Proposed Rule2026-09157
Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements
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 8, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Abstract
Federal law permits federal firearms licensees ("FFLs") to transfer firearms to a person residing in the same state but who does not appear in person. These are "non-over-the-counter" ("NOTC") sales. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") proposes amending Department of Justice ("Department") regulations on NOTC sales. These proposed changes would remove restrictions limiting this option to background check-exempt transfers. The proposed rule would permit FFLs to conduct NOTC transfers while complying with background check requirements and adds remote identity proofing and electronic notices to chief law enforcement officers. These changes would provide greater flexibility for individuals lawfully purchasing firearms.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25216-25228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-09157]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Part 478
[Docket No. ATF-2026-0266; ATF 2025R-26P]
RIN 1140-AB05
Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Federal law permits federal firearms licensees (``FFLs'') to
transfer firearms to a person residing in the same state but who does
not appear in person. These are ``non-over-the-counter'' (``NOTC'')
sales. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(``ATF'') proposes amending Department of Justice (``Department'')
regulations on NOTC sales. These proposed changes would remove
restrictions limiting this option to background check-exempt transfers.
The proposed rule would permit FFLs to conduct NOTC transfers while
complying with background check requirements and adds remote identity
proofing and electronic notices to chief law enforcement officers.
These changes would provide greater flexibility for individuals
lawfully purchasing firearms.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on
or before (or, if mailed, must be postmarked on or before) August 6,
2026. Commenters should be aware that the https://www/regulations.gov
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 docket number ATF
1140-AB05, 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: ATF 1140-AB05.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
number (RIN 1140-AB05) 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#602f3221200114064e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3fce1f2f3d2c7d59dd4dcc5">[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 of 1968 (``GCA''), as amended. This
[[Page 25217]]
responsibility includes the authority to promulgate regulations
necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA.\1\ See 18 U.S.C.
926(a). Congress and the Attorney General have delegated the
responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA 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 to implement the GCA in 27 CFR part 478.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some 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 NPRM 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
National Firearms Act, 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 the permanent import
of defense articles and defense services and the Contraband
Cigarette Trafficking Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its enactment, the GCA has authorized non-over-the-counter
(``NOTC'') sales \3\ as long as certain conditions are met. The GCA at
18 U.S.C. 922(c)(1) provides that, ``[i]n any case not otherwise
prohibited by this chapter,'' a licensed importer, manufacturer, or
dealer may sell a firearm to a person who does not appear in person at
the licensee's business premises (other than another licensed importer,
manufacturer, or dealer) only if: (1) the transferee submits to the
transferor a sworn statement in the following form: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NOTC sales are sales in which the licensee sells a firearm
to a person who does not appear in person at the licensee's business
premises.
\4\ The statement must contain blank spaces to attach a true
copy of any permit or other information required pursuant to such
state statute or published ordinance. 18 U.S.C. 922(c)(1).
Subject to penalties provided by law, I swear that, in the case
of any firearm other than a shotgun or a rifle, I am twenty-one
years or more of age, or that, in the case of a shotgun or a rifle,
I am eighteen years or more of age; that I am not prohibited by the
provisions of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, from
receiving a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; and that my
receipt of this firearm will not be in violation of any statute of
the state and published ordinance applicable to the locality in
which I reside. Further, the true title, name, and address of the
principal law enforcement officer of the locality to which the
firearm will be delivered are_____.
Signature_____ Date_____
(2) the FFL has mailed a copy of the sworn statement and a
description of the firearm to the chief law enforcement officer
(``CLEO'') of the transferee's place of residence by registered or
certified mail, or by electronic notification, in a form prescribed by
the Attorney General (18 U.S.C. 922(c)(2)); and (3) the FFL delays
shipping or delivering the firearm to the transferee for at least seven
days after the FFL receives a response affirming that the CLEO has
accepted or refused delivery of the sworn statement/firearm
description. 18 U.S.C. 922(c)(3). ATF has prescribed, in regulations at
27 CFR 478.96(b), that FFLs use a copy of ATF Form 5300.9, Firearms
Transaction Record (``Form 4473'') to notify the CLEO.
The implementing regulation, 27 CFR 478.96, states that the
statutory NOTC provisions are applicable if the firearm transaction is
``not subject to the provisions of Sec. 478.102(a).'' 27 CFR
478.96(b). Section 478.102(a) \5\ requires an FFL to verify the
identity of an unlicensed transferee by examining a valid
identification document \6\ and to contact the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (``NICS'') for a background check
prior to transferring a firearm. The statute at 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(3) and
its implementing regulation at 27 CFR 478.102(d) allow exceptions
(``NICS-exempt transfers'') to conducting a NICS background check if:
(1) the transferee has a qualifying permit or license; (2) the
transaction involves only transferring National Firearms Act (``NFA'')
firearms as approved by the Director; or (3) the Director has certified
that running a NICS background check is impracticable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This section implements 18 U.S.C. 922(t) of the GCA.
\6\ ATF incorporates the statutory definition of an
``identification document'' in its regulations, which requires the
document to be made or issued by or under the authority of the
United States or a state government or one of its political
subdivisions, a foreign government or one of its political
subdivisions, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental
organization--if, when the document contains information concerning
a particular individual, it is of a type intended or commonly
accepted for the purpose of identifying individuals. 27 CFR 478.11,
as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(2), and incorporated by 18 U.S.C.
922(t)(1)(D). ATF's regulatory definition currently further
specifies that the required information on the individual must
include the individual's name, residence address, birth date, and
photograph. 27 CFR 478.11. However, ATF is proposing to remove the
requirement that it include residence address in another proposed
rule, ``Revising Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473,'' which
proposes to change the term to ``photo identification document,'' to
streamline the photo identification definition by separating out the
residence requirement, and also proposes revisions to the
requirements for Form 4473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Proposed Rule
A. Eliminating the NICS-Exempt Transfer Requirement
ATF is proposing to amend its regulations at Sec. 478.96 to
include requirements for conducting NOTC transactions involving
transfers subject to NICS background checks in addition to the existing
provisions that set out requirements for NICS-exempt NOTC transactions.
To this end, this rule proposes adding a new paragraph (c) that would
cover NOTC transactions for transfers that require NICS background
checks.
ATF has carefully reviewed the provisions in the GCA addressing
NOTC transfers and the current regulations that govern those procedures
as described above. Section 922(c), allowing NOTC transfers, has been
in effect since the GCA was enacted in 1968 and, except for a 2024
amendment allowing electronic notifications under section 922(c)(2)(A),
remains largely unchanged.\7\ The regulations in 27 CFR 478.96 limit
the option for NOTC transactions to only those persons who are not
subject to Sec. 478.102(a), meaning that the NOTC process is limited
under regulation to only NICS-exempt transfers. However, 18 U.S.C.
922(c) does not contain any provisions limiting such NOTC transfers to
only NICS-exempt transfers, nor has it ever contained any such
provisions. NOTC transfers must be ``not otherwise prohibited by this
chapter.'' ATF has concluded that the plain language of section 922(c)
does not limit NOTC to NICS-exempt transfers. There is no general
prohibition on NOTC transfers in the GCA, and they are limited only to
the extent that the underlying transfer is ``otherwise prohibited.''
For example, transferring a firearm to an unlawful user of controlled
substances in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) would be ``otherwise
prohibited'' by the GCA and thus unlawful for both in-person, over-the-
counter transfers and NOTC transfers. Additionally, a licensee must
comply with any legal requirements to transfer a firearm in person. For
example, a licensee may transfer a rifle or shotgun to a person who
does not reside in the same state as the licensee's place of business
if the transfer occurs in person, and selling, delivering, and
receiving the firearm fully comply with
[[Page 25218]]
the legal conditions of sale in both such states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Public Law 118-159 (Dec. 23, 2024), 138 Stat. 1773, 2449
(amending section 922(c)(2) to include electronic notifications).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general, section 922(t) prohibits an FFL from transferring a
firearm to an unlicensed person without running a NICS background check
and verifying the transferee's identity by examining a valid
identification document. While section 922(t) requires the FFL to
verify the transferee's identity document, that subsection does not
require that an FFL verify the identity document only when a transferee
is physically present at the FFL's place of business. Moreover, since
the Brady Act and its requirements were enacted in 1993,\8\ there have
been massive technological changes that make it possible for entities
to verify both an identity document and a particular person's identity
remotely. Other federal agencies have recognized these changes. U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, for example, allows employers to
remotely verify I-9 documents establishing eligibility to work.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These provisions were part of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, Public Law 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536 (1993).
\9\ Optional Alternative 1 to the Physical Document Examination
Associated with Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), 88
FR 47749 (July 25, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor are there other provisions in section 922(t) suggesting that
the Brady Act prohibited or limited NOTC transactions. A NICS check and
identity verification is not required under section 922(t) if: (1) the
transferee has a qualifying permit or license; (2) the transaction
involves an approved transfer of only NFA firearms; or (3) the Director
has certified that running a NICS background check is impracticable.
While these three specific transaction types are exempted from the
section 922(t) NICS check and verification requirements and are
appropriate situations for utilizing section 922(c) NOTC procedures,
ATF concludes that those are not the only transfers to which section
922(c) applies. Nothing in the statute prevents transfers that do
require identity verification and a NICS background check from being
included within the ambit of section 922(c) NOTC procedures.
For these reasons, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.96 by
eliminating the NICS-exempt transfer restriction for NOTC transfers and
expanding the provision to permit NOTC transfers subject to NICS
background checks to unlicensed persons who are residents of the same
state in which the FFL's business premises are located, when the FFL
can verify the non-licensee's identification remotely.
B. Verifying the Transferee's Identity Through Remote Identity Proofing
and Authentication
As part of the new Sec. 478.96 paragraph (c) discussed above, on
NOTC transfers subject to NICS background checks, ATF proposes
including criteria for FFLs who wish to engage in these sales to
remotely verify transferee identity. Advances in technology have made
remotely proving and authenticating identity more feasible,
trustworthy, and secure. Verifying an applicant's identity remotely
would still comply with 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(D)'s requirement to verify
identity for NOTC transfers, and would still ensure that identity
information transmitted to NICS is valid and associated with the
transferee.\10\ Being able to remotely prove and authenticate a
person's identity would therefore enable an FFL to verify a
transferee's identity, as required, when they do not appear in person
at the licensee's business premises. The verified identity information
and other related information (such as residency or alien status
documents), if any, can then be used to conduct a NICS check (see
discussion below for details). The Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST''), provides government
and other organizations with technical requirements and recommendations
for establishing, maintaining, and authenticating identity for persons
who access digital systems over a network in NIST Special Publication
800-63-4, Digital Identity Guidelines (``NIST SP 800-63-4'').\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Remote identity ``proofing'' is the process of verifying
the real-world identity of an ``applicant'' and creating a digital
identity for enrollment as a ``subscriber'' in an identity service
without a physical meeting between the applicant and the service
provider. Temoshok, D., Abruzzi, C., Choong, Y-Y., Fenton, J.L.,
Galluzzo, R., LaSalle, C., Lefkovitz, N., Regenscheid, A., &
Vachino, M. (2025). Digital identity guidelines: identity proofing
and enrollment. Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Tech., Gaithersburg, MD,
NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-63A-4 at p. 8. <a href="https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63A-4">https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63A-4</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/8M5J-EXUR">https://perma.cc/8M5J-EXUR</a>] (``NIST SP
800-63A-4''). ``Authentication'' is the process of determining the
validity of one or more authenticators used to claim an existing
digital identity and establishes that a subject attempting to access
a digital service is in control of the technologies used to
authenticate. Temoshok, D., Fenton, J.L., Choong, Y-Y., Lefkovitz,
N., Regenscheid, A., Galluzzo, R., & Richer, J.P. (2025). Digital
identity guidelines: authentication and authenticator management.
Nat'l Inst.of Standards & Tech., Gaithersburg, MD, NIST Special
Publication (SP) 800-63B-4 at p. 1. <a href="https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63B-4">https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63B-4</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/2LXN-Q3GS">https://perma.cc/2LXN-Q3GS</a>] (``NIST SP 800-63B-
4'').
\11\ Temoshok, D., Proud-Madruga, D., Choong, Y-Y., Galluzzo,
R., Gupta, S., LaSalle, C., Lefkovitz, N., & Regenscheid, A. (2025).
Digital identity guidelines. Nat'l Inst. of Standards & Tech.,
Gaithersburg, MD, NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-63-4. <a href="https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-4">https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-63-4</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/LEF5-5BQU">https://perma.cc/LEF5-5BQU</a>].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the NIST guidelines for remote identity proofing, a person's
identity is assured using one of three identity assurance levels
(``IALs''), each of which builds on the requirements of lower IALs.\12\
An IAL1 identity proofing process verifies that the claimed identity
exists in the real world and provides some assurance that the applicant
is appropriately associated with this real-world identity. IAL1 is
performed using remote or onsite processes, with or without a
credential service provider (``CSP'') representative (``proofing
agent'' or ``trusted referee'').\13\ IAL2 identity proofing increases
assurance by requiring additional identity evidence and a more rigorous
process for validating the evidence. IAL2 identity proofing is still
performed using remote or onsite processes, with or without a proofing
agent or trusted referee.\14\ IAL3 identity proofing adds the
requirement for a trained proofing agent to interact directly with the
applicant, as part of an onsite attended identity proofing session, and
to collect at least one biometric characteristic.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ NIST SP 800-63A-4 at 2.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government agencies conducting identity proofing to manage access
to federal digital resources are required to implement the NIST
standards.\16\ Several federal agencies, including the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA''), the Small Business
Administration, and the Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'') have
implemented IAL2 remote identity proofing.\17\ The IRS, for example,
allows individual taxpayers to create an ID.me account to access IRS-
held information requiring identity verification.\18\ Taxpayers are
presented with an option
[[Page 25219]]
to verify their identity by either a self-service process or a ``video
chat agent'' process with an ID.me trusted referee.\19\ In addition to
providing a picture of their identity document, taxpayers are required
to take a ``selfie'' to verify they are the person pictured in the
document.\20\ If the self-service process does not work or experiences
problems, the taxpayer can elect the ``video chat agent'' process,
where they can provide alternative identity documentation and speak
with an ID.me trusted referee.\21\ Taxpayers may also choose to bypass
the self-service process and proceed directly to the trusted
referee.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Executive Office of the President, Executive Memorandum M-
19-17, Enabling Mission Delivery through Improved Identity,
Credential, and Access Management (May 21, 2019).
\17\ See 27 CFR 580.3 (NHSTA regulation requiring IAL2 for
electronic signatures on odometer disclosure statements); see also
Small Business Administration, Lender and Development Company Loan
Programs, SOP 50 10, at Appendix 10 (June 1, 2025), <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/sop-50-10-lender-development-company-loan-programs">https://www.sba.gov/document/sop-50-10-lender-development-company-loan-programs</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/X5PD-5SDJ">https://perma.cc/X5PD-5SDJ</a>]; Internal Revenue Service,
Publication 1075, Tax Information Security Guidelines, Section 3.3.8
Public-Facing Systems, at 86 (Nov. 2021), <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1075.pdf">https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1075.pdf</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/RJF7-5JA7">https://perma.cc/RJF7-5JA7</a>] (IAL2 required for
access to federal tax information).
\18\ Accessibility and Compatibility Features for Signing in and
Creating an Account, Internal Revenue Service, <a href="https://www.irs.gov/help/accessibility-and-compatibility-features-for-signing-in-and-creating-an-account">https://www.irs.gov/help/accessibility-and-compatibility-features-for-signing-in-and-creating-an-account</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/7HVA-M5FM">https://perma.cc/7HVA-M5FM</a>].
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF believes that the IAL2 remote identity proofing level, with an
authentication assurance level (``AAL'') of 2, is an acceptable
security and assurance standard for an FFL remote identity verification
process for NOTC transfers under the GCA. Providers can achieve IAL2
through different types of proofing (e.g., remote unattended, remote
attended, etc.) and can verify identity with or without using
biometrics.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NIST SP 800-63A-4 at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote identity proofing at IAL2 begins with the CSP collecting
attribute information (e.g., name, physical address, birthdate, email
address, phone number) from an applicant (the transferee), as well as
identity evidence, such as a driver's license or passport, that the CSP
can validate to confirm the photo identification document is authentic
and to confirm that the identity data on the document is valid,
current, and related to a live individual.\24\ NIST categorizes
identity evidence by strength. For example, ``fair'' evidence includes
a student ID card or a corporate ID card; ``strong'' evidence includes
a physical driver's license, a U.S. Uniformed Services Privileges and
ID card, or a VA health ID card; ``superior'' evidence includes a U.S.
passport or a personal identity verification (``PIV'') or common access
card (``CAC'').\25\ IAL2 identity proofing requires one piece of
``fair'' identity evidence and one piece of ``strong'' identity
evidence, two pieces of ``strong'' evidence, or one piece of
``superior'' identity evidence.\26\ Once the CSP validates the identity
evidence, they verify (``bind'') it as belonging to the person who
appears for the identity proofing using a non-biometric pathway (e.g.,
live photographic comparison), a digital evidence pathway (e.g.,
returning a confirmation code delivered to a validated digital
address), or a biometric pathway (e.g., comparing a facial image to a
facial portrait on identity evidence via an automated comparison).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id. at 45.
\25\ Id. at Appendix A. Identity Evidence Examples by Strength.
\26\ Id.
\27\ Id. at 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the organization requesting remote identity verification
anticipates return visits by their applicants/participants
(collectively hereafter, ``applicants''), successfully authenticating
provides reasonable risk-based assurances that the person accessing the
service again is the same one who accessed the service previously.\28\
In such cases, the CSP enrolls applicants who are successfully
identity-proofed as the CSP's subscribers, assigns them unique
subscriber accounts, and registers one or more authenticators to that
account.\29\ Under the NIST guidelines, the robustness of the
authentication process and binding between an authenticator and a
specific individual is based on one of three AALs, each of which
provides increasing confidence that the person attempting to claim the
previously verified identity controls one or more authenticators bound
to the person's account.\30\ AAL1 provides basic confidence that the
claimant controls an authenticator that is bound to the subscriber
account. AAL1 requires only single-factor authentication using a wide
range of available authentication technologies.\31\ AAL2 provides high
confidence that the claimant controls one or more authenticators bound
to the subscriber account and requires proof that the claimant
possesses and controls two distinct authentication factors.\32\
Authentication at AAL3 provides very high confidence that the claimant
controls one or more authenticators bound to the subscriber account and
is based on proof that the claimant possesses a key, using a public-key
cryptographic protocol.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
\29\ NIST SP 800-63B-4 at 1.
\30\ Id.
\31\ Id. at 2.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF believes that the AAL2 high confidence authentication level is
reasonable for FFL remote identity verification processes at the IAL2
level for NOTC firearm transfers and NICS background checks. Section
922(t)(1)(D) requires that the transferor verify the identity of the
transferee by examining a valid identification document as defined
under 18 U.S.C. 1028(d).\34\ The standards meeting an IAL2 verification
level and AAL2 authentication level for NOTC transactions would more
reliably verify a person's identity than the current procedures for
over-the-counter sales, which rely solely on a visual inspection of
customer-presented documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Examining the identification document(s) also allows the
FFL to confirm the transferee's birth date and residence state to
ensure they are complying with 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1) (making it
unlawful for an FFL to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person
less than 18 years old or a firearm other than a shotgun or rifle to
a person less than 21 years old) and 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3) (transfers
to non-residents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCA, at 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(D), requires an FFL to verify the
transferee's identity prior to every transfer that is subject to NICS
requirements. As a result, the FFL must complete the remote identity
proofing process prior to each NOTC transfer and may not rely on a
previous CSP verification result. ATF is proposing that the requirement
for an FFL to verify the identity of the transferee prior to each NOTC
transfer would be met using the following processes. To initiate the
transfer process, the transferee would continue to send the FFL a Form
4473, as already required by Sec. 478.124. Currently, for over-the-
counter transactions, the FFL examines the transferee's identification
document,\35\ compares the person and the photo on the document, and
records the document's information.\36\ FFLs would continue to perform
these functions, but would do so with remote videoconferencing
software. Once FFLs have done this and initially determined that the
transfers are lawful under state and federal law, FFLs must ensure the
purchasers verify their identity through a CSP that meets the NIST IAL2
standards, and, if the transferees are already a subscriber of the CSP,
an authentication process that meets the NIST AAL2 standards. After the
CSP verifies the transferee's identity, FFLs use the information they
collected by examining and comparing the identification document during
the videoconferencing session to initiate a
[[Page 25220]]
NICS background check, as they currently do. Initiating the background
check in this way would still meet the 18 U.S.C. 922(c) requirement
that the transfer is not ``otherwise prohibited'' by federal law. These
NOTC transfers would continue to be subject to the record-keeping and
CLEO notification provisions of section 922(c) and 27 CFR 478.96,
described in the background section and section II.B of this preamble.
FFLs who wish to engage in NOTC transfers that require identity
verification and a NICS check would be responsible for ensuring that
any CSP they engage to supply remote identity proofing and
authentication meets the proposed NIST standards and processes
described in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See footnote 6, supra. As noted in footnote 6, ATF is
proposing to change the term ``identification document'' to ``photo
identification document'' via another proposed rulemaking.
\36\ Id. As noted in footnote 6, ATF is proposing changes to
Form 4473 and how FFLs handle these forms via another proposed
rulemaking. One of those proposed changes is that the FFL would be
able to attach a copy of the transferee's photo identification
document to Form 4473 instead of recording the information. In that
proposed context, if the FFL were to elect to use remote identity
verification processes, the transferee could send a copy of the
photo identification document with their Form 4473, and the FFL
would compare the copy to the ID via videoconferencing, in addition
to comparing the person and the photo on the ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule does not intend to prescribe or limit the
identity evidence a CSP may use to remotely prove and authenticate
identity using the NIST IAL2 and AAL2 guidelines.
For the reasons discussed above, ATF proposes to add a new Sec.
478.96(c) to outline the process for NOTC transfers and remote identity
verification using the described criteria.
C. Corresponding Amendments to Sec. 478.124
In addition to the amendments proposed above to Sec. 478.96, ATF
is proposing corresponding edits to Sec. 478.124(c)(5),\37\ to
incorporate the new provisions proposed in Sec. 478.96(c) on
requirements for NOTC transfers subject to NICS background checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ This would be Sec. 478.124(c)(5) as it has been proposed
for revision in the Revising Firearms Transaction Record, Form 4473,
proposed rule cited in footnote 6, supra. That rule proposes a new
organization for Sec. 478.124(c) in which (c)(5) would have the
heading ``Licensee verifications'' and would bring together the
verification steps licensees must take for over-the-counter
transfers and the existing NICS-exempt NOTC transfers. The Sec.
478.124(c)(5) amendments proposed in this rule would incorporate
into that section licensee steps for verifying NOTC transfers that
involve NICS background checks as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would add a new paragraph Sec.
478.124(5)(c)(iii) requiring licensees, for NOTC transfers subject to a
NICS check, to ensure transferees have included a true copy of their
photo identification document with their Form 4473, ensure the form and
identification document match, and then follow the procedures in Sec.
478.96(c) as proposed in this rule for remotely verifying identity. In
addition, ATF is proposing a minor edit to Sec. 478.124(c)(5)(iv)
(which would become (v) once the new (iii) paragraph is added) to add
the phrase ``that are NICS exempt'' to the NOTC requirement in that
paragraph for licensees to verify that transferees have included the
relevant sworn statement or state permit/license, because those
requirements apply to NICS-exempt NOTC transfers, but do not apply to
NOTC transfers subject to a NICS check. And finally, ATF proposes to
add a cross-reference to NOTC transactions subject to a NICS check to
Sec. 478.124(c)(5)(v) (which would become (vi) once the new (iii) is
added). This paragraph requires licensees to record on Form 4473 the
date they contact NICS for over-the-counter transactions subject to a
NICS check, and that requirement would also pertain to NOTC
transactions subject to a NICS check.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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.
This rule proposes to amend 27 CFR 478 to clarify the scope of 18
U.S.C. 922(c)(1) to allow NOTC firearm sales by FFLs to unlicensed
persons who reside in the same state as the FFL. The rule would allow
verification that is required by statute to be done by a remote
identity proofing process that would provide the verification required
by statute.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 because it would have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more.
Because this proposed rulemaking would be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, ATF has set forth the
impacts of this proposed rulemaking in OMB's A-4 accounting statement
in Table 1. Table 1 also illustrates the range of future estimates in a
low, primary, and high range as ATF's OMB Circular A-4 sensitivity
analysis. ATF then provides its normal regulatory cost-benefit
analysis.
Table 1--OMB Circular A-4 Accounting Statement ($ millions) and Sensitivity Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
-----------------------------------
Category Primary Minimum Maximum Period
estimate estimate estimate Dollar Percent covered
year discount (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (deregulatory savings)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized benefits........ $103.7 n/a n/a 2025 7 10
103.7 n/a n/a 2025 3 10
Annualized quantified benefits....... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized non-monetized benefits.... Allows greater choice for flexible yet secure transaction options for
licensed firearms retailers and the general public, thereby deregulating
by reducing restrictions and removing barriers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized costs........... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
Annualized quantified costs.......... n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25221]]
Annualized non-monetized costs....... Potential transaction fees from future service providers are estimated
for illustrative purposes at $13.72 million per year, but since
compliance costs are entirely voluntary, FFLs can choose how, or whether,
to cover, pass along, or accommodate the transaction costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal annualized monetized n/a n/a n/a 2025 7 10
transfers........................... 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
n/a n/a n/a 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State, local, and/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 provides only savings to
individuals, not businesses, including small businesses. However, there
may be potential impacts to small entities that may face greater
competition from larger retailers in their state who also choose to offer
remote sales.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wages................................ n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth............................... n/a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution effects................. n/a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-change alternative: $0 cost and $0 benefits. This was rejected as more stringent without any incremental
benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed alternative: $0 cost; $103.7 million benefits plus qualitative benefits. This alternative was selected
because the benefits exceed costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less-stringent alternative: $n/a cost and $n/a benefits. This alternative was rejected because any further
reduction in regulations might pose too great a cost to public safety by allowing prohibited persons to acquire
or otherwise inherit ownership of NFA weapons without a background check.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized monetized net benefits.... 103.7 ........... ........... 2025 7 10
103.7 2025 3 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Need Statement
ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.96 by eliminating the restrictions
against NOTC transfers to unlicensed persons who must undergo a
background check through the FBI's NICS and who are residents of the
same state in which the FFL's business premises are located. The rule
proposes to permit such NOTC transfers when the non-licensee's
identification can be verified remotely. This proposed change would
better account for technological developments since the Brady Act was
enacted in 1994--when the requirement to conduct a background check
before transferring a firearm began--which now enables FFLs to verify
both an identity document and a particular person's identity remotely.
Other federal agencies have recognized these changes. In addition,
there are no provisions in the GCA at section 922(t) suggesting that
the Brady Act intended to prohibit NOTC transactions. Certain
transactions are exempt under section 922(t) from undergoing a NICS
background check if: (1) the transferee has a qualifying permit; (2)
the transaction involves only transferring NFA firearms as approved by
the Director; or (3) the Director has certified that running a NICS
background check is impracticable. While these specific transaction
types are NICS-exempt under section 922(t) and justify applying the
section 922(c) NOTC procedures, ATF believes that section 922(c) also
applies to transfers requiring a NICS background check, as long as the
FFL can sufficiently verify the transferee's identity for the purposes
of NICS background checks and public safety concerns. Nothing in the
statute prevents other transfers requiring verification of a
transferee's identity and a NICS background check from being included
within the ambit of section 922(c) NOTC procedures.
2. Benefits
Based on the proposed changes in this rule, the population that
would be affected by the proposed rule would be persons who purchase
firearms in transactions subject to NICS background-check requirements,
and who wish to purchase their firearms remotely but from licensees
with business premises located in the state in which the person
resides. ATF would first have to estimate the population of gun buyers
per year, and then estimate the proportion of that population who would
choose to purchase remotely. Although ATF receives information from
licensed firearm manufacturers (Type 07 FFLs) and destructive device
manufacturers (Type 10 FFLs) on the number of firearms they manufacture
each year, this data does not include information from which to
determine the annual number of purchasers. With the limited exception
of reports on certain multiple firearm sales, federal
[[Page 25222]]
law does not require any FFL to report sales volume, let alone annual
sales volume.
Because the GCA does not require FFLs to report information
regarding firearm sales, the proxy most often used to estimate annual
U.S. firearm sales has been the volume of background checks conducted
annually by NICS. Although NICS is not designed or intended to track
annual U.S. firearm sales, the data that NICS publishes annually
contains the best available data on the number of transactions
conducted by FFLs that might involve transferring a firearm to a non-
licensed individual or entity. Since not all NICS background checks
involve a firearm transfer, it is necessary to distill those types of
transactions from the published NICS data, by NICS purpose code, to
estimate aggregate FFL firearm sales. A recent ATF report \38\ uses
this methodology to provide an estimated minimum sales volume
(``EMSV'') of annual FFL sales, for 2017 through 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ ATF, National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment
(NFCTA): Firearms in Commerce--Volume One, at 66 (May 2022), <a href="https://www.atf.gov/media/15471/download">https://www.atf.gov/media/15471/download</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/67JZ-PLNW">https://perma.cc/67JZ-PLNW</a>].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMSV is essentially the total number of NICS checks, adjusted
slightly upward to account for instances in which more than one firearm
was transferred pursuant to one NICS check, thereby coming a little
closer to estimating the minimum number of firearm sales. ATF
calculated the EMSV by multiplying the number of NICS checks conducted
in the relevant period by the number of distinct NICS purpose codes
associated with a given NICS transaction involving a firearm transfer
to a new possessor. These NICS purpose codes are: 01--Sale of a
Handgun, 02--Sale of a Long Gun, 03--Sale of an Other Weapon, 27--
Private Sale of a Handgun, 28--Private Sale of a Long Gun, and 29--
Private Sale of an Other Weapon. If a given NICS check has more than
one code associated with it, that indicates that at least two firearms
were transferred pursuant to that one NICS check. For example, a NICS
transaction with purpose codes 01, 02, 28, and 29 attached to it would
indicate that the transaction included a minimum of four firearm sales.
The NICS data used to calculate EMSV does not include any PII about the
firearm purchaser or possessor; it is limited to aggregate numerical
and code data. As the term itself indicates, EMSV does not capture all
firearm sales, but instead provides an estimate of the lowest number of
firearms involved under each NICS check in which a transfer occurred.
For example, EMSV does not capture the actual number of firearms
transferred in a multiple firearm sales transaction because the number
of firearms transferred in a multiple sale of the same type of firearm
are not separately tallied by purpose code. In addition, EMSV does not
account for firearms transferred from FFLs to customers utilizing a
NICS alternate permit. In states in which a NICS alternate permit
exempts a purchaser from a background check, this transaction does not
involve a NICS check and is therefore not reflected in the EMSV.
Finally, the EMSV does not include sales between private
individuals that are not facilitated by an FFL, but these would also
not be within the scope of affected parties under the proposed rule
because the proposed rule affects FFL sales only. Consequently,
calculations using purpose codes provide a minimum baseline from which
to estimate the number of purchased firearms. The firearms EMSV for
2017-2020 was 57,941,145.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more recent update published by ATF \40\ has shown that 2020 was
a high-water mark (likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic), as retail
sales had increased to a high that year and then decreased 26 percent
by 2023. Including the 2020 through 2023 averages brings the EMSV total
to 91,609,719 \41\ firearms transferred by FFLs to non-licensees over
the seven-year period. Using a straight average over the seven-year
time period, ATF calculated average number of firearms sold by FFLs to
non-licensees at 13.09 million guns per year (91,609,719/7 =
13,087,103).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ ATF, National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment
(NFCTA): Protecting America from Trafficked Firearms--Volume Four
(Jan. 2025), <a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-iv-part-i-firearm-commerce-updates-and-new-analysis/download">https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/report/nfcta-volume-iv-part-i-firearm-commerce-updates-and-new-analysis/download</a>
[<a href="https://perma.cc/27WT-G9J2">https://perma.cc/27WT-G9J2</a>].
\41\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of this rule, ATF assumes that each purchaser
will, on average, purchase two firearms per year. This is a
conservative estimate that aims to account for multiple firearms sales,
which can reach higher or lower numbers in different states as
collectors, security and law enforcement purchasers, and enthusiasts
balance out occasional and one-time buyers. Assuming purchasers acquire
an average of two firearms per year from an FFL, the 13.09 million
firearms would indicate 6.55 million unique buyers per year.
This estimated number of total FFL firearm buyers would represent
the highest possible number of persons who could be affected by this
rule if all the FFLs from which they buy firearms chose to provide
remote-purchase options and all the buyers chose to purchase all their
firearms remotely. Although it is therefore unlikely that the affected
population would be 100 percent of this group, the actual number of
purchasers who might elect this voluntary service cannot be readily
determined from existing data. As a result, ATF subject matter experts
estimate, based on indications they have received from FFLs and
firearms purchasers, that maybe half of the total population that
currently purchases firearms from FFLs might choose in the future to
purchase at least some of their firearms remotely.
Many factors could affect whether purchasers make use of remote
services if FFLs choose to offer them. Convenience is certainly a
factor for some firearms purchasers, such as repeat purchasers, persons
more experienced in purchasing firearms, or purchasers looking for
something rare or unusual that might be sold only by an FFL a good
distance away. But convenience might not be the dispositive factor for
other purchasers, such as new buyers, those who expect to make only one
or very few transactions, or persons who prefer to handle or inspect
firearms in person. As a result, ATF does not feel it can estimate a
higher percentage of persons who might elect to offer or use such
services, at least in the first few years after the rule is effective
if finalized as proposed. Accordingly, if 50 percent of all purchasers
opt to purchase firearms remotely, that would result in 3.28 million
purchasers benefiting in some way from the rule. However, ATF is
requesting public comments on this assumption and likely demand for
online or remote sales.
The affected population of 3.28 million purchasers would benefit
from time saved travelling to and from the FFL. For the sake of this
analysis, ATF assumes that an FFL is approximately 30 minutes away from
each buyer's home. As approximately 90 percent of NICS checks are
routinely resolved within minutes of being initiated, that proportion
travels to the FFL's business premises one time to accomplish the
transfer, so they would save a single trip under this proposed rule,
which would save an hour of time for both directions. The remaining 10
percent of purchasers normally makes two trips to the business
premises--one to initiate the transfer and the second to acquire the
firearm if the licensee receives a delayed proceed response from NICS--
so this 10 percent would save two trips. The latter results in two
hours saved in travel time
[[Page 25223]]
per purchaser (30 minutes each way * 2 for a round trip * 2 trips).
Therefore, for 90 percent of 3.28 million purchasers, or 2.95 million,
transportation costs saved would be one hour, while an estimated
328,000 purchasers would save two hours in travel time. Taken together,
the burden hours saved would total 3.606 million hours saved in travel
costs ((2.95m * 1) + (328,000 * 2)).
In addition to travel time, ATF estimates purchasers would save
approximately 20 minutes at the FFL for processing and waiting time
during each visit, resulting in an additional cost savings of 20
minutes for 90 percent of purchasers, and an estimated savings of 40
minutes for the remaining 10 percent. On the other hand, ATF estimates
that purchasers would expend about 15 minutes one time to learn the new
virtual identity verification system and comply with the built-in
checks. ATF bases this estimate on the increasing prevalence of very
similar processes and software already utilized by the federal
government, such as by the IRS and ID.me, and state government, such as
for motor vehicle licensing online accounts.
ATF therefore estimates that 90 percent of transferees (2.95
million persons) would have a net savings of 5 minutes or 0.083 hours,
rounded (20 minutes in-store saved--15 minutes learning added) due to
this proposed rule, which would total 244,850 hours (0.083 * 2.95
million transferees). In addition, 10 percent of transferees (328,000
persons) would have a net time savings of 25 minutes or 0.42 hours,
rounded (40 minutes in store saved--15 minutes learning added), or a
total of 137,760 hours.
This proposed rule would therefore save 382, 610 hours on time in a
licensee's business premises, combined with the 3.606 million hours in
travel time calculated above, resulting in a total of 3,988,610 hours
saved per year.
To calculate the monetized value of these saved hours, ATF must
apply a wage rate to the saved time. Since purchases are more than
likely conducted in the buyer's personal capacity rather than as part
of their primary business, ATF calculated a leisure wage to account for
saved time's value. ATF then estimated a leisure wage rate based on
methodology established by the Department of Health and Human Services
(``HHS''), updated to account for the latest available data.\42\ 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 the post-tax income by
the pre-tax income 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Valuing Time
in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Regulatory Impact
Analyses: 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 wage.... $1,214........................ News Release, Bureau of Labor and
Statistics, Usual Weekly Earnings for
Wage and Salary Workers, third quarter
2025, (Dec. 4, 2025),
<a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_12042025.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_12042025.pdf</a>
[<a href="https://perma.cc/MD6E-TYDX">https://perma.cc/MD6E-TYDX</a>].
1b. Median non-leisure hourly wage.... $30.35........................ $1,214 median weekly wage/40 hours a
week = $30.35.
2a. Real household incomepre-tax...... $83,730....................... U.S. Census Bureau, Income in the United
States: 2024, (Sept. 9, 2025),
<a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-286.html">https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-286.html</a>
[<a href="https://perma.cc/RU47-LLBX">https://perma.cc/RU47-LLBX</a>].
2b. Real household income post-tax.... $72,330....................... U.S. Census Bureau, Post-Tax Household
Income Summary Measures by Selected
Characteristics: 2023 and 2024,
<a href="https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.census.gov%2Fprograms-surveys%2Fdemo%2Ftables%2Fp60%2F286%2FtableB1.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK">https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww2.census.gov%2Fprograms-surveys%2Fdemo%2Ftables%2Fp60%2F286%2FtableB1.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK</a>
[<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 wage....... $26.00........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the methodology outlined by HHS, the estimated leisure wage
is $26. When multiplied by the 3,988,610 hours saved, the total
estimated savings that would accrue from this proposed rule would be
$103,703,860 ($103.7 million) per year, or a total of $1.04 billion
(rounded) over ten years, assuming adoption estimates hold steady over
that period.
Table 3 reflects the net impacts as a result of the proposed rule,
which totals $1.04 billion in net savings over ten years, discounted to
$884.62 million and $728.37 million at 3 percent and 7 percent,
respectively. The annualized net benefits, or annualized quantitative
savings for the proposed rule equal $103.7 million each year at both 3
percent and 7 percent.
Table 3--Ten-Year Projected Net Benefits *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total savings
Year (undiscounted) Discount rate 3% Discount rate 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................................. $103,703,860 $100,683,359 $96,919,495
2.................................................. 103,703,860 97,750,834 90,578,968
3.................................................. 103,703,860 94,903,723 84,653,241
4.................................................. 103,703,860 92,139,536 79,115,178
5.................................................. 103,703,860 89,455,861 73,939,419
6.................................................. 103,703,860 86,850,350 69,102,261
[[Page 25224]]
7.................................................. 103,703,860 84,320,728 64,581,552
8.................................................. 103,703,860 81,864,785 60,356,591
9.................................................. 103,703,860 79,480,374 56,408,029
10................................................. 103,703,860 77,165,411 52,717,784
------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 1,037,038,600 884,614,961 728,372,518
------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized..................................... ................... 103,703,860 103,703,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ``Net total savings (undiscounted)'' column represents totals from the underlying costs. Consistent with
guidance provided by OMB in Circular A-4, the ``3-percent discount rate'' and ``7-percent discount rate''
columns result from applying an economic formula to the number in each row of the ``Undiscounted'' column to
show how these future costs over time would be valued today; they do not contain totals from other tables.
3. Costs
This rule could result in costs for FFLs that elect to offer
customers remote firearm purchasing options.
ATF seeks public comment on the likely pricing structure and rates
for a viable vendor offering identity verification services that meet
NIST's IAL2 and AAL2 standards. ATF researched pricing options provided
for verification services in existing industries, as possible parallels
to costs FFLs might incur. The rates ATF found were on a per-
transaction basis, and ranged from a few cents to up to $7 per
verification. Many of those companies that provide simple pricing
online (such as Veriff or Sumsub) are not verified by a third party
(such as Kantara) as meeting the IAL2 and AAL2 standards, which would
be required for any CSP FFLs could use. Firms offering services that
are compliant with the proposed rule do not seem to provide online
pricing details. As ATF does not know how many CSPs would enter this
market and their pricing, nor does it have an accurate model for market
demand and anticipated adoption, it therefore assumes a comparable $7
verification fee per transaction, which would likely be passed onto the
consumer as a convenience charge, similar to the existing FFL transfer
fee (charged when receiving and transferring a firearm from another FFL
or individual seller on behalf of a buyer).
ATF also assumes an initial FFL adoption rate of 10-15 percent,
according to the best professional judgement of ATF subject matter
experts. This estimate is based on the fact that the remote
transactions would still be limited to those within the same state
under the proposed rule, and not offer much in the way of a broader
pool of customers or geographic range beyond state lines. In addition,
the industry's larger vendors might be more hesitant or conservative in
adopting remote sales due to existing safety and liability-focused
procedures they might have in place that favor in-person identity
verification and firearm transactions and could take time to change.
ATF invites public comment on industry adoption rates and costs.
While ATF understands that there are high- and low-volume dealers
among FFLs, it is unclear which dealers might adopt remote sales
because there are many factors that affect such decisions. ATF
therefore assumed an equal distribution among business sizes within the
estimated 15 percent that would adopt remote sales. Based on internal
ATF information, as of December 23, 2025, there are 45,605 active
dealer FFLs (Type 01 licenses), so assuming that 15 percent would adopt
remote sales, this results in an estimated 6,840 FFLs electing to offer
remote sales across the country.
Using the transaction volume above, of approximately 13.09 million
retail purchases, and assuming an equal distribution among all FFLs so
that 15 percent of FFLs would proportionally represent an identical 15
percent of all firearms purchased, the resulting estimated number of
applicable retail purchases would total 1.96 million. This volume of
remote purchases, at an estimated cost of $7 per transaction, would
potentially cost the industry $13.72 million.
This estimated cost can only be presented as illustrative or
contextual, as the proposed rule would only widen the permissible range
of retail options available to FFLs; it would not remove any existing
sales options or require FFLs to adopt remote sales. As a result, it
would not cause direct costs that could be attributable to the proposed
rule. The changes would be entirely voluntary, and as such would be
pursued by FFLs only if remote sales offer an anticipated net positive
revenue or other business benefit for FFLs. If the costs could be
comfortably passed along to the consumer, or could otherwise be
outweighed by an anticipated increase in sales volume, then the FFLs
would likely adopt the system. If not, they would be entirely free to
decline to do so.
4. Regulatory Alternatives
ATF considered three alternatives: continuing the status quo
without changing the existing regulatory definition; applying lower
standards; and revising the existing regulation.
Alternative 1: Continuing the status quo of maintaining the
existing regulation.
This is also known as the ``no-action'' alternative. ATF considered
this alternative but determined that the statute does not include such
limitations, and with the advent of technology that enables remote
identity verification that could mitigate security concerns and even
improve validation over in-person ``by sight'' comparison, determined
this option would hold FFLs back from expanding legitimate sales
options and from adopting evolving technology as it develops.
Altnerative 2: Expand the pool of vendors allowed to operate
identity verification for FFLs.
ATF also considered other approaches to expand the pool of eligible
vendors allowed to operate identity verification for FFLs. The
certification requirement is likely going to limit an FFL's choices and
freeze out a lot of legitimate companies that do not want to pay the
very limited number of firms that currently dominate the market for
access. However, ATF feels the standards and steps proposed in this
rule would be necessary to meet public safety considerations under the
GCA, and thus did not select the option of reducing the required
standards or removing the third-party certification requirement. ATF is
expecting greater understanding of these dynamics during the public
comment period.
Alternative 3: Rulemaking.
ATF determined that the rulemaking option was necessary to expand
[[Page 25225]]
consumer choice while ensuring an appropriate level of security to
mitigate the risks inherent with remote or virtual firearm purchases.
ATF anticipates that, as with other industries when new technology
becomes available and they are permitted to use the technology, the CSP
market would evolve and FFL remote sales options might expand, prices
and logistical processes might decrease, and more FFLs and purchasers
might find that remote sales better serve their needs.
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 more than $100
million in a given year. However, because the economic impact would
consist of $104 million in annual deregulatory savings, it would thus
not impose costs greater than zero. The proposed rule would remove the
existing restriction on FFLs that prohibits most NOTC sales and would
save the public $1.04 billion over ten years in burdens arising from
exclusively in-person sales, as well as qualitative benefits in terms
of greater flexibility and options in how individuals purchase
firearms. ATF therefore expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to
qualify as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined in 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 would 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 (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 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.
ATF performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
potential impacts on small businesses and other entities that could
occur due to this proposed rule, if finalized as proposed. Based on the
information from this analysis, ATF found the following:
Based on ATF's Federal Firearms Licensing Center, as of December
23, 2025, there are 45,605 dealer FFLs (Type 01 licenses). The majority
of these FFLs are likely to be small but would benefit from this
proposed rule because it would allow all of them to potentially
capitalize on a larger statewide market by allowing online sales,
thereby conferring a benefit, and would impose no costs.
However, these mostly small sellers might be indirectly and
negatively affected by this proposed rule due to potentially increased
competition from the minority of larger retailers in their respective
states. ATF is unable to assess a significant impact and requests
public comment on the impact to small entities that sell firearms.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (``IRFA'')
The RFA establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and
of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
ensure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' Public
Law 96-354, sec. 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider whether the
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Agencies must perform a review to determine
whether the proposed rule would have such an impact. If the agency
determines that it would, the agency must prepare an IRFA (or a
regulatory flexibility analysis for a final rule) as described in the
Act.
ATF determined that the rule affects a variety of large and small
businesses (see item 3 below). Based on the requirements above, ATF
prepared the following IRFA assessing the proposed rule's impact on
small entities.
1. Describing the reasons why the agency is considering acting.
ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.96 by eliminating the restrictions
against NOTC transfers to unlicensed persons who must undergo a NICS
background check and who are residents of the same state in which the
FFL's business premises are located. The rule proposes to permit such
NOTC transfers when the non-licensee's identification can be verified
remotely. This proposed change would better account for technological
developments since the Brady Act was enacted in 1994, which now enables
FFLs to verify both an identity document and a particular person's
identity remotely. ATF does not anticipate this rule creating
significant economic cost for small entities, as this rule would allow
voluntary compliance and potential
[[Page 25226]]
benefits for all regulated FFLs and have a deregulatory savings to
consumers.
2. Succinctly stating the objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
The objective of this proposed rule is to reduce regulatory
restrictions on FFLs and the public arising from the current
requirement to purchase most firearms in person. The proposed rule
would expand opportunities for remote sales, and thereby also permit
FFLs and purchasers to benefit from advances in technology.
3. Describing and, where feasible, estimating the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule would apply.
Based on ATF's Federal Firearms Licensing Center, as of December
23, 2025, there are 45,605 dealer FFLs (Type 01 licenses) who could
receive a benefit from this proposed rule due to increased
opportunities to sell within their respective states. Businesses would
have to weigh the potential market sales benefits against potential
costs to determine whether they would want to offer remote sales. But
those who would elect to do so would have individually determined that
the benefits outweigh any costs they might incur. The majority of
dealer FFLs are likely to be small entities, and because electing to
offer remote sales is voluntary, any small entities that would choose
to do so would potentially benefit from this proposed rule.
4. Describing the proposed rule's projected reporting, record-
keeping, and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which would be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary to prepare the report or
record.
While the rule would not require small businesses to incur costs,
it could result in transaction costs if they choose to offer remote
sales. But because remote sales are voluntary, they would make that
cost-benefit analysis for themselves (and presumably decide the
benefits outweigh any costs) before deciding to offer their customers
remote sales. There would be no additional requirements or costs
imposed by this proposed rule. This rule would reduce costs and burdens
on the public. The primary risk of costs to small FFLs is not the
voluntary compliance costs, since many can and likely will decline to
offer the service and face the costs, or more likely pass the added
costs on to the consumer as a surcharge. Small FFLs are exposed to risk
primarily from the potential competition effects from larger retailers
being able to remotely sell to the small FFL's regionally or community-
based clientele, which could be an indirect outcome of the proposed
rule. The ultimate market effects of the rule are not known, and ATF
seeks public comment to better inform the estimated impacts.
5. Identifying, to the extent practicable, all relevant federal
rules which might duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed
rule.
This proposed rule would not duplicate or conflict with other
federal rules.
6. Describing any significant alternatives to the proposed rule
which accomplishes the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and
which minimizes any significant economic impact the proposed rule might
have on small entities.
ATF estimates that the majority of the firearms industry is largely
composed of small businesses. This proposed rule simply relaxes federal
requirements and makes it easier for small business to sell firearms
across their state without requiring customers to travel to the FFL in
person. Should this proposed rule provide significant impacts to small
businesses, it would alleviate significant hurdles rather than impose
new hurdles. However, market dynamics in response to the proposed rule
are yet unknown, despite the best estimates of ATF subject matter
experts. The same benefits that might accrue to small entities might
also accrue to larger retailers, which could potentially cause greater
competition for small entities within their states as an indirect cost.
Nevertheless, given the uncertainty involved with the net market
effects, no other known alternatives would alleviate burdens on small
businesses. ATF determined that the benefits to the proposed rule
outweigh the potential impacts to small businesses that could perhaps
be indirectly affected by this proposed rule.
G. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This proposed rule is not likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 15 U.S.C. 657 and
5 U.S.C. 601 note, as this rule does not impose any additional costs.
While there could be costs to FFLs, including small businesses, from
engaging in remote sales, they are not required to do so. This proposed
rule removes a prohibition previously limiting options on all FFLs,
including small entities, that might find that engaging in remote sales
would provide more benefits than costs. If the remote transaction
capability appeals to small entities, they would now have an option to
pursue it, but no obligation to do so if it does not benefit them or
appeal to them. As a voluntary, deregulatory rulemaking, the proposed
rule cannot have a direct negative impact to small entities.
However, these mostly small sellers might be indirectly negatively
affected by this proposed rule due to potentially increased competition
from the larger retailers in their respective states. At the same time,
small entities could also benefit from this proposed rule because it
would allow them to potentially capitalize on a larger statewide market
by allowing online sales. ATF is unable to assess a significant impact
and requests public comment on the impact to small entities that sell
firearms.
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 will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, ATF has determined that no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3521, agencies are required to submit to the OMB, for review and
approval, any information collection requirements a rule creates or any
impacts it has on existing information collections. An information
collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public.
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This rule has an existing OMB-approved information
collection associated with it, OMB control number 1140-0020, Firearm
Transaction Record, ATF Form 5300.9 (``Form 4473''). While ATF is
proposing a technical amendment to 27 CFR 478.96 to update the
information collection's OMB control number to reflect this current
collection, this proposed rule would not impose any new reporting or
record-keeping requirements covered under the PRA, nor would it impact
the existing information collection. FFLs who currently sell firearms
to non-licensees through over-the-counter transactions must use Form
4473 and retain it and any associated documents collected as part of
the transaction. The FFLs who might choose to offer remote sales on the
basis of the proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, would continue
[[Page 25227]]
to use Form 4473 and retain it and any associated documents collected
as part of the transaction.
J. Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., ATF
anticipates that this proposed rule would meet the criteria in 5 U.S.C.
804(2) because it would result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more. However, because the economic impact would
consist of $236 million in annual deregulatory savings, it would thus
not impose costs greater than zero. The proposed rule would remove the
existing restriction on FFLs that prohibits most NOTC sales and would
save the public $2.36 billion over ten years in burdens arising from
exclusively in-person sales, as well as qualitative benefits in terms
of greater flexibility and options in how they purchase firearms.
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-AB05 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-AB05. For comments
submitted by mail, information contained on the cover sheet will not
appear when posted on the internet, but any PII that appears within the
body of a comment will not be redacted by ATF and may appear on the
internet. Similarly, commenters who submit through the federal e-
rulemaking portal and who do not want any of their PII posted on the
internet should omit such PII from the body of their comment and 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-AB05).
Severability
Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised
in this
[[Page 25228]]
proposed rule may be finalized, or not, independently of each other,
after consideration of comments received. ATF has determined that this
proposed rule implements and is fully consistent with governing law.
However, in the event this proposed rule is finalized, if any provision
of that final rule, an amendment or revision made by that rule, or the
application of such provision or amendment or revision to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, the
remainder of that final rule, the amendments or revisions made by that
rule, and application of the provisions of the rule to any person or
circumstance shall not be affected and shall be construed so as to give
them the maximum effect permitted by law.
List of Subjects in 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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27
CFR part 478 as follows:
PART 478--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
0
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921-931; 44 U.S.C.
3504(h).
0
2. Amend Sec. 478.96 by:
0
a. Revising the heading of paragraph (b) to read ``Non-over-the-counter
(NOTC) transaction for NICS-exempt transfers)'';
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) and (d) to (d) and (e), respectively;
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c);
0
d. Amending newly designated paragraph (d) by, in the heading, adding
the word ``all'' between the words ``for'' and ``NOTC''; in the
introductory text, adding the words ``or initiates the NICS background
check under paragraph (c)'' between the words ``of this section'' and
the comma; in paragraph (d)(1), adding an ``s'' to the end of the word
``paragraph'', adding ``or (c)'' after ``(b)'', and adding ``and, for
NICS-exempt transfers,'' between the comma and the words ``the sworn
statement''; and in paragraph (d)(4), redesignating the paragraph
reference ``(c)'' as ``(d)''; and
0
e. Amending newly designated paragraph (e)(2) by redesignating the
paragraph reference ``(d)'' as ``(e)''.
New paragraph (c) reads as follows:
Sec. 478.96 Non-over-the-counter and out-of-state sales.
* * * * *
(c) NOTC transactions for NICS background check transfers. Licensed
importers, manufacturers, or dealers may also transfer firearms to a
non-licensee who is subject to the provisions of Sec. 478.102(a) of
this part and who does not appear in person at the licensee's business
premises, if the non-licensee meets the following requirements:
(1) The non-licensee complies with all the requirements in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section; and
(2) Submits with Form 4473 a true copy of a valid photo
identification document as defined by Sec. 478.11 of this part,
residence verification if the photo identification document does not
contain the transferee's current residence information (see Sec.
478.124(g)), and any other applicable supporting documents prescribed
in Sec. 478.124(c).
(3) In such cases, licensees must, prior to every transfer, conduct
a video conference with the transferee. During the conference,
licensees must inspect the transferee's actual photo identification
document and compare it with the transferee's appearance in conformance
with Sec. 478.124(c). Licensees must then ensure the transferee
verifies their identity through a credential service provider (CSP)
using a remote identity verification process.
(i) A ``remote identity verification process'' requires a CSP to
validate the transferee's photo identification document and bind the
document to the person who appears for remote identity proofing.
(ii) An independent third party must assess the CSP's remote
identity proofing process as conforming with the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines for Identity Assurance Level
2 (IAL2). The CSP's binding process must employ a live physical facial
comparison by a CSP representative, or an automated biometrical facial
comparison (e.g., ``selfie'' verification), using a live capture of the
transferee's facial image and liveness detection. An independent third
party must assess the CSP's authentication process for digital identity
claimants as conforming with the NIST guidelines for Authentication
Assurance Level 2 (AAL2).
(iii) In addition, the licensee must comply with applicable
requirements in Sec. Sec. 478.124(c), (g), (h), and (i) of this part,
including verifying the transferee's residence.
(4) If the CSP verifies the transferee's identity, the licensee
must initiate a NICS background check prior to transferring the
firearm, pursuant to Sec. 478.102(a). The licensee must wait for the
NICS background check response or the end of the applicable
investigatory period, as required by Sec. 478.102(c) before shipping
or delivering the firearm.
(5) When conducting a NOTC transfer subject to a NICS check, the
licensee must follow all procedures listed in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, except the requirement to document a NICS exemption under
(b)(2)(i).
0
3. Amend Sec. 478.124(c)(5) by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (iii) through (v) as paragraphs (iv)
through (vi);
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (iii);
0
c. In newly designated paragraph (v), adding the phrase ``that are NICS
exempt'' after the words ``For non-over-the-counter transfers''; and
0
d. In newly designated paragraph (vi), adding the phrase ``and non-
over-the-counter transfers'' after the words ``For over-the-counter
transfers''.
The new paragraph reads as follows:
Sec. 478.124 Firearms transaction record.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) For non-over-the-counter transfers subject to a NICS check,
ensure that the transferee has included a true copy of the transferee's
photo identification document with Form 4473 and that the document's
information matches the information the transferee provided on the
form. Then follow the procedures for remote identity verification in
Sec. 478.96(c).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 478.124(d)(1) by removing the citation ``Sec.
478.96(d)'' and adding in its place the citation ``Sec. 478.96(e)''.
0
5. Amend Sec. 478.124(i) by adding the words ``remote identity
proofing verification'' between the semi-colon and the words ``and
other required information''.
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-09157 Filed 5-7-26; 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 8, 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.