SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”), as amended, and the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), as amended.^[1] This includes the authority to promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA and NFA. See18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(A)(ii), 7805(a). The Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering and enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF (“Director”), subject to the direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2).^[2] Accordingly, the Department and ATF have promulgated regulations implementing both the GCA and the NFA in 27 CFR parts 478, 479. In addition to enforcing and administering the GCA and the NFA, ATF is responsible for enforcing and administering the permanent import provisions of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), 22 U.S.C. 2778. Each of these laws restricts importing certain firearms, ammunition, barrels, or defense articles.

The GCA generally prohibits importing ^[3] firearms (including frames or receivers of firearms, firearm silencers, and destructive devices), certain firearm barrels, and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. 922(l), 925(d)(3), except under certain circumstances, see18 U.S.C. 925(a)(1), (a)(4), (d), (e). The GCA does not define importing, but its ( printed page 25160) implementing regulations define it as “[t]he bringing of a firearm or ammunition into the United States; except that the bringing of a firearm or ammunition from outside the United States into a foreign-trade zone for storage pending shipment to a foreign country or subsequent importation into this country, pursuant to this part, shall not be deemed importation.” 27 CFR 478.11 (definition of Importation).

The NFA, which regulates machine guns, firearm silencers, destructive devices, and a narrower class of other firearms than does the GCA, see26 U.S.C. 5845(a), further restricts the reasons for which the items under its purview may be imported, see26 U.S.C. 5844. Like the GCA, the NFA does not define importing, but its implementing regulations define it as “[t]he bringing of a firearm within the limits of the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction, from a place outside thereof (whether such place be a foreign country or territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), with intent to unlade.” 27 CFR 479.11 (definition of Importation). The definition also exempts “bringing a firearm from a foreign country or a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States into a foreign-trade zone for storage pending shipment to a foreign country or subsequent importation into this country, under Title 26 of the United States Code.” Id.

Neither the GCA nor the NFA distinguishes between temporary imports—items with a final destination outside of the United States—and permanent imports—items with a final destination inside the United States. As such, any imports brought into the United States for any purpose and for any length of time, pursuant to Department of State (“DOS”), Department of Commerce (“DOC”), or ATF authority, would otherwise have to meet all applicable importing requirements of the GCA and NFA, as well as any applicable customs laws and regulations. ATF previously discussed the GCA and NFA requirements in ATF Ruling 2004-2, Temporary Importation of Firearms Subject to the NFA. ATF regulations implementing the GCA require that persons importing firearms into the United States obtain an approved ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6, part I”), prior to bringing the firearms into the United States. 27 CFR 478.111-114. In order to release imported items from the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), the importer must prepare ATF Form 5330.3C, Release/Receipt of Imported Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6A”). 27 CFR 478.112(c)(1). As set forth in 27 CFR 478.112(d)(2), within 15 days of a firearm's release from CBP, the importer must mark imported firearms with the identifying markings required by 27 CFR 478.92.

Similarly, regulations implementing the NFA require importers to obtain an approved Form 6, part I, prior to importing NFA firearms. 27 CFR 479.111(a). In addition, the regulations require importers to register the firearms they import by filing an ATF Form 5320.2, Notice of Manufactured or Imported NFA Firearms (“Form 2”) under penalty of perjury. 27 CFR 479.112(a). On the other hand, when exporting an NFA firearm from the United States, the exporter must file an ATF Form 5320.9, Application/Permit to Permanently Export NFA Firearms (title of which will be changing to “Notice of Permanently Exported NFA Firearms”) (“Form 9”) to obtain export authorization. 27 CFR 479.114-121.^[4]

The AECA gives the President the authority to control exporting and importing defense articles and defense services in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the United States. See22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1).^[5] Pursuant to 27 CFR 447.11, the term “defense article” includes any item ATF designated on the U.S. Munitions Import List (“USMIL”), see27 CFR 447.21, as well as forgings, castings, and machined bodies of articles on the USMIL, see27 CFR 447.22. Almost all items regulated by the GCA or NFA, with the exception of sporting shotguns, are included on the USMIL and are therefore also subject to AECA controls with respect to permanent imports. Certain items regulated by the GCA or NFA are designated as defense articles by DOS and subject to its AECA controls on exports and temporary imports, while other USMIL defense articles are subject to DOC export controls under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (“ECRA”) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852).

By executive order, the President delegated to the Attorney General authority under the AECA to control permanent imports of defense articles and services. SeeE.O. 13637, sec. 1(n)(ii), 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 13, 2013). By regulation, the Attorney General has designated ATF as the agency responsible for administering and enforcing the AECA provisions on permanently importing defense articles and defense services. See generally27 CFR part 447.

The AECA, at 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(2), states that, unless provided otherwise in the regulations, defense articles cannot be permanently imported without an importer's license issued in accordance with the AECA and its regulations. The implementing regulations for the permanent import provisions of the AECA currently define “importation” as “[b]ringing into the United States from a foreign country any of the articles on the [U.S. Munitions] Import List, but shall not include intransit, temporary import or temporary export transactions subject to Department of State controls under Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations.” 27 CFR 447.11 (definition of Import or Importation). Before an importer may permanently import an item on the USMIL (except for minor components of firearms, certain items imported from Canada, and items related to nuclear weapons strategic delivery systems), the importer must obtain a permit from ATF using ATF Form 6, part I. See27 CFR 447.41-42.

To temporarily import and subsequently export unclassified defense articles, DOS regulations implementing the AECA generally require a license for temporary import, DSP-61, unless otherwise exempted. See22 CFR 123.3. For items listed on the USMIL that are subject to DOC's export jurisdiction, the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”), 15 CFR parts 730-774, specify entry clearance requirements for items temporarily imported into the United States for subsequent export under certain specified DOC authorizations. See15 CFR 758.10. Where the defense article is a firearm subject to the GCA or NFA, it must generally comply with the requirements of those laws, even where the import is not permanent. However, ATF Ruling 2004-2 provides an ( printed page 25161) alternate procedure that allows temporarily importing firearms into the United States for inspecting, testing, calibrating, repairing, or incorporating into another defense article without a Form 6, part I, provided that the item would otherwise be permitted under the GCA and NFA and is imported (i) in compliance with the ITAR license for temporary import requirements, or (2) pursuant to exemption at 22 CFR 123.4.^[6] The alternate procedure under ATF Ruling 2004-2 requires the importer to export the articles within four years after the articles were imported into the United States and does not exempt the importer from filing a Form 2 if the firearm is regulated by the NFA.

II. Proposed Rule

A. Discussion

Recently, industry members have raised questions regarding the alternative procedure set forth in ATF Ruling 2004-2. Specifically, ATF has received questions regarding whether items initially imported temporarily pursuant to DOS authorization, without a Form 6, part I, but that could have been imported as permanent imports in the first instance, may later be converted to permanently imported items. Neither the regulations nor ATF Ruling 2004-2 address this situation. Thus, the only options for items imported under this alternative procedure are for them to be destroyed or exported and then re-imported. In cases where a change in circumstances has rendered exporting the items economically infeasible, such as when articles are damaged beyond economical repair ( i.e., the expense to repair the item exceeds its replacement cost), importers must either export and then permanently re-import the articles (which may be prohibitively expensive) or destroy them (resulting in a total loss) to avoid violating the four-year export window for temporarily imported items. This is true even when parts of the damaged articles may be salvageable and have reuse or resale value in the United States. Industry members have stated that the lack of a process to easily and lawfully convert temporarily imported items to permanently imported ones results in economic harm to businesses, seemingly without any substantial benefit to public safety or the economy.

B. Proposed Changes

ATF proposes amending the definition of “Import or importation” in 27 CFR 447.11 to indicate that importing ( i.e., permanently importing) occurs not only when an article is brought into the United States as a permanent import, but also when an article, lawfully in the United States pursuant to a DOS authorization or pursuant to meeting DOC's entry clearance requirements for temporary imports under 15 CFR 758.10, is converted to remain in the United States permanently before the DOS authorization expires or while still in compliance with 15 CFR 758.10 entry clearance requirements. This proposed change to the definition would permit ATF to process a Form 6, part I, for items currently in the United States as temporary imports and, if otherwise authorized by law, permit the importer to convert these articles to permanent imports. This would establish a clear process by which importers could avoid unnecessary costs while ensuring that such imports remain subject to ATF review and are in compliance with federal law. Temporary imports of ITAR defense articles subject to DOS authorization or defense articles subject to DOC EAR clearance requirements would also remain subject to ITAR or EAR jurisdiction until DOS or DOC, respectively, recognizes a change in end user or end use.

ATF also proposes amending 27 CFR 447.42 by adding a new paragraph (c), which would provide a process through which an importer can apply to convert a temporarily imported item to a permanently imported one by submitting a Form 6, part I, to ATF for approval. Specifically, this rule would require importers to indicate on Form 6, part I, that they intend to convert the temporarily imported item to a permanently imported one and to submit with it a copy of the DSP-61 issued by DOS, entry documents showing that they claimed an ITAR exemption, or a copy of the temporary import entry clearance documents provided to CBP pursuant to DOC's entry clearance requirements. This would eliminate a potentially wasteful regulatory barrier without negatively impacting public safety or otherwise permitting importers to circumvent statutory importing restrictions.

Because neither the GCA nor the NFA exempts temporarily imported items pursuant to DOS authorization or DOC clearance requirements from their definition, such temporary imports must comply with GCA and NFA restrictions and their implementing regulations at parts 478 and 479, just as permanent imports must.^[7] As a result, this rule does not propose any changes to those regulatory provisions. By proposing to add the requirement to submit a Form 6, part I, application for ATF approval when converting, this rule would ensure compliance with the AECA as well. Under the existing regulation at 27 CFR 447.44, ATF has the authority to deny applications for AECA import permits—which would include the conversion applications proposed in this rule—when importing as requested would be “inconsistent with the purpose or in violation of” the AECA or its implementing regulations in 27 CFR part 447. Additionally, ATF would deny applications if the conversion does not comply with the import provisions of the GCA and NFA.

Moreover, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR 478.112 by adding a new paragraph (e) to clarify the marking requirements for firearms converted to permanently imported items under this process. Currently, § 478.112 requires that importers comply with marking requirements within 15 days after CBP releases the firearms from its custody. However, this time period does not work in the case of temporary-to-permanent conversions because the items are not in CBP custody once they have been imported as temporary items and released. So, in the case of temporary imports, items may have been exempt from the GCA or NFA marking requirements and might not be marked at the time the items are released from CBP custody—and thus might not be marked at the time the importer wants to convert them to permanent imports. The amendment to § 478.112(e) would provide that, in such cases, the importer must ensure converted items are marked as required by the GCA and NFA within 15 days after ATF approves a Form 6, part I, to convert them from temporarily imported items to permanently imported ones. In addition, the new paragraph would include a requirement that the importer also submit a Form 6A to ATF within that same timeframe, to reflect that these items are being converted to permanent imports, and to record their serial numbers, as required for items imported on a permanent basis in the first instance.

ATF is also proposing minor plain writing and other technical amendments to §§ 447.11, 447.42 (particularly in paragraphs (a) and (b), which have no ( printed page 25162) substantive changes), 478.11, and 478.112 (particularly in paragraphs (a)-(d), which have no substantive changes) to make the definitions and instructions easier to read, including using the term “importing” instead of “importation,” reducing passive voice, substituting “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” and “CBP” thereafter for “Customs,” and updating headings and form numbers and names.

ATF also notes that other non-conflicting changes to §§ 478.11 and 479.11 are being proposed in a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the definition of “importation” as it pertains to foreign trade zones and custom bonded warehouses.^[8]

III. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) directs agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.

Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of agencies quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting public flexibility.

This proposed rule amends 27 CFR parts 447 and 478 to allow more flexibility for importers so that they may convert temporarily imported items to permanent imports under the AECA.

The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this proposed rule would be a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, although it would not be economically significant under section 3(f)(1). OMB has therefore reviewed this proposed rule. ATF provides the following analysis to comply with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.

1. Need Statement

Industry members have raised questions regarding whether items initially imported temporarily pursuant to DOS (and now, DOC) authorization, without a Form 6, part I, but that could have been imported as permanent imports in the first instance, may later be converted to permanently imported items. The only options for items imported under this alternative procedure are for them to be destroyed or exported and then re-imported. In cases where a change in circumstances has rendered exporting the items economically infeasible, such as when articles are damaged beyond economical repair ( i.e., the expense to repair the item exceeds its replacement cost), importers must either export and then permanently re-import the articles (which may be prohibitively expensive) or destroy them (resulting in a total loss) to avoid violating the four-year export window for temporarily imported items. This is true even when parts of the damaged articles may be salvageable and have reuse or resale value in the United States. Industry members have stated that the lack of a process to easily and lawfully convert temporarily imported items to permanently imported ones results in economic harm to businesses, seemingly without any substantial benefit to public safety or the economy. The proposed change would broaden the definition of imports under part 447 to include articles already within the United States pursuant to a DOS temporary authorization or DOC's entry clearance requirements under 15 CFR 758.10 for temporary imports and then converted to a permanent import. As such, importers would not have to export and re-import or destroy items and would instead have a mechanism to convert temporary imports to permanent imports while still affording ATF the ability to ensure compliance with federal firearms laws.

2. Benefits and Cost Savings

This rulemaking provides quantitative and qualitative benefits to the firearms industry by providing additional safe ways to comply with applicable law. However, ATF does not have sufficient information to calculate monetary savings. Therefore, ATF requests more information from the public regarding the economic effects that this rulemaking may have on the public and the regulated industries. Specifically, ATF seeks input on the following:

• What paperwork or other burdens would be reduced by not needing to export firearms or destructive devices prior to re-importing as a permanent import, or destroying them? Would those burden savings be partially offset by different paperwork or other burdens for converting from temporary to permanent status?
• What savings or other benefits would importers and others in the industry accrue from no longer having to export and re-import, or destroy, temporary imports?

3. Regulatory Alternatives

Alternative 1. Maintaining the Status Quo (No Action Alternative)

ATF considered leaving the regulations as they are and taking no action to permit importers to convert items they temporarily imported in compliance with DOS or DOC requirements into permanently imported items. Retaining the status quo would continue to allow DOS, DOC, and ATF to monitor temporarily imported items on the AECA USML that are also restricted under the USMIL, GCA, and NFA to ensure that they do not improperly remain in the country or circumvent requirements. However, as noted above, the result for importers who are complying with the requirements is that they must export any such items that are eligible for permanent import and then re-import them as permanent imports. ATF has decided not to select this alternative, as industry has indicated to ATF that the status quo creates significant costs and burdens for them and deters business activity.

Alternative 2. Rulemaking (Proposed Alternative)

This proposed change to the definition would permit ATF to process a Form 6, part I, for items currently in the United States as temporary imports and, if otherwise authorized by law, permit the importer to convert these articles to permanent imports. This would establish a clear process by which importers could avoid unnecessary costs while ensuring that such imports remain subject to ATF review and comply with federal law. Importers would have the option to convert a temporary import to a permanent import before time period limitations associated with the temporary import expire, provided they file the appropriate forms and otherwise comply with importing requirements. This would eliminate a potentially wasteful regulatory barrier without negatively impacting public safety or otherwise permitting importers to circumvent statutory importing restrictions.

Alternative 3. Issuing Guidance

ATF also considered issuing guidance, in the form of a ruling, or amending Ruling 2004-2 (discussed in section I of this preamble) that would contain the proposed provisions. However, ATF determined that guidance would be insufficient to accomplish this change because the requirements that would need to be modified are in regulations and ( printed page 25163) guidance would not have similar force and effect upon which importers could rely. Guidance would also present limitations in the context of agency regulations that also heavily govern importing and exporting defense articles and services. As a result, ATF did not select this alternative as it would not be effective.

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. Although it would be a significant regulatory action as defined by section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, it would not impose total costs greater than zero.

In addition, ATF expects this rule, if finalized as proposed, to qualify as an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action (defined OMB Memorandum M-25-20 as a final action that imposes total costs less than zero) because it would allow licensed importers the ability to permanently import items already temporarily authorized to be in the United States without having to export and re-import them or having to destroy them. This rule would save importers time and paperwork burdens, in addition to costs.

C. Executive Order 14294

Executive Order 14294 (Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations) requires agencies promulgating regulations with criminal regulatory offenses potentially subject to criminal enforcement to explicitly describe the conduct subject to criminal enforcement, the authorizing statutes, and the mens rea standard applicable to each element of those offenses. This proposed rule would not create a criminal regulatory offense and is thus exempt from Executive Order 14294 requirements.

D. Executive Order 13132

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the federal government and the states, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the Director has determined that this 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 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 because it would provide an alternative avenue through which businesses can comply with applicable law. This proposed rule would not impose any additional costs or barriers to entry for small businesses. Instead, it would provide more flexibility and reduce burdens and costs for small businesses. All businesses would be able to directly convert temporarily imported items to permanently imported ones under the AECA without having to first export and re-import them as permanently imported items or destroy them. This would save businesses extra paperwork burdens and costs. This proposed rule is particularly beneficial for small businesses.

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 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.

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. See5 CFR 1320.3(c). This proposed rule would impact an existing information collection covered under the PRA. The information collection is OMB control number 1140-0005, ATF Form 5330.3A, Application/Permit to Import Firearms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles (“Form 6, part I”). This proposed rule would likely increase the number of respondents who complete an ATF Form 6, part I, because importers would be able to use the form to indicate a temporary to permanent import. But, otherwise, this proposed rule would not change the collection itself. ATF requests comments from the public regarding the potential frequency with which an importer might apply to convert a temporary import to permanent using the process laid out in the proposed rule.

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. ATF also 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-AA68 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 ( printed page 25164) 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 https://regulations.gov. 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 https://www.regulations.gov. 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-AA68. 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.

• Federal e-rulemaking portal: ATF recommends that you submit your comments to ATF via the federal e-rulemaking portal at https://www.regulations.gov 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.
• 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 https://www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 1140-AA68).

Severability

Consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act, the issues raised in this 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.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, ATF proposes to amend 27 CFR parts 447 and 478 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 447 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2778; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013).

2. Amend the title of part 447 to read “Importing Arms, Ammunition, and Defense Articles”;

3. Amend § 447.11 by revising the definition of “Import or importation”, including its heading, to read as follows:

4. Amend § 447.42 by:

a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (a) and (b); and

b. Adding a new paragraph (c).

Revisions and addition read as follows:

5. The authority citation for part 478 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 847, 921-931; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).

6. Amend § 478.112 by:

a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (a);

b. Amending paragraph (b);

c. Revising paragraphs (c) and (d); and

d. Adding a new paragraph (e).

The revisions, amendments, and addition read as follows:

91 FR 25159