Rule2026-08926
Revising Machine Gun Definition in Response to Supreme Court Decision
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
May 6, 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 ("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.
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 24348-24352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08926]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 May 6, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Regulatory Affairs, by email
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c38c918283a2b7a5eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="347b6675745540521a535b42">[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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some NFA and GCA 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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), <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-announces-regulation-effectively-banning-bump-stocks">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-announces-regulation-effectively-banning-bump-stocks</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/S7DZ-76XD">https://perma.cc/S7DZ-76XD</a>].
\4\ 83 FR 66514 (Dec. 26, 2018); 84 FR 9239 (Mar. 14, 2019)
(ratifying final rule).
\5\ Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406, 415 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
[[Page 24349]]
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 Sec. Sec. 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 Sec. 447.11 with the NFA's statutory definition and
the ``machine gun'' definitions in Sec. Sec. 478.11 and 479.11. This
harmonization in Sec. 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) adding
the 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 Sec. 447.11's
definition inside the quotation marks in conformity with standard
American punctuation. These changes are shown in the table below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Cargill, 602 U.S. at 407-08.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory definition (divided by
sentence) Before 2018 final rule After 2018 final rule After this rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 447.11..................... Machinegun. A Machinegun. A Machinegun. A
``machinegun'', ``machinegun'', ``machinegun,''
``machine pistol'', ``machine pistol'', ``machine pistol,''
``submachinegun'', or ``submachinegun'', or ``submachinegun,'' or
``automatic rifle'' is ``automatic rifle'' is ``automatic rifle'' is
a firearm originally a firearm which shoots, a firearm which shoots,
designed to fire, or is designed to shoot, is designed to shoot,
capable of being fired or can be readily or can be readily
fully automatically by restored to shoot, restored to shoot,
a single pull of the automatically more than automatically more than
trigger. one shot, without one shot, without
manual reloading, by a manual reloading, by a
single function of the single function of the
trigger. trigger.
The term shall also The term shall also
include the frame or include the frame or
receiver of any such receiver of any such
weapon, any part weapon, any part
designed and intended designed and intended
solely and exclusively, solely and exclusively,
or combination of parts or combination of parts
designed and intended, designed and intended,
for use in converting a for use in converting a
weapon into a weapon into a
machinegun, and any machinegun, and any
combination of parts combination of parts
from which a machinegun from which a machinegun
can be assembled if can be assembled if
such parts are in the such parts are in the
possession or under the possession or under the
control of a person. 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
shooter.
Sec. Sec. 478.11 and 479.11.... Machine gun. Any weapon Machine gun. Any weapon Machine gun. Any weapon
which shoots, is which shoots, is which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or designed to shoot, or designed to shoot, or
can be readily restored can be readily restored can be readily restored
to shoot, automatically to shoot, automatically to shoot, automatically
more than one shot, more than one shot, more than one shot,
without manual without manual without manual
reloading, by a single reloading, by a single reloading, by a single
function of the function of the function of the
trigger. trigger. trigger.
[[Page 24350]]
The term shall also The term shall also The term shall also
include the frame or include the frame or include the frame or
receiver of any such receiver of any such receiver of any such
weapon, any part weapon, any part weapon, any part
designed and intended designed and intended designed and intended
solely and exclusively, solely and exclusively, solely and exclusively,
or combination of parts or combination of parts or combination of parts
designed and intended, designed and intended, designed and intended,
for use in converting a for use in converting a for use in converting a
weapon into a machine weapon into a machine weapon into a machine
gun, and any gun, and any gun, and any
combination of parts combination of parts combination of parts
from which a machine from which a machine from which a machine
gun can be assembled if gun can be assembled if gun can be assembled if
such parts are in the such parts are in the such parts are in the
possession or under the possession or under the possession or under the
control of a person. control of a person. 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 ``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 production and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See footnote 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 24351]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on historical prices, the retail price of bump stocks ranged
from $99.99 \10\ 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 of $20,487,720, or
$204,877,200 over the course of ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Bumpfire Systems, What Is a Bump Fire? (2017), <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170214195732/http://bumpfiresystems.com/">https://web.archive.org/web/20170214195732/http://bumpfiresystems.com/</a> (last
visited April 7, 2026).
\11\ Slide Fire, AR15 Bump Fire Stocks (2015), <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170128085532/http://www.slidefire.com/products/ar-platform">https://web.archive.org/web/20170128085532/http://www.slidefire.com/products/ar-platform</a> (last visited April 7, 2026).
\12\ U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stats., CPI Inflation Calculator,
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm">https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm</a> (last visited Jan.
6, 2026) (inflation to December 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 imposes total 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-comment rulemaking 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,
[[Page 24352]]
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 recordkeeping 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 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, 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
0
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).
Sec. 447.11 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 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 the end 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
0
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).
Sec. 478.11 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 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
0
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.
Sec. 479.11 [Amended]
0
6. In Sec. 479.11, amend the definition of ``Machine gun'' by removing
the last two sentences of the definition.
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-08926 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.