Proposed Rule2026-19692
Revising Requirements and Exceptions for Storing Explosives
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 25, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
Abstract
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") proposes amending Department of Justice regulations listing exceptions to the requirement that explosive materials must be stored in locked magazines. Specifically, ATF proposes adding a testing exception; removing restrictions limiting existing exceptions to materials being physically handled or transported to a site for storing or using; excepting materials to be imminently used or transported; and adopting a perforating gun exception. These changes would streamline on-site operations, acknowledge developments in industry practices, increase safety during these activities by reducing how often explosives are moved, and eliminate the requirement for type 3 magazines.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 185 (Friday, September 25, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60911-60920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19692]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Part 555
[Docket No. ATF No. 2026-0365; ATF No. 2025-46P]
RIN 1140-AA86
Revising Requirements and Exceptions for Storing Explosives
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(``ATF'') proposes amending Department of Justice regulations listing
exceptions to the requirement that explosive materials must be stored
in locked magazines. Specifically, ATF proposes adding a testing
exception; removing restrictions limiting existing exceptions to
materials being physically handled or transported to a site for storing
or using; excepting materials to be imminently used or transported; and
adopting a perforating gun exception. These changes would streamline
on-site operations, acknowledge developments in industry practices,
increase safety during these activities by reducing how often
explosives are moved, and eliminate the requirement for type 3
magazines.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on
or before (or, if mailed, must be postmarked on or before) November 24,
2026. Commenters should be aware that the federal e-rulemaking portal
comment system will not accept comments after midnight Eastern Time on
the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1140-AA86, by
either of the following methods--
<bullet> Federal e-rulemaking portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: ATF Rulemaking Comments; Mail Stop 6N-518, Office of
Regulatory Affairs; Enforcement Programs and Services; Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; 99 New York Ave. NE;
Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: RIN 1140-AA86.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
number (RIN 1140-AA86) for this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPRM''
or ``proposed rule''). In addition, comments must be submitted in
English or accompanied by an English
[[Page 60912]]
translation. 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 PII from the body of
their comment or in any uploaded attachments 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.
Commenters must submit comments by using one of the methods described
above, not by emailing the email address set forth in the following
paragraph.
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#58170a1918392c3e763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d39c819293b2a7b5fdb4bca5">[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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (``OCCA''),
Public Law 91-452, 84 Stat. 922 (1970), added 18 U.S.C. chapter 40
(Importation, Manufacture, Distribution, and Storage of Explosive
Materials).\1\ One of the stated purposes for title XI was to reduce
the ``hazard to persons and property arising from misuse and unsafe or
insecure storage of explosive materials.'' Public Law 91-452, sec.
1101, 84 Stat. at 952. The Attorney General is responsible for
implementing title XI. See 18 U.S.C. 847. The Attorney General has
delegated that responsibility to the Director of ATF (``Director''),
subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General.\2\ See 28 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1), (c)(1); 28 CFR
0.130(a)(1)-(2); Treas. Order No. 221(2)(a), (d), 37 FR 11696-97 (June
10, 1972). Regulations in 27 CFR part 555 implement title XI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some provisions of 18 U.S.C. chapter 40 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 notice of proposed rulemaking refers to the Attorney
General where relevant.
\2\ In Attorney General Order Number 6353-2025, the Attorney
General delegated authority to the Director to issue regulations
pertaining to matters within ATF's jurisdiction, including under
OCCA, the National Firearms Act, and the Gun Control Act. ATF's
jurisdiction also includes the Arms Export Control Act and the
Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, 27 CFR 555.205 requires that licensees/permittees store
explosive materials in locked magazines at all times unless specific
exceptions apply. These exceptions are limited to explosive materials
``[i]n the process of manufacture,'' ``[b]eing physically handled in
the operating process,'' ``[b]eing used,'' or ``[b]eing transported to
a place of storage or use.''
There are three types of magazines in which federal explosives
licensees/permittees may store high explosives under ATF's regulations.
High explosives (for example, dynamite, flash powders, and bulk
salutes) are one of three classes of explosive materials and can
detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined. Sec. 555.202(a).
They may be stored in type 1 magazines, which are permanent magazines;
type 2 magazines, which are mobile and portable indoor or outdoor
magazines; or type 3 magazines, which are portable outdoor magazines
for temporarily storing explosives while attended. Sec. 555.203.
In relevant part, type 1 and 2 magazines both must have a robust,
bullet-resistant construction and must be theft-resistant through a
variety of approved locking systems (e.g., two hooded padlocks).
Sec. Sec. 555.207, 555.208. The two types differ from each other
mainly in terms of portability. Unlike type 3 magazines, they do not
have to be attended because of the listed extra security features. Type
3 magazines are portable and must be secured with at least one unhooded
padlock, but they do not have to be bullet-resistant and may have only
one lock, which does not have to be as tamper-resistant. Sec. 555.209.
They also must be attended because they are not as secure by virtue of
being thinner and using less theft-resistant locks. Id. Type 3
magazines are also typically quite small, and thus usually cannot hold
large amounts of explosive materials or large explosive items.
Generally, licensees/permittees have magazines suitable for
unattended storage (e.g., type 1 or type 2 magazines) at their premises
and therefore do not need a type 3 magazine on their premises. While
some licensees/permittees manufacture, assemble, and use explosives at
their business premises where they have type 1 or 2 magazines, most use
them at places such as mines, construction sites, quarries, trenches,
pipelines, roads and railways, oil fields, ski slopes, automotive
sites, fireworks display sites, and avalanche sites. These sites
(especially smaller sites) typically do not have type 1 or 2 magazines,
so licensees/permittees typically use type 3 magazines to temporarily
store explosives during operations at such sites, and transport the
explosive materials back and forth at the beginning and end of each day
to their business premises to store them overnight in type 1 or 2
magazines.
II. Proposed Rule
A. Changes to Exceptions
ATF regulations at Sec. 555.205 require licensees/permittees to
store explosive materials in one of the aforementioned types of storage
magazines at all times (or in one of the types for low explosives or
blasting agents, if applicable). However, although explosive materials
can be highly sensitive to various stimuli--including movement--and
therefore require safety and security measures at all times, such
materials obviously cannot be stored while the licensee/permittee is
using them. Therefore, Sec. 555.205 also includes a set of exceptions
to the storage requirement, related to using and transporting
explosives.
The current regulations recognize exceptions for explosives
involved in four different activities: (1) explosives involved in the
manufacturing process, which includes activities like making the
explosives or using explosive materials to make other explosives; (2)
explosives being physically handled during an operational process, such
as when physically handling explosive
[[Page 60913]]
components to assemble them into a larger device; (3) using explosives,
which includes activities that use up the explosives, such as
initiating them or consuming them; and (4) transporting explosives,
which includes activities involved in moving explosives to another
location. Under the current regulations, transporting explosives is
only an exception if the explosives are being transported to a site
where they will be stored or used.
ATF recognizes that there are other circumstances not listed as
exceptions in Sec. 555.205 in which the explosives industry is not
reasonably able to store explosive materials in a magazine. There are
many operating processes where a licensee/permittee does not physically
handle the explosive materials but cannot store them in a magazine that
meets the prescribed construction and locking requirements. For
example, explosive materials undergoing temperature sensitivity testing
cannot be stored in a traditional magazine because the testing must be
conducted in a temperature-controlled test chamber. In these instances,
the licensee/permittee is not physically handling the explosive
materials during the testing, nor is the testing part of manufacturing,
using, or transporting the explosive materials, so none of the existing
exceptions would apply.
Currently, licensees/permittees must either request a variance to
allow the explosives in this scenario to be in the testing chamber or
must ensure the testing chamber meets the requirements to be a
magazine, both of which are significantly burdensome options. ATF
believes that including an exception for testing--which can often
involve situations that need to continue uninterrupted or take place
under other conditions not possible in a storage magazine--is
appropriate and reasonable. Relatedly, removing the condition that
licensees/permittees must be physically handling the explosives during
operational processes to qualify for the exception is appropriate due
to the modern variety of explosives that do not need to be physically
handled during such operations.
Further, a licensee/permittee transporting explosive materials to a
site where they will be used may not immediately start using them once
at the site. In such cases, several hours can elapse until operations
commence (due to weather, for example). During those hours, the
explosives do not fall under the exceptions in Sec. 555.205 and must
be moved to a type 3 magazine on site. Later, when operations commence,
the explosives must be moved back out of the type 3 magazine to the
place where they need to be used. These steps unnecessarily add extra
moves for the explosives, which increases the chances that they might
accidentally initiate. In addition, getting a type 3 magazine to the
site, especially one large enough to store all the explosives, is
costly. ATF believes it is more impractical and riskier to require
transferring explosive materials on site from the delivery vehicle to a
magazine and then from the magazine to where they will be used than it
is to leave them in a delivery vehicle that is locked, stable, and
attended, if the explosives will be used shortly after arriving on
site.
In addition, licensees/permittees often need to transport explosive
materials to locations for reasons other than using or storing them,
such as when they transport the materials to distribute them to another
licensee/permittee. They are unable to do this under the current
transporting exception.
ATF therefore proposes to remove the restriction that explosive
materials in transit must be going to or from a site where they will be
stored or used. Removing this restriction would allow both of the
transportation scenarios discussed in the two paragraphs above to be
covered by the exception, as well as other situations one might expect
to occur occasionally, such as when explosives are securely packed on a
pallet for transporting but, due to a traffic or other delay, must wait
on the loading dock for a few hours, or when the licensee/permittee
brings extra explosives in case they are needed and those remain on the
secured truck the entire day.
ATF informal guidance on the transporting exception currently
permits explosives to remain in the delivery vehicle overnight when the
driver must stop to sleep during transit and during other similar
temporary stops because the Department of Transportation (``DOT'')
defines such stops as part of transporting the materials, meaning they
fall under DOT regulations for transporting, not ATF regulations for
storing explosive materials. This proposed rule would not change this
guidance. Explosives on a delivery vehicle must meet DOT requirements
to ensure they are secure during transit, so keeping them in the
vehicle until needed, instead of moving them to a magazine and back,
presents no additional risk to public safety. Also, since DOT and ATF
regulations have been in place, ATF is aware of no delivery vehicles
containing explosive materials having been stolen, supporting ATF's
view that explosives on such vehicles are at little risk of being
diverted to illegal or unsafe uses.
Allowing explosive materials to remain in the delivery vehicle is
also safer and less burdensome compared to the alternative currently in
effect. Each time explosive materials are moved or handled, the risk of
accident increases, and the cost of transporting a type 3 magazine of
sufficient size to temporarily store explosive materials is quite high.
Additionally, licensees/permittees (which includes their employees)
typically remain with the explosive materials while they are waiting to
be used or delivered, which reduces the risk of accident or theft.
For these reasons, ATF believes that expanding the activities
excepted under Sec. 555.205 would recognize industry challenges under
the current rules and provide licensees/permittees with the ability to
conduct their operations without costly and unnecessary storage
requirements, while still reasonably ensuring safety. Specifically, the
proposed rule would require explosive materials to be stored in a
locked magazine unless they are: (1) in a manufacturing, operating, or
testing process; (2) being used or designated for imminent use; or (3)
being transported or awaiting imminent transport. This proposed change
would add a new exception for explosives in the testing process and
would expand the using and transporting exceptions by including items
designated for or awaiting imminent use or transport. It would also
remove the existing limitation that the materials must be transported
to a place where they will be stored or used and the limitation that
employees must be physically handling the materials in the operating
process unless the materials are immediately stored in a magazine.
Making these changes would allow ATF's regulations to accommodate
operational or logistical needs without negatively affecting public
safety.
B. Incorporating Perforating Gun Exception From Ruling 2010-7
In addition, ATF proposes incorporating the exception for
perforating guns that is in ATF Ruling 2010-7, with slight
modifications.\3\ Licensees/permittees use perforating guns primarily
to pierce oil and gas wells to prepare them for oil and gas operations.
In November 2010, ATF issued Ruling 2010-7, which authorizes licensees/
permittees, as a variance from the regulatory requirements, to store
[[Page 60914]]
loaded perforating guns in areas outside locked magazines, provided
certain conditions were met. At that time, the length and weight of
loaded perforating guns often made it difficult or impossible to store
them within an explosives magazine as prescribed under the regulations.
The ruling, in part, limited storing loaded perforating guns outside a
magazine but inside a building to 50 pounds of total net explosives
weight and limited storing them outside to 2,500 pounds of total net
explosives weight across no more than 200 perforating guns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ATF Ruling 2010-7, Perforating Gun Storage, (Nov. 24, 2010),
<a href="https://www.atf.gov/media/19091/download">https://www.atf.gov/media/19091/download</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry members who use perforating guns assemble each perforating
gun to meet a specific purpose and function depending on oil or gas
well conditions. Currently, most perforating guns used within the
United States are approximately three inches in diameter and range
between one to four feet long. Perforating guns are commonly housed
within hollow thick-walled steel tubes and contain shaped charges that
explode to pierce the well. Each individual shaped charge typically
contains between 15 and 25 grams of high explosives and is initiated by
using a detonating cord and a detonator. Although detonators are
commonly attached to the assembly immediately prior to down-hole
loading at the job site, perforating guns are sometimes armed with
detonators when the gun is assembled, which requires detonator
interrupter devices to be placed between the detonators and detonating
cord to prevent unintended initiation.
Because an oil or gas well operation may urgently need perforating
guns due to the varying conditions within the well operations,
assembling them at the worksite, often under unsafe or adverse
conditions, can significantly delay operations and place workers at
risk. In addition, waiting until perforating guns are needed before
beginning the assembly operation results in costly delays for the well
operator. To facilitate perforating operations and meet job demands,
many perforating gun operators must maintain a fixed amount of
preloaded perforating guns that can be used on short notice. As a
result, they need to be able to efficiently stockpile and store
perforating guns until they are needed.
Since ATF issued Ruling 2010-7, the oil and gas industry has seen a
significant shift toward horizontal perforating operations, which
require a greater number of shorter perforating guns. The shift to
smaller perforating guns has caused many licensees/permittees to
request variances to exceed the current 200-gun limit for outside
storage to accommodate their business operations. Limiting the number
of perforating guns, regardless of size, restricts the total net
explosives weight for outside storage. When perforating guns were
significantly larger, the 200-gun limit was an important restriction
for safety purposes because each gun added more to the total explosive
volume. However, for those licensees/permittees who acquire and store
smaller perforating guns, limiting the number of guns limits the volume
of explosives they can store even more, putting the limit well below
the allowed 2,500-pound threshold for outside storage because smaller
perforating guns contain less explosive material than the larger guns
considered in the 2010 ruling.
Although the smaller perforating guns contain less explosive
material, they are also more susceptible to theft because of their
size. Many licensees/permittees therefore store their loaded
perforating guns inside shipping containers or other buildings to
increase theft resistance and to better protect them from inclement
weather conditions. Although these structures and buildings store the
explosives indoors, they do not meet the requirements to constitute
magazines. Often, drilling locations, such as well sites, are not
conducive to storing smaller perforating guns inside magazines, in part
because of the remote or temporary site locations. Typically,
perforating guns are not transported in a magazine, so the magazines
are shipped separately, frequently on very large trucks that are not
easy to navigate on narrow remote roads, at significant additional
cost. The perforating guns remain in their transport configuration
(e.g., banded and palletized, or crated) until they are needed for the
day's operations whether they are stored within a magazine or another
location. If the perforating guns are left outside, licensees/
permittees can store up to 2,500 pounds of explosive materials.
ATF regulations restrict the total net explosives weight for
storing explosive materials indoors (but not in a magazine) to 50
pounds. This means that indoor storage can be close to other buildings,
highways, vehicles, etc., if the explosives total less than 50 pounds.
The 2010 ruling retained this 50-pound limitation for storing
perforating guns indoors but not in a magazine. As a result, in
situations when licensees/permittees wish to increase security for
2,500 pounds of perforating guns by moving them indoors, they must
transport a magazine in difficult conditions instead of using existing
structures or obtain separate approval via another variance request.
When ATF grants such a variance, it requires licensees/permittees
to meet the applicable quantity and distance requirements for storing
these explosives outside, typically those set out in Sec. 555.218.
This table of distances still sets a weight limit for explosives,
though it is higher than for indoor storage, and it also establishes a
minimum distance between the explosives and inhabited buildings,
highways, etc., to ensure public safety if there should be an accident.
The applicable distance depends on the explosive impact of the weight
being stored. In addition, ATF grants these variances only if the
building is solely occupied by the licensee's/permittee's operations so
that only the licensee/permittee would be impacted, and requires
licensees/permittees to continue to meet all the other requirements for
indoor storage, such as prohibiting spark-producing devices within the
room, as well as maintaining the required security measures for outside
storage. No security or safety issues have arisen in operations under
these variances during the past 15 years.
As a result of both changes in common perforating gun size and
theft concerns, ATF proposes to incorporate Ruling 2010-7, with slight
modifications, to allow licensees/permittees to store perforating guns
outside explosives magazines without having to request a variance,
provided they meet the specified safety and security conditions. ATF is
also proposing to update and streamline the conditions that are
necessary to store perforated guns safely outside a storage magazine to
account for changes in these devices and in security options since the
ruling was published. Specifically, this rule proposes to remove the
200-gun limitation currently in ATF Ruling 2010-7 and to allow
licensees/permittees to store more than 50 pounds of perforating guns
inside buildings and structures, provided they meet the requirements
described in the preceding paragraph. ATF believes changing the
perforating-gun indoor storage focus from a maximum weight--that is
still close to other structures and people and thus can still pose
substantial risk to the public--to a requirement that such storage must
comply with the applicable established table of distances, regardless
of its weight, increases public safety. These changes from the current
requirements in the 2010 ruling would therefore provide licensees/
permittees greater operational flexibility without negatively affecting
public safety.
[[Page 60915]]
C. Changes to Type 3 Magazine Requirement
ATF also believes that it is unnecessary for ATF to continue
requiring licensees/permittees to use type 3 magazines for temporary,
attended storage during the kinds of activities discussed above.
Explosives operational processes (such as loading blast holes and
assembling perforating guns) or manufacturing processes (such as
combining explosive components to create a new explosives device)
during which licensees/permittees currently temporarily store explosive
materials inside a type 3 magazine are already excepted under the
regulations at Sec. 555.205, and the proposed changes discussed above
would expand those exceptions. In addition, licensees/permittees
typically immediately start unloading, handling, and using the
explosive materials once they have been transported to the site, and
under the proposed changes above, would be able to continue storing
them in the delivery vehicle when they will be used imminently, though
not immediately.
Further, under the current regulations, licensees/permittees
transporting their explosive materials to a place where they will be
used do not have to store them in a locked magazine while the materials
are being transported. Sec. 555.205. Most explosives licensees/
permittees transport explosive materials to work sites in delivery
vehicles that generally have not been designed to meet the construction
requirements needed for unattended or attended magazines. However, the
delivery vehicles are locked, and the licensees/permittees typically
remain with the vehicle and explosive materials while they unload,
handle, and use the explosive materials. In addition, the delivery
vehicles must meet DOT standards (during land transportation) or
Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') standards (during sea
transportation). Explosive materials are exempt from ATF's explosives
regulations while under DOT or DHS transporting authority and
standards. See Sec. 555.141(a)(1).
For these reasons, ATF believes that most explosives that might be
candidates for storing in a type 3 magazine are already excepted from
being in a locked magazine under Sec. 555.205; would be excepted under
Sec. 555.205 as amended by this proposed rule; or are excepted under
Sec. 555.141. Therefore, ATF believes there is no need to continue
requiring that licensees/permittees lock explosives in attended type 3
temporary storage magazines. Accordingly, ATF proposes to remove the
regulation at Sec. 555.203(c), which establishes the current
requirement to use type 3 magazines, and to remove and reserve the
regulations at Sec. 555.209, which establish the construction and
locking standards for type 3 magazines.
This proposed rule would not prohibit licensees/permittees from
continuing to use type 3 magazines if they wish. In some cases, it may
be useful to use a type 3 magazine to comply with state or other
storage requirements, for example, and licensees/permittees also
frequently use type 3 magazines to keep detonators separate from other
explosives. Licensees/permittees would still be able to use type 3
magazines for these and other similar purposes.
D. Benefits From the Proposed Changes
ATF anticipates that the proposed changes discussed in sections A,
B, and C of this part would reduce regulatory burdens on the explosives
industry by providing greater operational flexibility. Licensees/
permittees would save costs associated with unnecessary magazine
infrastructure or inefficiently moving materials in and out of
magazines during short periods in which the materials might not be
physically handled but are still in the operating process. Public
safety would not be at risk because the excepted activities typically
occur at secure locations or are overseen by responsible persons or
employee possessors. In fact, public safety would benefit because the
proposed changes would reduce how often explosives would need to be
moved, thereby reducing both the risk of accident and the risk that
explosive materials would be stolen or diverted. When explosives do not
fall within the excepted activities, licensees/permittees would still
be required to secure them in locked magazines.
By clarifying and broadening the storage exceptions, these proposed
changes would allow licensees/permittees to more practically and
efficiently manage explosive materials while maintaining appropriate
security measures. Currently, licensees/permittees need to move
explosives into magazines and then return them to the place where they
are operating or testing, thereby moving the explosives more often,
which greatly increases the risk of accident. Such movement may also
disrupt longer testing situations. Allowing explosives to remain in a
secure or monitored building or area reduces those moves and thus
decreases the risk.
Finally, these proposed changes would permit licensees/permittees
to be more efficient by reducing the time necessary to move explosives
back and forth while also reducing the risk of accident from moving
explosives more frequently. The intent is to except situations where
explosive materials are under a licensee's/permittee's direct control
and supervision but are not actively being handled or immediately
stored in a fixed magazine due to operational necessity.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.
This proposed rule would amend 27 CFR part 555's exceptions to the
requirement that licensees/permittees must store explosives in secure
magazines at all times. This rule proposes to add testing processes to
existing exceptions for manufacturing and operating processes; to
expand the using exception by adding explosives designated for imminent
use and the transporting exception by adding explosives awaiting
imminent transport; and to remove the restriction on the operating
exception that limits it to explosives being physically handled, as
well as the restriction on the transporting exception that limits it to
explosives being transported to sites where they will be used or
stored. In addition, this rule proposes to incorporate a slightly
modified version of an existing exception for perforating guns,
recognized in an ATF ruling since 2010. The proposed rule would be a
deregulatory action easing burdens on the explosives industry by easing
magazine storage requirements during testing, when explosives are
designated for imminent use or awaiting imminent transport, and under
circumstances where the explosives would be subject to a licensee's/
permittee's direct control and supervision but are not actively being
handled or immediately stored in a fixed magazine due to operational
necessity.
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this rule would not be a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it did not review this rule.
[[Page 60916]]
ATF provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Orders
12866 and 13563.
1. Need Statement
This proposed rule would be a deregulatory action to amend
requirements for storing explosives to adjust to changes in industry
operations, security practices, and ways in which explosives are used.
The changes are not being proposed to address a particular market
failure or delivery of government services. ATF is, however,
modernizing its explosives regulations to better account for changes
that have occurred over the decades since the regulations were drafted
and to streamline them so they provide more flexibility and reduce
burdens on the regulated industry while updating requirements for
public safety. The proposed expanded exceptions to the storage
requirements would better account for modern explosives handling and
would eliminate the need for type 3 storage magazines. At the same
time, the revised exceptions would maintain public safety because on-
site and transporting operations already incorporate public safety
requirements and standards.
2. Benefits
The proposed rule offers both quantitative and qualitative
benefits. The proposed rule's qualitative benefits include reduced
burdens for industry that would arise from easing magazine storage
requirements for explosives during testing; when the explosives are
designated for imminent use or awaiting imminent transport; and in
circumstances in which the explosives would be under a licensee's/
permittee's direct control and supervision but would not be actively
handled or immediately stored in a fixed magazine due to operational
necessity.
By clarifying and broadening storage exceptions, the proposed rule
would allow licensees/permittees to more practically and efficiently
manage explosive materials while maintaining appropriate security
measures. Moreover, the proposed changes would reduce the need for on-
site coordination among explosives and ordinance workers across the
various sectors within the explosives industry.
The rule would reduce other burdens on industry as well, such as
avoiding unnecessary expenditures, maintenance, and inspection time for
required type 3 magazines. Another benefit is that moving the explosive
materials less often (such as back and forth between the operating or
manufacturing area and the magazine) would reduce the risk of accident
and explosion. ATF estimates that the potential qualitative benefits of
reduced inconvenience, compliance burdens, and risk of accident would
be realized by approximately 9,100 explosives licensees/permittees
engaged in commercial explosives use.
The proposed rule would also quantitatively decrease costs on the
industry for acquiring and transporting type 3 magazines to the
operational site by essentially eliminating the requirement for
temporary onsite storage. Most current industry operators have already
purchased and currently own magazines, and the proposed rule would thus
not result in immediate cost savings. However, industry newcomers would
no longer be required to purchase and maintain type 3 magazines. And
both current and future industry participants would receive relief from
compliance burdens and risks arising from moving explosives more often.
According to ATF records, there were 1,035 new licensees/permittees
in 2022, 868 in 2023, and 1,036 in 2024. These figures show an annual
average of 980 new entrants per year. That volume of explosives
licensees/permittees has been required to incur costs to procure,
utilize, and maintain type 3 magazines for their commercial explosive
activities on sites other than their business premises. As a result,
approximately 980 new entrants each year would no longer have to expend
these costs. ATF estimates that an average IME 22-compliant \4\ type 3
magazine costs around $500.\5\ If the average estimated new license/
permit application rate continues in future as it has the past three
years, the quantitative industry cost savings would be approximately
$490,000 a year. This assumed savings rate is projected over ten years
in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For details on what this industry standard entails, see
Inst. of Makers of Explosives, Recommendations for the Safe
Transportation of Detonators in a Vehicle with Certain Other
Explosive Materials, at 22 (Oct. 2019), <a href="https://www.ime.org/aws/IME/pt/sd/product/32566/_PARENT/layout_details/false">https://www.ime.org/aws/IME/pt/sd/product/32566/_PARENT/layout_details/false</a>.
\5\ Based on average estimates provided by ATF subject matter
experts. Additional examples of pricing are online, such as at
<a href="https://www.justrite.com/dynaloc-explosive-storage-magazine-type-3-daybox-el510?srsltid=AfmBOoo9xMnfhYIZm5EMh6dNN00oXTJU9kmQzlr76bfkwGVQR4N118Rt">https://www.justrite.com/dynaloc-explosive-storage-magazine-type-3-daybox-el510?srsltid=AfmBOoo9xMnfhYIZm5EMh6dNN00oXTJU9kmQzlr76bfkwGVQR4N118Rt</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/UZW5-84ZB">https://perma.cc/UZW5-84ZB</a>].
Table 1--Estimated Cost Savings for New Licenses/Permits Over Ten Years *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings
Year undiscounted Discounted 3% Discounted 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................... $490,000 $475,728 $457,944
2...................................................... 490,000 461,872 427,985
3...................................................... 490,000 448,419 399,986
4...................................................... 490,000 435,359 373,819
5...................................................... 490,000 422,678 349,363
6...................................................... 490,000 410,367 326,508
7...................................................... 490,000 398,415 305,147
8...................................................... 490,000 386,811 285,184
9...................................................... 490,000 375,544 266,528
10..................................................... 490,000 364,606 249,091
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 4,900,000 4,179,799 3,441,555
Annualized......................................... ................. 490,000 490,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The ``undiscounted'' column represents totals from the underlying costs. Consistent with guidance provided by
OMB in Circular A-4, the ``Discounted 3%'' and ``Discounted 7%'' 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.
In addition to the qualitative benefits accrued for approximately
9,100 explosives licensees/permittees outlined above, the quantitative
benefits from the proposed rule would be approximately $4.90 million in
cost savings over ten
[[Page 60917]]
years, discounted to $4.18 million and $3.44 million at 3 percent and 7
percent, respectively. The total annualized quantitative savings for
the proposed rule would equal $490,000 each year.
3. Costs
The proposed rule would not create costs for the regulated
industry. This is because the proposed changes would be deregulatory in
nature and primarily simplify and streamline the protocols requiring
licensees/permittees to store explosives in magazines. The proposed
rule is also unlikely to increase risks to public safety, which is a
key objective for both ATF and industry partners alike. The excepted
activities already typically occur at secure locations or are overseen
by responsible persons or employee possessors, and explosives industry
operators are already subject to other regulations requiring them to
store unattended explosives and to use more secure storage magazines
for explosives not in use for longer periods.
The current regulations relating to type 3 magazines, which the
proposed rule would eliminate, are only applicable when storing
explosives for a temporary period while they are attended by qualified
personnel. However, during the kinds of activities when such temporary
storage on another site is relevant, the explosives are, as a practical
matter, being handled, unloaded, and otherwise attended as part of the
operational or transportation environments where they are being used.
Consequently, storing explosives in type 3 magazines is largely
redundant. Licensees/permittees typically begin using the explosives
once they arrive on site or they remain in the delivery vehicle, which
is secure, still, and attended. Sites at which licensees/permittees use
explosive materials are secure facilities, thereby making the light
security characteristics of type 3 magazines redundant as well.
Furthermore, ATF estimates that the proposed changes would
qualitatively increase public safety by decreasing how often the
explosives would need to be stored and thus moved back and forth.
Permitting explosives to stay on site while they are being actively
used and during temporary breaks or preparatory stages (such as
awaiting pick-up or in the delivery vehicle until work begins)
decreases movement of these often-volatile materials, thereby reducing
both the risk of accident and the risk that explosive materials might
be stolen or diverted. When explosives do not fall within the excepted
activities, licensees/permittees would still be required to secure them
in locked magazines, reducing the public safety risks otherwise
associated with removing or relaxing magazine storage requirements for
explosives. But, as this is an existing requirement, it would not give
rise to any additional costs. The quantitative and qualitative benefits
above are therefore not counterbalanced by material costs or increased
public safety risks.
4. Regulatory Alternatives
ATF considered not modifying the regulations in Sec. 555.205, an
alternative known as the no-action alternative. The no-action
alternative would not create any benefits or reduce any burdens.
Specifically, the no-action alternative would leave undisturbed a
qualitative risk to public safety by continuing to require unnecessary
movement and disruption of explosives while using and testing them.
This alternative would maintain onerous storage requirements during
times that the explosives are already attended and within secure
facilities. Retaining these regulations in their present form would
require licensees/permittees to store explosives in type 3 magazines
and attend such magazines during brief periods, such as breaks and
operational and other activities involving use of the explosives,
despite the fact that the explosives are already attended anyway and
within secure facilities during such activities. It would also continue
to cause the explosives to be moved back and forth more often, thereby
maintaining increased risk of accidental detonations. Thus, the no-
action alternative would provide no benefits, in addition to increasing
the safety risk for licensees/permittees, the larger public, and
property, relative to the proposed rule. As a result, ATF rejected this
alternative and instead elected to propose revising the regulations.
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 because it is not a
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 and
it would not impose total costs greater than zero. This proposed rule
would reduce burdens on the explosives industry by easing magazine
storage requirements for explosives, thereby reducing licensees'/
permittees' magazine costs and providing significant qualitative
benefits from not having to move explosives in and out of storage as
often, along with other similar benefits. The proposed rule is also
deregulatory in nature as it would remove requirements for storing
explosives in type 3 temporary, portable magazines. These proposed
changes would result in qualitative benefits that would accrue for
approximately 9,100 explosives licensees/permittees, and quantitative
benefits for all new licensees/permittees and small businesses,
totaling $4.90 million in savings over ten years. ATF estimates that no
costs or increased risks to public safety would arise from this
proposed rule, so the benefits would not be counterbalanced by material
costs or increased public safety risks. Therefore, ATF expects this
rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action (defined by OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final
action that imposes total costs less than zero).
C. Executive Order 14294
Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal
Regulations) requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal
regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to
explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the
authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each
element of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a
criminal regulatory offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order
14294 requirements.
D. Executive Order 13132
This proposed rule 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
[[Page 60918]]
meaningfully implicate federalism. It thus does not warrant preparing a
federalism summary impact statement.
E. Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform).
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, agencies
are required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
proposed rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements
unless the agency head certifies, including a statement of the factual
basis, that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities
include certain small businesses, small not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
The Director certifies, after consideration, that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule would be deregulatory
because it would reduce burdens on the explosives industry by easing
magazine storage requirements and reducing the time and cost burdens of
moving the explosives back and forth to storage and of acquiring and
transporting type 3 storage magazines to operational sites for that
purpose. The proposed rule thereby reduces the risk that explosives
will accidentally detonate. ATF estimates the rule would result in
qualitative benefits for approximately 9,100 explosives licensees/
permittees, the majority of which are small businesses, with additional
quantitative benefits from cost savings approximating $4.90 million
over ten years. ATF estimates these cost savings would benefit the
annual average of 980 new entrants, again, a majority of which are
small entities, as they would no longer be required to procure,
utilize, and maintain type 3 magazines for their commercial explosives
activities on sites other than their business premises. Although these
businesses would realize certain cost savings, ATF has determined that,
based on the average revenue of licensees/permittees, the costs savings
would be small enough that any savings would not constitute a
significant economic impact on the licensees/permittees, and thus, the
Director certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not include a federal mandate that might
result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year, and it would not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, the ATF has determined that no actions are
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C.
3501-3521, agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and
approval, any information collection requirements a rule creates or any
impacts it has on existing information collections. An information
collection includes any reporting, record-keeping, monitoring, posting,
labeling, or other similar actions an agency requires of the public.
See 5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule would not create any new
information collection requirements or impact any existing ones covered
by the PRA.
I. Congressional Review Act
This proposed rule would not be a major rule as defined by the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804.
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-AA86 and, if
handwritten, must be legible. In addition, comments must be submitted
in English or accompanied by an English translation. 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 the comment is published
on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> by ATF. However, if you include such
personally identifiable 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 (``FOIA''), at 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 RIN 1140-AA86. 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 or in any
uploaded attachments. However, PII entered into the online fields
designated for name, email, and
[[Page 60919]]
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 FOIA. 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.''
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-AA86).
List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 555
Administrative practice and procedure, Explosives, Freight,
Hazardous substances, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and record-keeping
requirements, Safety, Security measures, Seizures and forfeitures,
Transportation, Warehouses.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27
CFR part 555 as follows:
PART 555--COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES
0
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR Part 555 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 847.
Sec. 555.203 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 555.203 by removing paragraph (c) and redesignating
paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d).
0
3. Revise Sec. 555.205, including its heading, to read as follows:
Sec. 555.205 Explosives storing requirement and exceptions.
(a) Storing requirement. All explosive materials must be kept in
locked magazines meeting the standards in this subpart except when they
fall under one of the exceptions in this section.
(b) General exceptions. Explosives are excepted from paragraph (a)
of this section's storing requirement when they are:
(1) in a manufacturing, operating, or testing process;
(2) being used or are designated for imminent use; or
(3) being transported or awaiting imminent transport.
(c) Perforating guns exception. Licensees/permittees may store
perforating guns in locations outside locked magazines, whether indoors
or outdoors, under the conditions below.
(1) Conditions applying in all cases. Licensees/permittees storing
perforating guns outside a locked magazine must:
(i) Include a detonator interrupter device in perforating guns
armed with detonators or initiating devices;
(ii) Install a handling cap, plug, or other closing device on both
ends of hollow-type carrier guns;
(iii) Secure perforating guns with exposed explosive components
(e.g., those that consist of sealed charges mounted on strips or wires)
that are not mounted in a carrier assembly in a way that prevents the
components from being removed without authorization (e.g., store them
within a locked room inside a building, or within a transportation
carrier or other protective housing assembly);
(iv) Store perforating guns with exposed explosives that are not
contained within a secure tube (e.g., tube-less strips or wire guns)
only in an indoor location;
(v) Visually inspect all buildings, areas, or vehicles containing
perforating guns at least once every three calendar days to ensure no
one has entered or attempted to enter without authority and that no one
has removed the perforating guns;
(vi) Maintain a daily summary of magazine transactions, as
prescribed in Sec. 555.127, for each building, area, or vehicle that
contains perforating guns. Express the quantity as the number of
individual perforating guns stored within each separate building, area,
or vehicle. Provide to any ATF official the quantity and description of
explosive products contained within each individual perforating gun on
request;
(vii) Store all perforating guns in a manner that prevents them
from accidentally moving or discharging;
(viii) Notify the authority having jurisdiction over fire safety
where the stored perforating guns are located, in accordance with
requirements in Sec. 555.201(f); and
(ix) Notify ATF in writing at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9bcb0a9bbb9988d9fd79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="387d71687a78594c5e165f574e">[email protected]</span></a> that the licensee/
permittee will be storing perforating guns outside a locked magazine,
at least three business days prior to storing them at a given location.
(2) Additional indoor conditions. Licensees/permittees storing
perforating guns in an indoor location must also:
(i) Store no more than 50 pounds of explosives inside any building
or structure unless the building or structure meets the quantity and
distance requirements in Sec. 555.218 and the building or structure is
occupied solely by the licensee/permittee to support their explosives
operations; and
(ii) Lock the building or structure housing the loaded perforating
guns or have a responsible person or employee possessor attend it, at
all times, to prevent unauthorized access.
(3) Additional outdoor conditions. Licensees/permittees storing
perforating guns in an outdoor location must also:
(i) Secure the perimeter of the area(s) containing loaded
perforating guns using a security fence with a locked gate or enclose
the entire facility with a security fence that has a locked gate at
each entrance point. The security fence must be at least six feet high
and have firmly anchored posts to ensure its structural stability. The
gates must be locked at all times securely enough to prevent
unauthorized access;
(ii) Lock the doors on vehicles or trailers containing perforating
guns and
[[Page 60920]]
immobilize the vehicle or trailer to prevent it from moving, being
moved, or being accessed without authority (e.g., using a kingpin
locking device, steering wheel locking device, lockable disconnect,
etc.). Remove the ignition key and secure it away from the vehicle;
(iii) Park all vehicles or trailers loaded with perforating guns in
an area not susceptible to fire propagation (e.g., on bare dirt,
gravel, rock, paving, or closely mowed grass); and
(iv) Comply with the quantity and distance requirements in Sec.
555.218 for each outdoor area or vehicle containing perforating guns,
but store no more than 2,500 pounds of net explosives weight in each
outdoor area or vehicle containing perforating guns.
Sec. 555.209 [Removed and reserved]
0
4. Remove and reserve Sec. 555.209.
Robert Cekada,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2026-19692 Filed 9-24-26; 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 September 25, 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.