This rule removes ATF’s prior classification of bump stocks as machine guns, in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill.
Impact: Significant. This reverses the 2018 bump stock ban at the federal regulatory level.
Applies to: Both individuals and the firearms industry (FFLs).
What this rule means
ATF is updating its regulations because the Supreme Court ruled that ATF overstepped its authority when it previously classified bump stocks as “machine guns” in 2018.
The Court held that:
- A semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock does NOT meet the legal definition of a machine gun
- Specifically, it does not fire “automatically” with a “single function of the trigger” as required by statute
As a result, ATF is:
- Removing all regulatory language that previously defined bump stocks as machine guns
- Returning the regulatory definition of “machine gun” back to what it was before 2018
This rule is not creating new law—it is complying with a binding Supreme Court decision.
What the rule actually does
- Deletes the portions of ATF regulations (27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479) that:
- Defined “automatically” and “single function of the trigger” in a way that captured bump stocks
- Explicitly included “bump-stock-type devices” as machine guns
- Restores the original statutory-based definition of “machine gun”:
- A firearm that fires more than one round automatically by a single function of the trigger
- Leaves intact:
- The inclusion of frames/receivers
- Conversion parts and combinations of parts that create machine guns
Importantly:
- ATF is no longer relying on its own expanded interpretation
- Instead, it is relying on:
- The statutory definition
- Court interpretations of that definition
What will change (real-world impact)
For Individuals (Major Impact):
- Bump stocks are no longer classified as machine guns under federal law
- This means:
- Possession is no longer prohibited under the federal machine gun ban (based on this rule)
- Prior mandatory surrender/destruction requirement is effectively undone
- Individuals who previously turned in bump stocks:
- May be able to retrieve them (ATF references ~965 devices turned in)
Important caveat:
- State laws may still ban bump stocks independently
- This rule only affects federal classification
For FFLs / Industry (Major Impact):
- Bump stocks are no longer treated as NFA items or machine guns
- No NFA registration, transfer restrictions, or machine gun rules apply
- Manufacturers and retailers can resume:
- Production
- Sales
- ATF estimates:
- ~$20M+ per year in economic activity from renewed sales
For the system overall:
- This is a major rollback of a prior ATF rule
- Reinforces limits on agency authority:
- ATF cannot expand statutory definitions beyond what Congress wrote
- Signals that:
- Courts, not agencies, have final say on ambiguous statutory terms
Key Takeaways
- This is a direct result of a Supreme Court ruling, not a policy choice by ATF
- Reverses the 2018 bump stock ban at the federal level
- Restores the original, narrower definition of “machine gun”
- Has real legal and economic impact (unlike the prior rules you’ve reviewed)
- Does not prevent states from regulating bump stocks separately
Rule to be published
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR parts 447, 478, and 479
[ATF No. 2024R-01F]
RIN 1140-AA60
Revising Machine Gun Definition in Response to Supreme Court Decision
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) is
amending Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations in response to the Supreme
Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill. The Supreme Court held that ATF exceeded its
statutory authority in its December 2018 final rule titled “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” by
classifying a bump stock as a “machine gun” because a semi-automatic rifle equipped
with a non-mechanical bump-stock-type device is not a “machine gun” under the
National Firearms Act. Accordingly, ATF is removing from the three regulatory
definitions of “machine gun” the two sentences that incorporated bump stocks into those
definitions.
DATES: This final rule is effective on [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER].
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, 479.
Following a February 20, 2018, Presidential memorandum,3 the Department
amended ATF regulations by issuing a final rule titled “Bump-Stock-Type Devices”
(“2018 final rule”), which determined that rifles with an attached bump-stock-type device
constituted “machine guns” under Federal law.4 On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court
held that “a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a [non-mechanical] bump stock is not a
‘machinegun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the
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 final 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 the Arms Export Control Act
and the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.
3 On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General “to
dedicate all available resources to . . . propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn
legal weapons into machineguns.” Presidential Memorandum (Application of the Definition of Machinegun
to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices), 83 FR 7949 (Feb. 20, 2018); U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
Attorney General Sessions Announces Regulation Effectively Banning Bump Stocks (Mar. 23, 2018),
stocks [https://perma.cc/S7DZ-76XD].
4 83 FR 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018); 84 FR 9239 (Mar. 14, 2019) (ratifying final rule).trigger.’ And, even if it could, it would not do so ‘automatically.’”5 The regulatory
definition of “machine gun” does not distinguish between non-mechanical and
mechanical bump stocks and simply states “bump-stock-type device.” ATF will rely on
the statutory definition, as well as federal case law, such as Cargill, that further defines
terms within the “machine gun” definition such as “single function of the trigger” and
“automatically.”
ATF is now taking steps to conform its regulations with the Supreme Court’s
decision in Cargill. This final rule removes from the Code of Federal Regulations
(“CFR”) the revised portions of the regulatory definitions of “machine gun” that included
bump stocks. Removing these portions of the previous final rule restores the regulatory
text for those definitions to what it was prior to the December 2018 rule, with one minor
exception.6
II. Final Rule
Under the NFA, as amended, and the GCA, as amended, the term “machinegun”
means “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to
shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function
of the trigger.” 26 U.S.C. 5845(b); see 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(24) (referencing the NFA
definition). The term “machinegun” also includes “the frame or receiver of any such
weapon” or any part or combination of parts designed and intended “for use in converting
a weapon into a machinegun,” and “any combination of parts from which a machinegun
can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.” 26
U.S.C. 5845(b). This statutory definition uses the key terms “single function of the
trigger” and “automatically,” but those terms are not defined in the statutory text. Before
5 Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406, 415 (2024).
6 Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, ATF is not reinserting the sentence segment “is a firearm
originally designed to fire, or capable of being fired fully automatically by a single pull of the trigger” in
the pre-rule definition of “machinegun” found in 27 CFR 447.11, nor is it removing the sentence that
includes frames and receivers, conversion parts, and combinations of parts in the definition. See discussion
below.the 2018 final rule, the regulations contained definitions for the term “machine gun” in 27
CFR 478.11 and 479.11, that mirrored the NFA’s statutory definition.
The definition of “machinegun” in 27 CFR 447.11, promulgated pursuant to the
portion of section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”) (22 U.S.C. 2778)
delegated to the Attorney General by section 1(n)(ii) of Executive Order 13637, 78 FR
16129 (Mar. 13, 2013), is similar, but not identical. Before the 2018 final rule, the
definition of machine gun in 27 CFR 447.11 provided that a “‘machinegun,’ ‘machine
pistol,’ ‘submachinegun,’ or ‘automatic rifle’ is a firearm originally designed to fire, or
capable of being fired fully automatically by a single pull of the trigger.” However, it did
not use the NFA’s terminology — “is a firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can
be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading,
by a single function of the trigger” — nor did it contain the additional sentence that
included machinegun frames and receivers, conversion parts, and combinations of parts,
both of which were present in the NFA’s statutory definition and the definitions in §§
478.11 and 479.11.
The 2018 final rule promulgated amendments to all these regulatory definitions to
add bump-stock-type-devices. Specifically, the previous final rule amended these
definitions by: (1) adding definitions to clarify the meaning of “automatically” and
“single function of the trigger;” and (2) expressly including bump-stock-type-devices as
machine guns. The 2018 final rule also harmonized the definition of “machinegun” in §
447.11 with the NFA’s statutory definition and the “machine gun” definitions in §§
478.11 and 479.11. This harmonization in § 447.11 included: (1) changing the sentence
segment “is a firearm originally designed to fire, or capable of being fired fully
automatically by a single pull of the trigger” to the NFA’s segment “is a firearm which
shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger;” and (2) addingthe sentence from the NFA that includes machine gun frames and receivers, conversion
parts, and combinations of parts.
On June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Cargill, in which it
found that ATF exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the rule classifying a
bump stock as a machine gun. The Court effectively invalidated the rule’s sentence
defining “automatically” and “single function of the trigger,” and the sentence expressly
including bump-stock-type devices as machine guns.7 This rule updates ATF’s
corresponding regulatory provisions within parts 447, 478, and 479 to conform to the
Court’s decision by removing those two sentences in all three regulations. This rule also
makes a minor technical amendment to move the commas in § 447.11’s definition inside
the quotation marks in conformity with standard American punctuation. These changes
are shown in the table below:
Regulatory
definition
(divided by
sentence)
Before 2018 final
rule
After 2018 final rule After this rule
§ 447.11 Machinegun. A
“machinegun”,
“machine pistol”,
“submachinegun”, or
“automatic rifle” is a
firearm originally
designed to fire, or
capable of being fired
fully automatically by
a single pull of the
trigger.
Machinegun. A
“machinegun”,
“machine pistol”,
“submachinegun”, or
“automatic rifle” is a
firearm which shoots,
is designed to shoot,
or can be readily
restored to shoot,
automatically more
than one shot, without
manual reloading, by
a single function of
the trigger.
Machinegun. A
“machinegun,”
“machine pistol,”
“submachinegun,” or
“automatic rifle” is a
firearm which shoots,
is designed to shoot,
or can be readily
restored to shoot,
automatically more
than one shot, without
manual reloading, by
a single function of
the trigger.
The term shall also
include the frame or
receiver of any such
weapon, any part
designed and intended
solely and
exclusively, or
combination of parts
The term shall also
include the frame or
receiver of any such
weapon, any part
designed and intended
solely and exclusively,
or combination of
parts designed and
7 Cargill, 602 U.S. at 407–08.designed and
intended, for use in
converting a weapon
into a machinegun,
and any combination
of parts from which a
machinegun can be
assembled if such
parts are in the
possession or under
the control of a
person.
intended, for use in
converting a weapon
into a machinegun,
and any combination
of parts from which a
machinegun can be
assembled if such
parts are in the
possession or under
the control of a
person.
For purposes of this
definition, the term
“automatically” as it
modifies “shoots, is
designed to shoot, or
can be readily restored
to shoot,” means
functioning as the
result of a self-acting
or self-regulating
mechanism that
allows the firing of
multiple rounds
through a single
function of the trigger;
and “single function
of the trigger” means
a single pull of the
trigger and analogous
motions.
The term
“machinegun”
includes a bump-
stock-type device, i.e.,
a device that allows a
semi-automatic
firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a
single pull of the
trigger by harnessing
the recoil energy of
the semi-automatic
firearm to which it is
affixed so that the
trigger resets and
continues firing
without additional
physical manipulation
of the trigger by the§§ 478.11
and 479.11
Machine gun. Any
weapon which shoots,
is designed to shoot,
or can be readily
restored to shoot,
automatically more
than one shot, without
manual reloading, by
a single function of
the trigger.
The term shall also
include the frame or
receiver of any such
weapon, any part
designed and intended
solely and
exclusively, or
combination of parts
designed and
intended, for use in
converting a weapon
into a machine gun,
and any combination
of parts from which a
machine gun can be
assembled if such
parts are in the
possession or under
the control of a
person.
shooter.
Machine gun. Any
weapon which shoots,
is designed to shoot,
or can be readily
restored to shoot,
automatically more
than one shot, without
manual reloading, by
a single function of
the trigger.
The term shall also
include the frame or
receiver of any such
weapon, any part
designed and intended
solely and
exclusively, or
combination of parts
designed and
intended, for use in
converting a weapon
into a machine gun,
and any combination
of parts from which a
machine gun can be
assembled if such
parts are in the
possession or under
the control of a
person.
For purposes of this
definition, the term
“automatically” as it
modifies “shoots, is
designed to shoot, or
can be readily restored
to shoot,” means
functioning as the
result of a self-acting
or self-regulating
mechanism that
allows the firing of
multiple rounds
through a single
function of the trigger;
and “single function
of the trigger” means
a single pull of the
trigger and analogous
motions.
Machine gun. Any
weapon which shoots,
is designed to shoot,
or can be readily
restored to shoot,
automatically more
than one shot, without
manual reloading, by
a single function of
the trigger.
The term shall also
include the frame or
receiver of any such
weapon, any part
designed and intended
solely and exclusively,
or combination of
parts designed and
intended, for use in
converting a weapon
into a machine gun,
and any combination
of parts from which a
machine gun can be
assembled if such
parts are in the
possession or under
the control of a
person.The term “machine
gun” includes a bump-
stock-type device, i.e.,
a device that allows a
semi-automatic
firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a
single pull of the
trigger by harnessing
the recoil energy of
the semi-automatic
firearm to which it is
affixed so that the
trigger resets and
continues firing
without additional
physical manipulation
of the trigger by the
shooter.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Administrative Procedure Act
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), an agency may, for
good cause, find that the usual requirements of prior notice and comment are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As described above, this
rule simply removes the sentences added by the 2018 final rule in conformity with the
Supreme Court’s decision in Cargill. These conforming updates to ATF regulations in
parts 447, 478, and 479 are to ensure consistency with the Cargill decision, thus avoiding
any public confusion that may result from reliance on regulatory provisions that have
been held to exceed statutory authority. Because this rule merely responds to the Supreme
Court’s decision, ATF finds it unnecessary to publish this rule for public notice and
comment. See McChesney v. Petersen, 275 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1136 (D. Neb. 2016) (“No
notice and commentary could have altered the Commission’s obligation to implement the
2013 Congressional extension … Accordingly, … notice and comment [was]
unnecessary under 553(b)(B).”); In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in
the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, 2015 WL 729701, at *4 (E.D. La. Feb. 19, 2015)(The “EPA had no discretion — it was required by Congress to adjust the penalty
according to the formula. As a result, the usual notice and comment procedure was
unnecessary in this instance.”). On the same basis, this rule is made effective upon
publication because ATF finds good cause for an immediate effective date, as delaying
the effective date of the conforming amendments would not serve the public interest (5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3)).
B. 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 removes previously added language to conform the ATF’s regulations
with the Supreme Court’s decision without increasing costs. The Office of Management
and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action,”
although not economically significant, under Executive Order 12866. It has therefore
been reviewed by OMB pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866. ATF
provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.
1. Benefits
ATF estimates that this rule will result in quantifiable benefits to the public in the
form of future production and sales, and some qualitative benefits due to recovered bump
stocks and more options in firearms accessories in the future.
In the 2018 final rule, ATF evaluated public comments received in response to its
proposed rule and performed an analysis of the estimated “foregone future productionand sales” for the 2018 final rule.8 Since this final rule is rescinding provisions that were
implemented by the 2018 final rule, ATF used — and updated — the foregone future
production and sales from the 2018 final rule as a measure of overall quantitative benefits
that will accrue from this final rule.
In the 2018 final rule, ATF estimated that 62,084 bump stocks were produced per
year. However, at that time, there had been no legal decision on whether bump stocks
would be found to convert firearms into machine guns or not, so some persons who
otherwise might have produced or purchased them might not have done so.9 As a result,
the future production estimate from 2018 is likely lower than future bump stock
production will be post-Cargill. So, ATF notes that the production rate in this analysis is
likely to result in an underestimate of the potential future revenue from bump stocks.
Based on historical prices, the retail price of bump stocks ranged from $99.9910 to
$453.51.11 ATF used these historical retail prices in this analysis as a proxy for future
bump stock retail prices, but updated these prices to account for inflation.12 Using the
date the information was accessed for the 2018 final rule, and updating these retail prices
to 2025 dollars, ATF estimates that the current retail value of these bump stocks ranges
between $133.04 to $603.41. For the purposes of this analysis, ATF rounded and
weighted the 2025 price range costs to calculate an average of $330 per bump stock at
2025 prices. At an estimated future production rate of 62,084 multiplied by $330 per
bump stock, ATF estimates that the annualized benefit from this rule will be a minimum
8 See footnote 4, supra.
9 ATF notes that 62,084 bump stocks purchased over the next ten years may be an underestimate. Prior to
the publication of the 2018 final rule, the Supreme Court had not decided whether bump stocks converted
firearms into machine guns or would be considered GCA firearm accessories. Now, with that assurance,
firearm purchasers may buy more bump stocks in the future.
10 Bumpfire Systems, What Is a Bump Fire? (2017),
https://web.archive.org/web/20170214195732/http://bumpfiresystems.com/ (last visited April 7, 2026).
11 Slide Fire, AR15 Bump Fire Stocks (2015),
https://web.archive.org/web/20170128085532/http://www.slidefire.com/products/ar-platform (last visited
April 7, 2026).
12 U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats., CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
(last visited Jan. 6, 2026) (inflation to December 2025).of $20,487,720, or $204,877,200 over the course of ten years.
In addition, after the 2018 final rule was published, approximately 965 bump
stocks were turned into ATF for disposal. People who turned in bump stocks to ATF have
been provided the opportunity to retrieve them from ATF, which would provide them
with a qualitative benefit in recovering foregone property. Overall, this rule will also now
allow firearm purchasers more options to accessorize and modify their existing firearms.
2. Costs
No costs were attributed to this rule because this rule is upholding the Supreme
Court decision to assess bump stocks as firearms accessories, and it is also deregulatory
in that it removes restrictions on bump stock sales and purchases. It does not impose
additional requirements or cause persons to incur new costs.
C. 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. Although this rule is a significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866, it does not impose total costs greater than
zero. This rule removes regulatory language to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision in
Cargill and imposes no costs. Therefore, this rule is an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action (defined OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that imposestotal costs less than zero) and ATF does not need to identify at least ten existing
regulations to repeal or revise to account for the promulgation of this rule.
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 final rule does not create a criminal regulatory offense
and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.
E. Executive Order 13132
This 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
rule does 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 rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities or the rule is exempt from notice-and-commentrulemaking requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or other law. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a).
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.
In accordance with the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603, 604, and 605(b), a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because ATF was not required to
publish a general NPRM for this matter. In addition, the Director certifies, after
consideration, that this 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.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This 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 (“UMRA”). Regardless , like
the RFA, the UMRA does not apply here because no NPRM was required to precede this
final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(a).
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 rule does not create any new information collection
requirements or impact any existing ones covered by the PRA.J. Congressional Review Act
This rule is not a major rule as defined by the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 804.
List of subjects
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.
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.
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, and Transportation.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF is amending 27 CFR parts 447,
478, and 479 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 (Mar. 8, 2013).
§ 447.11 [Amended]
2. In § 447.11, amend the definition of ‘‘Machinegun’’ by removing the last two
sentences of the definition and by removing the commas after the quotation marks at theend of terms “machinegun”, “machine pistol”, and “submachinegun” and adding a
comma inside the ending quotation marks for each of those terms.
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
3. 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 [Amended]
4. In § 478.11, amend the definition of ‘‘Machine gun’’ by removing the last two
sentences of the definition.
PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN
OTHER FIREARMS
5. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 479 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5812; 28 U.S.C. 5822; 26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805.
§ 479.11 [Amended]
6. In § 479.11, amend the definition of ‘‘Machine gun’’ by removing the last two
sentences of the definition.
Robert Cekada,
Director.