Rule2026-08920
Removing Triplicate Filing Requirement for Importing Plastic Explosives
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
May 6, 2026
Effective
June 5, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Abstract
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") is amending Department of Justice explosives regulations on importing plastic explosives by removing the requirement to submit the required attestation in triplicate.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24364-24366]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08920]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Part 555
[ATF No. 2025R-38F]
RIN 1140-AA74
Removing Triplicate Filing Requirement for Importing Plastic
Explosives
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 explosives regulations on
importing plastic explosives by removing the requirement to submit the
required attestation in triplicate.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 5, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d223f2c2d0c190b430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d120f1c1d3c293b733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>, 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
Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (``OCCA''),
Public Law 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (1970), added chapter 40 (Importation,
Manufacture, Distribution, and Storage of Explosive Materials) to 18
U.S.C.\1\ 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.'' Public Law 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 of ATF (``Director''),
subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General.\2\ 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 18 U.S.C. chapter 40 provisions still refer to the
``Secretary of the Treasury.'' However, the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 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
OCCA, the National Firearms Act, and the Gun 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persons importing explosive materials into the United States must
abide by the general provisions set forth in 27 CFR 555.108. Importers
of plastic explosives into the United States are subject to the
additional requirements at Sec. 555.183. Id. at Sec. 555.108(d).
Under Sec. 555.183, importers of plastic explosives that file an ATF
Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and
Defense Articles (``Form 6, part I''),\3\ must also attach a written
statement, prepared in triplicate, declaring, under penalty of perjury,
that the plastic explosive they intend to import contains a detection
agent as required by Sec. 555.180(b) or that the plastic explosive is
a ``small amount'' to be used for research, training, or testing
purposes and is exempt from Sec. 555.182's detection agent
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A Form 6, part I application to import is generally required
for articles on the United States Munitions Imports List
(``USMIL''). See 27 CFR 447.41. If importing plastic explosives that
fall under USMIL, importers would be required to file a Form 6, part
I application and submit the additional information as required by
Sec. 555.183. 27 CFR 447.42(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Final Rule
ATF is removing from its regulations at Sec. 555.183 the
requirement that importers of plastic explosives attach three copies of
their written statement to their Form 6, part I applications. ATF used
to require that Form 6, part I applications be submitted in triplicate,
therefore making three copies of the additional statement in Sec.
555.183 necessary. As ATF has modernized its processing systems, ATF no
longer requires this form to be submitted in triplicate, nor does ATF
use the extra copies of the statement when processing the Form 6, part
I applications. The triplicate filing requirement has
[[Page 24365]]
therefore become unnecessary for ATF. While ATF has not received Form
6, part I applications to import plastic explosives in the past three
years, removing the requirement to file in triplicate reduces a burden
on importers should they import plastic explosives in future. ATF is
not removing the requirement to submit the written statement; it is
simply removing the requirement to submit the statement in triplicate.
Accordingly, the final rule removes from Sec. 555.183 the phrase,
``prepared in triplicate,'' and an obsolete reference to ``on or after
April 24, 1997,'' in the first paragraph. The final rule also updates
the section heading by removing the obsolete reference to ``on or after
April 24, 1997'' and modernizes it to read ``Importing plastic
explosives.''
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Administrative Procedure Act
Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') requires that
agencies publish a notice of a proposed rulemaking and give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking by submitting
comments on it. See 5 U.S.C. 553(c). However, the APA provides limited
exceptions to its notice-and-comment requirements. One such exception
is for ``rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.'' 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(A); see also Am. Fed'n of Lab. & Cong. of Indus. Orgs.
(AFLCIO) v. Nat'l Lab. Rels. Bd., 57 F.4th 1023, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2023)
(``[A]s the text of the APA makes clear, not all rules that might be
categorized as procedural are exempted; the limited carveout is
intended for `internal house-keeping measures organizing agency
activities.' '' (citing Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 1037, 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1987))). The courts have described this exception as
covering ``agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or
interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the
parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.'' Id.
(citing James V. Hurson Assoc., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 280
(D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)). ``[I]t is always
within the discretion of . . . an administrative agency to relax or
modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly transaction of
business.'' Am. Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv. 397 U.S. 532,
539 (1970) (citations omitted).
By removing the requirement that the attestation on plastic
explosives be submitted in triplicate with the Form 6, part I, ATF is
neither imposing a substantive requirement on industry or the public,
nor relieving industry or the public from any substantive requirements.
ATF no longer needs additional copies of the attestation because ATF
does not need the Form 6, part I to be in triplicate. The import
application is available on ATF's eForms platform, and a majority of
importers submit their applications electronically. When submitting
electronically, users complete the Form 6, part I application once.
While ATF still accepts paper applications, ATF also no longer needs
the Form 6, part I in triplicate and, at the time of this rule, is
amending the form's instructions to reflect this. Overall, removing the
requirement to file the attestation in triplicate is a procedural
housekeeping measure that decreases the administrative burden for both
industry and ATF without effectuating any substantive change or
adversely impacting the broader public.
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 final rule amends 27 CFR 555.183 to remove the requirement
that a written statement be submitted in triplicate as it is
unnecessary to process the Form 6, part I application to import plastic
explosive materials. The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866. Although ATF finds that this rule can
forgo notice-and-comment because it a procedural, housekeeping rule
under 5 U.S.C 553(b)(A), ATF nonetheless includes a brief benefits-
costs discussion to illustrate the benefits and deregulatory nature of
removing the requirement to submit in triplicate when licensees import
plastic explosives.
1. Benefits
The benefits ATF expects to result from this rule would be
primarily qualitative in nature and de minimis. Form 6, part I serves
as the application form for importing plastic explosives, but also for
other items that contain explosive materials, such as propellant for
sporting ammunition, propellant for nonsporting ammunition (rounds over
50 caliber, tracer, or incendiary), and destructive devices (for
example bombs, mines, grenades, ammunition rounds larger than 23mm, if
they contain more than 4 oz of explosive material). Based on ATF data,
there have been 55 Form 6 applications submitted over the past three
years to import items that contain explosive materials, with an annual
average of approximately 18 per year.
Removing the requirement that importers of plastic explosives
attach three copies of their written statement with their Form 6, part
I application would save importers the marginal burden of printing and
signing three copies of the required forms. Where these triplicate
forms were once collected on carbon copied physical forms, any
additional burden was nonexistent. As the carbon copies were phased out
and replaced by physical or electronic forms, a marginal burden emerged
where the applicant was required to produce redundant copies of the
application. However, the entire form never had to be completed three
times. An electronic form could be printed three times instead of once,
or a physical form could be photocopied and signed instead of completed
again. While no import applications have been submitted for plastic
explosives in the past three years, this rule would eliminate any such
de minimis burden in the event of a future import of plastic
explosives. For the above reasons, ATF expects benefits to be primarily
qualitative in nature and quantitatively de minimis.
2. Costs
ATF does not expect any compliance costs to result from the rule,
as it is a deregulatory action that would result in marginal benefits
and transfers.
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
[[Page 24366]]
regulations. However, this rule is not an Executive Order 14192
regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866 and it does not impose total costs
greater than zero. This rule qualifies as an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action as it removes a requirement for applicants to
submit three copies of an attestation with their Form 6, part I
application to import plastic explosives.
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 final 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 final 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,
ATF has considered whether this final rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term
``small entities'' comprises 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 sections 603 and 604 of the RFA, a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis is not required for this final rule because ATF
was not required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for
this matter. However, there are no additional costs to the public as it
removes an unnecessary regulatory requirement; therefore, the Director
certifies, after consideration, that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final 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 ten or more
persons within any 12-month period. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This rule does
not create any new information collection requirements. There is no
existing information collection associated with this triplicate filing
requirement because it has not involved ten or more respondents within
a 12-month period. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A)(i); 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4).
J. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., ATF
has determined that this rule does not meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C.
804(2) to constitute a major rule. This rule is not a major rule
because it would not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant
adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
List of Subjects in 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 amends 27 CFR part
555 as follows:
PART 555--COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES
0
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 555 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847.
0
2. Amend Sec. 555.183 by revising the section heading and introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 555.183 Importing plastic explosives.
Persons filing a Form 6 application to import plastic explosives
must attach to the application the following written statement executed
under the penalties of perjury:
* * * * *
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-08920 Filed 5-5-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on May 6, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.