This is a proposed rule (not final) that would fully remove ATF’s 2023 “stabilizing brace” rule and return to the pre-2023 definition of “rifle” based only on the statute.
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.