Proposed Rule2026-08930
Removing Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces”
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
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Abstract
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."
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)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24453-24462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-08930]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 24454]]
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) August 4,
2026. 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--
<bullet> Federal e-rulemaking portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> 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, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#db94899a9bbaafbdf5bcb4ad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f706d7e7f5e4b5911585049">[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. 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 federal law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
readily restored 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
[[Page 24455]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 86 FR 30826.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached
``Stabilizing Braces,'' 88 FR 6478 (Jan. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 24456]]
the final rule likely violated the APA's notice and comment
requirement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 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.
[[Page 24457]]
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 Minimum Maximum Period
estimate estimate estimate Dollar year Disc (%) covered
(years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized benefits ($ n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
millions/year).........................
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
Annualized quantified................... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/ -$144.38 -$61.88 n/a 2025 7 10
year)..................................
-144.38 -61.88 n/a 2025 3 10
Annualized quantified................... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized non-monetized costs.......... n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal annualized monetized ($ millions/ n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
year)..................................
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: federal government
To: individuals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Other annualized monetized transfers ($ n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
millions/year).........................
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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; $144.38 million benefit. This alternative was selected because the benefits
exceed the costs...............................................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24458]]
Publishing guidance documents alternative: this alternative was rejected because this alternative would not have
the force and effect of law and would leave a contradictory regulatory provision in existence..................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized net benefits ($ 144.38 61.88 n/a 2025 7 10
millions/year).........................
144.38 61.88 n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Need Statement
On 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, <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2021-0002-0002">https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2021-0002-0002</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/2J5Q-LZ4M">https://perma.cc/2J5Q-LZ4M</a>].
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ ATF, Form 4--Application for Tax Paid Transfer and
Registration of Firearm (ATF Form 5320.4), <a href="https://www.atf.gov/media/23251/download">https://www.atf.gov/media/23251/download</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/RY2S-62UP">https://perma.cc/RY2S-62UP</a>].
\27\ See, e.g., Walmart, Passport and Visa Photos, <a href="https://photo.walgreens.com/store/passport-photos">https://photo.walgreens.com/store/passport-photos</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/CCC4-STLW">https://perma.cc/CCC4-STLW</a>] and CVS, Photo, Passport Photos, ID & Visa, <a href="https://www.cvs.com/photo/passport-photos?algSearch=passport%20pho&fromSrc=serp">https://www.cvs.com/photo/passport-photos?algSearch=passport%20pho&fromSrc=serp</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/PYS3-HPHZ">https://perma.cc/PYS3-HPHZ</a>].
\28\ See, e.g., Ramsey County, Fingerprinting, <a href="https://www.ramseycountymn.gov/your-government/leadership/sheriffs-office/sheriffs-office-divisions/administration/fingerprinting">https://www.ramseycountymn.gov/your-government/leadership/sheriffs-office/sheriffs-office-divisions/administration/fingerprinting</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/SX9G-JU3Y">https://perma.cc/SX9G-JU3Y</a>] and Fingerprint Technologies, <a href="https://www.fingerprints4all.com/servicesprices">https://www.fingerprints4all.com/servicesprices</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/43UT-8JRB">https://perma.cc/43UT-8JRB</a>].
\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, <a href="https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement">https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-a-trip/transportation-airfare-rates-pov-rates-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-pov-mileage-reimbursement</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/U6UC-RZGH">https://perma.cc/U6UC-RZGH</a>].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, deregulatory savings include fees licensees charge
for out-of-state 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
[[Page 24459]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Valuing Time in U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services
Regulatory Impact Analysis: Conceptual Framework and Best Practices
(June 2017), <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/257746/VOT.pdf">https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/257746/VOT.pdf</a>.
Table 2--Calculating Leisure Wage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inputs for leisure wage rate Numerical inputs Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a. Median non-leisure weekly $1,214........... News Release, BLS,
wage. Usual Weekly
Earnings for Wage
and Salary Workers,
third quarter 2025,
[<a href="https://perma.cc/PK8F-SSMK">https://perma.cc/PK8F-SSMK</a>].
1b. Median non-leisure hourly $30.35........... $1,214 median weekly
wage. wage/40 hours a week
= $30.35.
2a. Real household income pre- $83,730.......... U.S. Census Bureau,
tax. Median Household
Income, 2025,
[<a href="https://perma.cc/RU47-LLBX">https://perma.cc/RU47-LLBX</a>].
2b. Real household income post- $72,330.......... U.S. Census Bureau,
tax. Median Household
Income, 2025, post-
tax spreadsheet
[<a href="https://perma.cc/M33M-EWY7">https://perma.cc/M33M-EWY7</a>].
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 $26.00...........
wage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time value Mileage (70
Cost type Cost input Hourly burden Hourly wage (burden * wage) 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
[[Page 24460]]
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached
``Stabilizing Braces,'' 88 FR 6478 (Jan. 31. 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 14192 regulatory action
(defined in OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 that imposes total
costs greater than zero). In furtherance of this requirement, section
3(c) of Executive Order 14192 requires that any new incremental costs
associated with such new regulations must, to the extent permitted by
law, also be offset by eliminating existing costs associated with at
least ten prior regulations. However, this proposed rule would not be
an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action.
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 power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that
this proposed rule would not impose substantial direct compliance costs
on state and local governments, preempt state law, or meaningfully
implicate federalism. It thus does not warrant preparing a federalism
summary impact statement.
E. Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform).
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies
are required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements
unless the agency head certifies, including a statement of the 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,
[[Page 24461]]
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 not constitute 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, recordkeeping, 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 and reviewing 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 U.S.C. 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. ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this
proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. In addition,
ATF requests comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and
on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and
benefits.
All comments must reference this document's RIN 1140-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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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
[[Page 24462]]
PII posted on the internet should omit such PII from the body of their
comment and in any uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the
online fields designated for name, email, and other contact information
will not be posted or viewable online.
A commenter may submit to ATF information identified as proprietary
or confidential business information by mail. To request that ATF
handle this information as controlled unclassified information
(``CUI''), the commenter must place any portion of a comment that is
proprietary or confidential business information under law or
regulation on pages separate from the balance of the comment, with each
page prominently marked ``CUI//PROPIN'' at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or confidential business information
submitted in compliance with these instructions available when
disclosing the comments that it receives but will disclose that the
commenter provided proprietary or confidential business information
that ATF is holding in a separate file to which the public does not
have access. If ATF receives a request to examine or copy this
information, it will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In addition, ATF will disclose such
proprietary or confidential business information to the extent required
by other legal process.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments using either of the two methods described below
(but do not submit the same comment multiple times or by more than one
method). Hand-delivered comments will not be accepted.
<bullet> Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you
submit your comments to ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> (search for 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
0
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).
Sec. 478.11 Meaning of terms.
0
2. Amend Sec. 478.11 definition of ``rifle'' by removing paragraphs
(1) and (2).
PART 479--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS
0
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.
Sec. 479.11 Meaning of terms.
0
4. Amend Sec. 479.11 definition of ``rifle'' by removing paragraphs
(1) and (2).
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-08930 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.