a 2025 7% 10 years

n/a n/a n/a 2025 3% 10 years

Annualized non-

monetized benefits

Disbenefit (i.e., adverse impact) from a reduction to public safety. Disbenefit from

potential uncertainty for purchasers and manufacturers about what constitutes a rifle.

Costs

Annualized

monetized

costs ($

millions/year)

-$144.38 -$61.88 n/a 2025 7% 10 years

-$144.38 -$61.88 n/a 2025 3% 10 years

Annualized

quantified 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 ($

millions/ year) 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

($ millions/year) n/a n/a n/a 2025 7% 10 years

n/a n/a n/a 2025 3% 10 years

Effects

State, local, or

tribal governments

The rule will not impose an intergovernmental mandate, have significant or unique

effects on small governments, or have federalism or tribal implications.

Small businesses

For direct costs, this rule is deregulatory and would generate only savings, and only

for individuals, not businesses, including small businesses. However, there may be

indirect positive impacts. Small entities may experience an increase in revenue due to

weapons with brace configuration no longer undergoing NFA requirements such as

enhanced background checks.

Wages n/a

Growth n/a

Alternatives

No-change alternative: $0 cost and $0 benefits. This was rejected as more stringent without any

monetizable benefit. It would have provided potential qualitative safety benefits and potential increasing

certainty for purchasers and manufacturers about what constitutes a rifle.

Proposed alternative: $0 cost; $144.38 million benefit. This alternative was selected because the benefits

exceed the costs.

Publishing guidance documents alternative: this alternative was rejected because this alternative would not

have the force and effect of law and would leave a contradictory regulatory provision in existence.

Net benefits

Annualized

monetized net

benefits ($

millions/year) $144.38 $61.88 n/a 2025 7% 10 years

$144.38 $61.88 n/a 2025 3% 10 years

1. Need statementOn January 13, 2023, the Attorney General signed the 2023 final rule, amending

ATF’s regulations to clarify when a rifle is designed, made, and intended to be fired from

the shoulder. The 2023 final rule was published in the Federal Register and took effect

on January 31, 2023. See 88 FR 6478. Within weeks of the 2023 final rule’s effective

date, several lawsuits were filed, all alleging violations of the APA, among a variety of

other grounds. ATF is now proposing to conform its regulations with the decisions in the

above-described litigation.

2. Population

Should this rule become final, individuals would be able to resume purchasing

firearms with an attached “stabilizing brace” as the public had done prior to the 2023

final rule, as long as the firearm is not intended to be fired from the shoulder and does not

fall within the statutory definition of “firearm” under the NFA. In the 2023 final rule that

defined these as NFA firearms and thus required persons to register them, ATF estimated

that a range of 3 million to 7 million firearms with attached stabilizing braces were

manufactured between the years 2012 and 2021.24 Since ATF does not know how many

of these firearms would now be manufactured and sold once they are no longer regulated

as NFA weapons, ATF is using 7 million firearms as the primary estimate because

manufacturers would likely ramp up manufacturing and sales of these firearms in the

public sphere. Furthermore, the 7 million figure would likely be most accurate within the

foregoing range, as ATF anticipates the popularity and awareness of these firearms would

be greater than when they were first manufactured and sold because they would no longer

be NFA firearms. Since the primary estimate is 7 million over the course of 10 years,

ATF estimates this would have an annual effect on 700,000 firearms.25

24 ATF Final Rule 2021R-08F, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,’”

Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”), page 16, https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2021-0002-

0002 [https://perma.cc/2J5Q-LZ4M].

25 875,000 annual firearms = 7,000,000 manufactured over 8 years / 8 years of production.3. Costs

The deregulatory cost savings for this rulemaking arise from persons who

purchase a firearm with attached stabilizing brace no longer incurring the time and cost

needed to apply to transfer and register such items as NFA firearms. Applying to transfer

and register an NFA firearm requires a person to complete and submit an ATF Form

5320.4, Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid) (“Form 4”), and

its supporting documents.

Currently, ATF estimates it takes an average of 3.78 hours to complete the Form 4

application, which includes time to obtain fingerprints and photographs to submit with

the Form 4.26 In addition, ATF estimates the average cost for a photograph at $17.27 ATF

assumes for the purposes of this analysis that it would also take approximately 10 miles

of driving to obtain photographs. For individuals to obtain fingerprints, ATF estimates an

average cost of $22, based on information it has gathered.28 ATF assumes for purposes of

this analysis that it would take approximately 10 miles of driving to obtain fingerprints.29

To estimate the deregulatory savings from driving, ATF used the General Services

Administration’s (“GSA”) per diem mileage rate, which was 70 cents per mile at the time

this proposed rule was drafted.30 If the rule is finalized as proposed, the public would no

longer incur these cost and time burdens, which would become savings.

Additionally, deregulatory savings include fees licensees charge for out-of-state

26 ATF, Form 4 – Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm (ATF Form 5320.4),

https://www.atf.gov/media/23251/download [https://perma.cc/RY2S-62UP].

27 See, e.g., Walmart, Passport and Visa Photos, https://photo.walgreens.com/store/passport-photos

[https://perma.cc/CCC4-STLW] and CVS, Photo, Passport Photos, ID & Visa,

[https://perma.cc/PYS3-HPHZ].

28 See, e.g., Ramsey County, Fingerprinting, https://www.ramseycountymn.gov/your-

government/leadership/sheriffs-office/sheriffs-office-divisions/administration/fingerprinting

[https://perma.cc/SX9G-JU3Y] and Fingerprint Technologies,

https://www.fingerprints4all.com/servicesprices [https://perma.cc/43UT-8JRB].

29 For the purposes of this analysis, steps to take photograph and take fingerprints may be performed

separately rather than in one trip

30 GSA, Private Owned Vehicle (POV) mileage reimbursement rates, https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-

trip/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement

[https://perma.cc/U6UC-RZGH].transfers of NFA firearms. The 2023 final rule resulted in some out-of-state purchasers

also registering and transferring firearms with stabilizing braces as NFA firearms. Only

licensees may transfer firearms out-of-state, and licensees charge a fee for the out-of-state

transfer service, so persons who use such services incur those fees. NFA firearms may be

transferred only by a firearms licensee that pays the Special (Occupational) Tax (“SOT”)

to be licensed for NFA firearms. Persons purchasing firearms with stabilizing braces

from out-of-state must purchase from NFA licensees because the 2023 final rule

classified such firearms as NFA firearms. Under this proposed rule, many of these

firearms with attached stabilizing braces would no longer be NFA firearms and thus not

be subject to the NFA transfer fees. Instead, they would be subject to the out-of-state

transfer fees licensees charge for GCA transfers. GCA out-of-state transfer fees are

typically between $25 to $50 per transaction, a quarter of the cost of NFA transfer fees.

However, ATF is unable to calculate an aggregate savings due to a lack of statistical data,

including the number of individuals who purchased these firearms as NFA firearms and

how many purchased from outside of their states of residence.

ATF also notes that, at the time of the 2023 final rule, and continuing until

December 31, 2025, persons who registered an NFA firearm also had to pay a $200 tax

for each one. Although persons did incur this cost, ATF cannot include this cost in

projected savings arising from this proposed rule because, in July 2025, Congress passed

a law reducing the tax rate to $0 for certain NFA firearms effective January 1, 2026,

including firearms with stabilizing braces. As a result, this proposed rule would not result

in saved taxes by the time any final rule might be issued.

To calculate the savings from this proposed rule, ATF first had to determine the

value of time for those impacted by the rule. Individuals purchasing these firearms would

likely be purchasing them in their leisure time; therefore, ATF estimated a leisure wage

rate using methodology established by the Department of Health and Human Services(“HHS”), updated to account for the latest available data.31 The HHS methodology is to

first obtain the average U.S. median non-leisure weekly wage from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (“BLS”), and divide it by 40 hours to derive the median hourly non-leisure

wage. Step two is to obtain the average U.S. real household income before taxes and after

taxes from the Census Bureau, and divide one by the other to determine the net household

income rate. Step three applies the net -income rate to the median non-leisure hourly rate

derived in step one, to calculate the hourly leisure wage. Table 2 shows the steps and data

ATF used under this methodology to determine an updated leisure wage.

Table 2. Calculating leisure wage

Inputs for

leisure wage

rate

Numerical

inputs Source

1a. Median

non-leisure

weekly wage

$1,214

News Release, BLS, Usual Weekly Earnings for Wage and Salary

Workers, third quarter 2025,

[https://perma.cc/PK8F-SSMK]

1b. Median

non-leisure

hourly wage

$30.35 $1,214 median weekly wage / 40 hours a week = $30.35

2a. Real

household

income pre-

tax

$83,730 U.S. Census Bureau, Median Household Income, 2025,

[https://perma.cc/RU47-LLBX]

2b. Real

household

income post-

tax

$72,330

U.S. Census Bureau, Median Household Income, 2025, post-tax

spreadsheet

[https://perma.cc/M33M-EWY7]

2c. Net

household

income rate

86 percent $72,330 post-tax income / $83,730 pre-tax income = .86 net household

income rate

3a. Hourly

leisure wage $26.10 $30.35 hourly non-leisure wage * .86 net household income rate = $26.10

hourly leisure wage

3b. Rounded

hourly

leisure wage

$26.00

31 Valuing Time in U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services Regulatory Impact Analysis: Conceptual

Framework and Best Practices (June 2017),

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/257746/VOT.pdf.Based on the methodology outlined by HHS, the estimated leisure wage is $26,

which is used to calculate the hourly savings. Based on these cost inputs, Table 3 below

outlines the Form 4 application costs and hourly burdens forgone and estimates the

overall savings per Form 4 application.

Table 3. Savings from forgoing NFA taxes and registration

Cost type Cost

input

Hourly

burden

Hourly

wage

Time value

(burden *

wage)

Mileage

(70

cents/

mile)

Subtotal

Form 1 NFA

application

– 3.78 $26 $98 –

$98.00

Fingerprinting $22.00 – – – $7 $36.00

Photograph $17.00 – – – $7 $31.00

Per-application

savings $165.00

Based on Table 3 above, ATF estimates that this rulemaking would generate cost

savings of $165 (rounded) per Form 1 application. At an estimated 875,000 firearms

manufactured in any given year, this would provide an annual and annualized savings of

$144.38 million per year. The 10-year undiscounted cost savings would be $1.4 billion.

4. Benefits

ATF does not anticipate any monetizable disbenefits (i.e., costs) arising from this

proposed rule. However, ATF notes that the rule could have a qualitative disbenefit to

public safety (i.e., adverse impacts). The Department of Justice issued the 2023 final rule

in part because some individuals and entities affix purported “stabilizing braces”

designed to facilitate shooting from the shoulder to firearms in order to circumvent NFA

requirements. Congress chose to regulate short-barreled rifles and other NFA items more

stringently, finding them to be especially dangerous to the community if not regulated,

since they are used for violence and criminal activity. See United States v. Gonzalez, No.

2:10-cr-00967, 2011 WL 5288727, at *5 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2011) (“Congress specifically

found that ‘short-barreled rifles’ are primarily weapons of war and have no appropriate

sporting use or use for personal protection.” (quoting S. Rep. No. 90-1501, at 28 (1968))).Should a person choose to circumvent the NFA by effectively making unregistered

“short-barreled rifles” by attaching an accessory such as a “stabilizing brace,” these

dangerous, easily concealed weapons would pose an increased public safety problem.

Removing from the regulations the criteria for assessing whether a given stabilizing

brace/accessory-firearm configuration qualifies as an NFA firearm increases that public

risk. It also increases the uncertainty for purchasers and manufacturers as to whether a

given firearm configuration would fall under the NFA or not. However, ATF has no data

from which to quantify these potential disbenefits, which would depend on how many

manufacturers or individuals attempt to circumvent the requirements. At the same time,

such disbenefits would be offset to some degree by classifications that ATF provides to

industry that request advice on their products, thereby reducing confusion and potential

costs from producing and selling firearms that would turn out to fall under NFA

requirements. ATF provided this service before the 2023 final rule and continues to do so

with enhanced review procedures and controls to ensure consistency in classifications.

5. Alternatives

Alternative 1. Maintaining the status quo (no action alternative).

During the previous administration, ATF published the 2023 final rule on firearms

with attached stabilizing braces.32 In that rule, the effect of clarifying the meaning of

“designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder” resulted in a majority of large

pistols with certain attached stabilizing braces being classified as short-barreled rifles,

which resulted in them falling within the purview of the NFA. Based on the 2023 final

rule, persons purchasing firearms with an attached stabilizing brace would have had to

register the firearm as an NFA weapon and pay a $200 tax. Maintaining the status quo

would continue these costs, i.e., the costs associated with registering the firearm except

32 See Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” 88 FR 6478 (Jan. 31. 2023).for the $200 tax after January 1, 2026. Maintaining the status quo potentially has

qualitative public safety benefits and potential certainty about rifles. ATF rejected this

alternative due to the burden on the public to comply with the NFA requirements.

Alternative 2. Proposed alternative (rulemaking).

The alternative proposed in this rulemaking would effectively rescind the above

requirements for persons to apply for approval and register as NFA firearms large pistols

with attached stabilizing braces in order to purchase and lawfully own such firearms. By

removing these requirements, this alternative would provide deregulatory savings to

individuals wishing to purchase such firearms and facilitate the purchase without having

to go through the NFA application and approval process. This alternative is being

proposed due to the savings it would generate for the public.

Alternative 3. Publishing guidance.

Under this alternative, ATF would publish guidance instead of a rulemaking.

When ATF published the 2023 final rule, we provided guidance regarding specific types

of firearm configurations with an attached stabilizing brace that could be considered as

falling under the NFA to assist the public regarding the effect of the rule. Additional

guidance would not remove the amendments from the 2023 final rule or reduce confusion

generated from that rule, in which individuals were unsure how to apply highly technical

criteria to their firearms attached with firearms accessories, nor would it address certain

judicial decisions that found some of the factors to be arbitrary. Therefore, this alternative

was rejected.

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 14192regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant

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

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

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

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

associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this proposed rule would not be

an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.

This rule as proposed would be a significant regulatory action as defined by

Executive Order 12866 because it would have an impact on the economy of over $100

million each year throughout its 10-year analysis period. However, because the economic

impact would consist of more than $100 million in annual deregulatory savings, it would

not impose costs greater than zero. This proposed rule would remove the previously

added regulatory and registration requirements and save the public from the costs and

burdens of complying with them. 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 will not have substantial direct effects on the states, the

relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of powerand 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, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, agencies are required to

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to notice-and-

comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including a statement

of the factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain small businesses,

small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than

50,000.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it removes

previously added requirements, thereby also removing any costs or burdens of complying

with them. This proposed rule affects individuals but does not affect small entities in a

way that would require a regulatory flexibility analysis. At most, the proposed rule, if

promulgated as proposed, could have an indirect positive impact for small entities that

manufacture stabilizing braces, in that more firearm owners might purchase these

braces—because this rule could likely remove the risk that the resulting firearms would

be subject to the registration requirements of the NFA. However, this would notconstitute a negative impact, additional cost or burden, or a barrier to entry for small

entities. In addition, ATF has no way to measure this speculative benefit. Therefore, ATF

is not including an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this rule.

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 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.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

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

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

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

monitoring, posting, labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public.

See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule does not create any information collection

requirements, but it impacts one existing information collection covered under the PRA.

It would impact OMB control number 1140-0014: Application to Transfer and Register

NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid), which includes ATF Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”). As discussed

above, this proposed rule would reduce the number of persons who would have to

complete and submit Form 4 because persons would no longer have to register all

firearms with attached stabilizing braces as NFA firearms. The title and description of the

information collection involved in this rule, as currently approved by OMB, follows. A

description of those who provide the information and an estimate of the total annual

burden follow. The estimate covers the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing

sources of data, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing andreviewing the collection.

Title: Application to Transfer and Register NFA Firearm (Tax-Paid)

OMB control number: 1140-0014

Summary of the information collection: Persons with an NFA firearm must apply to ATF

for approval to transfer and register the firearm as required by the NFA (26 USC 5812).

ATF Form 5320.4 (“Form 4”) is the prescribed means for submitting this application,

facilitates and records the firearms transfer, and also serves as proof of registration once

approved.

Need for information and proposed use: ATF’s NFA Division uses the information on

this form to determine whether the applicant may legally make and register the firearm

under federal, state, tribal, and local law. The form also identifies the transferor,

transferee, and firearm(s). 26 U.S.C. 5812 provides that ATF cannot approve an

application if receiving or possessing the firearm would place the person receiving the

firearm in violation of law. The form asks an individual transferee to respond, under

penalties of perjury, to questions to determine whether they are prohibited by federal law

from possessing firearms.

Description of the respondents affected by this proposed rule: Individuals or households

Number of current respondents: 546,424 annually. This number would decrease pursuant

to this proposed rule.

Frequency of response: once

Response time estimate: 12 minutes per form (overall reduction from 30 minutes, due to

conversion to eForm, changes proposed in this rule, and other related changes)

Burden of response: 109,285 hours total for all respondents

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments sought

ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATFspecifically 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-AA98 and, if

handwritten, must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete

first and last name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal

e-rulemaking portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully

review and follow the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you

submit comments online or by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as

an individual, any information you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code,

and phone will not be publicly viewable when ATF publishes the comment on

https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you include such personally identifying

information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and viewable

online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in the body of the comment,

it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters should review section

IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII if you do not want

it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet

these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain

comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative

record but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will

treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In

addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before

the closing date.B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether

submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public

viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who

do not 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-AA98. 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 in 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 nothave 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 (searchfor RIN 1140-AA98).

List of Subjects

27 CFR part 478

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Freight,

Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,

Transportation.

27 CFR part 479

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Imports,

Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and

forfeitures, Taxes, Transportation.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend

27 CFR parts 478 and 479 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).

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.

2. Amend § 478.11 definition of ‘‘rifle’’ by removing paragraphs (1) and (2).

PART 479–MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN

OTHER FIREARMS

3. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 479 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5812; 26 U.S.C. 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805.

§ 479.11 Meaning of terms.

4. Amend § 479.11 definition of ‘‘rifle’’ by removing paragraphs (1) and (2).

Robert Cekada,

Director.

The post New Proposed Rule: Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces” appeared first on FFL+.

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:

1. 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

2. 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)

3. Allow broader commercial sales

• Currently:
  • Mostly limited to government/law enforcement use
• Under this rule:
  • Can be imported and sold commercially

4. 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.

The post New Proposed Rule: Importing Training Rounds appeared first on FFL+.

What this rule means
In 2024, ATF issued a rule expanding and interpreting what it means to be “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms (which requires an FFL).

That rule:

• Added presumptions and examples of when someone is considered a dealer
• Broadened interpretation of who might need an FFL
• Created concern that it effectively pushed toward “universal background checks” through regulation

This new rule proposes to undo much of that expansion and return to:

• The plain statutory definition from Congress (BSCA)
• A more traditional, case-by-case analysis 

What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:

1. Remove “presumptions” of being a dealer
   The prior rule said you were presumed to be “engaged in the business” if, for example:

• You resold firearms quickly
• You sold certain types repeatedly
• You used payment systems like a business

This rule removes those presumptions because:

• They risked shifting the burden onto the individual to prove innocence
• Courts found them problematic
• ATF admits they were unnecessary and not actually used

2. Return to a facts-and-circumstances standard
   Instead of bright-line rules, it goes back to:

You are a dealer if:

• You repetitively buy and sell firearms
• With the intent to make a profit

No fixed number of sales triggers it:

• Selling 2 guns could qualify
• Selling 50 might not (if it’s a personal collection)

3. Broaden what counts as a “personal collection”
   The prior rule:

• Narrowly defined what counted as a collection
• Excluded things like firearms for self-defense

This rule:

• Removes those restrictions
• Returns to a broader, common-sense understanding:
  • Personal, non-commercial ownership = not a business

4. Remove restrictions on former FFL inventory
   The prior rule:

• Limited how former FFLs could sell leftover inventory
• Imposed long-term restrictions

This rule:

• Removes those constraints
• Allows former FFLs to:
  • Sell firearms occasionally like any private individual
• BUT:
  • Still prohibits acting like a dealer without a license

5. Keep core statutory definitions
   The rule still keeps:

• The BSCA definition:
  • “Predominantly earn a profit”
• Core licensing requirement:
  • If you act like a dealer → you need an FFL

What will change (real-world impact)

For Individuals (Major Impact):

• Less risk of being unintentionally classified as a dealer
• More freedom to:
  • Buy/sell from personal collection
  • Sell occasionally without fear of crossing unclear lines
• But:
  • Still illegal to act like a business without a license

For FFLs:

• Slight reduction in competitive pressure from forced licensing expansion
• Less regulatory ambiguity in advising customers

For the system overall:

• Fewer people may:
  • Apply for FFLs
  • Conduct background checks
• ATF acknowledges:
  • Possible (but minimal) increase in unlicensed dealing risk

Key Takeaways

• Removes controversial “presumptions” of being a dealer
• Returns to a case-by-case, intent-based standard
• Expands protection for personal collection activity
• Reduces perceived regulatory overreach
• Does NOT eliminate the requirement to get an FFL if truly operating as a business

Proposed Rules to Be Published:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 478

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0074; ATF 2025R-27P]

RIN 1140-AB01

Revising Regulations Defining “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in 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”) is

proposing to revise regulations implementing the “engaged in the business” definition from

the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”). Although Congress defined that term in

BSCA, the Department of Justice (“Department”) provided additional definitions in its

implementing regulations to further define terms within the statutory definition and to

include examples of covered activities that established rebuttable presumptions of being

engaged in the business of dealing in firearms. This rule proposes to remove those changes.

ATF has determined that the changes have not shown the expected impact on federal

firearms licensee applications, administrative licensing actions, civil forfeitures, or other

anticipated effects.

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-AB01, 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-AB01.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN 1140-

AB01) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”). ATF may post

all properly completed comments it receives from either of the methods described above,

without change, to the federal e-rulemaking portal, https://www.regulations.gov. This

includes any personally identifying information (“PII”) or business proprietary information

(“PROPIN”) submitted in the body of the comment or as part of a related attachment they

want posted. Commenters who submit through the federal e-rulemaking portal and do not

want any of their PII posted on the internet should omit it from the body of their comment

and any uploaded attachments that they want posted. If online commenters wish to submit

PII with their comment, they should place it in a separate attachment and mark it at the top

with the marking “CUI//PRVCY.” Commenters who submit through mail should likewise

omit their PII or PROPIN from the body of the comment and provide any such information

on the cover sheet only, marking it at the top as “CUI//PRVCY” for PII, or as

“CUI//PROPIN” for PROPIN. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and

additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters must submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by

emailing the address set forth in the following paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email at

ORA@atf.gov, by mail at Office of Regulatory Affairs; Enforcement Programs and Services;Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 99 New York Ave, NE; Washington,

DC 20226, or by telephone at 202-648-7070 (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968

(“GCA”), as amended. This responsibility includes the authority to promulgate regulations

necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA.1 See 18 U.S.C. 926(a). Congress and the

Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA

to the Director of ATF (“Director”) subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the

Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)–(2); Treas.

Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696–97 (June 10, 1972).2 Accordingly, the Department

and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the GCA in 27 CFR part 478.

The GCA, at 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A) and as implemented at 27 CFR 478.41(a),

makes it unlawful for any person, except a federal firearms licensee (“FFL” or “licensee”)—

that is a licensed dealer, manufacturer, or importer—to ‘‘engage in the business’’ of dealing

in, manufacturing, or importing firearms. A person may file an application with and receive

such a license from ATF, to which the Attorney General has delegated the licensing function.

See 18 U.S.C. 923(a); 27 CFR 478.41(b). Licensees are generally required to conduct

background checks on prospective firearm recipients through the Federal Bureau of

Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) to prevent

prohibited persons from receiving firearms. See 18 U.S.C. 922(t). Licensees also must

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

section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act pertaining to the permanent import of defense articles and defense

services and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.maintain firearms transaction records for crime-gun tracing purposes. See 18 U.S.C.

923(g)(1)(A).

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (‘‘FOPA’’), Pub. L.

99–308 (1986), in which it defined the term “engaged in the business” for purposes of the

GCA as applied to a dealer.3 The statute defined a dealer engaged in the business as ‘‘a

person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of

trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive

purchase and resale of firearms.’’ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) (2020). FOPA also defined the

phrase ‘‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’’ to mean ‘‘that the intent

underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood

and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal

firearms collection.’’ FOPA, Pub. L. 99–308, sec. 101 (adding paragraphs (21)(C) and (22)

to 18 U.S.C. 921(a)); see also 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22) (2020). FOPA’s definition of ‘‘engaged

in the business’’ as a dealer was incorporated into ATF’s implementing regulations at 27

CFR 178.114 (now § 478.11) as ‘‘Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a

pawnbroker.’’ 27 CFR 478.11.

On June 25, 2022, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”),

Pub. L. 117–159. Among other provisions, section 12002 of BSCA broadened the statutory

definition of “engaged in the business” by eliminating the requirement that a person’s

“principal objective” of purchasing and reselling firearms must include both “livelihood and

profit” and replacing it with a requirement that the person must intend “to predominantly

3 ATF notes that there is there is some overlap in statutory control of firearms for purposes of the GCA and for

purposes of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act. Any person (1) who “engages in the business of”

manufacturing, exporting, or temporarily importing defense articles and defense services related to certain

firearms on the United States Munitions List and designated in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations

(“ITAR”), 22 CFR parts 120–130, at 22 CFR 121.1, or (2) who engages in the brokering of firearms designated

at that section and those firearms designated as defense articles on the U.S. Munitions Import List at 22 CFR

447.21, is required to register with the Department of State and pay a fee. These requirements are prescribed at

sections 122.1 and 129.3 of the ITAR and are distinct from the requirements discussed in this proposed rule and

the definition of “engaged in the business” at 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21).

4 Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition, 53 FR 10480, 10491 (Mar. 31, 1988).earn a profit.” The statute now provides that, as applied to a dealer in firearms, the term

“engaged in the business’’ means ‘‘a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing

in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the

repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.’’ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) (emphasis added).

BSCA defined the term “predominantly earn a profit” to mean that the intent underlying the

sale or disposition of a firearm is for pecuniary gain rather than for other purposes, such as

selling a personal firearms collection. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22). Prior to BSCA, this term

required the principal objective of selling or disposing firearms to be both for profit and, in

addition, maintaining a livelihood. BSCA’s statutory amendment to the term “predominantly

earn a profit” shifts the primary focus to the intended pecuniary gain from selling or

disposing firearms even when such activity is not the person’s main source of income.

When drafting regulations to implement BSCA, the Biden Administration directed

the Department to further clarify, through rulemaking, the meaning of the term “engaged in

the business.” Specifically, President Biden issued Executive Order 14092, which required

the Attorney General to develop and implement a plan to, in relevant part, “clarify the

definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus required to

become [FFLs], in order to increase compliance with the federal background check

requirement for firearm sales, including by considering a rulemaking, as appropriate and

consistent with applicable law; [and] prevent former FFLs whose licenses have been revoked

or surrendered from continuing to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.”5 The Biden

Administration attempted to implement policy changes that went far beyond the regulatory

changes necessary to implement BSCA.

The Department published a final rule, titled “Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’

as a Firearms Dealer,” 89 FR 28968 (Apr. 19, 2024) (“EIB rule”), which became effective on

5 Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer, E.O. 14092, sec. 3(a)(i), 88 FR 16527, 16527–

28 (Mar. 14, 2023).May 20, 2024. The EIB rule amended the regulations in 27 CFR part 478 to (1) incorporate

BSCA’s definition of the term “engaged in the business,” (2) provide clarification and

guidance on what it means to be “engaged in the business” and to have the requisite intent to

“predominantly earn a profit,” and (3) identify conduct that was presumed to constitute

“dealing” and to show relevant intent. See 89 FR 28968. The EIB rule also defined the term

“responsible person” and addressed the procedures former licensees must follow when they

liquidate business inventory when their license is terminated. Id.

Although the EIB rule purported to provide clarification and guidance, many

provisions of the rule were—and are—at odds with the statutory text. By broadly defining

the concept of unlawful dealing, for instance, the Biden Administration began to approach a

system of universal background checks through administrative regulation. For example, one

definition narrowed the range of firearms that could permissibly be deemed part of a

“personal collection,” and thus, that may be liquidated by unlicensed persons. The

Department also adopted fact-pattern presumptions that many objectors believed, in practice,

would relieve the Government of its burden of proof to demonstrate unlawful dealing.

The EIB rule was immediately the subject of litigation. On June 12, 2024, the United

States District Court for the Northern District of Texas enjoined ATF from enforcing the rule

as to the plaintiffs—one individual, four advocacy groups, and the States of Texas,

Mississippi, Louisiana and Utah—for the pendency of the litigation.6 In addition, the district

court found that several regulatory presumptions in the EIB rule conflict with the statute.7 In

particular, it found that ATF had no authority to use administrative regulations to expand the

zone of firearms-dealing subject to regulation beyond that which Congress statutorily

created. In subsequent litigation, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas

6 See Texas. v. ATF, 737 F. Supp. 3d 426 (N.D. Tex. 2024).

7 See id. at 442 (stating that “several presumptions conflict with the statutory text. Two of them, for example,

provide that a person is presumptively ‘engaged in the business’ if the person ‘demonstrates a willingness and

ability to purchase and resell’ firearms or ‘purchases … or … resells’ firearms”).denied a motion for preliminary injunction, on both standing and the merits,8 as did the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama with respect to standing.9

However, on September 30, 2025, the Northern District of Alabama granted the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment. The Northern District of Alabama found that the plaintiffs

had established standing. On the merits, the court determined that ATF exceeded its statutory

authority in issuing the final rule and that the rule improperly expanded the statutory

definition of “engaged in the business.”10

II. Proposed Rule

On further review, ATF agrees that the EIB rule is replete with procedural and

substantive problems. Consequently, ATF proposes repealing those sections of the EIB rule

that do not correctly implement the GCA and BSCA. ATF does not propose, however, to

repeal the EIB rule in its entirety. Some sections of the EIB rule will be retained—for

example, those providing for the discontinuance of business operations—although this rule

proposes to amend some of those provisions.

A. Presumptions

The EIB rule created fact-pattern presumptions that a person was engaged in the

business. These presumptions were intended to be used to determine whether a person was

engaged in the business as a dealer and whether a person had the intent to predominantly earn

a profit. See 89 FR 28975–80. For example, a person would be presumed to be engaged in

the business when a person repetitively resells or offers for resale firearms—

(i) within 30 days after the person purchased the firearms; or

(ii) within one year after the person purchased the firearms if they are—

(A) new, or like new in their original packaging; or

8 See Kansas v. Garland, 2024 WL 3360533, at *9 (D. Kan. July 10, 2024) (finding “serious issues appear in

Plaintiffs’ standing and merits arguments that prevent them from making the strong showing necessary to obtain

injunctive relief”).

9 Butler v. Garland, 2024 WL 5424418 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 4, 2024).

10 Butler v. Bondi, 805 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (N.D. Ala. 2025).(B) the same make and model, or variants thereof.

27 CFR 478.13(c). Additionally, 27 CFR 478.13(d)(2) identified seven circumstances that

create a presumption of intent to predominantly earn a profit, which included, for example,

when a person “[p]urchases or otherwise secures merchant services as a business (e.g., credit

card transaction services, digital wallet for business) through which the person intends to

repetitively accept payments for firearms transactions.”

The EIB rule’s stated intent was to (1) license more persons; (2) deter others from

engaging in the business without a license; (3) increase the number of background checks by

increasing the licensed population; and (4) expand the reach of crime-gun trace requests by

increasing the licensed population. See 89 FR 28968.

With respect to the first two purposes, ATF’s position is the presumptions created by

the EIB rule were largely unnecessary because the statutory definition is readily

comprehensible. For dealers, the core of being engaged in the business requires the intent to

profit from the repeated buying and selling of firearms. In other words, a person must be a

wholesaler or retailer of new or used goods. For example, a person who buys ten models of

the same handgun, with the predominant intent to resell for a profit, and then proceeds to sell

any number of them repetitively three days later at a flea market is engaged in the business

within the statutory definition. See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C) (applying the definition of

“engaged in the business” as a dealer). That person would be engaged in the business from

the moment he made repetitive sales with the intent to profit. Even if the individual sold only

two firearms, the individual intended to engage in a course of business dealings and then

began doing so. Courts have held that such activity requires a license because the statute

reaches those who hold themselves out as retail sources of firearms.11 In contrast, selling two

11 See United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1107 (9th Cir. 2013) (upholding conviction of defendant who

attempted to sell one firearm and represented to buyer that he could purchase more for resale, and noting that

“Section 922(a)(1)(A) does not require an actual sale of firearms”); United States v. Zheng Jian Shan, 90 F.

App’x 31 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that evidence of sale of weapons in one transaction where defendant

demonstrated willingness and ability to resell more weapons was enough to affirm conviction).firearms from a personal collection in two isolated transactions does not rise to the level of

engaging in the business because there is no intent to engage in repetitive buying and selling

for profit.

More importantly, the existence of these presumptions created a serious risk of abuse

in civil and administrative proceedings. The court of appeals cases relied upon by the EIB

rule used the strong form of rebuttable presumptions: the fact will be presumed to exist until

the defendant offers enough evidence to disprove it. See 89 FR 29007. The citations in the

EIB rule indicate—or at the very least, raise the risk that courts might erroneously

conclude—that the EIB rule was intended to do more than simply shift the burden of

production. Potentially shifting the burden of proof to the defendant raised concerns among

the regulated public, Members of Congress, and others that ATF illegitimately attempted to

relieve the Government of its burden of proof in civil and administrative proceedings.

Indeed, in Texas v. ATF, the district court found the presumptions to be highly problematic

because “they flip the statute on its head by requiring that firearm owners prove innocence

rather than the government prove guilt.”12 It further stated that “[p]resumptions, especially in

administrative proceedings that may generate institution-destroying liability, cannot be a

matter of Department ipse dixit.”13 Thus, on further review, ATF agrees that the risk that the

presumptions could have been used erroneously to relieve the Government of its burden of

proof justifies discarding the presumptions.

While the Department disclaimed that the presumptions were designed to relieve the

Government of its burden of proof (and the EIB rule stated that “the rebuttable presumptions

apply only to shift the burden of production,” 89 FR 29007), that disclaimer rests on a

questionable foundation. The presumptions all involved fact patterns from which a fact finder

could find that a person was engaged in the business. Given that the presumptions already

12 Texas v. ATF, 737 F. Supp. 3d at 442.

13 Id.involved facts sufficient to create a prima facie case, the defendant would already be exposed

to a legal judgment unless he came forward with sufficient facts to explain the plaintiff’s

case. Switching only the burden of production would have had no further effect. In light of

the foregoing, the rule could be reasonably perceived as shifting the burden to the individual

to disprove the presumption. At minimum, even if the EIB rule truly meant to shift only the

burden of production—and nothing else—then the presumptions were unnecessary.

To be clear, discarding the presumptions does not mean that a person who engages in

behavior identified by the presumptions will not be found to be engaged in the business. The

actions identified by the presumptions in EIB provide circumstantial evidence from which a

fact finder could potentially find that a person was engaged in the business. Removing the

EIB rule’s legal presumptions simply prevents this evidence from being given dispositive

effect unless the firearm seller can carry the burden of disproving that he was engaged in the

business.

Furthermore, ATF has not used the EIB rule’s presumptions in civil proceedings,

showing they were in fact unnecessary in practice. An anecdotal survey of ATF’s field

divisions uncovered no instances in which the presumptions were cited in civil proceedings

in the time since the EIB rule became effective. ATF may revoke a license or deny a renewal

application in a civil administrative proceeding if the licensee willfully violated 18 U.S.C.

922(a)(1)(A), which prohibits a person from engaging in the business as a dealer without a

license, or aided and abetted others in willfully engaging in the business of dealing in

firearms without a license. Since publishing the EIB rule in April 2024, ATF has brought two

such proceedings against licensees. A review of these proceedings reflects that none of the

presumptions set forth in 27 CFR 478.13 were cited or referenced by ATF in support of these

actions. Given that the presumptions have not actually proven to be significant to or applied

in ATF proceedings, and likewise do not appear to have had the expected effect of increasing

the number of licensees, see infra, rescinding the presumptions is warranted to preservepublic confidence in ATF proceedings and avoid a perception that such proceedings are or

may be biased.

Moreover, mandatory presumptions have little role in the enforcement of the GCA’s

provisions against dealing without a license. The EIB rule suggested that the presumptions

could be used “to determine whether to deny or revoke a federal firearms license.” 89 FR

28969. But ATF’s administrative adjudications, which usually involve license revocations,

operate only on those who are already licensed. The EIB rule also suggested that they might

have application “in civil asset forfeiture proceedings,” 89 FR 28969, but ATF has no

anecdotal or statistical information that indicates it has used any of the presumptions in a

civil forfeiture matter involving dealing without a license since the EIB rule was published.

As a matter of policy, ATF has concerns about seizing property through the use of regulatory

presumptions.

Individuals who engage in dealing without a license are primarily subject to criminal

sanction. In criminal proceedings, the presumptions were intended to be useful to courts to

the extent that jury instructions could incorporate permissible inferences if the case involved

a fact pattern that matched one of the presumptions. 89 FR 28976, 28982, 29014. But ATF is

not aware of the presumptions facilitating criminal enforcement. As the EIB rule recognized,

see 27 CFR 478.13(h), mandatory presumptions cannot be employed in criminal proceedings.

See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 (1979). Further, as with the civil revocation

proceedings mentioned above, ATF is not aware of any criminal proceedings where

presumptions have been invoked as permissible inferences since the EIB rule was published.

Instead of presumptions or permissive inferences, judges may simply instruct jurors on the

factors relevant to determining whether someone is engaged in the business—an instruction

that judges already give. See, e.g., Pattern Jury Instruction, 5th Circuit, 2024 922(a)(1)(A)“engaged in the business”;14 Pattern Jury Instructions, 9th Circuit, 14.3 – 922(a)(1)(A).15

Definition’s scope

Other aspects of the EIB rule may create confusion around conduct that falls outside

the GCA’s definition of being engaged in the business. For example, as discussed in the EIB

rule, courts have stated that an isolated firearm transaction would not require a license when

other factors were not present.16 Nor are persons engaged in the business when they engage

in repeated sales of firearms if the predominant intent is something other than earning a

profit; for example, collectors who buy and sell repeatedly to enhance their personal

collections. See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C). In these circumstances, the GCA does not require

persons to obtain a license. Congress made a considered judgment that it did not intend

federal law to extend to the noncommercial, intrastate market. See GCA, Pub. L. No. 90-618,

sec. 101, 82 Stat. 1213, 1213-14 (1968) (reenacted chapter analysis without change)

(declaring that the GCA was enacted to “provide for better control of the interstate traffic of

firearms” and that Congress’ purpose in creating the GCA was “not . . . to place any undue or

unnecessary federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the

acquisition, possession, or use of firearms”)

ATF has been diligent in providing guidance to the licensed and unlicensed

14 A number of factors may be considered in determining whether a defendant was “engaged in the business” of

dealing in firearms, including: (1) the quantity and frequency of sales; (2) the location of the sales; (3)

conditions under which the sales occurred; (4) the defendant’s behavior before, during, and after the sales; (5)

the price charged; (6) the characteristics of the firearms sold; and (7) the intent of the seller at the time of the

sales. United States v. Brenner, 481 F. App’x 124, 127 (5th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “the jury must examine

all circumstances” in determining whether the defendant was “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms);

see also United States v. Garcia, No. 21-51065, 2023 WL 116727, *1 (5th Cir. Jan. (for recent

application).

15 The Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant “engaged activity than the occasional sale of a hobbyist or collector, and that [the defendant] devoted 5, 2023) and

in a greater degree of

time, attention, labor to selling firearms” as a trade or business with the intent of making profits through the repeated purchase

and sale of firearms. See United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

921(a)(21)(C)). For a person to engage in the business of dealing in firearms, it is not necessary to prove an

actual sale of firearms.

16 89 FR 28976 (citing United States v. Carter, 203 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2000) (“A conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 922(a) ordinarily contemplates more than one isolated gun sale.”)); United States v. Swinton, 521 F.2d

1255, 1259 (10th Cir. 1975) (“Swinton’s sale [of one firearm] to Agent Knopp, standing alone, without more,

would not have been sufficient to establish a violation of Section 922(a)(1). That sale, however, when

considered in conjunction with other facts and circumstances related herein, established that Swinton was

engaged in the business of dealing in firearms.” (internal citation omitted)).communities to ensure they consistently apply the legal standards associated with licensing

requirements.17 Similarly, as the EIB rule explained, there is an established set of case law

that clarifies the factors courts consider regarding whether an individual needs to be licensed.

See, e.g., 89 FR 28976–77, 28978–79, & nn.67–68, 72, 75–77, 82.

ATF recognizes that there is no bright line at which a person may cross the threshold

from engaging in personal sales to being engaged in the business of dealing firearms. The

GCA’s definition of “engaged in the business” is a standard, not a rule. The standard must be

applied to the factual scenario of each case. And as with any standard, there are paradigm

cases on either side, but no perfectly defined line between them. Nor is there any magic

number of sales that can make a person “engaged in the business.” 89 FR 29016. Persons

who sell two firearms can be engaged in the business, if they couple that sale with labor and

intent to engage in repeated commercial transactions for profit.18 Persons who sell 50

17 See ATF, FFL Newsletter at 9 (July 2017), https://www.atf.gov/media/28911/download

[https://perma.cc/34FE-F9TP] (gun show guidelines); ATF, Important Notice to FFLs and Other Participants at

Gun Shows, ATF Information 5300.23A (Rev. June. 2021), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/important-

notice-dealers-and-other-participants-gun-shows-atf-i-530023a/download [https://perma.cc/4PSR-VVD8]; ATF

Revised Ruling 69-59, Sales of firearms and ammunition at gun shows (1969),

[https://perma.cc/A9D4-5RKZ]; ATF, How may a licensee participate in the raffling of firearms by an

unlicensed organization?, https://www.atf.gov/firearms/questions-and-answers?page=10 (last reviewed May 22,

2020); ATF, FFL Newsletter at 8-9 (June 2021), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/newsletter/federal-firearms-

licensee-ffl-newsletter-june-2021/download (addressing conduct of business at firearm raffles); Letter for

Pheasants Forever, from Acting Chief, Firearms Programs Division, ATF, at 1-2 (July 9, 1999) (addressing

nonprofit fundraising banquets); ATF, FFL Newsletter at 4-5 (Feb. 1999),

https://www.atf.gov/media/28801/download [https://perma.cc/36R3-RCB9] (addressing gun shows and events).

See ATF, FFL Newsletter at 5-6 (June 2010), https://www.atf.gov/media/28856/download

[https://perma.cc/LKC9-46BK] (flea market guidelines). See ATF, FFL Newsletter at 8 (June 2021),

[https://perma.cc/H5KY-5G9T] (addressing internet sales of firearms); ATF, FFL Newsletter at 3 (Sept. 2016),

https://www.atf.gov/media/28906/download [https://perma.cc/KY89-FRMZ] (addressing brokering firearms for

exportation); ATF, FFL Newsletter at 6-7 (Mar. 2023); ATF, FFL Newsletter at 9 (June 2021),

(discussing social media gun raffles) [https://perma.cc/H5KY-5G9T]; Letter for Outside Counsel to National

Association of Arms Shows, from Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division, ATF, Re: Request for Advisory

Opinion on Licensing for Certain Gun Show Sellers at 1 (Feb. 17, 2017); ATF, ATF Federal Firearms

Regulations Reference Guide, ATF Publication 5300.4, Q&A L1, at 207-08 (2014),

53004/download [https://perma.cc/KD35-AEXU]; ATF, FFL Newsletter at 3 (May 2001),

https://www.atf.gov/media/28811/download [https://perma.cc/46KY-3VUM] [ (addressing auctioning

firearms); ATF, FFL Newsletter at 7 (1990), https://www.atf.gov/media/28756/download

[https://perma.cc/L8QT-VTX6] (addressing auctioning firearms); and Letter for Editor, CarPac Publishing

Company, from Acting Assistant Director (Regulatory Enforcement), ATF, at 1-2 (July 26, 1979).

18 See King, 735 F.3d at 1107.firearms may not be engaged in the business if they are liquidating their personal collections,

at least in the absence of facts militating in the opposite direction.19 As the Supreme Court

has recognized, Congress may legislate “us[ing] imprecise terms,” Sessions v. Dimaya, 548

U.S. 148, 159 (2018), or a “qualitative standard,” Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591,

604 (2015).

The core concept of being engaged in the business is clear: the intent to engage in a

course of repeated buying and selling predominantly motivated by profit. 18 U.S.C.

921(a)(21)(C). Individuals often meet this standard without question, particularly in cases

that lead to criminal prosecutions. In addition, criminal prosecutions under the GCA require a

showing of a willfulness mens rea, 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(D), which requires showing that an

individual acted with knowledge that the individual’s conduct was unlawful. See Bryan v.

United States, 524 U.S. 184, 189 (1998) (maintaining that “the willfulness requirement of §

924(a)(1)(D) requires knowledge that the conduct is unlawful”). With respect to EIB,

Congress’s preference for an effort- and intent-based definition, over a bright numerical

threshold, does not merit retaining these presumptions as part of the definition or other

supposed clarifications in the EIB rule.

Increasing licensees and background checks

Some critics incorrectly suggested that the prior Administration used the EIB rule to

try to establish “universal background checks” by expanding the statutory definition to

capture additional transactions as retail sales requiring a license.20 But, the GCA allows a

19 See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(22); see also, e.g., United States v. Mulholland, 702 F. App’x 7, 12 (2d Cir. 2017)

(“The definition does not extend to a person who makes occasional sales for a personal collection or hobby, id.,

and the government need only prove that a person was ‘ready and able to procure [firearms] for the purpose of

selling them from time to time.’” (quoting United States v. Nadirashvili, 655 F.3d 114, 199 (2d Cir. 2011)). But

see United States v. Brenner, 481 F. App’x 124, 127 (5th Cir. 2012) (defendant argued he was liquidating

personal collection, but court held engaged in the business due to facts on sales frequency, location, profit

margins, secretive sales and payments, and references to firearms “coming in” or as “brand new.”).

20 See Devan Cole & Hannah Rabinowitz, Biden administration finalizes rule to close ‘gun show loophole’ in

effort to combat gun violence, CNN Politics (Apr. 11, 2024), https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/11/politics/gun-

show-loophole-rule-finalized-biden-admin; see also Martha Minow, Not Born a Democracy: Constitutional

Preconditions, 67 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 135, 172 n.176 (2025) (explaining that the Biden Administration

intended the executive order “to move the United States as close to universal background checks as possible

without additional legislation”).non-licensee to transfer a firearm to another non-licensee within the same state without

conducting a background check.21 Both the GCA and FOPA left the noncommercial,

intrastate market primarily regulated by state law. BSCA did not change that basic decision.

BSCA was designed to provide clarification by changing the wording of the statutory

definition about when a person should be licensed. According to BSCA’s sponsors, the Act’s

change to the definition was driven by “confusion about the GCA’s definition of ‘engaged in

the business,’ as it pertained to individuals who bought and resold firearms repetitively for

profit, but possibly not as the principal source of their livelihood.”22 The sponsors

“maintain[ed] that these changes clarif[ied] who should be licensed, eliminating a ‘gray’ area

in the law, ensuring that one aspect of firearms commerce is more adequately regulated.”23

The EIB rule thus could not, and did not, impose universal background check requirements.

And, as discussed, in light of Congress’ changes to carefully crafted clarifications of the

statutory language through BSCA’s amendments, it is unnecessary to supplement or confuse

the statutory language with further regulatory language.

Additionally, ATF has determined that the rule proved ineffective in its attempt to

increase the number of dealer licenses. In the time since the EIB rule went into effect, ATF

has not seen an increase in licenses and background checks. ATF has reviewed the number of

new applications the Federal Firearms Licensing Center received for Type 01 licenses

(Dealer in Firearms Other Than Destructive Devices) for fiscal years (“FYs”) 2021 through

21 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3), (5) (requiring license to sell out of State); 922(t) (requiring licensees to conduct a

background check).

22 William J. Krouse, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12197, Firearms Dealers “Engaged in the Business” 2 (2022).

23 Id.; 168 Cong. Rec. H5906 (daily ed. June 24, 2022) (Statement of Rep. Jackson Lee) (“[O]ur bill would . . .

further strengthen the background check process by clarifying who is engaged in the business of selling firearms

and, as a result, is required to run background checks.”); 168 Cong. Rec. S3055 (daily ed. June 22, 2022)

(Statement of Sen. Murphy) (“We clarify in this bill the definition of a federally licensed gun dealer to make

sure that everybody who should be licensed as a gun owner is. . . . [The definition] is admittedly confusing. So

we simplified that definition and hope that will result—and I believe it will result—in more of these frequent

online gun sellers registering, as they should, as federally licensed gun dealers which then requires them to

perform background checks.”); see also Letter for Director, ATF, et al., from Sens. John Cornyn and Thom

Tillis at 2–3 (Nov. 1, 2022) (“BSCA provides more clarity to the industry for when someone must obtain a

federal firearms dealers license. In Midland and Odessa, Texas, for example, the shooter—who at the time was

prohibited form possessing or owning a firearm under federal law—purchased a firearm from an unlicensed

firearms dealer.”).Fiscal year Type 01 applications Total Type 01 licensees

2021 7,445 52,993

2022 5,619 52,173

4,544 50,314

47,776

2025, the four years preceding the EIB rule, and the one year since the rule was published.

See Table 1. Once issued, a federal firearms license is valid for a three-year period unless

terminated sooner, so there are more total Type 01 licensees in each year than the number of

applications persons submit to ATF in the same year. 18 U.S.C. 923(c), 27 CFR 478.49.

Table 1. Number of Type 01 dealer applications 2021-2025

2023 2024 2025 4,350 4,160 46,072

As Table 1 indicates, since FY 2021, there has been a decrease in both applications

for Type 01 licenses and the total number of Type 01 licensees in each fiscal year. The EIB

rule was intended to facilitate the recognition by more people that they must acquire a

license, which ATF expected would increase the number of persons becoming licensed as

dealers. However, that expected outcome has not occurred since the EIB rule became

effective. Instead, the number of Type 01 applications filed after the EIB rule continued to

decline, as did the number of Type 01 licensees. In FY 2024, ATF received 4,350 Type 01

applications and listed 47,776 Type 01 licensees. In FY 2025, ATF received a total of 4,160

Type 01 applications and listed 46,072 Type 01 licensees. As a result, contrary to ATF’s

intended expectation from the EIB rule, the EIB rule did not result in an increase in Type 01

licensees.

Personal collection

The EIB rule created a general definition of “personal collection” in 27 CFR 478.11

to identify the kinds of firearms that fall into the statutory exception to the definition of

engaged in the business. Section 478.13(a) states that the term “engaged in the business”

does not “include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms

for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the

person’s personal collection of firearms.” This exception mirrors the statutory text, whichcreated this narrow, predetermined exception to the general rule that applies to all firearms

(and which still only requires a license if a person devotes time, attention, and labor to

repetitively purchasing and reselling firearms in the regular course of business with

predominant intent to profit). This narrow statutory exception to the general rule was created

by Congress to recognize that persons who collect firearms or own them for hobby purposes

might occasionally purchase and resell those firearms to enhance or liquidate their collection

and would be unlikely to be doing so as a profit-making course of business.

The general rule in the statute sets out a test for determining when firearms are being

sold in such a manner as to qualify as being engaged in the business. That test includes, as a

key element, intending predominantly to earn a profit from purchasing and reselling

firearms—without distinguishing what kind of firearm, who owns the firearm, or listing all

the other reasons persons might own the firearms. It is only in the exception that Congress

specified a particular set of firearms owned for particular purposes—personal collecting or

hobbies—which, if resold only occasionally, would automatically be treated as not being

engaged in the business.

The EIB rule added two parts to the definition of “personal collection” in § 478.11.

First, the rule defined “personal collection” to mean “[p]ersonal firearms that a person

accumulates for study, comparison, exhibition (e.g., collecting curios or relics, or collecting

unique firearms to exhibit at gun club events), or for a hobby (e.g., noncommercial,

recreational activities for personal enjoyment, such as hunting, skeet, target, or competition

shooting, historical re-enactment, or noncommercial firearms safety instruction).” Second,

the rule provided: “In addition, the term shall not include firearms accumulated primarily for

personal protection: Provided, that nothing in this definition shall be construed as precluding

a person from lawfully acquiring firearms for self-protection or other lawful personal use.”

There are strong arguments that the rule improperly attempted to narrow the categories of

accumulated firearms that would constitute a collection.The EIB rule adopted a narrower conception of what purposes in gathering firearms

might qualify for a “personal collection” by reading “personal collection” in 18 U.S.C.

921(a)(21)(C) with reference to the definition of “collector” in section 921(a)(13). On

reflection, ATF believes that that interpretation overreads section 921(a)(13). Although the

words have the same root (“collect”), the definition of “personal collection” in section

921(a)(21)(C) materially differs from the definition of “collector” in section 921(a)(13)

because of the separate functions that each provision serves. The function of “collector” and

“licensed collector” in paragraph (a)(13) is to designate a person who collects a limited class

of historical firearms (those defined as “curios or relics”), for which the GCA establishes

special licensing rules to facilitate noncommercial interstate buying and selling. In contrast,

the function of “personal collection” in section 921(a)(21)(C) is to create a safe harbor for

when an individual sells multiple firearms that he had previously accumulated for personal,

noncommercial use—with for personal, noncommercial use being the key distinction.

Consequently, there is no inconsistency between understanding “personal collection” to

mean firearms held by a person for private, noncommercial purposes, while recognizing that

certain types of collectors do not qualify as statutory “collectors” and, thus, cannot utilize the

special licensing provisions for those who collect curio and relic firearms. This definition

also harmonizes the GCA provision for licensees to have a “personal collection of firearms,”

18 U.S.C. 923(c)—that is, firearms the licensee maintains for personal, noncommercial use.

The EIB rule rested its amendments, in part, on narrow definitions of “collection.”

See 89 FR 28980 and n.88 (relying on Merriam-Webster’s definition to restrict a personal

collection to only those objects “gathered for study, comparison, or exhibition or as a

hobby”); 89 FR 29038, n.216 (relying on Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition, ‘‘a group of

interesting or beautiful objects brought together in order to show or study them or as a

hobby’’). Given these narrow definitions, the Department previously concluded that a

personal collection is limited to firearms “that a person accumulates for study, comparison,exhibition . . ., or for a hobby.” 27 CFR 478.11. Indeed, the Department specifically excluded

“firearms accumulated primarily for personal protection” as not part of a personal collection.

Id.

ATF now believes that the definitions identified by the EIB rule are too restrictive.

Individuals are engaged in the business when their relationship with the firearms is primarily

commercial—they are buying and selling for profit rather than for personal, noncommercial

use for self-defense, target shooting, gun collecting, hunting, and other lawful uses. To avoid

any contrary suggestion, ATF proposes rescinding subsection (1) of the definition.

Although ATF proposes rescinding subsection (1) of the definition of “personal

collection,” ATF believes subsection (2) of the definition, which defines licensee personal

collections, clearly and informatively sets out the actions licensees can take to distinguish a

personal firearm from a business one and comply with 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C). This aspect

of the definition provides greater clarity that aids the public in complying with the statute,

and ATF is therefore proposing to retain this portion of the definition.

Former licensee inventory

In conjunction with the licensee personal collection definition, the EIB rule also

added a definition in § 478.11 for “former licensee inventory” and set out guidelines a

licensee must follow to dispose of its firearms inventory when it is discontinuing business,

particularly if its license is revoked. The regulation treats all firearms purchased as part of a

licensee’s business inventory while licensed as retaining that classification indefinitely

because “they were purchased repetitively before the license was terminated as part of a

licensee’s business inventory with the predominant intent to earn a profit.” This definition,

together with §§ 478.57 (discontinuance of business) and 478.78 (operations by licensee after

notice), limits a former licensee to disposing of the inventory within 30 days after it

discontinues business and effectively prevents former licensees from reclassifying inventory

purchased repetitively with the intent to resell for profit while licensed as personal firearmsin a “personal collection” after they become unlicensed. See 27 CFR 478.57(b)(2) (providing

that a licensee may “[t]ransfer the former licensee inventory to a responsible person of the

former licensee to whom the receipt, possession, sale, or other disposition is not prohibited

by law,” but that any such transfer “does not negate the fact that the firearms were

repetitively purchased, and were purchased with the predominant intent to earn a profit by

repetitive purchase and resale”). The EIB rule explicitly authorized former licensees to sell

firearms only (1) “within 30 days [of termination of a license], or such additional period

approved by the Director for good cause,” or (2) on an “occasional” basis “thereafter to a

licensee.” 27 CFR 478.78(b)–(c). In other words, outside the 30-day window (and barring an

extension for good cause), former licensees were restricted from selling business inventory to

anyone, except for occasional sales to current FFLs.

Although some process for addressing the inventory of former licensees is

appropriate, the effectively permanent restraint on firearms sales after the 30-day period is

arguably unlawful. For example, upon winding down operations, a former licensee could

absorb twenty firearms from his business inventory into his personal collection in good faith.

A former licensee who sold one or two such firearms years later to a non-licensee would not

be engaged in the business under the statutory definition, and the GCA does not by its terms

restrict occasional sales of such firearms only to other FFLs. Such conduct stands in contrast

to a former licensee who immediately continues selling firearms acquired as business

inventory in repeated transactions after his license is discontinued. ATF recognizes concerns

about former licensees attempting to hold “fire sales” of large swathes of inventory without

adhering to recordkeeping and background check requirements. However, such scenarios are

clearly covered by statutory language, which prohibits engaging in the business without a

license.24 By contrast, a situation where a former licensee sells an occasional firearm in a

24 See Gilbert v. Bangs, 481 F. App’x 52 (4th Cir. 2012); United States v. Kish, 424 F. App’x 398 (6th Cir.

2011).private sale years later does not constitute the repetitive purchasing and selling that the GCA

was intended to cover. The GCA does not authorize former licensees to engage in the

business. But it also does not impose encumbrances on all firearms that were previously part

of a business’s inventory.

For all these reasons, this rule proposes to amend regulations in 27 CFR part 478 that

were created or changed by the EIB rule as described below.

B. Proposed revisions

For the reasons discussed above, ATF is proposing the following regulatory changes

related to the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer as implemented in §§ 478.11

and 478.13 via the EIB rule. ATF proposes to (1) move the current definition of “engaged in

the business as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker,” set forth in §§

478.13(a) to 478.11, and (2) rescind § 478.13(b)–(h). Paragraphs (b) through (h) of § 478.13

include: (b) a statement that whether a person is engaged in the business as a dealer in

firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker is a fact-specific inquiry, (c) specific fact-

patterns establishing presumption that a person is engaged in the business as a dealer, (d) the

definition of “predominantly earn a profit,” (e) a list of conduct that does not support a

presumption, (f) evidence that may be used to rebut a presumption, (g) clarification that

itemized presumptions, conduct, and rebuttal evidence are not exhaustive lists, and (h)

clarification that the rebuttable presumptions do not apply to criminal proceedings.

ATF also proposes to retain the definition of “predominantly earn a profit” from §

478.13, with some revisions, and move it to § 478.11. The rest of § 478.13 would be

removed, except as provided in the following paragraph. ATF is also proposing to change the

definition of “personal collection” and remove the definition of “former licensee inventory,”

both in § 478.11. These proposed changes are described in detail below.

ATF proposes removing all of § 478.13 except: (1) the portion of the definition of

“engaged in the business as dealer in firearms other than gunsmith or pawnbroker” thatduplicates statutory language in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(21)(C); (2) the added exception for

auctioneers who provide only auction services on a commission by assisting persons to

liquidate firearms in an estate-type sale;25 and (3) a revised version of the definition of

“predominantly earn a profit.” Because these remaining portions of § 478.13 would no longer

be long enough to warrant a separate definition section, ATF proposes moving all three of

these remaining portions from § 478.13 to § 478.11 (meaning of terms), where other

relatively short definitions are located.

ATF would place the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer under

paragraph (3) in the definition of “engaged in the business,” and the existing language in

paragraph (3), which references § 478.13, would be removed. The paragraph would retain the

same heading and would read, “A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in

firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the

repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. The term does not include a person who makes

occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms to enhance a personal collection or for

a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person’s personal collection of firearms.”

ATF would also move the auctioneer exception to paragraph (3) within the definition

of “engaged in the business” under § 478.11, at the end of the new paragraph described

above. Historically, licensees and non-licensees seeking guidance on the proper and lawful

way to liquidate firearms, both in the regular course of their business or as an isolated

occurrence, have commonly raised questions about auctioneers. Because ATF has regularly

provided consistent guidance on what type of auction activity crosses the threshold to

25 See ATF, Does an Auctioneer Who Is Involved in Firearms Sales Need a Dealer’s License?,

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/questions-and-answers?page=2 (last reviewed July 10, 2020); ATF, ATF Federal

Firearms Regulations Reference Guide, ATF Publication 5300.4, Q&A L1, at 207-08 (2014),

53004/download [https://perma.cc/KD35-AEXU]; ATF, FFL Newsletter at 3 (May 2001),

https://www.atf.gov/media/28811/download [https://perma.cc/46KY-3VUM] ; ATF Ruling 96-2, Engaging in

the Business of Dealing in Firearms (Auctioneers) (Sept. 1996), https://www.atf.gov/file/55456/download

[https://perma.cc/RCJ2-QA9H]; ATF, FFL Newsletter at 7 (1990), https://www.atf.gov/media/28756/download

[https://perma.cc/L8QT-VTX6]; Letter for Editor, CarPac Publishing Company, from Acting Assistant Director

(Regulatory Enforcement), ATF, at 1–2 (July 26, 1979).constitute engaging in the business of dealing in firearms, the portion of the definition that

incorporates that exception into the regulation provides definitional clarity to the public and

licensed community. Therefore, ATF proposes retaining the portion of § 478.13 that codifies

ATF’s historical position, thus ensuring consistency for industry members. Modifying or

removing this part of the definition would likely cause undue and unnecessary confusion.

This proposed change would therefore add the following text to the end of paragraph (3): “In

addition, the term does not include an auctioneer who provides only auction services on

commission to assist in liquidating firearms at an estate-type auction, as long as the

auctioneer does not purchase the firearms or take possession of the firearms for sale or

consignment.”

ATF would move the text of the definition in § 478.13 of “predominantly earn a

profit” to a location under the same definitional heading in § 478.11, and it would remove the

text currently under that heading, which references § 478.13. It is necessary to retain this

definition to distinguish between, on the one hand, what constitutes engaging in the business

as a dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker; and, on the other hand, engaging

in the business as a gunsmith, pawnbroker, manufacturer, or importer—all of which continue

to require the “principal objective of livelihood and profit” that applied to dealers prior to

BSCA. The definition of “predominantly earn a profit” tracks the statutory definition;

however, ATF proposes making a minor change to one sentence of the definition, so it is

easier to read, without changing the meaning. Specifically, ATF proposes changing the

sentence, “Provided, that proof of profit, including the intent to profit, shall not be required

as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms

for criminal purposes or terrorism,” to “However, proof of profit, including the intent to

profit, is not required in cases in which the person engaged in regular and repetitive purchase

and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.” This change is in line with

one of the purposes for ATF’s implementing regulations, which is to aid the public inunderstanding and complying with statutory provisions, and it is consistent with laws

requiring plain writing. It does not modify or expand on the statutory meaning.

In addition, ATF proposes to remove the last sentence of the definition as it currently

exists in § 478.13, which reads, “For purposes of this section, a person may have the intent to

profit even if the person does not actually obtain the intended pecuniary gain from the sale or

disposition of firearms,” because this sentence is not in the statutory definition. The proposed

new definition of “predominantly earn a profit” would thus be “The intent underlying the sale

or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to

other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. However, proof

of profit, including the intent to profit, is not required in cases in which the person engaged in

the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or

terrorism.”

In addition to the above changes to § 478.13, ATF proposes two changes directly to §

478.11. Specifically, for the reasons discussed in section II.A of this preamble, ATF proposes

removing paragraph (1) of the definition of “personal collection (or personal collection of

firearms, or personal firearms collection),” moving paragraph (2) up to replace paragraph (1)

with changes necessary to conform it to regulatory paragraph designations, changing the

definition’s title to reflect the remaining content, and removing the definition “former

licensee inventory” entirely. The proposed heading for the definition of “personal collection

(or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection)” would instead be

“licensee personal collection (or personal collection of licensee).” The rest of the definitional

text would remain the same as currently in § 478.13, but the paragraph designation would

change because it would no longer be paragraph (2).

In addition, the rule proposes to make changes to § 478.57 (Discontinuance of

business). The proposed rule would remove from paragraphs § 478.57(b)(2) and (c) the

relevant sentences that effectively restrict former licensees from reselling their firearmswithout being presumed to be engaged in the business. Specifically, it would remove from §

478.57(b)(2) the sentence that reads: “Any such transfer, however, does not negate the fact

that the firearms were repetitively purchased, and were purchased with the predominant

intent to earn a profit by repetitive purchase and resale.” And it would remove from §

478.57(c) the second sentence that provides that a former FFL who resells any of its former

business inventory is subject to the provisions of § 478.13. Because this rule proposes to

remove § 478.13, the provisions in these paragraphs would no longer be relevant. And

because these provisions are also found in § 478.78 (Operations by licensee after notice), this

rule proposes to remove from § 478.78(b)(2) and (c) the same sentences.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to

select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes

the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing

rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This proposed rule would retain the definition of “engaged in the business” as

specifically revised and defined in BSCA. In addition, this proposed rule would revise 27

CFR 478.13 to rescind paragraphs (b)–(h), which includes rebuttable presumption fact

patterns as to whether a person is engaged in the business as a dealer and whether a person

has predominant intent to profit, a list of conduct that does not support a presumption,

evidence that may be used to rebut a presumption, and other provisions related to applying

the presumptions. In addition, the rule also proposes to retain the definition of

“predominantly earn a profit” with some revisions, to change the definition of “personal

collection” to apply only to licensee personal collections and remove the definition of“former licensee inventory.” These provisions were included in the EIB rule to aid persons in

understanding and applying the statutory change from BSCA. In addition, the EIB rule did

not result in the anticipated increase in the number of licensees. As a result, removing or

revising these additional provisions does not generate a cost to the public.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that, although this

rule would not be economically significant under section (3)(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866,

it would be a “significant regulatory action” under the Order. OMB has therefore reviewed

this rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Orders 12866 and

13563. This proposed rule would revert the definition of “engaged in the business” to the one

outlined specifically by statute, without the additional provisions added by the previous rule.

As a result, this proposed rule would provide qualitative benefits to the public in the form of

reduced confusion and reduced concerns about perceived risk of over-enforcement, as well as

qualitative costs in the form of potential increase in persons who should be licensed

remaining unlicensed. This rule would not create quantifiable costs or burdens for the public.

1. Need statement

The EIB rule included provisions in addition to the statutory definitional change from

BSCA, and those provisions did not result in the projected increase in licensees. As

illustrated in Table 2, the number of all FFL applications has been decreasing since 2021.

Between the time the NPRM for the EIB rule was published in 2023 and was later finalized

in 2024, the number of applications for all FFLs decreased overall.

Table 2. Number of FFL applications by year

Year FFL applications

2020 12,537

2021 13,879

2022 10,811

2023 9,237

2024 8,679

2025 8,648The intended clarifying provisions instead created confusion and raised concerns by

commenters on the rule that the provisions could be misapplied and misunderstood in ways

that would constitute violations of law. As a result, ATF has determined that these provisions

should be removed or revised and that the definition of engaged in the business as a dealer

should be primarily limited to the statutory definition. The only way to make these regulatory

adjustments is through a rulemaking.

2. Cost Savings

This proposed rule would align with the definition of “engaged in the business” as

defined in the statute. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, many firearms sales fall

outside the GCA’s definition of being engaged in the business. Nor are persons engaged in

the business if they repeatedly buy and sell primarily in order to maintain and enhance their

personal firearms collection rather than for profit. One of the qualitative cost savings of the

proposed rule is that it would reduce confusion and reduce the perceived risk of over-

enforcement. ATF, however, lacks the data necessary to quantify such savings.

Based on the historical data in Table 1 above, there were no incremental increases in

FFL dealer applications in the year and a half since the EIB rule was published; therefore, the

projected costs of that original rule, see 89 FR 29072–73 (analyzing expected costs for

unlicensed persons to become licenses), were not incurred. Furthermore, this rule would

maintain the minimum definitions as required by the statute. Costs arising from these

statutory definitions were already accounted for in the EIB rule. As a result, this proposed

rule would not have any quantifiable monetary cost savings.

3. Disbenefits

Potential qualitative disbenefits (i.e., adverse impacts) to this proposed rule may

include a de minimis increase in risk to public safety. In the EIB rule, ATF described

conditions in which an individual might be considered “engaged in the business” of selling

firearms. Some individuals who might have been active firearms sellers prior to the EIB rulemight have refrained from selling firearms after the EIB rule out of concern that their

conduct rose to the level of being “engaged in the business” because it would subject them to

the GCA’s requirements (e.g., record-keeping, conducting background checks, inspections).

If parts of the regulations implemented by the EIB rule are rescinded, these persons might

resume selling firearms actively without becoming licensed, just as they had prior to

publication of the EIB rule. This could mean that any risks regarding unlicensed sellers that

Congress perceived when initially enacting the GCA would not be addressed through

regulations clarifying the GCA’s requirements.

4. Regulatory alternatives

Alternative 1. Maintaining the status quo (the no-action alternative).

During the previous Administration, ATF published the EIB rule, in which ATF

included the statutorily revised definition of engaged in the business as a dealer and

additional regulatory provisions to further define and clarify the term and how persons could

determine its application. Upon further consideration, ATF has determined that the ensuing

confusion from these additional provisions may impose additional risks on members of the

public, who might interpret the rule as prohibiting them from purchasing firearms for self-

defense or protection and might make them feel chilled in purchasing and reselling personal

firearms occasionally without predominant intent to profit, as intended by Congress. Because

these provisions were added to ATF’s regulations, they would remain in effect unless ATF

were to engage in rulemaking to revise them. Therefore, ATF rejects maintaining the status

quo as an alternative due to the risk of chilling lawful firearms activities.

Alternative 2. Rulemaking (the proposed alternative).

ATF considered the alternative of rulemaking to revise or remove non-statutorily

required provisions in the current regulatory definition of engaged in the business as a dealer.

This would cause the regulatory definition to consist primarily of the statutory definition as

revised by Congress in BSCA. Based on historical data, there would be no additionalquantifiable costs or benefits incurred to the public from this proposed alternative. Revising

these regulatory provisions may reduce confusion that the added regulatory provisions may

have caused; however, it could conversely increase risk from active sellers, who are not

licensed, who resume sales and thus do not conduct background checks to ensure that

prohibited persons do not acquire firearms on the secondary market. Nevertheless, ATF

believes that the potential impact on public safety is de minimis. A solution, such as

guidance, would not have the same effect on existing regulatory provisions, as guidance

cannot contradict the regulations. As a result, ATF has determined that rulemaking is the best

alternative and the only way to remove the provisions that were causing confusion.

Alternative 3. Issuing guidance.

This alternative was considered but rejected. While this alternative would not impose

any additional costs, it would not rescind the presumptions currently published in regulation

or correct the other issues with the regulatory supplement to the “engaged in the business”

definition. As mentioned above, maintaining the legal presumptions in regulations would

continue to create concerns among the regulated public that ATF is illegitimately attempting

to relieve the Government of its burden of proof in civil and administrative proceedings. One

court has already opined that the presumptions are highly problematic because “they flip the

statute on its head by requiring that firearm owners prove innocence rather than the

government prove guilt.”26 Thus, ATF has determined that removing presumptions from the

regulations avoids the risk that, in real-world practice, the presumptions could have been

used to relieve the Government of its burden of proof. Leaving the presumptions in the

regulations while issuing guidance alone would not remedy the problems as discussed.

Therefore, issuing guidance as an alternative in lieu of removing the regulatory language at

issue was rejected.

B. Executive Order 14192

26 Texas v. ATF, 737 F. Supp. 3d at 442.Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an

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

revised when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates

a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action (defined in

OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 that imposes total costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this

requirement, section 3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs

associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, also be offset by

eliminating existing costs associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this

proposed rule would not be an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action. Although it would

be a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, it would not impose

total costs greater than zero. This proposed rule would provide qualitative benefits by

reducing confusion and concerns about perceived over-enforcement, specifically entailing

qualitative benefits to current and future firearm owners. Although it is possible that

removing the proposed provisions would result in some risk to public safety from persons

who would no longer feel constrained in dealing in firearms without a license, such a risk is

qualitative and speculative, imposing no quantifiable costs. Therefore, as discussed above,

this rule would not impose any additional quantifiable monetized costs, and total costs would

be less than zero. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an

Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a

final action that imposes total costs less than zero).

C. Executive Order 14294

Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations)

requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially

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

enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each elementof those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory offense and is

thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

D. Executive Order 13132

This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the states, the

relationship between the federal Government and the states, or the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with

section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that this

proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local

governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not

warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement.

E. Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

basis, that the impact on proposed rule statement of the factual small entities. Small would not have a significant economic

a substantial number of entities include certain small

businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than

50,000.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is

deregulatory and would not impose any additional costs, including on small entities. The

proposed rule would remove or amend certain provisions related to the definition of engagedin the business as a dealer, the provisions of which expanded the scope of the definition

beyond the statute. The confusion and perceptions about these provisions have caused many

individuals to believe they might have to obtain a license in order to sell personal firearms

from their personal collections, for example. Although the EIB rule anticipated that the rule

would cause some persons operating unlicensed small businesses to become licensed as

dealers of firearms, ATF—as explained above in section II.A of this preamble—has not

observed an actual increase in the rate of licensure since the issuance of the EIB rule. In light

of the EIB rule’s apparent lack of effect on the operation of small businesses, ATF does not

believe that repealing certain provisions of EIB rule as proposed in this rule would affect

such businesses. Therefore, ATF does not believe that this proposed rule, if finalized, would

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ATF

nonetheless welcomes comments on any potential effects of this proposed rule on small

entities.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector,

of $100 million or more in any one year, and it 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 would impact four existing information collections covered under the PRA. Althoughthis rule involves the existing information collections, the proposed changes to the rule would

not add to or change the burden imposed on the information collection respondent as

compared to existing, OMB-approved requirements.

Licensing Information Collection Requirements (“ICRs”)

Numbers and titles: OMB control number 1140-0018, Application for a Federal

Firearms License, ATF Form 5310.12/ 5310.16 (“Form 7/7CR”), and OMB control number

1140-0019, Application for a Federal Firearms License — Renewal Application, ATF Form

5310.11 (“Form 8”)

Abstract: 18 U.S.C. chapter 44 prohibits any person from engaging in the business of

importing, manufacturing, or dealing in either firearms or ammunition without first obtaining

a license to do so. These activities are licensed for a specific period. The statute also provides

for a collector’s license. Persons who need to obtain a license submit Form 7/7CR to ATF,

and licensees who wish to continue to engage in the aforementioned firearms activities

without interruption, must renew their license by filing Form 8 before the current license

period expires.

Purpose: ATF uses Form 7 to identify the applicant and determine eligibility to

obtain a firearms license, and ATF uses Form 8 to identify the applicant and determine

eligibility to retain the license. Without these information collections, ATF would not be able

to issue or renew licenses to persons required by law to have a license to engage in the

business of dealing in firearms or shipping or transporting firearms in interstate or foreign

commerce in support of that business, or acquire curio and relic firearms from out of state.

The proposed rule does not change the requirements or purposes covered under these

information collections.

Record-keeping ICRs

Numbers and titles: OMB control number 1140-0020, Firearms Transaction Record,

ATF Form 5300.9 (“Form 4473”), and OMB control number 1140-0032, Records ofAcquisition and Disposition, Dealers of Type 01/02 Firearms, and Collectors of Type 03

Firearms

Abstract: 18 U.S.C. 922 and 923, and implementing regulations at 27 CFR 478.124,

prohibit certain persons from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms. All

persons, including FFLs, are therefore prohibited from transferring firearms to such persons.

FFLs are also subject to additional restrictions on disposing of a firearm to an unlicensed

person under the GCA. For example, age and State of residence also determine whether a

person may lawfully receive a firearm. Form 4473 enables FFLs to determine if they may

lawfully sell or deliver a firearm to the prospective transferee, and to alert the buyer or other

transferee of certain restrictions on receiving and possessing firearms. The licensee must

determine the transaction’s lawfulness and maintain proper records of the transaction. The

GCA, 18 U.S.C. 923, also requires that licensees must keep records of each firearm they

acquire and dispose of, and ATF implementing regulations in 27 CFR 478.23(c)(1) and (2)

set forth the details required for those records, which are in addition to the Form 4473, the

purpose of which is primarily for a licensee to determine whether the requested sale is lawful.

Purpose: The Form 4473 information collection aids licensees in obtaining the

necessary information from which to make that determination and to use when submitting a

required NICS background check, and also serves as a record of the transaction, all of which

are necessary for the licensee to comply with the statutory requirements. The acquisition and

disposition record-keeping requirements ICR permits ATF to examine records during

inspections to ensure that licensees are complying with statutory and regulatory

requirements, and also serve as records licensees may search in response to a crime-gun trace

request from law enforcement agencies conduction investigations into crimes in which a

firearm was used.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments soughtATF 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-AB01 and, if handwritten,

must be legible. If submitting by mail, you must also include your complete first and last

name and contact information. If submitting a comment through the federal e-rulemaking

portal, as described in section IV.C of this preamble, you should carefully review and follow

the website’s instructions on submitting comments. Whether you submit comments online or

by mail, ATF will post them online. If submitting online as an individual, any information

you provide in the online fields for city, state, zip code, and phone will not be publicly

viewable when ATF publishes the comment on https://www.regulations.gov. However, if you

include such personally identifying information (“PII”) in the body of your online comment,

it may be posted and viewable online. Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in

the body of the comment, it may be posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters

should review section IV.B of this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII

if you do not want it published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that

do not meet these requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain

comments containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record,

but will not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all

comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF

cannot read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before the

closing date.B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether

submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public

viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the Freedom

of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who do not 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-AB01. 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. IfATF 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 RIN1140-AB01).

Severability

Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised in this proposed

rule may be finalized, or not, independently of each other, after consideration of comments

received. ATF has determined that this proposed rule implements and is fully consistent with

governing law. However, in the event this proposed rule is finalized, if any provision of that

final rule, an amendment or revision made by that rule, or the application of such provision

or amendment or revision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid or

unenforceable by its terms, the remainder of that final rule, the amendments or revisions

made by that rule, and application of the provisions of the rule to any person or circumstance

shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give them the maximum effect permitted

by law.

List of subjects in 27 CFR part 478

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Freight,

Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 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. Amend § 478.11 by:

a. Revising paragraph (3) of the definition of “engaged in the business” (“dealer in

firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker”); the definition of “personal collection (or

personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection)”, including its title; and thedefinition of “predominantly earn a profit”; and

b. Removing the definition of “former licensee inventory”.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 478.11 Meaning of Terms

Engaged in the business– * * *

* * * * *

(3) Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker. A person who devotes

time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to

predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. The term

does not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms to

enhance a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of the person’s personal

collection of firearms. In addition, the term does not include an auctioneer who provides only

auction services on commission to assist in liquidating firearms at an estate-type auction, as

long as the auctioneer does not purchase the firearms or take possession of the firearms for

sale or consignment.

* * * * *

Licensee personal collection (or personal collection of licensee). In the case of a

firearm imported, manufactured, or otherwise acquired by a licensed manufacturer, importer,

or dealer, the personal collection includes only firearms that were:

(a) Acquired or transferred without the intent to willfully evade the restrictions placed

upon licensees by 18 U.S.C. chapter 44;

(b) Recorded by the licensee as an acquisition in the licensee’s acquisition and

disposition record in accordance with §§ 478.122(a), 478.123(a), or 478.125(e) (unless

acquired prior to licensure and not intended for sale);

(c) Recorded as a disposition from the licensee’s business inventory to the licensee’s

personal collection or otherwise as a personal firearm in accordance with §§ 478.122(a),478.123(a), or 478.125(e) (unless acquired prior to licensure and not intended for sale);

(d) Maintained in such personal collection or otherwise as a personal firearm

(whether on or off the business premises) for at least one year from the date the firearm was

so transferred, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 923(c) and 27 CFR 478.125a; and

(e) Stored separately from, and not commingled with, the business inventory. When

stored or displayed on the business premises, the personal collection and other personal

firearms must be appropriately identified as “not for sale” (e.g., by attaching a tag).

* * *

Predominantly earn a profit. The intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms

is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as

improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. However, proof of profit, including

the intent to profit, is not required in cases in which the person engaged in the regular and

repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.

* * * * *

§ 478.13 [Removed and Reserved]

3. Remove and reserve § 478.13.

§ 478.57 [Amend]

4. Amend § 478.57 by removing from paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) the second sentence.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 478.57 Discontinuance of business.

* * * * *

(b) * * * * *

(2) Transfer the former licensee inventory to a responsible person of the former

licensee to whom the receipt, possession, sale, or other disposition is not prohibited by law.

(c) Transfers of former licensee inventory to a licensee or responsible person in

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall be appropriately recorded asdispositions, in accordance with §§ 478.122(b), 478.123(b), or 478.125(e), prior to delivering

the records after discontinuing business consistent with § 478.127.

* * * * *

§ 478.78 [Amend]

5. Amend § 478.78 by removing from paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) the second sentence.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 478.78 Operations by licensee after notice.

* * * * *

(b) * * * * *

(2) Transfer the former licensee inventory to a responsible person of the former

licensee to whom the receipt, possession, sale, or other disposition is not prohibited by law.

(c) Transfers of former licensee inventory to a licensee or responsible person in

accordance with paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section shall be appropriately recorded as

dispositions, in accordance with §§ 478.122(b), 478.123(b), or 478.125(e), prior to delivering

the records after discontinuing business consistent with § 478.127.

* * * * *

Robert Cekada,

Director.

The post New Proposed Rule: Revising Regulations Defining “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms appeared first on FFL+.

What this rule means
“Straw purchasing” has always been illegal under federal law, but it has never been clearly defined in ATF regulations—it’s been based on:

• Statutes
• Court decisions
• ATF guidance

This rule puts all of that into one clear regulatory definition.

It defines:

• What a straw purchase is
• What is NOT a straw purchase
• The difference between:
  • Lying to an FFL (traditional straw purchase)
  • Buying for a prohibited person (separate and more serious category) 

What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:

1. Create a formal definition of “straw purchaser”
   Two main categories:

A) Material misrepresentation (“lying and buying”)

• Saying you are the actual buyer when you are really buying for someone else

B) Purchasing for a prohibited person

• Buying a firearm for someone you know (or should know):
  • Is prohibited
  • Plans to commit a crime
  • Plans to transfer to a prohibited person

2. Clearly define what is NOT a straw purchase
   This is one of the most important parts:

The rule explicitly allows:

• Bona fide gifts (no money or value exchanged)
• Parents buying for minor children
• Spouses purchasing firearms (shared finances situations)
• Redeeming pawned firearms
• Picking up repaired firearms
• Consignment returns
• Raffle winnings
• Inheritance transfers

3. Clarify “gift vs. straw purchase”

• Gift = OK if:
  • No compensation
• NOT a gift if:
  • Someone gives you money (or value) to buy it

4. Clarify spousal transactions

• If both spouses are legal and live together:
  • It doesn’t matter who fills out the form or pays
• BUT:
  • Buying for a prohibited spouse is still illegal

5. Reinforce FFL responsibility

• FFLs cannot transfer a firearm if they:
  • Know or have reason to believe it’s a straw purchase

What will change (real-world impact)

For Individuals:

• More clarity on what is legal vs illegal
• Safer ground for:
  • Gifts
  • Family transactions
• But also:
  • Less ambiguity = easier enforcement in questionable situations

For FFLs (Primary Compliance Impact):

• Clearer guidance on:
  • When to deny a sale
• May lead to:
  • More consistent decisions across the industry
• Reduces confusion around:
  • Spouses
  • Gifts
  • Third-party pickups

For enforcement:

• Stronger, clearer regulatory basis for prosecutions
• Aligns regulation with:
  • Supreme Court precedent (Abramski)
  • Statutory changes (2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act)

For the system overall:

• Moves from:
  • Case law + guidance → formal regulation
• Reduces ambiguity but increases clarity in enforcement

Key Takeaways

• Does not create new crimes—clarifies existing ones
• Clearly separates legal transactions from illegal straw purchases
• Protects common lawful behavior (gifts, family transactions)
• Strengthens enforcement against intentional circumvention

Proposed Rule to Be Published:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 478

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0013; ATF No. 2025R-41P]

RIN 1140-AA78

Firearms Transactions and Straw Purchases

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 provide clarity

for conduct prohibited by federal law commonly referred to as a straw purchase.

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-AA78, 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-AA78.Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN

1140-AA78) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM” or “proposed rule”). ATF

may post all properly completed comments it receives from either of the methods

described above, without change to the federal e-rulemaking portal,

https://www.regulations.gov. This includes any personally identifying information (“PII”)

or business proprietary information (“PROPIN”) submitted in the body of the comment

or as part of a related attachment they want posted. Commenters who submit through the

federal e-rulemaking portal and do not want any of their PII posted on the internet should

omit it from the body of their comment and any uploaded attachments that they want

posted. If online commenters wish to submit PII with their comment, they should place it

in a separate attachment and mark it at the top with the marking “CUI/PRVCY.”

Commenters who submit through mail should likewise omit their PII or PROPIN from

the body of the comment and provide any such information on the cover sheet only,

marking it at the top as “CUI/PRVCY” for PII, or as “CUI/PROPIN” for PROPIN. For

detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the

rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a

summary of this rule may be found at https://www.regulations.gov. Commenters must

submit comments by using one of the methods described above, not by emailing the

address set forth in the following paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by

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

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

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

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968

(“GCA”), as amended. This responsibility includes the authority to promulgate

regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA.1 See 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering

and enforcing the GCA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the

Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1); 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.

The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921–934, is a comprehensive federal firearms regulatory

scheme. For example, section 922 prohibits certain firearm transactions and makes

certain individuals ineligible to possess or receive a firearm; section 923 sets forth the

licensing requirements for certain individuals and organizations engaged in the firearms

business and their legal obligations during a firearm transfer to an unlicensed person; and

section 924 sets forth the penalties for substantive statutory violations.

When an individual seeks to acquire a firearm from a federal firearms licensee

(“FFL”), the parties must comply with a series of statutory and regulatory requirements,

to include identification verification requirements. This allows FFLs to verify that the

person receiving the firearm at the point of purchase/transfer (i.e., the immediate

transferee) may lawfully possess the firearm. Additionally, properly identifying the

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 relating 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.immediate transferee of the firearm in the FFL’s records is a critical step in aiding law

enforcement with tracing a firearm used in violent crime. A straw purchase case arises

when the immediate transferee provides false information on the ATF Form 5300.9,

Firearms Transaction Record (“Form 4473”) that is material to the lawfulness of the

firearm transfer, or the immediate transferee purchases a firearm with intent to convey the

firearm to a prohibited person, a person who intends to commit a felony, federal crime of

terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime, or a person who intends to transfer the firearm to a

prohibited person. Commonly, the true purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm is

ineligible to lawfully purchase a firearm; or, for any other reason does not want to

undergo a background check, complete the required Form 4473, and be documented as

the purchaser. The use of a straw purchaser effectively hides the identity of the true

purchaser/ultimate recipient of the firearm and circumvents the regulatory requirements

for a firearm transfer by forgoing background checks and impeding the ability of law

enforcement to trace guns involved in the commission of a crime to the true

purchaser/ultimate recipient.

Traditionally, federal law did not define the term “straw purchase” in statute or

regulation. The legal doctrine concerning straw purchase currently involves three federal

provisions: 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), 924(a)(1)(A), and 932. Prior to the enactment of the

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA”) in 2022, sections 922(a)(6) and

924(a)(1)(A) encompassed the criminal conduct of providing false information to an FFL

as part of a straw purchase. Criminal conduct under these sections is commonly known as

“lying and buying” because section 922(a)(6) criminalizes a person, in connection with

the acquisition or attempted acquisition of a firearm or ammunition from an FFL,

knowingly making any false or fictitious statement or exhibiting false, fictitious, or

misrepresented identification, which is intended or likely to deceive the FFL with respectto any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition under the provisions

of 18 U.S.C. chapter 44.

Similarly, section 924(a)(1)(A) makes it unlawful to knowingly make any false

statement or representation with respect to the information required to be kept in the

records of an FFL. Both statutory provisions criminalize “straw purchasing” by focusing

on the false statement or representation by the immediate transferee to the FFL.

Commonly, a false statement by the immediate transferee on the Form 4473 that they are

the actual buyer when buying the firearm for someone else is the basis for criminal

prosecution because the immediate transferee causes the FFL to record the incorrect

transferee in the acquisition and disposition record that the FFL is required to maintain.

The straw-purchase doctrine that grew around these criminal provisions had an

ambiguity concerning materiality. Initially, ATF maintained a narrower interpretation of

straw purchasing because it viewed it as occurring only when a person purchased a

firearm on behalf of the actual purchaser who was a prohibited person. This is the

“narrower” understanding of a straw purchase. In other words, ATF did not deem

purchasing a firearm on behalf of an eligible buyer to be a materially false statement to

the transaction. See ATF Industry Circular 79-10 (Aug. 7, 1979), reprinted in (Your

Guide To) Federal Firearms Regulation 78, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-

library/abstracts/your-guide-firearms-regulation-1978 [https://perma.cc/VDF9-3LSM].

This position changed in 1994 when ATF adopted a broader understanding of the term

straw purchase. There is case law to support the position that 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) can be

charged where the actual purchaser participating in the straw purchase is qualified to

purchase a firearm and a false statement is made concerning the true purchaser of the

firearm. This false statement is “material to the lawfulness of the sale.” See United States

v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973, 979 (5th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Carter, 60

F.3d 825 (4th Cir. 1995).Congress codified the narrower understanding of the straw purchase doctrine, i.e.,

a purchase for a prohibited person or person falling into other categories identified by

Congress, when it passed BSCA in 2022. In BSCA, Congress added 18 U.S.C. 932,

which prohibits any person from knowingly purchasing, or conspiring to purchase, any

firearm in or otherwise affecting interstate or foreign commerce for, on behalf of, or at

the request or demand of another person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe

such other person is prohibited from possessing firearms; intends to use or carry the

firearm in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism or a drug trafficking crime;

or intends to sell or give the firearm to any person who is prohibited or a person who

intends to use or carry the firearm in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism,

or a drug trafficking crime. Notably, unlike sections 924(a)(1)(A) and 922(a)(6), this

section applies to any purchase or disposition of a firearm, not just transfers from FFLs.

As mentioned above, it was in 1994 when ATF concluded that purchasing a

firearm on behalf of another person qualified as a materially false statement even if the

other person (the actual purchaser or ultimate recipient) was not prohibited from

possessing a firearm under federal law. In reaching this conclusion, ATF noted that these

types of purchases inhibited the ability to trace firearms and resulted in the failure to

complete a background check mandated by the Brady Act on the actual purchaser or

recipient of the firearm.

In 2014, the Supreme Court agreed with the broader understanding of straw

purchase. In Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), the Supreme Court held that

a transferee’s false statement to an FFL dealer that he was the actual purchaser on a Form

4473 was a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) regardless of whether the

true purchaser and ultimate recipient could legally possess the firearm. Like ATF, the

Court noted that these statements inhibited background checks and firearm tracing.

Following Abramski, a straw purchase under sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) hingeson false statements by the individual involved in the firearms transaction to the FFL

regardless of whether the true purchaser and ultimate recipient of the firearm is

prohibited from receiving a firearm under federal law.

In accordance with the broader understanding of straw purchasing, versions of the

Form 4473 issued after 1994 have required the transferee to certify that he is the “actual

transferee/buyer” of the firearm. The Form 4473 has included instructions, which have

evolved over time, as to when a person is the “actual transferee/buyer.” As of this

drafting, the current Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) advises that a person is an actual

transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing or acquiring a firearm for him/herself (e.g.,

redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner)

or if purchasing the firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. The Form 4473 also

advises that a “gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person

completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for

him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the

firearm.” The Form 4473 (revised Aug. 2023) continues with examples of when a person

is not considered the “actual transferee/buyer” of the firearm. Specifically,

Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may

not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is

NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER OF THE FIREARM.” However, if

“Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift

(with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black), Mr. Brown is the

actual transferee/buyer of the firearm.”

ATF has always understood the broader straw purchase doctrine to exclude

certain firearm acquisitions on behalf of another. Most notably, a straw purchase does not

occur when a person purchases a firearm as a bona fide gift for another as the gift giver

(i.e., the actual purchaser) receives nothing of value for the firearm from the gift

recipient. If, however, a person receives money or other value from the intended

recipient, then the purchase is not a gift, and the intended recipient is the true purchaser.Additionally, ATF has long understood the straw-purchase doctrine to exclude

instances where parents purchase firearms on behalf of their minor children. See Firearms

Regulation Guide (1978) at 82 (“A parent or guardian may purchase firearms and

ammunition for a juvenile. GCA age restrictions are intended only to prevent juveniles

from acting without their parents’ or guardians’ knowledge.”)]; see also Firearms

Regulation Guide (1988-89) at 84 (advising the same). In this scenario, the parent

purchases the firearm and takes responsibility for the weapon. The age restrictions in the

GCA were designed to stop the unsupervised acquisition of firearms by minors; the GCA

was not intended to prevent lawful possession or use by a minor. See S. Rep. No. 90–

1097, at 79 (1968) (explaining that under the GCA “a minor or juvenile would not be

restricted from owning or learning the proper usage of the firearm,” as any firearm

“which his parent or guardian desired him to have could be obtained for the minor or

juvenile by the parent or guardian.”). There are additional scenarios that are not

considered straw purchases, including pawn redemption or consignment and storage

pick-up. The instructions on the current Form 4473 provide: “For purposes of this form, a

person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is . . . acquiring the firearm for him/herself.

(e.g., redeeming the firearm from pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle

winner.).” Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Revised Aug. 2023),

atf-form-53009/download [https://perma.cc/H2R2-G6PR].

ATF has also permitted the retrieval of firearms left for repair for another person

provided the person receiving the firearm is not prohibited. The Form 4473 (revised Aug.

2023) under Question 21.a. currently provides that, “[i]f you are only picking up a

repaired firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a.,” which asks

whether the individual is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm listed on the form.

Although the individual acquiring the firearm from the FFL is not the actual transferee orultimate recipient, ATF does not consider a straw purchase to have occurred in these

kinds of limited scenarios.

ATF has recently received inquiries regarding the gift of firearms or the purchase

of firearms as marital property. This has led to some confusion among FFLs whether a

purchase may be completed using money from a spouse or with a spouse present. ATF

also continues to receive questions seeking clarification regarding who the actual

transferee or purchaser of a firearm is for transactions involving redemptions from pawn,

gunsmith repairs, consignment, storage, and bona fide gifts. In light of the need for more

clarity to distinguish between the illegal conduct that constitutes a straw purchase and

other behavior that does not come within ATF’s historical understanding of a straw

purchase, this rule proposes to add 27 CFR 478.105 to clarify the legal distinctions

between unlawful straw purchases and lawful third-party transfers.

II. Proposed rule

The rule proposes to create a new section in part 478 that would restate the law of

straw purchasing. Paragraph (a) of the new section would make clear that a buyer of a

firearm may not obtain a firearm from an FFL by being a straw purchaser and an FFL

may not sell a firearm to a person who he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a

straw purchaser.

The remainder of the new section would describe who a “straw purchaser” is to

explain two types of straw purchases. The new section would clearly demarcate two types

of straw purchasing: (1) straw purchasing by making a material misstatement, which is

elaborated by paragraphs (b)–(d), and (2) straw purchasing by purchasing for a prohibited

person, which is elaborated by paragraph (e).

Paragraphs (b) and (c) would explain the longstanding interpretation of 18 U.S.C.

922(a)(6) as applied to straw purchasing, consistent with federal case law and the broader

understanding of straw purchase (i.e., purchasing on behalf of another person even if thatperson is not a prohibited person under the GCA). Particularly, paragraph (c) would

delineate categories of lawful transactions that do not constitute straw purchases under

paragraph (b), such as bona fide gifts, parental purchases for a “minor child” (which

would be defined in paragraph (d)), purchases among spouses, and redemption or repair

of firearms by their lawful owners. Importantly, these exceptions cover only straw

purchases by material misstatement.

Paragraph (e) would address a different kind of straw purchasing: the purchase of

a firearm for a prohibited person. Congress codified this kind of straw purchasing as a

criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 932. This regulation reiterates and clarifies those prohibited

transactions. Paragraph (e) would clarify that the exceptions listed in paragraph (c) to

straw purchases by material misstatements do not apply to the prohibition against making

straw purchases for a prohibited person. This clarification is important especially in cases

of spousal transfers. A common straw purchase transaction involves one spouse

purchasing on behalf of a prohibited spouse. This rule would make clear that such

conduct is prohibited. On the other hand, among two spouses who may lawfully possess

firearms and live at the same address, it does not matter which spouse fills out the form or

hands over the money. Both the firearm and the funds used to pay for it will likely be

martial property. For tracing purposes, the form will identify the name of a responsible

adult who acquired the firearm and the correct address where that person lives. The

exceptions to straw purchasing for spouses and for minor children under age 21 reflect

that ATF will not micromanage family affairs. ATF retains an interest in such

transactions only when a member of the family is prohibited by law from possessing a

firearm.

As discussed above, the GCA is a comprehensive federal firearms regulatory

scheme that was enacted to reduce violent crime by preventing felons and other

prohibited persons from acquiring firearms. It ensures that the federal government cantrace firearms involved in a crime to locate the perpetrator(s) through accurate records of

FFLs showing the actual purchasers of the firearms and provide crime gun intelligence to

locate and disrupt firearm trafficking networks using multiple sale reports with accurate

purchaser information. ATF uses the crime gun intelligence model because it focuses on

generating actionable intelligence related to connecting, identifying, and disrupting

firearms violence through evidence-based methods using forensics and law enforcement

investigations.3 These objectives are enforced through a combination of background

checks, identification verification, and accurate record-keeping by FFLs, all of which

depend on truthful identification of the actual transferee or purchaser. Straw purchasing

undermines the statutory objectives of the GCA by subverting this regulatory framework.

While such conduct must remain clearly unlawful, not all third-party acquisitions

are improper. As described above, longstanding ATF guidance has acknowledged that

individuals may purchase firearms as bona fide gifts for others, provided no

compensation is received and the recipient is not otherwise prohibited. Federal law does

not bar private transfers or gifts between unlicensed persons residing in the same state as

long as neither party is a prohibited person and such transfer does not violate any state or

federal laws. Federal law does not bar private transfers or gifts between unlicensed

persons residing in different states as long as the transfer is facilitated by an FFL in each

of the respective states. As the Supreme Court emphasized in FDA v. Brown &

Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000), statutory interpretation must be

guided by common sense.

Accordingly, ATF believes that by articulating these distinctions in regulation, the

proposed § 478.105 will enhance industry compliance, assist law enforcement, and

3 See ATF.gov, Crime Gun Intelligence, https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/infographics/crime-gun-

intelligence [https://perma.cc/NSB6-HFJ9].reduce confusion regarding the legality of common firearm transfers. It would also ensure

consistent terminology and reinforce the GCA’s goals without impeding lawful conduct.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This proposed rule would amend 27 CFR part 478 to provide clarity to both FFLs

and non-licensees regarding conduct that has been recognized by the courts and ATF as

rising to the level of a straw purchase, which is prohibited by federal law.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this

proposed rule would not be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order

12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule. This proposed rulemaking provides

qualitative benefits to the firearms industry and firearms purchasers by providing clarity

on the scope of what constitutes unlawful straw purchasing. However, ATF does not have

sufficient information to calculate quantifiable savings and thus requests more

information from the public regarding the economic effects this rulemaking may have on

the public and the regulated industries.

B. Executive Order 14192

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires an

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

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

otherwise promulgates a new regulation that qualifies as an Executive Order 14192regulatory action (defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant

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

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

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

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

associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this proposed rule would not be

an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it would not impose total costs greater

than zero.

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 will not have substantial direct effects on the states, the

relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of power

and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance

with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that

this proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local

governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not

warrant preparing a federalism summary impact statement.E. Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform).

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any proposed rule subject to

notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency head certifies, including

a statement of the factual basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include certain

small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and

operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with

populations of less than 50,000.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it would

simply provide clarity on the scope of what constitutes unlawful straw purchasing based

on existing case law and long-standing agency guidance. This proposed rule will not

impose any additional costs.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it 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 informationcollection requirements a rule creates or any impacts it has on existing information

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

monitoring, posting, labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public.

See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule would not create any new information

collection requirements or impact any existing ones covered by the PRA.

I. Congressional Review Act

This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the Congressional

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Public Participation

A. Comments sought

ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF

specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be

made easier to understand. ATF also 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-AA78 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://regulations.gov. However, if you include such personally identifying information

(“PII”) in the body of your online comment, it may be posted and viewable online.

Similarly, if you submit a written comment with PII in the body of the comment, it maybe posted and viewable online. Therefore, all commenters should review section IV.B of

this preamble, “Confidentiality,” regarding how to submit PII if you do not want it

published online. ATF may not consider, or respond to, comments that do not meet these

requirements or comments containing excessive profanity. ATF will retain comments

containing excessive profanity as part of this rulemaking’s administrative record, but will

not publish such documents on https://www.regulations.gov. ATF will treat all comments

as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments. In addition, if ATF cannot

read your comment due to handwriting or technical difficulties and cannot contact you

for clarification, ATF may not be able to consider your comment.

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before

the closing date.

B. Confidentiality

ATF will make all comments meeting the requirements of this section, whether

submitted electronically or on paper, and except as provided below, available for public

viewing on the internet through the federal e-rulemaking portal, and subject to the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). Commenters who submit by mail and who

do not 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 RIN 1140-AA78. 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 uploadedattachments. 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-AA78).

List of subjects in 27 CFR part 478

Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Exports, Freight,

Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Law enforcement officers, Military personnel,

Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,

Transportation.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR part

478 as follows:

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION

1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921–931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).

2. Add § 478.105 to subpart F to read as follows:

§ 478.105 Straw purchases prohibited.

(a) Prohibited conduct.(1) A person may not obtain a firearm from a person licensed under this part by

being a straw purchaser of a firearm.

(2) A licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector may not sell or deliver

a firearm knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the person to whom the

licensee transfers the weapon is a straw purchaser.

(3) A “straw purchaser” within the meaning of this section includes:

(i) Any person engaged in a straw purchase by making a material false

statement, as described in paragraph (b) of this section; and

(ii) Any person engaged in a straw purchase by purchasing for a prohibited

person described in paragraph (e) of this section.

(b) Straw purchases by making a material false statement. A straw purchase

occurs when a person provides material false or fictitious information to a licensed

importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector that the person is the actual purchaser of the

firearm when, in fact, the person is acquiring the firearm on behalf of another person.

(c) Exclusions. A straw purchase by material false statement, as described in

paragraph (b), does not include any of the following activities:

(1) Purchasing a firearm as a bona fide gift for a third party. A transaction does

not involve a bona fide gift if the purchaser accepts money, services, or any other

consideration of value in exchange for acquiring the firearm.

(2) Purchasing a firearm by a parent or guardian for his or her minor child;

(3) Acquiring or receiving a firearm by a spouse when the other spouse has paid

for the firearm, provided that both spouses live at the same address;

(4) Redeeming a firearm from pawn or consignment by the lawful owner;

(5) Retrieving a repaired firearm by an individual for a third party;

(6) Collecting a firearm as the winner of a raffle or other award;

(7) Collecting a firearm that was a bona fide gift from another; or(8) Transferring a firearm in accordance with a lawful inheritance or bequest.

(d) Minor child. For purposes of the exception in paragraph (c)(2) of this section,

a “minor” is a person under the age of 21. Paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall not be

construed to authorize a juvenile, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 922(x)(5), to possess a handgun

when prohibited by law.

(e) Straw purchases by purchasing for a prohibited person.

(1) A straw purchase occurs when a person knowingly purchases, or conspires to

purchase, any firearm on behalf of, or at the request or demand of any other person,

knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such other person:

(i) Is prohibited from receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(d); or

(ii) Intends to use, carry, possess, or sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm

in furtherance of a felony, a federal crime of terrorism, or a drug trafficking crime; or

(iii) Intends to sell or otherwise dispose of the firearm to another person

described in paragraphs (i) or (ii).

(2) The exceptions listed in paragraph (c) of this section to straw purchasing by a

material false statement do not apply to a straw purchase by a prohibited person.

Robert Cekada,

Director.

The post New Proposed Ruled: Firearms Transactions and Straw Purchases appeared first on FFL+.

What this rule means
Currently, most firearm records (like Form 4473s and A&D books) must be kept indefinitely and are turned over to ATF when an FFL goes out of business.

This rule proposes to:

• Replace permanent record retention with a fixed time limit (20 or 30 years)
• Apply that limit to most firearm transaction records
• Keep only certain manufacturing/import records permanently

ATF’s reasoning:

• Older records are rarely used in crime gun tracing
• Keeping records forever creates:
  • Cost burdens for FFLs
  • Massive storage issues for ATF (billions of records) 

What the rule actually does
If finalized, this rule would:

1. Set a time limit for most firearm records

• FFLs must retain:
  • Form 4473s → 20 or 30 years
  • A&D records → 20 or 30 years
• After that:
  • Records can be destroyed

2. Keep some records permanent

• Manufacturer/importer acquisition records remain permanent
• Reason:
  • Needed for tracing origin, age, and interstate commerce

3. Change ATF record storage (NTC)

• ATF currently keeps out-of-business records forever
• This rule would:
  • Limit how long ATF keeps those records as well

Context from the data (important):

• ~89% of crime gun traces use records less than 20 years old
• Only a small percentage rely on older records
• Extending to 30 years increases trace success slightly (~89% → ~94%) 

4. Add new short-term record rules
   For newer/edge use cases:

• Private party transfer checks (via FFL):
  • Keep records for 90 days
• Voluntary employee background checks:
  • Keep records for 90 days
• Denied transactions:
  • Keep records for 5 years

5. Clean up outdated rules

• Removes obsolete forms
• Clarifies record categories and structure

What will change (real-world impact)

For FFLs (Major Impact):

• No more permanent record storage requirement
• Reduced:
  • Storage costs (physical or digital)
  • Compliance burden over time
• Ability to:
  • Destroy old records after 20–30 years

For Individuals (Indirect Impact):

• Increased privacy:
  • Personal firearm transaction records won’t exist forever
• BUT:
  • Slight reduction in long-term traceability of firearms

For Law Enforcement / ATF:

• Slight decrease in ability to trace very old firearms
• But:
  • ATF believes impact is minimal based on data
• Major reduction in:
  • Record storage volume (currently billions of records)

For the system overall:

• Shifts from “permanent recordkeeping” → “limited retention”
• Balances:
  • Investigative utility
  • Cost and privacy concerns

Key Takeaways

• Ends indefinite record retention for most firearm records
• Sets a 20 or 30-year retention period
• Keeps manufacturer/import origin records permanent
• Adds short retention periods for newer background check uses
• Reduces burden on FFLs and ATF

Proposed Rule to be Published:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

27 CFR part 478

[Docket No. ATF-2026-0003; ATF 2025R-08P]

RIN 1140-AA95

Firearm Records Retention Periods

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 to amend Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations establishing records

retention periods for federal firearms licensees’ (“FFLs” or “licensees”) acquisition and

disposition (“A&D”) records, and the retention period for records the National Tracing

Center (“NTC”) receives. Specifically, ATF is proposing these records be retained for a

specific period rather than indefinitely, and is considering either 20 or 30 years for the

specified period. ATF is also proposing a brief retention period for forms used to

facilitate private-party transfers or to conduct voluntary firearm handlers checks.

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 docket number RIN 1140-

AA95, by either of the following methods —

• Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow theinstructions 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-AA95.

Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and number (RIN

1140-AA95) 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 Programsand Services; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 99 New York Ave,

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

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968

(“GCA”), as amended. This responsibility includes the authority to promulgate

regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA.1 See 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the responsibility for administering

and enforcing the GCA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the

Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28

CFR 0.130(a)(1)– (2); Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696–97 (June 10, 1972).2

Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations to implement the

GCA in 27 CFR part 478.

Since its enactment, the GCA has required FFLs to maintain, at their place of

business, importing, producing, shipping, receiving, selling, and other disposition records

for firearms (“A&D records”), in accordance with prescribed regulations. Section

923(g)(1)(A) of the GCA requires licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers to

maintain these records for “such period” and in such form as prescribed by regulation.

Licensed collectors, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(2), are required to maintain the records

in a bound volume, the nature of which may be prescribed by regulation. Section

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 GCA, National

Firearms 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.923(g)(4) of the GCA requires licensees, upon absolutely discontinuing a business,3 to

deliver required records to the Attorney General within 30 days after discontinuing

business. Regulations implementing the record-keeping requirements of sections

923(g)(1)(A), 923(g)(2), and 923(g)(4) are contained primarily in 27 CFR part 478,

subpart H. Requirements for retaining records and for handling a discontinued business’s

records are in 27 CFR 478.129 and 478.127, respectively.

With certain exceptions, an FFL may not sell or otherwise dispose of, temporarily

or permanently, any firearm to any unlicensed person unless the FFL records the

transaction on ATF Form 5300.9, Firearms Transaction Record (“Form 4473”). See 27

CFR 478.124. Forms 4473 are therefore one of the records licensees are required to retain

under 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1). Specifically, § 478.129(b) currently requires licensees to

retain each Form 4473 until they discontinue the business or licensed activity.

Prior to July 29, 1985, the GCA’s implementing regulations required FFLs to

permanently retain records of firearms transactions and deliver those records, with

limited exception, to ATF when they discontinued a firearms business. See 26 CFR

178.121(a), 178.127 (1969). On June 28, 1985, ATF published a final rule,4 effective July

29, 1985, amending the record retention requirements codified at 27 CFR 478.129 to

eliminate the permanent retention requirement for licensed dealers and collectors and to

reduce the retention period to not more than 20 years, dating back to December 16, 1968.

The 1985 final rule also authorized licensed manufacturers and importers to destroy their

disposition records after retaining such records for 20 years beginning December 16,

1968. The final rule provided that “[b]ecause of the diminished frequency in utilizing

records over 20 years of age in tracing firearms used in crimes, the requirement to

3 Section 923(g)(4) differentiates between licensed businesses succeeded by a new licensee, and a licensed

business that discontinues absolutely — having no successor licensee. In the case of a licensed business

with a successor, the discontinuing licensee must reflect that in the ATF-required A&D records and deliver

them to the successor.

4 ATF final rule, “Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition,” 50 FR 26702 (June 28, 1985).maintain permanent records of all firearms transactions is not justifiable based on the cost

and administrative burden to both the firearms industry and the Government.”5

Manufacturers and importers, however, were required to retain, on a permanent

basis, their manufacturing, importing, and other firearms acquisition records, including

those from prior to 1968. These records proved helpful for a variety of purposes. They

were relevant for criminal prosecutions because they helped prove that a firearm moved

in or affected interstate or foreign commerce. The records could also be used to establish

the age of a firearm and, thus, its classification as an antique or curio and relic. The

records also lacked the privacy concerns raised by dealer records because they did not

record the ultimate owner of most manufactured or imported firearms.

In 2022, ATF published a final rule,6 effective on August 24, 2022, that amended

the record retention requirements in 27 CFR 478.129. Specifically, it amended §

478.129(b) to require that licensees retain each ATF Form 4473 until they discontinue the

business or licensed activity. Section 478.129(d) continued to require licensees to retain

manufacturing, importing, or other acquisition records for firearms until they discontinue

the business or licensed activity, but it imposed the same records retention requirement

on licensed importers’ and licensed manufacturers’ sale or other disposition records.

Section 478.129(e) was also amended to require licensed dealers and collectors to retain

their sale or other disposition records for firearms and the corresponding receipt record

for such firearm until they discontinue the business or licensed activity. These

amendments remain in effect today. When FFLs absolutely discontinue a business, 18

U.S.C. 923(g)(4) and 27 CFR 478.127 continue to require them to deliver the required

records within 30 days after they discontinue business to the ATF Out-of-Business

Records Center. The GCA and its regulations do not address how long ATF retains out-

5 Id.

26, 2022).

6 ATF final rule, “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms,” 87 FR 24652 (Aprilof-business records (“OOB records”). Currently, ATF maintains all OOB records

indefinitely.

Table 1 summarizes the records retention requirements for each type of licensee

over time.

Table 1. Summary of records retention periods over time, by licensee type*

1969 1985 Current

(since 2022) Proposed

Manufacturers

Importers

• Retain

acquisition

records

permanently

• Retain Forms

4473 for 20 years

• Retain other

disposition

records for 20

years

• Discard

disposition

records 1968 or

older

• Retain all A&D

records 1969 on

until FFL

discontinues

business

• Can store closed

records over 20

years old off site

• Retain all acquisition

records permanently,

including records prior

to 1968

• Retain all other records

for 20 (or 30) years

• Can store closed

records over 20 years

old off site

Retain all records

until business or

licensed activity is

discontinued. Dealers

Collectors

• Discard all

records 1968 or

older

• Retain Forms

4473 from 1969

onward for 20

years

• Retain other

transaction

records for 20

years

• Discard all

records 1968 or

older

• Retain all A&D

records 1969 on

until FFL

discontinues

business

• Can store closed

records over 20

years old off site

• Retain all records for

20 (or 30) years

• Retain all records at

business premises

Manufacturers, importers,

and dealers

• Retain Forms

3310.4 (multiple

sales reports,

pistols/revolvers)

for five years

• Retain Forms

3310.11

(theft/loss

reports) for five

years

• Retain Forms 3310.4

and 3310.12 (multiple

sales reports,

pistols/revolvers and

certain rifles) for five

years

• Retain Forms 3310.11

(theft/loss reports) for

five years

• Retain Forms 4473

initiated, but not

completed, for five

years

*Acquisition records in this table include all methods of acquisition pertinent to the type of licensee, including

manufacturing and importing records. Similarly, disposition records include all methods of disposition pertinent to the

type of licensee, including sales. Acquisition records from 1985 onward also include Forms 4473 unless specifically

mentioned in a bullet point.

The record retention requirements imposed on most licensee records have been

based on two principles. For investigating criminal activity, records retained by FFLsallow ATF to trace, by firearm serial number and firearm identifying information,

ownership of firearms recovered at or used in crimes, a function particularly important in

support of federal, state, and local law enforcement. Retained records also help enforce

federal regulatory requirements. When prosecuting criminal cases for violations of the

GCA, the government may also rely on licensee records to establish through record-

keeping that the firearm has moved between FFLs of different states or countries. More

importantly, licensed importer and manufacturer acquisition (“I&M acquisition”) records

identify the location from which the firearm was manufactured or imported to

demonstrate the firearm’s introduction and movement in commerce and the firearm’s age.

Likewise, ATF uses OOB records submitted to ATF and maintained by NTC to

respond to crime gun trace requests. NTC converts OOB records into digital images after

it receives them and stores them in the Enterprise Content Management (“ECM”) Image

Repository for use in the tracing process. All images that are electronically stored in the

ECM repository are retrievable in accordance with law, regulation, and policy, but are not

searchable by an individual’s name or other personal identifiers or through character

recognition. For fiscal year (“FY”) 2024, NTC conducted 614,995 traces and as of June

11, 2025 when this proposed rule was first drafted, had conducted 420,762 traces for FY

2025. At that same time, NTC held approximately 1.3 billion images of records and as of

June 11, 2025, NTC received approximately 6.8 million OOB records per month in FY

2025. The NTC estimates that 500 million images in the OOB records are older than 20

years.

II. Proposed Rule

ATF is proposing revisions to §§ 478.127 and 478.129 to adjust the records

retention periods for licensee A&D records, Forms 4473, other licensee records, and

NTC’s out-of-business records, as discussed in detail below. In addition, ATF is

proposing some structural changes to the sections to better clarify the different recordprovisions, and is proposing some minor technical edits to conform with plain writing

requirements and updates to ATF forms, numbers, and titles.

A. Reducing licensee A&D records retention periods

As of FY 2024, there were 128,960 active FFLs faced with the costs of retaining,

on a permanent basis, A&D records for firearms. Electronic record-keeping systems

compliant with ATF’s past requirements often require a financial investment in computer

hardware, software, and training. The older the firearm, the more likely it has been

transferred on the secondary market. As a result, the ability to trace crime guns to a

purchaser or determine their movement in interstate or foreign commerce decreases with

time because licensee records do not cover transfers on the secondary market. As a result,

the utility of older records for tracing firearms does not outweigh the increased cost of

permanently retaining electronic or paper records.

Statistical data maintained by NTC establishes that there has been a steady

increase since FY 2014 in the percentage of completed traces to a purchaser using records

up through 20 years old. In FY 2014, approximately 73 percent (153,629 of 210,312) of

completed traces identified a purchaser using records up through 20 years old. Tables 2,

3, and 4 below show the remaining total number of traces completed using records over

20 years old in FY 2014, FY 2019, and FY 2024 and 2025, respectively. Column two in

each table contains the subset of column 1’s traces that use records over 25 years old, and

column three contains the subset of column 2’s traces that use records over 30 years old,

illustrating the diminishing number of records used in traces as firearms get older.

Table 2. FY 2014

Over 20 years

FY 2014

Over 25 years

FY 2014

Over 30 years

FY 2014

56,620 35,162 23,758

In FY 2019, approximately 82 percent (253,239 of 308,660) of traces identified a

purchaser using records less than 20 years old.Table 3. FY 2019

Over 20 years

FY 2019

Over 25 years

FY 2019

Over 30 years

FY 2019

55,421 40,871 25,710

More recent data, for FY 2024 and FY 2025, shows a further decline in records

over 20 years old used in traces, as approximately 89 percent (414,405 of 464,325) of

successful traces in FY 2024 identified a purchaser using records less than 20 years old,

and the same in FY 2025 (426,429 of 477,401).

Table 4. FY 2024 and FY 2025

FY Over 20 years Over 25 years Over 30 years

2024 49,920 39,229 29,377

2025 24,885 19,374 14,880

Thus far, NTC’s most recent data indicates that this trend has continued in FY

2026, with approximately 89 percent (203,927of 228,812) of successful traces in the first

half of FY 2026, as of March 31, 2026, requiring records less than 20 years old.

Similarly, prior to implementing 2022’s expanded permanent retention period, the

small percentage of traces that could not be completed due to lack of records over 20-

years old showed an overall decline. ATF uses a specific closure designation for traces

when a licensee informs ATF that it does not have records for that firearm because the

records were more than 20 years old and had been destroyed. In FY 2014, ATF

conducted 350,063 traces. Of these, 0.34 percent, or 1,175, were closed for this reason.

Of 469,842 total traces in FY 2020, only 0.31 percent, or 1,463, traces were closed for the

above reason, and FY 2021 saw another decline in traces closed with this designation to

0.26 percent, or 1,349, out of 528,058 traces.

The declines in both the percentage of traces using records over 20 years old and

those closed because the dealer did not maintain records beyond the 20-year requirement

indicate a diminishing need to access records older than 20 years. This is attributable, inpart, to an increase in the share of traced firearms with a time-to-crime interval (“TTC”)

less than 20 years. A firearm’s TTC is the length of time between the date of a firearm’s

last known purchase to the date law enforcement recovers it as a crime gun. ATF

calculated the TTC for nearly all (1,479,046) of the 1,482,861 firearms traced to a

purchaser between 2017 and 2021. For the entire period, over 87 percent of the traced

crime guns had a TTC of 20 years or less. The median TTC for all firearms was 1,293

days or slightly more than three years, meaning that half of the traced crime guns were

purchased within this time period. And approximately 24 percent of all firearms were

purchased within one year of their recovery. Between 2017 and 2021, the percentage of

firearms with a TTC of less than one year and less than three years steadily increased. In

2017, 19.3 percent of recovered firearms had a TTC of less than one year and 40 percent

had a TTC of less than three years. By 2021, those percentages increased to 32.3 percent

of recovered firearms with a TTC of less than one year and 53.9 percent with a TTC of

less than three years.7

The decreasing need to utilize records over 20 years old, and the even greater

decrease in utility of records more than 30 years old, to trace a firearm to a purchaser —

caused in part by shorter TTC periods and lower median age of recovered firearms —

demonstrate that a 20-year or 30-year records retention period and reducing the volume

of older records maintained by NTC would not have a significant impact on ATF’s

capability to trace crime guns. As a result of these facts and the administrative burdens on

the firearms industry and the government from retaining records indefinitely, ATF is

proposing to reduce the records retention periods in § 478.129 for all firearms acquisition

and disposition records except I&M acquisition records 8 to 20 or 30 years. ATF is

7 ATF, National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA): Crime Gun Intelligence and

Analysis – Volume Two, part III (March. 27, 2024), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-

ii-part-iii-crime-guns-recovered-and-traced-us/download [https://perma.cc/5TJX-3P5W].

8 As noted above, because these records are needed for prosecutions and collectible classifications, I&M

acquisition records have had a permanent retention period since the GCA was passed in 1968, and FFLsconsidering whether to establish the retention period at 20 years or 30 years as an

appropriate balance between the cost of maintaining records for longer periods and the

public safety interest in being able to trace more crime guns and to more quickly

apprehend perpetrators of crimes involving firearms. Although fewer records 26–

30 years old or over 30 years old have been necessary to trace crime guns in recent years,

there are still traces that involve these older records. For example, the data in Table 4

shows that in 2024, roughly 39,229 traces involved records over 25 years old and 29,377

traces involved records over 30 years old. This means that, in 2024, the percentage of

successful crime gun traces increased from 89 to 94 percent when records up to 30 years

old were available, resulting in almost 10,000 additional successful traces.

ATF seeks comments on whether the costs of retaining these records for an extra

ten years (30 years instead of 20) would be sufficiently offset by the public safety benefit

of maintaining this traceability. See further discussion in this section (above) and in

section III.A of this preamble for more information on the age distribution of records

used for firearms tracing over the past ten years.

1. Paragraph 478.129(b), Forms 4473

This rule proposes to remove the requirement in § 478.129(b) that FFLs must

retain Forms 4473 permanently and replace it with a requirement that FFLs retain Forms

4473 for either 20 or 30 years. Currently, § 478.129(b) states that “Licensees shall retain

each Form 4473 until business or licensed activity is discontinued, either on paper, or in

an electronic alternate method approved by the Director, at the business premises readily

accessible for inspection under this part.” ATF proposes to replace this provision with

“FFLs must retain each Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) for no less than

20 [or 30] years from the date on which they sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm.”

were also required to retain such records from before 1968. The need for these older records still exists, so

they would remain under a permanent retention period. These records also do not identify the ultimate

owner of the firearm in most cases.Paragraph § 478.129(b) also states that the records must be maintained in either

paper or an electronic alternate method approved by the Director, at the business

premises, and readily accessible for inspection under this part. These requirements would

remain but in separate sentences that include some minor plain writing edits for

readability.

In addition, ATF is proposing to separate into two sub-paragraphs the general

requirements for retaining the Forms 4473 mentioned above and the existing records

provisions for retaining Forms 4473 associated with non-completed transactions,

including headings to help distinguish them. The requirements for retaining forms

associated with non-completed transactions would remain the same but would have

minor plain writing edits to make them easier to read.

In another rulemaking, ATF is proposing to incorporate into its regulations the

ability for licensees to use Forms 4473 when they conduct background checks for private

parties transferring a firearm between themselves, and when licensees conduct voluntary

firearm handler background checks (“FHCs”) of certain current or prospective

employees. Although licensees may use Forms 4473 when they facilitate private-party

transfers, that has not been in ATF’s regulations, and the FHC use is new. ATF proposes

to clarify, as part of incorporating these uses into the regulations, that these records are

not part of a licensee’s required A&D records and are thus not subject to other regulatory

and enforcement requirements. This has been a source of confusion for licensees using

Forms 4473 for private-party transfers.

As a result, ATF also proposes adding two new sub-paragraphs that would specify

the minimum length of time FFLs must retain Forms 4473 used to facilitate a private-

party transfer process or to conduct a voluntary FHC. In both cases, ATF proposes that

licensees would retain those Forms 4473 for no less than 90 days (three months) from the

date on which they initiate the associated background check. Three months correspondswith the time until the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (“NICS”) purges transaction information. During that period,

NICS can research a “delayed” response and has that period to research and resolve the

check, so retaining the forms for that period would be consistent with the time to resolve

open FHC or private party checks. ATF would also be able to research issues in other

contexts, for example, an FBI NICS audit log that shows an extra background check the

licensee conducted but for which there is no Form 4473 in the licensee’s records; ATF

would be able to use these temporary forms to clarify that the licensee conducted the

background check to facilitate a private-party transfer. Similarly, ATF would be able to

clarify that a transaction involving a missing firearm from licensee inventory was

incorrectly checked as a private-party transfer on the form and verify that the licensee did

indeed complete the required form and background check for that transaction. However,

ATF would not inspect these forms as records in their own right (unless they happen to

be erroneously marked as private-party transfers when they are not) because they do not

involve FFL transactions, and licensees therefore do not need to retain them longer than

three months.

ATF believes that allowing licensees to destroy these records after 90 days would

best provide for public safety. A short retention period would encourage more individuals

to perform voluntary background checks before transferring firearms on the secondary

market. A longer, or permanent, sales record retention period could raise privacy

concerns among private party sellers and purchasers. This privacy interest could cause

private parties to choose to sell their firearms without a background check if licensees

were required to retain them for longer periods. These transactions have also not

historically been subject to any records retention period under federal law, so a short

retention period does not materially change the status quo when it comes to tracing.

However, the paragraph on private-party transfers would also include a five-yearretention period for Forms 4473 associated with NICS background checks that receive a

“denied” response from NICS because the prospective transferee would be a prohibited

person under law. This five-year retention period for transactions with a “denied”

response is consistent with the relevant statute of limitations under federal law, 18 U.S.C.

3282, and would facilitate investigations and prosecutions for unlawful possession,

disposition, or attempted unlawful purchase or possession under applicable federal, state,

and local laws.

2. Paragraphs 478.129(d) and (e), licensee A&D records (importers, manufacturers,

dealers, and collectors)

Paragraph (d) of § 478.129 addresses I&M acquisition records, which, as

discussed above, would continue to have an indefinite, or permanent, retention period

under this proposed rule for the legal process reasons discussed in the preamble. ATF

would retain this paragraph essentially as is but would incorporate into it the requirement

implicit in § 478.129(a) that such records include those from prior to 1968, because ATF

is proposing to remove § 478.129(a). These sentences would include some minor plain

writing edits to make them easier to read, and to remove old language.

Similarly, to Forms 4473, ATF is proposing to remove the requirement in §

478.129(e) that licensees must retain firearms A&D records permanently and is instead

proposing that FFLs would retain all such records (other than those covered under §

478.129(d)) for either 20 or 30 years. Currently, § 478.129(e) requires licensed dealers

and collectors to retain firearm sales or disposition records and corresponding acquisition

records until the business or licensed activity is discontinued. ATF proposes to replace

this provision with “Licensees must retain records required by this part for no less than

20 [or 30] years from the date on which they sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm.” ATF

also proposes to add a second sentence with language that helps better clarify the types of

records covered by this provision, but that does not substantively change the contentcurrently in this paragraph: “For each firearm, retained records include the firearm’s

acquisition records (purchase, receipt, or other acquisition), and corresponding

disposition records (sale or other disposition).” The paragraph would also continue to

require that “Licensees must maintain the records in either paper or an electronic

alternate method approved by the Director, at the business premises, and readily

accessible for inspection under this part.” These sentences also include some minor plain

writing edits to make them easier to read, and to remove old language.

Along with these changes, ATF also proposes removing the off-site storage

provision from § 478.129(d) if ATF changes the records retention period for these

records to 20 years but would revise it if ATF changes the records retention period to 30

years. The provision currently allows FFLs to store paper records at a separate location

provided the records have no open dispositions and do not have a disposition recorded

within 20 years. If ATF changes the retention period to 20 years, this provision would no

longer be necessary because FFLs would no longer retain these records longer than 20

years. If ATF elects to establish a 30-year retention period instead, ATF would revise the

sentence to read, “Licensees may store paper records that do not contain any open entries

and with no acquisitions recorded within 20 years at a separate warehouse, which ATF

will consider as part of the business premises for this purpose and which will be subject

to inspection under this part.”

However, because licensees expressed confusion in the past — when records were

previously retained for 20 years — about how to determine the 20-year point for a record

containing multiple transactions, which often span years, ATF is proposing a replacement

provision to address this subject, which would apply to either retention period. ATF

therefore proposes adding a sentence clarifying that the 20-year-point [or 30-year-point]

for such records would be 20 years [or 30 years] after the most recent disposition date in

the record.B. Removing obsolete provisions and adding an existing form in § 478.129

1. Paragraph 478.129(c), reports of multiple sales or other disposition and theft/loss

Although § 478.129(c) is not undergoing a change to the records retention period

for these reports, ATF is proposing to add ATF Form 3310.12, Report of Multiple Sale or

Other Disposition of Certain Rifles, and to remove references to ATF Form 5300.35,

Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun. Form 3310.12 already has a five-year retention

period, as do the other forms in this paragraph, but it has not been specifically listed with

the other multiple sale report for pistols and handguns, ATF Form 3310.4, because it was

not in place when the regulatory provision was last drafted. ATF proposes rectifying this

for clarity. In § 478.129(c), ATF therefore proposes to amend the paragraph by adding

“and Form 3310.12 (Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles)” to

the sentence “Licensees must retain each copy of Form 3310.4 (Report of Multiple Sale

or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers) for no less than five years after the date

they sell or otherwise dispose of the firearms.” In addition, ATF proposes to amend the

paragraph heading to remove the clause “of pistols and revolvers” to reflect that it would

include both kinds of multi-sale reports.

With regard to removing references to Form 5300.35, ATF proposes to further

amend the heading of § 478.129(c) by removing the clause “Statement of intent to obtain

a handgun” and proposes to remove from the paragraph the sentence, “Licensees shall

retain each Form 5300.35 (Statement of Intent to Obtain a Handgun(s)) for a period of

not less than 5 years after notice of the intent to obtain the handgun was forwarded to the

chief law enforcement officer, as defined in § 478.150(c).” ATF is proposing these

changes because Form 5300.35 was a predecessor form to Form 4473 and is obsolete.

2. Paragraphs 478.129(a) and (f), records prior to GCA and records of semiautomatic

assault weapon transactions

ATF is also proposing to remove § 478.129(a) and (f) because they are obsolete.Paragraph (a) was included in the regulation to clarify which A&D records generated

prior to 1968 were subject to the provisions of the GCA passed that year. It has been

almost 60 years since this paragraph was added, and this provision is no longer necessary

for most records, especially because ATF is also proposing to reduce the retention period

for most records to 20 [or 30] years. ATF proposes to remove paragraph (a) and to move

the portion of paragraph (a) that pertains to I&M acquisition records to paragraph (c),

which covers such records. Along with removing § 478.129(a), this proposed change

would include redesignating the subsequent paragraphs from (b) through (e) to (a)

through (d).

Paragraph (f), on semiautomatic assault weapon records, was added in 1994, to

reflect the assault weapons ban incorporated in subtitle A of title XI of the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322, § 110101, 108 Stat. 1796,

2011 (1994)). However, the assault weapons ban expired ten years later, in 2004, at

which time the statutory requirements ceased. As a result, this corresponding regulatory

provision is obsolete, and ATF proposes removing it.

C. Reducing retention period for NTC’s out-of-business records in § 478.127

The GCA’s requirement that licensees provide their records to ATF when they

discontinue business has historically been subject to considerable scrutiny and legislative

activity. For 33 years, FY 1979 to FY 2011, ATF’s annual appropriations included a

proviso prohibiting ATF to expend appropriated funds in connection with consolidating

or centralizing firearms records maintained by FFLs. In FY 2012, the restriction was

made permanent.9 In 1986, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act amended the GCA to

prohibit a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms traffic.10 Pub. L. 99-308, 100

Stat. 449, 459 (1986). A 2016 Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) audit

9 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, Pub. L. 112–55 (November 18, 2011),

125 Stat. 552, 609.

10 Pub. L. 99–308 (May 19, 1986), 100 Stat. 449, 459.examined ATF’s compliance with these, and other, registry prohibitions. The audit was

initiated due to perceptions that ATF’s Out-of-Business Record Imaging System

(“OBRIS”) was not in compliance with the laws and prohibitions, though GAO found

otherwise.11 Despite this finding, recent bills, such as the Shall Not Be Infringed Act of

202312 (preventing registry expansion through eTrace modernization efforts) and the No

Retaining Every Gun In a System That Restricts Your Rights Act13 (requiring destruction

of all OOB records) highlight ongoing concerns with ATF retaining OOB records and

trace information. Changing the current retention period would significantly reduce the

volume of records retained by ATF and alleviate concerns that ATF might have

established or will establish a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms

transactions.

ATF records indicate that the number of OOB traces that use OOB records over

20 years old has decreased steadily since 2011. In 2011, approximately 39 percent

(41,652) of OOB traces used records over 20 years old. In 2024, approximately 21

percent (48,319) of OOB traces used records over 20 years old, and approximately 12

percent (29,060) of OOB traces used records over 30 years old. In 2025, approximately

20 percent (50,869) of OOB traces used records over 20 years old and approximately 12

percent (30,934) of OOB traces used records over 30 years old. The trend since 2011 has

been a decrease in the percentage of OOB records used that are more than 20 or 30 years

old.

ATF is therefore proposing to limit the period NTC retains OOB records to no

longer than 20 years [or 30 years] from the date it receives the records. Specifically, ATF

proposes revising § 478.127 to include this retention period for OOB records and to

11 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-16-552, Firearms Data: ATF Did Not Always Comply with the

Appropriations Act Restriction and Should Better Adhere to Its Policies (2016),

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-16-552.pdf [https://perma.cc/XX3V-VAD4].

12 H.R. 3212, 118th Cong. (2023).

13 H.R. 563, 119th Cong. (2025).update the existing language to be more streamlined and in plain writing. This proposed

section would continue to state that licensees that discontinue operations do not have to

transfer records to ATF when a successor assumes the business, but it would maintain the

requirement that FFLs that discontinue business absolutely must transfer their records. It

would also continue to include the location to which the business must transfer the

records and specify that the chief of ATF’s Federal Firearms Licensing Center may

arrange for the records to instead be delivered to another authority when required by state

law or local ordinance. This information is not changing in substance from current

requirements. However, the 20[or 30]- year retention period would not apply to I&M

acquisition records, for the legal reasons described above. These records also lack the

concerns raised by some parts of the public about gun owner privacy and having a de

facto sales registry. This is because I&M acquisition records in general reflect disposition

to a wholesaler or retail dealer, but rarely to a consumer, and I&M acquisition records in

particular reflect acquisition from or manufacture by another FFL or company, not a

consumer. These records, thus, have no utility for determining which citizens own

particular firearms. In addition, ATF would include the provision discussed above on

retaining such records at ATF: “ATF will retain records delivered to and maintained at

ATF’s Out-of-Business Records Center for no longer than 20 [or 30] years from the date

they receive the records.” ATF seeks comments on the length of the proposed records

retention period, whether 20 or 30 years, for licensee records.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is

necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing

costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This proposed rule amends 27 CFR 478 to reduce the current requirement for

licensees to retain firearms A&D records permanently down to retaining such records for

20 [or 30] years. A similar 20-year retention period existed before 2022, and this change

represents a cost savings to industry. The proposed rule also establishes a similar

retention period for out-of-business records transferred to ATF, which does not have a

cost on regulated industry but may have a cost impact on the public in the form of

marginally greater public safety risk.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this

proposed 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

While existing federal regulations (§ 478.129(b), (c), and (d)) require licensees to

retain manufacturing, importing, or other acquisition records, and sale or other

disposition records, for firearms until they discontinue the business or licensed activity,

the requirements were term-limited to 20 years for all records — except importer and

manufacturer acquisition records, which were indefinite — from 1985 until ATF’s 2022

rulemaking that began requiring indefinite periods for other A&D records as well.

Records retained by licensees allow ATF to trace ownership of firearms recovered

at or used in crimes, a function particularly important in support of federal, state, and

local law enforcement. However, statistical data maintained by NTC establishes that

there has been a steady increase since FY 2014 in the percentage of completed traces to a

purchaser using records less than 20 years old, and a corresponding decrease in the need

to utilize records over 20 years old to trace a firearm to a purchaser — caused in part byshort TTC periods and lower median age of recovered firearms. Since 2022, however,

approximately 128,960 active FFLs have been facing costs of retaining, on a permanent

basis, A&D records for firearms. The older the firearm, the more likely it has entered the

secondary market and may have been transferred multiple times. As a result, the ability to

trace crime guns through licensee records decreases over time because licensee records

do not cover transfers on the secondary market. As a result, the utility of older records

does not outweigh the increased cost of permanently retaining electronic or paper

records.

2. Benefits

Reducing the records retention period for licensee A&D records and Forms 4473

from permanent to 20 or 30 years would benefit FFLs. Based on current ATF data on

active FFLs, out of 79,378 licensees, only 13,729 had their license originally issued prior

to December 31, 2005 (20 years ago). Accordingly, only 17 percent of all FFLs have

been licensed for 20 years or more. This minority of licensees were also offered several

accommodations when regulations were finalized in 2022 requiring a permanent records

retention period, including an accommodation for electronic storage of records older than

20 years, and allowance for off-site storage to accommodate the printed records that they

would start to retain. These accommodations make it less likely that this proposed rule

would help licensees recover sunk costs, such as those for expanding storage facilities or

converting to digitized retention or electronic records, of compliance with the current

rule. Further, ATF estimates only a de minimis number of FFLs incurred these costs

because it is likely that large dealers maintain established record-keeping systems capable

of complying with the current or proposed regime equally. On the other hand, smaller

dealers — though having faced less than three years of new records (which would not be

impacted by the proposed rule because they are still younger than 20 years) — would

have facilitated their compliance by using digital or off-site accommodations based ontheir level of operations and storage needs. The cost savings are thus difficult to quantify

precisely as many costs associated with increased storage would have been incurred

going forward under the current rule but may not have yet accrued. Therefore, ATF

expects a qualitative benefit to accrue to the industry, yet of unknown magnitude and

number of beneficiaries.

3. Costs

ATF expects that reducing the required record retention period from permanent to

the 20-year [or 30-year] limit that was in effect prior to 2022 would have a limited

number of costs and potential risks to public safety.

The primary source of any potential risk would be the possibility that ATF is

unable to complete a small portion of firearm trace requests from federal, state, and local

law enforcement if they pertain to a firearm sold over 20 [or 30] years ago. These failed

trace requests may include high-profile urgent traces. However, firearms of that age may

be more commonly involved in inheritance transfers and secondhand sales, for which

ATF has no data, and thus a lesser ability to trace.

To better determine this potential risk, ATF must first examine the frequency of

such traces that stem from firearms over 20 [or 30] years old.

Based on data from ATF’s National Tracing Center, Table 4 shows the

distribution of firearm tracing requests based on the age of the firearm records utilized to

identify a purchaser.

Table 4. Age of firearm records required to identify a purchaser

FISCAL

YEAR <5 Yrs 5-10

Yrs

10-15

Yrs

15-20

Yrs

20-25

Yrs

25-30

Yrs

30-35

Yrs

35-40

Yrs

40-

45

Yrs

45-

50

Yrs

50-

55

Yrs

55+

Yrs

2015 82,919 41,958 20,981 17,912 20,605 11,296 9,032 6,980 5,372 1,529 105 117

2016 100,167 45,388 22,559 17,908 20,196 11,920 8,500 7,509 5,714 2,226 226 189

2017 116,408 52,635 24,244 17,244 18,772 13,068 8,288 7,510 5,531 2,848 315 247

2018 127,692 64,411 27,232 17,473 17,230 15,497 8,737 7,720 5,559 3,699 546 339

2019 137,627 69,977 29,768 15,867 14,550 15,161 8,268 7,034 5,379 4,045 715 269

2020 162,273 74,082 30,464 15,476 13,077 14,394 7,861 6,106 4,959 3,783 804 46

2021 217,873 84,446 30,465 14,834 11,480 12,897 7,510 5,309 4,824 3,687 1,256 77

2022 253,062 93,476 36,075 15,979 11,346 12,550 8,707 5,451 5,285 3,797 2,060 1492023 259,614 100,002 43,215 17,741 11,334 11,353 10,144 5,833 5,540 4,102 2,620 416

2024 246,592 101,391 46,370 20,052 10,691 9,852 10,686 5,911 5,172 4,036 2,983 589

Based on the above distribution, the age of the firearms being traced is

predominantly less than five years old, followed by those aged between five and ten

years, 10 to 15 years, and 15 to 20 years. After 20 years, firearms are generally traced

less frequently, but inconsistently so, and the reduction is not always linear. For example,

in 2024 more traces involved firearms between 30 and 35 years old than those aged 25 to

30 years, and in 2022 there were more traces for firearms aged 25 to 30 years old than for

those aged 20 to 25 years, while in 2019 there were more aged 25 to 30 years old than

aged 20 to 25 years. Generally, however, the older the gun, the fewer the traces received

for it. Presented as a percentage, Table 5 includes this distribution in more aggregate

terms.

Table 5. Age of firearm records required to identify a purchaser by aggregates

FISCAL

YEAR

Total

traces to

purchaser

0-20 Y

total

traces

Percentage

using

0-20 Y

0-25 Y

total

traces

Percentage

using

0-25 Y

0-30 Y

total

traces

Percentage

using

0-30 Y

2015 218,806 163,770 75% 184,375 84% 195,671 89%

2016 242,502 186,022 77% 206,218 85% 218,138 90%

2017 267,110 210,531 79% 229,303 86% 242,371 91%

2018 296,135 236,808 80% 254,038 86% 269,535 91%

2019 308,660 253,239 82% 267,789 87% 282,950 92%

2020 333,325 282,295 85% 295,372 89% 309,766 93%

2021 394,658 347,618 88% 359,098 91% 371,995 94%

2022 447,937 398,592 89% 409,938 92% 422,488 94%

2023 471,914 420,572 89% 431,906 92% 443,259 94%

2024 464,325 414,405 89% 425,096 92% 434,948 94%

As shown in Table 5, the vast majority of traces requested used records within the

20-year-old age group. In 2024, 89 percent of traces requested used records under 20

years old, 92 percent used records under 25 years old, and 94 percent used records under

30 years old. The percentage of successful crime gun traces increased from 89 to 94

percent when records up to 29 years old were available, resulting in almost 10,000

additional successful traces.Table 6. Age of firearm records required to identify a purchaser by percentage

FISCAL

YEAR

Traces

beyond

0-20 Y

Traces

beyond

0-25 Y

Traces

beyond

0-30 Y

Percentage

of traces

beyond

0-20 Y

Percentage

of traces

beyond

0-25 Y

Percentage

of traces

beyond

30 Y

2015 55,036 34,431 23,135 25% 16% 11%

2016 56,480 36,284 24,364 23% 15% 10%

2017 56,579 37,807 24,739 21% 14% 9%

2018 59,327 42,097 26,600 20% 14% 9%

2019 55,421 40,871 25,710 18% 13% 8%

2020 51,030 37,953 23,559 15% 11% 7%

2021 47,040 35,560 22,663 12% 9% 6%

2022 49,345 37,999 25,449 11% 8% 6%

2023 51,342 40,008 28,655 11% 8% 6%

2024 49,920 39,229 29,377 11% 8% 6%

Table 6 calculates the inverse, with the numbers and percentage of firearm traces

that were received that used records older than 20 years, 25 years, and 30 years, which in

2024 amounted to 11 percent, 8 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. Therefore, based on

volume from the most recent 2024 fiscal year, under a 20-year retention limit, 49,920

additional traces would be unsuccessful because they would need records over 20 years

old (Table 6). If there was a 25-year retention period, then the additional unsuccessful

traces would be reduced from 49,920 to 39,229. And finally, if there was a 30-year

retention period, the number would be 29,377 unsuccessful traces. While inference on

risks to public safety are difficult to make definitively, and most traces occur within the

first 20 years as shown above, the remaining traces that would be unsuccessful as a result

of the proposed rule could delay or hinder federal, state, and local law enforcement

efforts to track and stop violent offenders.

4. Regulatory alternatives

Alternatives 1 and 2: Guidance or no action (keeping indefinite retention period)

ATF considered issuing guidance on records retention periods, as well as not

issuing a rulemaking on the issue, also known as the no-action alternative. The

decreasing need to utilize records over 20 years old — caused in part by short TTCperiods and lower median age of recovered firearms — demonstrate that a 20-year or 30-

year records retention period and reducing the volume of older records maintained by

NTC would not have a significant impact on ATF’s capability to trace crime guns.

Accordingly, the requirement to maintain permanent records of all firearms transactions

is not justifiable based on the cost and administrative burden to both the firearms industry

and the government. ATF also considered the alternative of affecting the proposed

change through guidance instead of rulemaking. However, because the requirement is

already in a regulation, revising the requirement must also be accomplished via

rulemaking.

Alternative 3: 20-year retention period versus 30-year retention period

ATF considered reducing the records retention period to 20 years, as it was prior

to 2022, or to 30 years. Considerations in favor of 20 years were predominantly based on

the longstanding practice and precedent that had been in place prior to 2022, except for

I&M acquisition records. Returning to this retention period would offer familiarity and

thus greater ease of compliance to industry. Alternatively, proposing a 30-year retention

requirement would similarly reduce storage burdens compared to the current post-2022

baseline of indefinite records, but would secure an additional ten years of records to

facilitate possible traces for ATF and federal, state, and local law enforcement. The

difference in estimated benefits and costs between the 20- and 30-year retention periods

appears to be marginal, according to ATF tracing data presented above. ATF invites

public comment on these two possible retention periods to further inform ATF’s decision

between these options. ATF will decide on one of these periods for the final rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

associated with at least ten prior regulations. However, this proposed rule would not be

an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory

action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and it would not impose total costs greater

than zero. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an

Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as

a final action that imposes total costs less than zero).

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 notwarrant 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.

The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed rule would not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed

rule is deregulatory in nature and would provide savings to the regulated industry. It

reduces the length of time persons would have to store records, which reduces costs to

small entities, and it imposes no additional burdens or costs.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might result in the

expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private

sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it 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). If this proposed rule is finalized, ATF would create an information

collection request associated with 27 CFR 478.127 because the requirement contained in

§ 478.127 requires FFLs to transfer acquisition and disposition records to ATF’s Out-of-

Business Records Center when the FFL discontinues business absolutely, and would

constitute an information collection under the PRA.

In addition, if this rule is finalized as proposed, ATF would revise four existing

information collections. The information collection requirements in § 478.129 are the

FFL record-keeping retention requirements in current paragraphs (b) through (e) of that

section (which would be redesignated as paragraphs (a) through (d) under this proposed

rule). These record retention requirements are subject to the PRA and would need to be

updated to reflect the new retention period. They were previously established as an

information collection under OMB control numbers 1512-0544, 1512-0520, 1512-0006,

1512-0524, and 1512-0129, from prior to when ATF transferred to the Department of

Justice from the Treasury Department. But it appears they were not continued under a

Department of Justice information collection action after the transfer and remain cited in

the regulation under the old Treasury number. As a result, ATF would also update these

information collections to reflect ATF OMB control numbers as part of the same process.

ATF expects to combine these § 478.129 records-retention period requirements into

existing information collection requests for the corresponding records: 1140-0020,

Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473); 1140-0031, Records of Acquisition and

Disposition, Registered Importers of Arms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles on the US

Munitions Import List; 1140-0032, Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Dealers ofType 01/02 Firearms, and Collectors of Type 03 Firearms; and 1140-0067, Licensed

Firearms Manufacturers’ Records of Production, Disposition, and Supporting Data.

Although this rule involves the existing ICRs, the proposed changes would not add to the

burdens imposed on the respondent beyond existing, OMB-approved requirements

because ATF is proposing to reduce the retention periods.

I. Congressional Review Act