Bump-Stock-Type Devices, 13442-13457 [2018-06292]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13442
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
presentation also addressed, among
other things, followup information
related to Workshop I topics, including
part 207 (registration and listing) and
parts 210 and 211 (current good
manufacturing practice), including the
possibility of one or more separate CFR
sections for designated medical gases, as
well as additional topics including the
certification process for designated
medical gases and issues related to the
filling of oxygen containers by
emergency medical service (EMS)
providers and health care facilities. FDA
also heard comments on additional
regulations and medical gas issues as
time allowed.
The Agency has determined that we
will hold a third workshop to hear
additional comments from stakeholders
regarding the issues discussed at
Workshops I and II, as well as any
additional topics related to medical gas
regulation that stakeholders may wish to
discuss, as time allows. This workshop
is primarily intended to build on the
discussion from the previous
workshops, as well as written comments
submitted to the docket.
During Workshop III (May 11, 2018),
FDA intends to provide designated
panel time for followup discussion of
several topics raised at previous
workshops, and for an open panel to
discuss any additional issues related to
medical gas regulation that are of
interest to FDA or other workshop
participants. The topics for designated
panel time include further consideration
of potential changes to: Part 201
(labeling); parts 210 and 211 (current
good manufacturing practice); part 207
(registration and listing); and parts 310,
314, and 514 (postmarket reporting of
adverse drug experiences, including
adverse reactions and medication
errors); including the possibility of one
or more separate CFR sections for
designated medical gases. Potential
topics for open panel time include, but
are not limited to: The certification
process for designated medical gases;
issues related to the filling of oxygen
containers by EMS providers and health
care facilities; or other topics of interest
to stakeholders.
you represent (e.g., industry, consumer
organization) and a brief summary of
your remarks (including the discussion
topic(s) that you would like to address).
FDA will try to accommodate all
persons who wish to make a
presentation; however, the duration of
each speaker’s presentation may be
limited by time constraints. FDA will
notify registered presenters of their
scheduled presentation times. Persons
registered to speak should check in
before the workshop and are encouraged
to arrive early to ensure their designated
order of presentation. Participants who
are not present when called may not be
permitted to speak at a later time. An
agenda will be made available at least 3
days before the workshop at https://
www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/
ucm582091.htm. FDA may also post
specific questions for consideration at
the meeting web page; these will be
made available at least 3 days before the
workshop at https://www.fda.gov/
Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm582091.htm.
Streaming Webcast of the Public
Workshops: This public workshop will
be webcast; the URL will be posted at
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/
ucm582091.htm at least 1 day before the
workshop. A video record of the public
workshops will be available at the same
website address for 1 year. If you need
special accommodations because of a
disability, please contact
MedgasPublicWorkshops@fda.hhs.gov
(or see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of
the workshop.
III. Participating in the Public
Workshop
Registration and Requests for Oral
Presentations: If you wish to a make an
oral presentation, you must register by
submitting your name, title, firm name,
address, telephone, email address, and
Fax number to
MedgasPublicWorkshops@fda.hhs.gov
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT)
by May 4, 2018, for Workshop III. Please
also indicate the type of organization
RIN 1140–AA52
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Dated: March 21, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018–06251 Filed 3–28–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives
27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479
[Docket No. 2017R–22; AG Order No. 4132–
2018]
Bump-Stock-Type Devices
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives (ATF),
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Department of Justice
(Department) proposes to amend the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives regulations to clarify
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that ‘‘bump fire’’ stocks, slide-fire
devices, and devices with certain
similar characteristics (bump-stock-type
devices) are ‘‘machineguns’’ as defined
by the National Firearms Act of 1934
(NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968
(GCA), because such devices allow a
shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to
initiate a continuous firing cycle with a
single pull of the trigger. Specifically,
these devices convert an otherwise
semiautomatic firearm into a
machinegun by functioning as a selfacting or self-regulating mechanism that
harnesses the recoil energy of the
semiautomatic firearm in a manner that
allows the trigger to reset and continue
firing without additional physical
manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter. Hence, a semiautomatic firearm
to which a bump-stock-type device is
attached is able to produce automatic
fire with a single pull of the trigger.
With limited exceptions, primarily as to
government agencies, the GCA makes it
unlawful for any person to transfer or
possess a machinegun unless it was
lawfully possessed prior to the effective
date of the statute. The bump-stock-type
devices covered by this proposed rule
were not in existence prior to the GCA’s
effective date, and therefore would fall
within the prohibition on machineguns
if this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) is implemented. Consequently,
current possessors of these devices
would be required to surrender them,
destroy them, or otherwise render them
permanently inoperable upon the
effective date of the final rule.
DATES: Written comments must be
postmarked and electronic comments
must be submitted on or before June 27,
2018. Commenters should be aware that
the electronic Federal Docket
Management System will not accept
comments after midnight Eastern
Daylight Time on the last day of the
comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number ATF
2017R–22, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
directions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 648–9741.
• Mail: Vivian Chu, Mailstop 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: 2017R–
22.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice of
proposed rulemaking. All properly
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
completed comments received will be
posted without change to the Federal
eRulemaking portal, https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ section of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Enforcement Programs Services, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice,
99 New York Ave. NE, Washington DC
20226; telephone: (202) 648–7070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
October 1, 2017, a shooter attacked a
large crowd attending an outdoor
concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. By using
several AR-type rifles with attached
bump-stock-type devices, the shooter
was able to fire several hundred rounds
of ammunition in a short period of time,
killing 58 people and injuring over 800.
The bump-stock-type devices recovered
from the hotel room from which the
shooter conducted the attack included
two distinct, but functionally
equivalent, model variations from the
same manufacturer. These devices were
readily available in the commercial
marketplace through online sales
directly from the manufacturer, and
through multiple retailers. The
manufacturer of these devices is the
primary manufacturer and seller of
bump-stock-type devices; it has
obtained multiple patents for its
designs, and has rigorously enforced the
patents to prevent competitors from
infringing them. Consequently, at the
time of the attack, very few competing
bump-stock-type devices were available
in the marketplace.
The devices used in Las Vegas and the
other bump-stock-type devices currently
available on the market all utilize
essentially the same functional design.
They are designed to be affixed to a
semiautomatic long gun (most
commonly an AR-type rifle or an AKtype rifle) in place of a standard,
stationary rifle stock, for the express
purpose of allowing ‘‘rapid fire’’
operation of the semiautomatic firearm
to which they are affixed. They are
configured with a sliding shoulder stock
molded (or otherwise attached) to a
pistol-grip/handle (or ‘‘chassis’’) that
includes an extension ledge (or ‘‘finger
rest’’) on which the shooter places the
trigger finger while shooting the firearm.
The devices also generally include a
detachable rectangular receiver module
(or ‘‘bearing interface’’) that is placed in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
the receiver well of the device’s pistolgrip/handle to assist in guiding and
regulating the recoil of the firearm when
fired.
These bump-stock-type devices are
generally designed to operate with the
shooter shouldering the stock of the
device (in essentially the same manner
a shooter would use an unmodified
semiautomatic shoulder stock),
maintaining constant forward pressure
with the non-trigger hand on the barrelshroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and
maintaining the trigger finger on the
device’s extension ledge with constant
rearward pressure. The device itself
then harnesses the recoil energy of the
firearm, providing the primary impetus
for automatic fire.
In general, bump-stock-type devices—
including those currently on the market
with the characteristics described
above—are designed to channel recoil
energy to increase the rate of fire of
semiautomatic firearms from a single
trigger pull. Specifically, they are
designed to allow the shooter to
maintain a continuous firing cycle after
a single pull of the trigger by directing
the recoil energy of the discharged
rounds into the space created by the
sliding stock (approximately 1.5 inches)
in constrained linear rearward and
forward paths. Ordinarily, to operate a
semiautomatic firearm, the shooter must
repeatedly pull and release the trigger to
allow it to reset, so that only one shot
is fired with each pull of the trigger.
When a bump-stock-type device is
affixed to a semiautomatic firearm,
however, the device harnesses the recoil
energy to slide the firearm back and
forth so that the trigger automatically reengages by ‘‘bumping’’ the shooter’s
stationary trigger finger without
additional physical manipulation of the
trigger by the shooter. The bump-stocktype device functions as a self-acting
and self-regulating force that channels
the firearm’s recoil energy in a
continuous back-and-forth cycle that
allows the shooter to attain continuous
firing after a single pull of the trigger so
long as the trigger finger remains
stationary on the device’s extension
ledge (as designed). No further physical
manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter is required.
In 2006, ATF concluded that certain
bump-stock-type devices qualified as
machineguns under the GCA and NFA.
Specifically, ATF concluded that
devices attached to semiautomatic
firearms that use an internal spring to
harness the force of the recoil so that the
firearm shoots more than one shot with
a single pull of the trigger are
machineguns. Between 2008 and 2017,
however, ATF also issued classification
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13443
decisions concluding that other bumpstock-type devices were not
machineguns, including a device
submitted by the manufacturer of the
bump-stock-type devices used in the Las
Vegas shooting. Those decisions did not
include extensive legal analysis relating
to the definition of ‘‘machinegun.’’
Nonetheless, they indicated that
semiautomatic firearms modified with
these bump-stock-type devices did not
fire ‘‘automatically,’’ and were thus not
‘‘machineguns,’’ because the devices did
not rely on internal springs or similar
mechanical parts to channel recoil
energy. ATF has now determined that
that conclusion does not reflect the best
interpretation of the term ‘‘machinegun’’
under the GCA and NFA. In this
proposed rule, the Department
accordingly interprets the definition of
‘‘machinegun’’ to clarify that all bumpstock-type devices are ‘‘machineguns’’
under the GCA and NFA because they
convert a semiautomatic firearm into a
firearm that shoots automatically more
than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.
I. Background
The Attorney General is responsible
for enforcing the GCA, as amended, and
the NFA, as amended.1 This includes
the authority to promulgate regulations
necessary to enforce the provisions of
the GCA and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a);
26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(ii), 7805(a). The
Attorney General has delegated the
responsibility for administering and
enforcing the GCA and NFA to the
Director of ATF, subject to the direction
of the Attorney General and the Deputy
Attorney General. See 28 CFR
0.130(a)(1)–(2). The Department and
ATF have promulgated regulations
implementing both the GCA and the
NFA. See 27 CFR pts. 478, 479. In
particular, while still part of the
Department of the Treasury, ATF for
decades promulgated rules governing
‘‘the procedural and substantive
requirements relative to the importation,
manufacture, making, exportation,
identification and registration of, and
the dealing in, machine guns.’’ 27 CFR
479.1; see, e.g., United States v. Dodson,
519 F. App’x 344, 348–49 & n.4 (6th Cir.
2013) (acknowledging ATF’s role in
interpreting the NFA’s definition of
1 NFA provisions still refer to the ‘‘Secretary of
the Treasury.’’ 26 U.S.C. ch. 53. However, the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107–296,
116 Stat. 2135 (2002), 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 refers to the Attorney General.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13444
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
‘‘machinegun’’); F.J. Vollmer Co. v.
Higgins, 23 F.3d 448, 449–51 (D.C. Cir.
1994) (upholding an ATF determination
regarding machinegun receivers). Courts
have recognized ATF’s leading
regulatory role with respect to firearms,
including in the specific context of
classifying devices as machineguns
under the NFA. See, e.g., York v. Sec’y
of Treasury, 774 F.2d 417, 419–20 (10th
Cir. 1985).
The GCA defines ‘‘machinegun’’ by
referring to the NFA definition,2 which
includes ‘‘any weapon which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot, automatically more
than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
trigger.’’ 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The term
‘‘machinegun’’ also includes the frame
or receiver of any such weapon or any
part, or combination of parts, designed
and intended for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun, and ‘‘any
combination of parts from which a
machinegun can be assembled if such
parts are in the possession or under the
control of a person.’’ Id. With limited
exceptions, the GCA prohibits the
transfer or possession of machineguns
under 18 U.S.C. 922(o).3
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm
Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), Pub. L.
99–308, 100 Stat. 449, which included
a provision that effectively froze the
number of legally transferrable
machineguns to those that were
registered before May 19, 1986. 18
U.S.C. 922(o). Due to the fixed universe
of ‘‘pre-1986’’ machineguns that may be
lawfully transferred by
nongovernmental entities, the value of
those machineguns has steadily
increased over time. For example, the
current average price range for pre-1986
fully automatic versions of AR-type
rifles is between $20,000 and $30,000,
while the price range for semiautomatic
versions of these rifles is between $600
and $2,500.4
This price premium on automatic
weapons has spurred inventors and
manufacturers to attempt to develop
firearms, triggers, and other devices that
permit shooters to use semiautomatic
rifles to replicate automatic fire without
converting these rifles into
‘‘machineguns’’ under the GCA and
NFA. ATF began receiving classification
requests for such firearms, triggers, and
2 18
U.S.C. 921(a)(23).
implementing the GCA and the
NFA spell the term ‘‘machine gun’’ rather than
‘‘machinegun.’’ E.g., 27 CFR 478.11, 479.11. For
convenience, this notice uses ‘‘machinegun’’ except
when quoting a source to the contrary.
4 These figures are based on a review of prices
posted on websites maintained by federal firearms
licensees on March 1, 2018.
3 Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
other devices in the period from 1988 to
1990. ATF has observed a significant
increase in such requests since 2004,
often in connection with rifle models
that were, until 2004, defined as
‘‘semiautomatic assault weapons’’ and
prohibited under the Public Safety and
Recreational Firearms Use Protection
Act, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30) (commonly
known as the Federal Assault Weapons
Ban) (repealed effective Sept. 13, 2004).
Consistent with ATF’s experience, the
inventor and manufacturer of the bumpstock-type devices used in the Las Vegas
shooting has attributed his innovation of
those products specifically to the high
cost of fully automatic firearms. In a
2011 interview, he stated that he
developed the original device because
he ‘‘couldn’t afford what [he] wanted—
a fully automatic rifle—so . . . [he
made] something that would work and
be affordable.’’ 5
II. ATF’s Determinations Regarding
Bump-Stock-Type Devices
Shooters use bump-stock-type devices
with semiautomatic firearms to
accelerate the firearm’s cyclic firing rate
to mimic automatic fire. Such devices
are designed principally to increase the
rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms.
These devices replace a rifle’s standard
stock and free the weapon to slide back
and forth rapidly, harnessing the energy
from the firearm’s recoil either through
a mechanism like an internal spring or
in conjunction with the shooter’s
maintenance of pressure (typically
constant forward pressure with the nontrigger hand on the barrel-shroud or
fore-grip of the rifle, and constant
rearward pressure on the device’s
extension ledge with the shooter’s
trigger finger).
As noted above, ATF has regulated
some of these devices as machineguns.
Other bump-stock-type devices
currently on the market, however, have
not been regulated by ATF as
machineguns under the GCA or NFA,
and thus have not typically been
marked with a serial number and other
identification markings. Individuals
therefore may purchase these devices
without undergoing a background check
or complying with any other federal
regulations applicable to firearms.
A. ATF’s Interpretation of ‘‘Single
Function of the Trigger’’
In 2002, an inventor submitted a
device known as the ‘‘Akins
Accelerator’’ to ATF for classification.
To operate the Akins Accelerator, the
5 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple
Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), https://
www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
shooter initiated an automatic firing
sequence by pulling the trigger one
time, which in turn caused the rifle to
recoil within the stock, permitting the
trigger to lose contact with the finger
and manually reset. Springs in the
Akins Accelerator then forced the rifle
forward, forcing the trigger against the
finger, which caused the weapon to
discharge the ammunition. The recoil
and the spring-powered device thus
caused the firearm to cycle back and
forth, impacting the trigger finger,
which remained rearward in a constant
pull without further input by the
shooter while the firearm discharged
multiple shots. The device was
advertised as able to fire approximately
650 rounds per minute. See ATF Ruling
2006–2, at 2.
ATF’s classification of the Akins
Accelerator focused on application of
the ‘‘single function of the trigger’’
prong of the statutory definition of
‘‘machinegun.’’ In an initial assessment
of the Akins Accelerator, ATF
concluded that the device did not
qualify as a machinegun because ATF
interpreted ‘‘single function of the
trigger’’ to mean a single movement of
the trigger itself. In 2006, however, ATF
undertook a further review of the Akins
Accelerator based on how it actually
functioned when sold. ATF determined
that the Akins Accelerator was properly
classified as a machinegun because the
best interpretation of the phrase ‘‘single
function of the trigger’’ was a ‘‘single
pull of the trigger.’’ 6 The Akins
Accelerator thus qualified as a
machinegun because ATF determined
through testing that when the device
was installed on a semiautomatic rifle
(specifically a Ruger Model 10–22), it
resulted in a weapon that ‘‘[with] a
single pull of the trigger initiates an
automatic firing cycle that continues
until the finger is released, the weapon
malfunctions, or the ammunition supply
is exhausted.’’ Akins v. United States,
No. 8:08–cv–988, slip op. at 5 (M.D. Fla.
Sept. 23, 2008) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
6 In classifying the Akins Accelerator, ATF used
the term ‘‘pull’’ specifically because that was the
manner in which the firearm’s trigger was activated
with the device. For purposes of analyzing firearms
and devices designed for use on firearms, however,
the term ‘‘pull’’ is interchangeable with terminology
describing all trigger activations, including a push
or a flip of a switch. See, e.g., United States v.
Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 655–56 (7th Cir. 2002)
(finding that a ‘‘trigger is a mechanism used to
initiate a firing sequence,’’ and rejecting the
argument that a ‘‘switch’’ could not be a trigger,
because such a definition would ‘‘lead to the absurd
result of enabling persons to avoid the NFA simply
by using weapons that employ a button or switch
mechanism for firing’’ (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
In conjunction with its
reclassification of the Akins Accelerator,
ATF published ATF Ruling 2006–2,
‘‘Classification of Devices Exclusively
Designed to Increase the Rate of Fire of
a Semiautomatic Firearm.’’ The Ruling
explained that ATF had received
requests from ‘‘several members of the
firearms industry to classify devices that
are exclusively designed to increase the
rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm.’’
ATF Ruling 2006–2, at 1. After setting
forth a detailed description of the
components and functionality of the
Akins Accelerator and devices with
similar designs, ATF Ruling 2006–2
determined that the phrase ‘‘single
function of the trigger’’ in the statutory
definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ was best
interpreted to mean a ‘‘single pull of the
trigger.’’ Id. at 2 (citing National
Firearms Act: Hearings Before the
Comm. on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Second Session on H.R.
9066, 73rd Cong., at 40 (1934)). ATF
further indicated that it would apply
this interpretation to its classification of
devices designed to increase the rate of
fire of semiautomatic firearms. Thus,
ATF concluded in Ruling 2006–2 that
devices exclusively designed to increase
the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms
are machineguns if, ‘‘when activated by
a single pull of the trigger, [such
devices] initiate[] an automatic firing
cycle that continues until either the
finger is released or the ammunition
supply is exhausted.’’ Id. at 3. Finally,
because the ‘‘single pull of the trigger’’
interpretation constituted a change from
ATF’s prior interpretations of the phrase
‘‘single function of the trigger,’’ Ruling
2006–2 concluded that ‘‘[t]o the extent
previous ATF rulings are inconsistent
with this determination, they are hereby
overruled.’’ Id.
Following its reclassification of the
Akins Accelerator as a machinegun,
ATF determined that removal and
disposal of the internal spring would
render the device a non-machinegun
under the statutory definition. Hence,
ATF advised individuals who had
purchased the Akins Accelerator that
they had the option of removing and
disposing of the internal spring, thereby
placing the device outside the
classification of machinegun and
allowing the purchaser/possessor to
retain the device in lieu of destroying or
surrendering the device.
The inventor of the Akins Accelerator
filed a complaint against the United
States in May 2008, challenging the
classification of the device as a
machinegun as arbitrary and capricious
under the Administrative Procedure
Act. Akins v. United States, No. 8:08–
cv–988, slip op. at 7–8 (M.D. Fla. Sept.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
23, 2008). The United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida
rejected the plaintiff’s challenge,
holding that ATF was within its
authority to reconsider and change its
interpretation of the phrase ‘‘single
function of the trigger’’ in the NFA’s
statutory definition of machinegun. Id.
at 14. The court further held that the
language of the statute and the
legislative history supported ATF’s
interpretation of the statutory phrase
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ as
synonymous with a ‘‘single pull of the
trigger.’’ Id. at 11–12. The court
concluded that in Ruling 2006–2, ATF
had set forth a ‘‘‘reasoned analysis’’’ for
the application of that new
interpretation to the Akins Accelerator
and similar devices, including the need
to ‘‘protect the public from dangerous
firearms.’’ Id. at 12.
The United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
district court’s decision, holding that
‘‘[t]he interpretation by the Bureau that
the phrase ‘single function of the trigger’
means a ‘single pull of the trigger’ is
consonant with the statute and its
legislative history.’’ Akins v. United
States, 312 F. App’x 197, 200 (11th Cir.
2009) (per curiam). The Eleventh Circuit
further concluded that ‘‘[b]ased on the
operation of the Accelerator, the Bureau
had the authority to ‘reconsider and
rectify’ what it considered to be a
classification error.’’ Id.
In ten letter rulings between 2008 and
2017, ATF assessed other bump-stocktype devices. Like the Akins
Accelerator, these other bump-stocktype devices allowed the shooter to fire
more than one shot with a single pull of
the trigger. As discussed below,
however, ATF ultimately concluded
that these devices did not qualify as
machineguns because, in ATF’s view,
they did not ‘‘automatically’’ shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger. ATF has also applied the ‘‘single
pull of the trigger’’ interpretation to
other trigger actuators, two-stage
triggers, and other devices submitted to
ATF for classification. Depending on the
method of operation, some such devices
were classified to be machineguns that
were required to be registered in the
National Firearms Registration and
Transfer Record.7
7 Examples of recent ATF classification letters
relying on the ‘‘single pull of the trigger’’
interpretation to classify submitted devices as
machineguns include the following:
On April 13, 2015, ATF issued a classification
letter regarding a device characterized as a ‘‘positive
reset trigger,’’ designed to be used on a
semiautomatic AR-style rifle. The device consisted
of a support/stock, secondary trigger, secondary
trigger link, pivot toggle, shuttle link, and shuttle.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13445
B. ATF’s Interpretation of
‘‘Automatically’’
Prior ATF rulings concerning bumpstock-type devices have not provided
substantial legal analysis regarding the
meaning of the term ‘‘automatically’’ as
it is used in the GCA and NFA.
Moreover, ATF’s prior rulings
concerning such devices have applied
different understandings of the term
‘‘automatically.’’ ATF Ruling 2006–2
concluded that devices like the Akins
Accelerator initiated an ‘‘automatic’’
firing cycle because, once initiated by a
single pull of the trigger, ‘‘the automatic
firing cycle continues until the finger is
released or the ammunition supply is
exhausted.’’ ATF Ruling 2006–2, at 1.
ATF letter rulings between 2008 and
2017, however, concluded that bumpstock-type devices that enable a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single function of
the trigger by harnessing a combination
of the recoil and the maintenance of
pressure by the shooter do not fire
‘‘automatically.’’ Some of these rulings
concluded that such devices were not
machineguns because they did not
‘‘initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that
continues until either the finger is
released or the ammunition supply is
exhausted,’’ without further defining the
term ‘‘automatically.’’ E.g., Letter for
Michael Smith from ATF’s Firearm
Technology Branch Chief (April 2,
2012). Other rulings instead concluded
ATF determined that, after a single pull of the
trigger, the device utilized recoil energy generated
from firing a projectile to fire a subsequent
projectile. ATF noted that ‘‘a ‘single function of the
trigger’ is a single pull,’’ and that the device utilized
a ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ because the
shooter need not release the trigger to fire a
subsequent projectile, and instead ‘‘can maintain
constant pressure through a single function of the
trigger.’’
On October 7, 2016, ATF issued a classification
letter regarding two devices described as ‘‘LV–15
Trigger Reset Devices.’’ The devices, which were
designed to be used on an AR-type rifle, were
essentially identical in design and function and
were submitted by the same requestor (per the
requestor, the second device included ‘‘small
improvements that have come as the result of
further development since the original
submission’’). The devices were each powered by
a rechargeable battery and included the following
components: a self-contained trigger mechanism
with an electrical connection, a modified twoposition semiautomatic AR–15 type selector lever,
a rechargeable battery pack, a grip assembly/trigger
guard with electrical connections, and a piston that
projects forward through the lower rear portion of
the trigger guard and pushes the trigger forward as
the firearm cycles. ATF held that ‘‘to initiate the
firing . . . a shooter must simply pull the trigger.’’
It explained that although the mechanism pushed
the trigger forward, ‘‘the shooter never releases the
trigger. Consistent with [the requestor’s]
explanation, ATF demonstrated that the device
fired multiple projectiles with a ‘‘single function of
the trigger’’ because a single pull was all that was
required to initiate and maintain a firing sequence.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13446
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
that these bump-stock-type devices were
not machineguns because they lacked
any ‘‘automatically functioning
mechanical parts or springs and
perform[ed] no mechanical function[s]
when installed,’’ again without further
defining the term ‘‘automatically’’ in
this context. E.g., Letter for David
Compton from ATF’s Firearm
Technology Branch Chief (June 7, 2010).
III. Las Vegas Mass Shooting and
Requests To Regulate Bump-Stock-Type
Devices
Following the mass shooting in Las
Vegas on October 1, 2017, ATF has
received correspondence from members
of the United States Senate and the
United States House of Representatives,
as well as nongovernmental
organizations, requesting that ATF
examine its past classifications and
determine whether bump-stock-type
devices currently on the market
constitute machineguns under the
statutory definition.
In response, on December 26, 2017, as
an initial step in the process of
promulgating a federal regulation
interpreting the definition of
‘‘machinegun’’ with respect to bumpstock-type devices, ATF published an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal
Register. Application of the Definition
of Machinegun to ‘‘Bump Fire’’ Stocks
and Other Similar Devices, 82 FR 60929.
The ANPRM was limited to soliciting
comments concerning the market for
bump-stock-type devices and
manufacturer and retailer data. Id. at
60930–31. Public comment on the
ANPRM concluded on January 25, 2018.
While ATF received over 115,000
comments, the vast majority of these
comments were not responsive to the
ANPRM.
On February 20, 2018, President
Trump issued a memorandum to
Attorney General Sessions concerning
‘‘bump fire’’ stocks and similar devices.
83 FR 7949. The memorandum noted
that the Department of Justice had
already ‘‘started the process of
promulgating a Federal regulation
interpreting the definition of
‘machinegun’ under Federal law to
clarify whether certain bump stock type
devices should be illegal.’’ Id. at 7949.
The President then directed the
Department of Justice, working within
established legal protocols, ‘‘to dedicate
all available resources to complete the
review of the comments received [in
response to the ANPRM], and, as
expeditiously as possible, to propose for
notice and comment a rule banning all
devices that turn legal weapons into
machineguns.’’ Id. Publication of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
NPRM is the next step in the process of
promulgating such a rule.
Consistent with its authority to
‘‘‘reconsider and rectify’’’ potential
classification errors, Akins, 312 F.
App’x at 200, ATF has reviewed its
original classification determinations for
bump-stock-type devices from 2008 to
2017 in light of its interpretation of the
relevant statutory language, namely the
definition of ‘‘machinegun.’’ These
bump-stock-type devices are generally
designed to operate with the shooter
shouldering the stock of the device (in
essentially the same manner a shooter
would use an unmodified
semiautomatic shoulder stock),
maintaining constant forward pressure
with the non-trigger hand on the barrelshroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and
maintaining the trigger finger on the
device’s extension ledge with constant
rearward pressure. The device itself
then harnesses the recoil energy of the
firearm, providing the primary impetus
for automatic fire.
ATF has now determined, based on
its interpretation of the relevant
statutory language, that these bumpstock-type devices, which harness recoil
energy in conjunction with the shooter’s
maintenance of pressure, turn legal
semiautomatic firearms into
machineguns. Specifically, ATF has
determined that these devices initiate an
‘‘automatic[]’’ firing cycle sequence ‘‘by
a single function of the trigger’’ because
the device is the primary impetus for a
firing sequence that fires more than one
shot with a single pull of the trigger. 26
U.S.C. 5845(b). ATF’s classifications of
bump-stock-devices between 2008 and
2017 did not include extensive legal
analysis of these terms in concluding
that the bump-stock-type devices at
issue were not ‘‘machineguns.’’ The
statutory definition of machinegun
includes bump-stock-type devices—
irrespective of whether the devices
harness recoil energy using a
mechanism like an internal spring or in
conjunction with the shooter’s
maintenance of pressure—because these
devices enable a semiautomatic firearm
to fire ‘‘automatically more than one
shot, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger.’’ Id. This
proposed rule is the appropriate
mechanism for ATF to set forth its
analysis for its changed assessment. See
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm
Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57
(1983).
IV. Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
Based on ATF’s initial review of the
comments it received on the ANPRM,
the vast majority of comments concern
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the legal authority to regulate bumpstock-type devices. Some of those
comments opined that the Department
has the power to regulate bump-stocktype devices. Most, however, contended
that the Department lacks such
authority, either because only Congress
has the authority to regulate bumpstock-type devices or because the
Second Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution precludes any federal
regulation of such devices.
The Department disagrees. Congress
has granted the Attorney General
authority to issue rules to administer the
GCA and NFA, and the Attorney
General has delegated to ATF the
authority to administer and enforce
those statutes and implementing
regulations. See supra Part I. Because,
with some exceptions, the possession of
a machinegun is prohibited by the GCA,
the Department is well within its
authority to issue a rule that further
clarifies and interprets the statutory
definition of machinegun. Nor is
regulation of bump-stock-type devices
as machineguns inconsistent with the
Second Amendment. The Supreme
Court in District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U.S. 570 (2008), noted that the
Second Amendment does not extend to
‘‘‘dangerous and unusual weapons’’’ not
in ‘‘‘common use.’’’ Id. at 627. Heller
further observed that it would be
‘‘startling’’ to conclude ‘‘that the
National Firearms Act’s restrictions on
machineguns . . . might be
unconstitutional.’’ Id. at 624. Since
Heller, federal courts of appeals have
repeatedly held that federal statutes
prohibiting machineguns comport with
the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hollis
v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 451 (5th Cir.
2016) (upholding federal statute
banning possession of machineguns
because they are ‘‘dangerous and
unusual and therefore not in common
use’’); accord United States v. Henry,
688 F.3d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 2012);
United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d
85, 94–95 (3d Cir. 2010); Hamblen v.
United States, 591 F.3d 471, 472, 474
(6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Fincher,
538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2008). No
court has interpreted Heller as
encompassing a constitutional right to
possess machineguns or machinegun
conversion devices.
Numerous persons commented that
bump-stock-type devices do not fall
under the statutory definition of
‘‘machinegun because, when attached,
they do not change the mechanical
functioning of a semiautomatic firearm,
and still require a separate trigger pull
for each fired round.’’ They noted that
bump firing is a technique, and pointed
to many other ways in which a shooter
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
can increase a firearm’s rate of fire
without using a bump-stock-type
device.
The Department disagrees. The
relevant statutory question is whether a
particular device causes a firearm to
‘‘shoot * * * automatically more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by
a single function of the trigger.’’ 26
U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other
techniques for increasing the rate of fire
do not satisfy this definition because
they do not produce an automatic firing
sequence with a single pull of the
trigger. Instead, bump firing without an
assistive device requires the shooter to
exert pressure with the trigger finger to
re-engage the trigger for each round
fired. The bump-stock-type devices
described above, however, satisfy the
definition. ATF’s classification
decisions between 2008 and 2017 did
not reflect the best interpretation of the
term ‘‘automatically’’ as used in the
definition of ‘‘machinegun,’’ because
those decisions focused on the lack of
mechanical parts like internal springs in
the bump-stock-type devices at issue.
The bump-stock-type devices at issue in
those rulings, however, utilized the
recoil of the firearm itself to maintain an
automatic firing sequence initiated by a
single pull of the trigger. As with the
Akins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type
devices at issue cause the trigger to
‘‘bump’’ into the finger, so that the
shooter need not pull the trigger
repeatedly to expel ammunition. As
stated above, ATF previously focused
on the trigger itself to interpret ‘‘single
function of the trigger,’’ but adopted a
better legal and practical interpretation
of ‘‘function’’ to encompass the
shooter’s activation of the trigger by, as
in the case of the Akins Accelerator and
other bump-stock-type devices, a single
pull that causes the weapon to shoot
until the ammunition is exhausted or
the pressure on the trigger is removed.
Because these bump-stock-type devices
allow multiple rounds to be fired when
the shooter maintains pressure on the
extension ledge of the device, ATF has
determined that bump-stock-type
devices are machinegun conversion
devices, and therefore qualify as
machineguns under the GCA and the
NFA. See infra Part V.
Commenters also argued that banning
bump-stock-type devices will not
significantly impact public safety.
Again, the Department disagrees. The
shooting in Las Vegas on October 1,
2017, highlighted the destructive
capacity of firearms equipped with
bump-stock-type devices and the
carnage they can inflict. The shooting
also made many individuals aware that
these devices exist—potentially
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
including persons with criminal or
terrorist intentions—and made their
potential to threaten public safety
obvious. The proposed regulation aims
to ameliorate that threat.
Some commenters objected to any
regulation of bump-stock-type devices
because, they argued, it will decrease
innovation in the firearms accessories
market and result in the loss of
manufacturing and associated jobs.
They suggested that the Federal
Government should prevent the misuse
of firearms through other means, such as
by enforcing existing firearms laws,
preventing mentally ill persons from
acquiring weapons, and enacting more
stringent criminal penalties for those
who commit crimes with bump-stocktype devices. However, an important
step in the enforcement of existing
firearms laws is ensuring that ATF’s
regulations correctly interpret those
laws.
This proposed rulemaking will have
an economic impact, see infra Part VI,
but the impact will not be widespread,
and the costs associated with this rule
are easily exceeded by the benefits it
will provide for public safety. The
Department also disagrees that the
proposed rulemaking will decrease
innovation in the firearms accessories
market. The fact that more than 65,000
industry professionals from the United
States and foreign countries attend the
annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor
Trade (SHOT) Show, where many new
and improved firearms accessories are
introduced, is a clear market signal that
there is strong demand for innovation
and development of new shooting
accessories irrespective of whether the
bump-stock-type devices described in
this rulemaking are prohibited.
V. Proposed Rule
The regulations in 27 CFR part 479
contain the procedural and substantive
requirements relative to the importation,
manufacturing, making, exportation,
identification and registration of, and
dealing in machineguns, destructive
devices, and certain other firearms and
weapons under the NFA. Currently, the
regulatory definition of ‘‘machine gun’’
in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the statutory
definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ in the NFA
quoted in Part I, above. The definition
includes the terms ‘‘single function of
the trigger’’ and ‘‘automatically,’’ but
those terms are not expressly defined in
the statutory text. Those terms are best
interpreted, however, to encompass
firearms equipped with bump-stocktype devices. As discussed above,
bump-stock-type devices like the Akins
Accelerator and other devices that
operate to mimic automatic fire when
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13447
added to semiautomatic rifles present
the same risk to public safety that
Congress has already deemed
unacceptable by enacting and amending
the GCA (18 U.S.C. 922(o)). Therefore,
the Department proposes to exercise its
delegated authority to clarify its
interpretations of the statutory terms
‘‘single function of the trigger,’’
‘‘automatically,’’ and ‘‘machinegun.’’
Specifically, the Department proposes to
amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the
term ‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to
mean ‘‘single pull of the trigger.’’ The
Department further proposes to amend
these regulations by defining the term
‘‘automatically’’ to mean ‘‘as the result
of a self-acting or self-regulating
mechanism that allows the firing of
multiple rounds through a single pull of
the trigger.’’ Finally, the Department
proposes to clarify that the definition of
a ‘‘machinegun’’ includes a device that
allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot
more than one shot with a single pull of
the trigger by harnessing the recoil
energy of the semiautomatic firearm to
which it is affixed so that the trigger
resets and continues firing without
additional physical manipulation of the
trigger by the shooter (commonly known
as bump-stock-type devices).
The interpretation of the phrase
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to mean
‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ reflects
ATF’s position since 2006, and it is the
best interpretation of the statute. The
Supreme Court in Staples v. United
States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), indicated
that a machinegun under the NFA ‘‘fires
repeatedly with a single pull of the
trigger.’’ Id. at 602 n.1. This
interpretation is also consistent with
how the phrase ‘‘single function of the
trigger’’ was understood at the time of
the NFA’s enactment in 1934. For
instance, in a congressional hearing
leading up to the NFA’s enactment, the
National Rifle Association’s thenpresident testified that a gun ‘‘which is
capable of firing more than one shot by
a single pull of the trigger, a single
function of the trigger, is properly
regarded, in my opinion, as a machine
gun.’’ National Firearms Act: Hearings
Before the Committee on Ways and
Means, H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd
Sess., at 40 (1934). Furthermore, and as
noted above, the Eleventh Circuit
concluded that ATF’s interpretation of
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ to mean
‘‘single pull of the trigger’’ ‘‘is
consonant with the statute and its
legislative history.’’ Akins v. United
States, 312 F. App’x 197, 200 (11th Cir.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13448
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2009). No other court has held
otherwise.8
Interpreting the term ‘‘automatically’’
to mean ‘‘as the result of a self-acting or
self-regulating mechanism that allows
the firing of multiple rounds through a
single pull of the trigger’’ also reflects
the ordinary meaning of that term at the
time of the NFA’s enactment in 1934.
The word ‘‘automatically’’ is the
adverbial form of ‘‘automatic,’’ meaning
‘‘[h]aving a self-acting or self-regulating
mechanism that performs a required act
at a predetermined point in an
operation[.]’’ Webster’s New
International Dictionary 187 (2d ed.
1934); see also 1 Oxford English
Dictionary 574 (1933) (defining
‘‘Automatic’’ as ‘‘[s]elf-acting under
conditions fixed for it, going of itself’’).
Relying on these definitions, the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit accordingly interpreted
the term ‘‘automatically’’ as used in the
NFA as ‘‘delineat[ing] how the
discharge of multiple rounds from a
weapon occurs: as the result of a selfacting mechanism’’ ‘‘set in motion by a
single function of the trigger and . . .
accomplished without manual
reloading.’’ United States v. Olofson,
563 F.3d 652, 658 (7th Cir. 2009). So
long as the firearm is capable of
producing multiple rounds with a single
pull of the trigger for some period of
time, the firearm shoots ‘‘automatically’’
irrespective of why the firing sequence
ultimately ends. Id. (‘‘[T]he reason a
weapon ceased firing is not a matter
with which § 5845(b) is concerned.’’).
Olofson thus requires only that the
weapon shoot multiple rounds with a
single function of the trigger ‘‘as the
result of a self-acting mechanism,’’ not
that the self-acting mechanism produce
8 As used in this proposed rule, the term ‘‘pull’’
is synonymous with ‘‘push’’ and other terms that
describe activation of a trigger. The courts have
made clear that whether a trigger is operated
through a ‘‘pull,’’ ‘‘push,’’ or some other action such
as a flipping a switch, does not change the analysis
of the functionality of a firearm. For example, in
United States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d at 655–56, the
Seventh Circuit rejected the argument that a switch
did not constitute a trigger for purposes of assessing
whether a firearm was a machinegun under the
NFA, because such an interpretation of the statute
would lead to ‘‘the absurd result of enabling
persons to avoid the NFA simply by using weapons
that employ a button or switch mechanism for
firing.’’ See also United States v. Camp, 343 F.3d
743, 745 (5th Cir. 2003) (‘‘‘To construe ‘‘trigger’’ to
mean only a small lever moved by a finger would
be to impute to Congress the intent to restrict the
term to apply only to one kind of trigger, albeit a
very common kind. The language [in 18 U.S.C.
922(o)] implies no intent to so restrict the
meaning[.]’’’ (quoting United States v. Jokel, 969
F.2d 132, 135 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis removed))).
Examples of machineguns that operate through a
trigger activated by a push include the Browning
design, M2 .50 caliber, the Vickers, the Maxim, and
the M134 hand-fired Minigun.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
the firing sequence without any
additional action by the shooter. This
definition accordingly requires that the
self-acting or self-regulating mechanism
must perform an act that is primarily
responsible for causing the weapon to
shoot more than one shot.
Finally, it is reasonable to conclude,
based on these interpretations, that the
term ‘‘machinegun’’ includes a device
that allows a semiautomatic firearm to
shoot more than one shot with a single
pull of the trigger by harnessing the
recoil energy of the semiautomatic
firearm to which it is affixed so that the
trigger resets and continues firing
without additional physical
manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter. When a shooter who has affixed
a bump-stock-type device to a
semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger,
that movement initiates a firing
sequence that produces more than one
shot. And that firing sequence is
‘‘automatic’’ because the device
harnesses the firearm’s recoil energy in
a continuous back-and-forth cycle that
allows the shooter to attain continuous
firing after a single pull of the trigger, so
long as the trigger finger remains
stationary on the device’s ledge (as
designed). Accordingly, these devices
are included under the definition of
machinegun and, therefore, come within
the purview of the NFA.
The GCA and its implementing
regulations in 27 CFR part 478
incorporate the NFA’s definition of
machinegun. Accordingly, this
proposed rule makes the same
amendments to the definitions of
‘‘single function of the trigger,’’
‘‘automatically,’’ and ‘‘machine gun’’ in
27 CFR 478.11.
The Arms Export Control Act (AECA),
as amended, does not include the term
‘‘machinegun’’ in its key provision, 22
U.S.C. 2778. However, regulations in 27
CFR part 447 that implement the AECA
include a similar definition of
‘‘machinegun,’’ and explain that
machineguns, submachineguns,
machine pistols, and fully automatic
rifles fall within Category I(b) of the U.S.
Munitions Import List when those
defense articles are permanently
imported. See 27 CFR 447.11, 447.21.
Currently, the definition of
‘‘machinegun’’ in § 447.11 provides that
‘‘[a] ‘machinegun’, ‘machine pistol’,
‘submachinegun’, or ‘automatic rifle’ is
a firearm originally designed to fire, or
capable of being fired fully
automatically by a single pull of the
trigger.’’ This proposed rule would
harmonize the AECA’s regulatory
definition of ‘‘machinegun’’ with the
definitions in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as those definitions would be amended
by this rule.
The proposed rule would replace
prior classifications of bump-stock-type
devices, including devices that ATF
previously determined were not
machineguns. The rule thus would
supplant any prior letter rulings with
which it is inconsistent so that any
bump-stock-type device described above
qualifies as a machinegun. Accordingly,
manufacturers, current owners, and
persons wishing to purchase such
devices would be subject to the
restrictions imposed by the GCA and
NFA.
The Department has determined that
there would not be a registration period
for any device that would be classified
as ‘‘machinegun’’ as a result of this
rulemaking. The NFA provides that only
the manufacturer, importer, or maker of
a firearm may register it.9 Accordingly,
there is no means by which the
possessor may register a firearm
retroactively, including a firearm that
has been reclassified. Further, 18 U.S.C.
922(o) prohibits the possession of
machineguns that were not lawfully
possessed before the effective date of the
statute. Accordingly, if the final rule is
consistent with this NPRM, current
possessors of bump-stock-type devices
will be obligated to dispose of those
devices. A final rule will provide
specific information about acceptable
methods of disposal, as well as the
timeframe under which disposal must
be accomplished to avoid violating 18
U.S.C. 922(o).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Review
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and
13771
Executive Orders 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review) and
12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review) direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits,
reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and
promoting flexibility. Executive Order
13771 (Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs) directs
agencies to reduce regulation and
control regulatory costs. This proposed
rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771
9 26
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
U.S.C. 5841(b); 27 CFR 479.101(b).
29MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
regulatory action. Details on the
estimated costs of this proposed rule
can be found in the rule’s economic
analysis below.
This rule has been designated a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ that is
economically significant under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed
by the Office of Management and
Budget. This proposed rule is intended
to interpret the definition of
‘‘machinegun’’ within the GCA and
NFA such that it includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
Agencies take regulatory action for
various reasons. One of the reasons is to
carry out Congress’s policy decisions, as
expressed in statutes. Here, this
rulemaking aims to apply Congress’s
policy decision to prohibit
machineguns. Another reason
underpinning regulatory action is the
failure of the market to compensate for
negative externalities caused by
13449
commercial activity. A negative
externality can be the byproduct of a
transaction between two parties that is
not accounted for in the transaction.
This proposed rule is addressing a
negative externality. The negative
externality of the commercial sale of
bump-stock-type devices is that they
could be used for criminal purposes.
This poses a public safety issue that the
Department is trying to address.
Executive Summary
Table 1 provides a summary of the
affected population and anticipated
costs and benefits to promulgating this
rule.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS, AND BENEFITS
Category
Affected populations, costs, and benefits
Applicability ...............................................................................................
• Manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices.
• Retail sellers of bump-stock-type devices.
• Gun owners who own bump-stock-type devices or would have purchased them in the future.
• 2 manufacturers of bump-stock-type devices.
• 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-type devices.
• Owners and future consumers of bump-stock-type devices.
$217.0 million present value over 10 years, $36.3 million annualized.
Affected Population ..................................................................................
Total Quantified Costs to Industry, Public, and Government (7% Discount Rate).
Unquantified Costs ...................................................................................
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Unquantified Benefits ...............................................................................
Affected Population
The populations affected by this rule
are manufacturers of bump-stock-type
devices, retailers who sell them either in
brick-and-mortar stores or online, and
individuals who have purchased or
would have wanted to purchase bumpstock-type devices. The number of
entities and individuals selling or
purchasing bump-stock-type devices are
as follows:
• 2 manufacturers
• 2,281 retailers
• An uncertain number of individuals
who have purchased bump-stock-type
devices or would have purchased
them in the future
Because many bump-stock-type
devices—including those ATF
addressed in classification letters
between 2008 and 2017—have not been
subject to regulation under the GCA,
ATF does not keep track of
manufacturers or retailers of bumpstock-type devices, nor does ATF keep
track or maintain a database of
individuals who have purchased bumpstock-type devices. Therefore, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
• Costs of destruction.
• Costs of advertising to inform owners of the need to dispose of their
bump-stock-type devices.
• Lost consumer surplus to users of bump-stock-type devices.
• Prevents criminal usage of bump-stock-type devices.
• Could reduce casualties in an incident that would have involved a
weapon fitted with a bump-stock-type device, as well as assist first
responders when responding to incidents.
affected population of manufacturers
and retailers is an estimate and based on
publicly available information and, with
respect to retailers who are also Federal
firearms licensees (FFLs), is also based
on ATF’s records in the Federal
Firearms Licensing System.
ATF estimates that since 2010, as
many as six domestic bump-stock-type
device manufacturers have been in the
marketplace, but due to patent
infringement litigation, only two remain
in the market. For the estimate of the
number of retailers, ATF filtered all
FFLs for a list of potential sellers. While
there are approximately 80,000 FFLs
currently licensed, only certain types
sell firearms to the public. ATF first
removed FFLs that do not sell firearms
to the public. Next, since not all FFLs
sell firearm accessories, ATF needed to
estimate the number that do sell
accessories. ATF assumed that FFLs that
are likely to sell bump-stock-type
devices would have online websites.
ATF requests public comment on the
reasonableness of the assumption that
retailers of bump-stock-type devices are
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
likely to be businesses with an online
presence. ATF ran a query on the FFL
database and found that of those that
sell firearms to the public, 2,270 have
websites. Because sellers of firearm
accessories do not necessarily sell
firearms, ATF also performed an online
search and found an additional 11
retailers who sell firearm accessories,
but not firearms. Adding these two
totals together, ATF estimates that there
are 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-type
devices.
Because there are no records of
individuals who have purchased firearm
accessories, ATF does not have an
estimated number of individuals who
would be affected by this proposed rule.
Although ATF lacks data on the number
of individuals who have purchased
bump-stock-type devices, ATF has some
information from one manufacturer and
four retailers on the volume of sales of
such devices. Based on these reported
amounts, ATF estimates that the
number of bump-stock-type devices that
were purchased during the 8-year
period beginning in 2010 ranges from
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13450
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
35,000 per year as a low estimate to
75,000 per year as the high and primary
estimate. ATF used a public
commenter’s 400,000 total estimate as a
third estimate. For further information
on the methodology of these estimates,
please review the analysis regarding
‘‘Costs’’ below.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Costs
There are three primary sources of
costs from this rule. First, for owners of
bump-stock-type devices, there will be a
lost value from no longer being able to
possess or use the devices. Second,
there will be a lost value to
manufacturers who would have
manufactured and sold the devices in
the future and to gun owners who
would have purchased them. Finally,
there is a disposal cost associated with
the need to destroy the devices or
render them inactive.
Cost to the Public for Loss of Property
As reported by public comments,
individuals purchase bump-stock-type
devices so that they can simulate
automatic firing on a semiautomatic
firearm. Commenters noted a variety of
purposes for which bump-stock-type
devices have been advertised and used,
including for recreation and fun,
assisting persons with mobility issues in
firing quickly, self-defense, killing
invasive pig species, and target practice
(although, as some commenters
observed, bump-stock-type devices
impede firing accuracy). If the proposed
rule became effective, bump-stock-type
devices would be considered
machineguns under the NFA and could
not be lawfully possessed because the
GCA prohibits persons from possessing
a machinegun unless it was lawfully
possessed before the effective date of the
statute. Bump-stock-type devices
currently possessed by individuals
would have to be destroyed or turned in
upon implementation of the regulation.
The lost value from no longer being
able to use or purchase bump-stock-type
devices will depend on the volume of
sales in the market and the value that
consumers place on the devices. ATF
has limited information about the
market for bump-stock-type devices.
One commenter estimated that more
than 400,000 bump-stock-type devices
may have been sold. Based on publicly
available information, ATF estimates
that in the first two years that bumpstock-type devices were in the market,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
approximately 35,000 were sold per
year.10 However, after 2011, other
manufacturers entered the market and
there is no available information
regarding the total number of bumpstock-type devices manufactured. ATF
is using publicly available information
on manufacturing and combining it with
the information on retail sales to
estimate a range of the number of bumpstock-type devices in the marketplace.
ATF first developed an estimate of the
number of bump-stock-type devices in
the marketplace, based on information
on retail sales provided in response to
the ANPRM. One retailer stated that it
sold an average of 4,000 to 5,000 bumpstock-type devices per year.11 Public
comments indicated that one retailer
sold 3,800 bump-stock-type devices
annually, one sold 60 per year, and one
sold approximately 5–10 per year.12 For
the purposes of this regulatory analysis
(RA), ATF assumes that a large retailer
would have sold 4,400, a midrange
retailer would have sold 60, and a small
retailer would have sold 8.13 For the
purposes of this analysis, ATF assumes
the number of retailers by size are as
follows:
• 4 large * 4,400 annual sales
• 755 midrange * 60 annual sales
• 1,511 small * 8 annual sales
The number of large retailers is a
known number. As stated in the
Affected Population section above,
based on ATF’s internal database and
online research, the remaining number
of retailers is 2,270. For the purposes of
this RA, ATF assumed that one-third of
the remaining retailer population are
midrange retailers, and the remaining
1,511 are small retailers. Using these
assumed numbers of retailers and
annual sales by size of retailer, ATF
estimated annual sales of about 75,000
[(4 * 4,400) + (755 * 60) + (1,511 * 8)].
10 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple
Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), https://
www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
11 Based on an internal survey of large retailers.
12 Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF–2018–0001–
27509, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=ATF-2018-0001-27509 (last visited on
Mar. 6, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF–
2018–0001–0433, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0433 (last visited on
Mar. 6, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF–
2018–0001–0128, https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0128 (last visited on
Mar. 6, 2018).
13 For a large retailer the average sales were 4,400
= (3,800 + 5,000)/2. For a small retailer, the average
sales were 8 = (5 + 10)/2.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ATF next developed an estimate of
the number of bump-stock-type devices
in the United States based on
information about the numbers of
bump-stock-type devices manufactured.
Based on publicly available information,
ATF estimates that approximately
35,000 bump-stock-type devices were
sold in 2010.14 Only in 2012 did other
manufacturers enter the marketplace.
For the purposes of this RA, ATF
assumes that in the first two years of
production, the one manufacturer
produced the same 35,000 in years 2010
and 2011. ATF has two sets of
production estimates. Because no
information is otherwise known about
the production of bump-stock-type
devices, ATF assumes that the low
estimate of annual bump-stock-type
device production is a constant 35,000,
based on the one data point. As stated
earlier, a public commenter provided an
estimate of 400,000 bump-stock-type
devices currently in circulation. To
account for how these were purchased
over the last 8 years, ATF also assumed
the same 35,000 production in the first
2 years, but spread out the remaining
330,000 over the remaining 6 years, or
about 55,000 per year. However,
incorporating the provided retail sales
information, ATF developed a third,
higher estimate reflecting that when the
other manufacturers entered the market,
the number of bump-stock-type devices
sold on the market annually could have
been 75,000.
The high estimate is ATF’s primary
estimate because ATF knows that there
was an increase in production starting
in 2012. In 2012, there were other
manufacturers who entered the market,
and the first manufacturer increased
production at some point thereafter.
Furthermore, the primary estimate
includes information provided by
retailers as a more comprehensive
outlook on the overall production
numbers. For the purposes of this
analysis, ATF assumes that both the
increase in production and the market
entry of other manufacturers all
occurred in 2012. Table 2 provides the
breakdown of production for the low
estimate, public comment estimate, and
primary estimate.
14 Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple
Solutions, Albany News (Dec. 22, 2011), https://
www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13451
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—NUMBER OF BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES PRODUCED, BASED ON MANUFACTURER AND RETAIL SALES
Low
estimate
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Public
comment
estimate
Primary
estimate
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
35,000
55,000
55,000
55,000
55,000
55,000
55,000
35,000
35,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
75,000
Total ......................................................................................................................................
280,000
400,000
520,000
In other words, the number of bumpstock-type devices held by the public
could range from about 280,000 to about
520,000.
ATF does not know the production
cost of bump-stock-type devices, but for
the purposes of this RA, ATF uses the
retail sales amounts as a proxy for the
total value of these devices. For devices
that have already been sold, there are
two countervailing effects that affect the
value of the devices. There may have
been some depreciation of the devices
since they were originally purchased,
resulting in a value somewhat reduced
from the retail price. On the other hand,
some consumers would have been
willing to pay more than the retail price
for a bump-stock-type device, and for
these individuals the devices would
have a higher valuation than the retail
price. Both of these effects are difficult
to estimate, and here ATF assumes that
the retail sales price is a reasonable
proxy for the value of the devices.
The primary manufacturer of bumpstock-type devices sells them at a price
of $179.95 to $425.95.15 For the
purposes of this RA, ATF estimates that
the average sale price for these bump-
stock-type devices was $301.00 during
the first two years they were sold. In
2012, at least one other manufacturer
entered the market and started selling
their devices at the rate of $99.99,
making the overall prices for these
devices lower.16 For the purposes of this
RA, ATF assumes that the average sale
price for bump-stock-type devices from
2012 to 2017 was $200.00. Based on
these costs, multiplied by the number of
bump-stock-type devices in the market,
Table 3 provides the sales value that the
public has spent on these devices over
the course of the last eight years.
TABLE 3—AMOUNT SPENT ON BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES (UNDISCOUNTED)
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Low estimate
Public
comment
estimate
Primary
estimate
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
$10,533,250
10,533,250
7,016,450
7,016,450
7,016,450
7,016,450
7,016,450
$10,533,250
10,533,250
11,025,850
11,025,850
11,025,850
11,025,850
11,025,850
$10,533,250
10,533,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
Total ......................................................................................................................................
56,148,750
76,195,750
96,242,750
ATF estimates that the total,
undiscounted amount spent on bumpstock-type devices was $96.2 million.
While the retail prices of these bump-
stock-type devices remained constant
over the eight years of sales, these
purchases occurred over time; therefore,
ATF presents the discounted value at
3% and 7% in Table 4 to account for the
present value of these purchases.
TABLE 4—THE AMOUNT SPENT PURCHASING BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES, DISCOUNTED AT 3% AND 7%
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Undiscounted
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
15 Slide Fire AR–15 Bump Fire Stocks (archived
page on Jan. 28, 2017), https://web.archive.org/web/
20170128085532/https://www.slidefire.com/
products/ar-platform (last visited Mar. 6, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
$10,533,250
10,533,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
15,035,250
16 Bump Fire Systems (archived page on Feb. 21,
2015), https://web.archive.org/web/
20150221050223/https://bumpfiresystems.com/ (last
visited Mar. 6, 2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
3%
$12,210,924
11,855,266
16,429,424
15,950,897
15,486,308
15,035,250
14,597,330
7%
$14,773,428
13,806,942
18,418,828
17,213,858
16,087,718
15,035,250
14,051,636
13452
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—THE AMOUNT SPENT PURCHASING BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES, DISCOUNTED AT 3% AND 7%—Continued
Year
Undiscounted
3%
7%
Total ......................................................................................................................................
96,242,750
101,565,397
109,387,659
Annualized Cost ............................................................................................................
........................
14,468,640
18,318,906
Because these purchases occurred in
the past, ATF’s discount years start at -5
and increase to 0 to account for the
Executive Order 13771 standard that
costs be presented in 2016 dollars. With
these assumptions, ATF estimates that
the annualized, discounted amount
spent on bump-stock-type devices was
$14.5 million and $18.3 million at 3%
and 7%, respectively.
Based on the same discounting
formula, ATF estimates that the total
undiscounted cost for the low estimate
would be $56.1 million, and the total
discounted values would be $60.2
million and $66.3 million at 3% and
7%, respectively. The annualized values
for the low estimates of total number of
bump-stock-type devices sold are $8.6
million and $11.1 million at 3% and
7%, respectively. For the 400,000-unit
estimate provided by the public
commenter, the total undiscounted
amount would be $76.2 million, and the
total discounted values would be $80.9
million and $87.8 million at 3% and
7%, respectively. The annualized values
for the 400,000-unit sales estimate are
$11.5 million and $14.7 million at 3%
and 7%, respectively.
Forgone Future Production and Sales
ATF has estimated the lost production
and lost sales that would occur in the
10 years after the implementation of this
proposed rule, should this proposed
rule take effect. In order to do this, ATF
needed to predict the number of devices
that would be sold in the future in the
absence of a rule. Such a prediction
should take account of recent expected
changes in the demand for and supply
of bump-stock-type devices. For
example, based on a survey, half of the
known, large former retailers of bumpstock-type devices no longer sell bumpstock-type devices as a result of the Las
Vegas shooting, nor do they intend to
sell them in the future. Moreover, while
ATF has estimated the number of bumpstock-type devices manufactured since
2010, ATF is without sufficient
information to estimate the number of
individuals who were interested in
acquiring bump-stock-type devices prior
to the Las Vegas shooting but would no
longer want them due to the shooting.
Another recent change affecting
individuals’ future purchases of bumpstock-type devices is that certain States
have already banned such devices.
These States are California, Florida,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and Washington. The effect of States’
bans on individuals’ future purchases of
bump-stock-type devices should not be
attributed to this proposed rule since
these reductions in purchases would
happen with or without the rule.
However, ATF was unable to quantify
the impact of States’ bans and thus was
unable to account for the future effects
of these bans in the estimate of the
effects of the proposed rule.
Based on previously mentioned
comments from large retailers, ATF
expects that, in the absence of this rule,
some retailers would not sell bumpstock-type devices in the future. In order
to estimate the expected future
reduction in demand for bump-stocktype devices as a result of the Las Vegas
shooting, ATF assumes that the
reduction of sales by large retailers that
has already occurred would be a
reasonable estimate of the future
reduction of sales overall that would
occur in the absence of the rule. ATF
estimates that there are four large
retailers of bump-stock-type devices, of
which two have stated that they would
no longer sell bump-stock-type devices
regardless of this proposed rule. For the
purposes of this regulatory analysis, it is
estimated that each of the two large
retailers sell 4,400 bump-stock-type
devices annually. Removing the effects
of these two large retailers from the
future market reduces ATF’s primary
estimate of 74,988 in past annual
production to an estimate of 66,484
(75,284 ¥ 8,800) in annual sales that
would occur in the future in the absence
of a rule. Table 5 provides the estimated
breakdown of lost production and sales
forgone should this rule become final.
TABLE 5—FORGONE PRODUCTION AND SALES OF FUTURE BUMP-STOCK-TYPE DEVICES
Number of bumpstock-type devices
Year
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Undiscounted
3%
7%
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
66,484
$20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
$19,425,592.04
18,859,798.10
18,310,483.59
17,777,168.53
17,259,386.92
16,756,686.33
16,268,627.51
15,794,783.99
15,334,741.74
14,888,098.77
$18,699,401.68
17,476,076.34
16,332,781.62
15,264,281.89
14,265,684.01
13,332,414.96
12,460,200.90
11,645,047.57
10,883,222.03
10,171,235.54
Total ..................................................................................
..............................
200,083,598
170,675,367.53
140,530,346.56
Annualized Cost ........................................................
..............................
..............................
24,313,796.52
23,534,302.70
Based on these estimates, ATF
estimates that the undiscounted value of
forgone future sales over 10 years would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
be $200.1 million, undiscounted, or
$24.3 million and $23.5 million,
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
annualized and discounted at 3% and
7%.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Disposal
This proposed rule would require the
destruction of existing bump-stock-type
devices. The cost of disposal would
have several components. For
individuals who own bump-stock-type
devices, there would be a cost for the
time and effort to destroy the devices or
ensure that they are destroyed by
another party. For retailers, wholesalers,
and manufacturers, there would be a
cost of the time and effort to destroy or
ensure the destruction of any devices
held in inventory. Based on the
response from public comments, it is
not clear if there would also be a cost
from the lost value of that inventory.
Individuals who have purchased
bump-stock-type devices prior to the
implementation of this rule would have
the option of destroying the devices
themselves, turning the devices in to the
nearest ATF office for destruction by
ATF or, subject to compliance with U.S.
Mail regulations and the policies of
commercial shipment services, sending
the devices to ATF through the U.S.
Mail or other commercial delivery
service. Options for destroying the
devices may include melting, crushing,
or shredding in a manner that renders
the device incapable of ready
restoration. Since the majority of bumpstock-type devices are made of plastic
material, individuals wishing to destroy
the devices themselves could simply
use a hammer to break apart the devices
and throw the pieces away. Other
destruction options that ATF has
historically accepted include torch
cutting or sawing the device in a
manner that removes at least 1⁄4 inch of
material for each cut and completely
severs design features critical to the
functionality of the device as a bumpstock-type device.
If a possessor chooses to turn in the
device to the local ATF office, the cost
to the public to destroy the device
would be the cost to drive to the nearest
ATF office, the cost of sending through
the U.S. Mail, or the cost of sending via
private shipper. For the purposes of this
regulatory analysis, ATF assumes that
most individuals disposing of their
existing bump-stock-type devices would
destroy these devices themselves rather
than turn them into the nearest ATF
office through personal delivery, mail,
or private shipper.
Should this rule take effect, public
comments suggest that unsellable
inventory could be worth approximately
$35,000 per large retailer. One public
13453
commenter, assumed to be a large
retailer, stated that its gross sales were
$140,000. Another public commenter
assumed to be a midrange retailer had
gross sales of $18,000. No known sales
were reported for a small retailer. Based
on the proportion of sales among the
large, midrange, and small retailers,
ATF estimates that the amount in
existing inventory for a midrange
retailer would be $4,500 and, for a small
retailer, $74.17
The retailer, assumed to be large, also
commented that the opportunity cost of
time needed to destroy existing
inventory would be approximately
$700. ATF’s subject matter experts
estimate that a retailer could use a
maintenance crew to destroy existing
inventory. To determine the hourly time
needed to destroy existing inventory,
ATF used the $700 reported amount,
divided by the loaded wage rate of a
building cleaning worker. ATF subject
matter experts also suggest that existing
packers would be used for a midrange
retailer and the minimum wage would
be used for a small retailer. The loaded
rate of 1.43 was used to account for
fringe benefits.18 Table 6 provides the
wages used for this analysis.
TABLE 6—WAGE SERIES TO DESTROY EXISTING INVENTORY
Unloaded
wage rate
Loaded
wage rate
Wage series
Series code
Individual ...........................
..........................................
$13.60
$13.60
Minimum Wage Rate ........
Min Wage ........................
7.25
10.40
Packers, Packagers, and
Handlers.
Retail Salespersons ..........
Building Cleaning Workers,
All Other.
53–7064 ...........................
11.74
16.84
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/
docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20
Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/
2016/home.htm.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes537064.htm.
41–2031 ...........................
37–2019 ...........................
13.07
14.88
18.75
21.34
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes412031.htm.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes372019.htm.
Based on the estimated wages and
reported opportunity cost of time, ATF
estimates that it would take a large
Source
retailer 32.8 hours, a midrange retailer
0.45 hours, and a small retailer 0.25
hours to destroy existing inventory.
Table 7 provides the per-retailer
estimated opportunity cost of time.
TABLE 7—OPPORTUNITY COST OF TIME TO DESTROY EXISTING INVENTORY
Incremental
cost
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Population
Individual ......................................................................................................................................
Retailer (Large) ............................................................................................................................
Retailer (Midrange) ......................................................................................................................
Retailer (Small) ............................................................................................................................
17 Midrange: $4,500 = ($18,000/$140,000) *
$35,000. Small: $74 = (8/3,800) * $35,000.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
18 BLS Series ID CMU2010000000000D,
CMU2010000000000P (Private Industry
Compensation = $32.35)/(Private Industry Wages
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
$13.60
21.34
16.84
19.51
Hourly burden
0.25
32.8
0.45
0.25
Opportunity
cost of time
$3.40
699.95
7.58
4.88
and Salaries = $22.55) = 1.43. BLS average 2016.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://beta.bls.gov/
dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[cm]&s=popularity:D.
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13454
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
As stated earlier, ATF estimates that
there are 519,927 bump-stock-type
devices already purchased by the
public. Based on the opportunity cost of
time per bump-stock-type device, and
the estimated opportunity cost of time
per retailer, ATF provides the cost to
destroy all existing bump-stock-type
devices in Table 8.
TABLE 8—OPPORTUNITY COST OF
TIME TO DESTROY EXISTING DEVICES BY INDIVIDUAL AND RETAILER
SIZE
Individual ...................................
Retailer (Large) .........................
$1,768,000
2,800
Therefore, the costs of the rule in 2018
would include the total undiscounted
value of existing stock of bump-stocktype devices in Table 4 ($96.2 million),
the year 2018 loss of future production
Retailer (Midrange) ...................
5,752 from Table 5 ($20.0 million), and the
Retailer (Small) .........................
3,947 total cost of disposal from Table 8 ($1.8
Total Disposal Cost ...............
1,780,498 million). Overall, ATF estimates that the
total cost of this proposed rule would be
$297.2 million over a 10-year period of
ATF estimates that it would cost a
future analysis. This cost includes the
total of $1.8 million to destroy all
first-year cost to destroy all existing
existing bump-stock-type devices.
bump-stock-type devices, including
We treat all costs of disposal of
unsellable inventory and opportunity
existing devices owned by individuals
cost of time. Table 9 provides the 10or held in inventory by retailers or
year cost of this proposed rule.
manufacturers as if they occur in 2018.
TABLE 8—OPPORTUNITY COST OF
TIME TO DESTROY EXISTING DEVICES BY INDIVIDUAL AND RETAILER
SIZE—Continued
TABLE 9—10-YEAR COST OF PROPOSED RULE
Year
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Undiscounted
3%
7%
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
$118,031,608
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
20,008,360
$111,256,111
18,310,484
17,777,169
17,259,387
16,756,686
16,268,628
15,794,784
15,334,742
14,888,099
14,454,465
$103,093,378
16,332,782
15,264,282
14,265,684
13,332,415
12,460,201
11,645,048
10,883,222
10,171,236
9,505,828
Total ....................................................................................................................
298,106,846
258,100,553
216,954,074
Annualized Cost ..........................................................................................
..............................
36,768,073
36,332,813
As stated in the paragraph above, the
total undiscounted cost is $297.2
million, and the discounted costs would
be $36.8 million and $36.3 million
annualized at 3% and 7% respectively.
incidents, because it prevents shooters
from using a device that allows them to
shoot a semiautomatic firearm
automatically.
Government Costs
Alternative 1—No change alternative.
This alternative would leave the
regulations in place as they currently
stand. Since there would be no changes
to regulations, there would be no cost,
savings, or benefits to this alternative.
Alternative 2—Patronizing a shooting
range. Individuals wishing to
experience the shooting of a ‘‘full-auto’’
firearm could go to a shooting range that
provides access to lawfully registered
‘‘pre-1986’’ machineguns to customers,
where the firearm remains on the
premises and under the control of the
shooting range. ATF does not have the
information to determine which, where,
or how many gun ranges provide such
a service and is therefore not able to
quantify this alternative.
Alternative 3—Opportunity
alternatives. Based on public comments,
individuals wishing to replicate the
effects of bump-stock-type devices
could also use rubber bands, belt loops,
or otherwise train their trigger finger to
fire more rapidly. To the extent that
Government costs are estimated as de
minimis because collection of the bumpstock-type devices by ATF would be an
ancillary duty of existing ATF Special
Agents.
Cost Savings
ATF did not calculate any cost
savings for this proposed rule.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Benefits
As reported by public comments, this
proposed rule would affect the criminal
use of bump-stock-type devices in mass
shootings, such as the Las Vegas
shooting incident.
The purpose of this rule is to amend
ATF regulations to clarify that bumpstock-type devices are ‘‘machineguns’’
as defined by the NFA and GCA.
Banning bump-stock-type devices could
reduce casualties in an incident
involving a weapon fitted with a bumpstock-type device, as well as assist first
responders when responding to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Alternatives
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
individuals are capable of doing so, this
would be their alternative to using
bump-stock-type devices.
No other feasible alternatives were
identified, and thus none were
considered.
B. Executive Order 13132
This regulation 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 Attorney
General has determined that this
regulation does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a federalism summary
impact statement.
C. Executive Order 12988
This regulation meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform).
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Summary of Findings
ATF performed an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of the impacts on
small businesses and other entities from
the NPRM. Based on the information
from this analysis, ATF found:
• It is estimated that of the two
remaining manufacturers, at least one
manufacturer only produces bumpstock-type devices and therefore could
completely go out of business;
• There are 2,281 retailers, of which
most are estimated to be small;
• There are no relevant government
entities.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory
issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objectives of the rule
and of applicable statutes, to fit
regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ Public
Law 96–354, 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required
to consider if this rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have such
an impact. If the agency determines that
it will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as
described in the RFA.
Under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(b)–(c)),
the regulatory flexibility analysis must
provide and/or address:
• A description of the reasons why
action by the agency is being
considered;
• A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule;
• A description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the proposed
rule will apply;
• A description of the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will
be subject to the requirement and the
type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
• An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant Federal rules
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the proposed rule; and
• Descriptions of any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated objectives of
applicable statutes and which minimize
any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
The RFA covers a wide range of small
entities. The term ‘‘small entities’’
comprises small businesses, not-forprofit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and
are not dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. 5 U.S.C.
601(3)–(6). ATF determined that the
rule affects a variety of large and small
businesses (see the ‘‘Description of the
Potential Number of Small Entities’’
section below). Based on the
requirements above, ATF prepared the
following regulatory flexibility analysis
assessing the impact on small entities
from the rule.
A Description of the Reasons Why
Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
Agencies take regulatory action for
various reasons. One of the reasons is to
carry out Congress’s policy decisions, as
expressed in statutes. Here, this
rulemaking aims to apply Congress’s
policy decision to prohibit
machineguns. Another reason
underpinning regulatory action is the
failure of the market to compensate for
negative externalities caused by
commercial activity. A negative
externality can be the byproduct of a
transaction between two parties that is
not accounted for in the transaction.
This proposed rule is addressing a
negative externality. The negative
externality of the commercial sale of
bump-stock-type devices is that it could
be used for criminal purposes. This
poses a public safety issue, which the
Department is trying to address.
A Succinct Statement of the Objectives
of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
The Attorney General is responsible
for enforcing the GCA, as amended, and
the NFA, as amended.
A Description of and, Where Feasible,
an Estimate of the Number of Small
Entities To Which the Proposed Rule
Will Apply
This rule would affect primarily
manufacturers of bump-stock-type
devices, FFLs that sell bump-stock-type
devices, and other small retailers of
firearm accessories that have invested in
the bump-stock-type device industry.
Based on publicly available information,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13455
there are two manufacturers affected. Of
the known retailers, the large retailers
do not intend to continue selling bumpstock-type devices. There may be some
small retailers that would intend to
continue selling these devices should
this proposed rule not go into effect and
would thus be affected by this proposed
rule. Based on the information from this
analysis, ATF found:
• There are 2,270 retailers who are
likely to be small entities;
• There are no government
jurisdictions affected by this proposed
rule; and
• There are no nonprofits found in
the data.
A Description of the Projected
Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities Which Will
Be Subject to the Requirement and the
Type of Professional Skills Necessary
for Preparation of the Report or Record
There are no reporting or
recordkeeping requirements for this
proposed rule. The only relevant
compliance requirement consists of
disposing of all existing inventory of
bump-stock-type devices for small
entities that carry them. There would
not be any professional skills necessary
to record or report in this proposed
rulemaking.
An Identification, to the Extent
Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or
Conflict With the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule does not duplicate
or conflict with other Federal rules.
Descriptions of Any Significant
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Which Accomplish the Stated
Objectives of Applicable Statutes and
Which Minimize Any Significant
Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule
on Small Entities
Alternatives were considered in this
proposed rule. Alternatives include
making no regulatory changes. ATF
rejected this alternative because it does
not address the public safety concerns
raised by bump-stock-type devices, and
would not be consistent with ATF’s
interpretation of the statutory term
‘‘machinegun.’’ There were no other
regulatory alternatives to this proposal
that ATF has been able to identify that
would accomplish the intent of this
proposed rule.
E. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966
This rule is a major rule as defined by
section 251 of the Small Business
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
13456
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule is likely to
be considered major as it is
economically significant and is
projected to have an effect of over $100
million on the economy in at least the
first year of the rule.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not 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, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose any
new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521.
VII. Public Participation
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Comments Sought
ATF requests comments on the
proposed rule from all interested
persons. ATF specifically requests
comments on the scope of this proposed
rule and the definition of
‘‘machinegun.’’ ATF also requests
comments on the costs and benefits of
the proposed rule and on the
appropriate methodology and data for
calculating those costs and benefits.
Further, ATF requests public comment
on the reasonableness of the assumption
that retailers of bump-stock-type devices
are likely to be businesses with an
online presence. In addition, ATF
specifically requests comments
regarding how ATF should address
bump-stock-type devices that private
parties currently possess, and the
appropriate means of implementing a
final rule.
All comments must reference the
docket number ATF 2017R–22, be
legible, and include the commenter’s
complete first and last name and full
mailing address. ATF will not consider,
or respond to, comments that do not
meet these requirements or comments
containing profanity. In addition, if ATF
cannot read your comment due to
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, and will give
comments received after that date the
same consideration if it is practical to
do so, but assurance of consideration
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
cannot be given except as to comments
received on or before the closing date.
ATF will not acknowledge receipt of
comments.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments, whether
submitted electronically or on paper,
available for public viewing at ATF and
on the internet as part of the
eRulemaking initiative, and subject to
the Freedom of Information Act.
Commenters who do not want their
name or other personal identifying
information posted on the internet
should submit comments by mail or
facsimile, along with a separate cover
sheet containing their personal
identifying information. Both the cover
sheet and comment must reference this
docket number (ATF 2017R–22).
Information contained in the cover sheet
will not appear on the internet. ATF
will not redact personal identifying
information that appears within the
comment, and it will appear on the
internet.
The commenter should not include
material that he or she considers
inappropriate for disclosure to the
public. Any person submitting a
comment shall specifically designate
that portion (if any) of the comment that
contains material that is confidential
under law (e.g., trade secrets, processes).
The commenter shall set forth any
portion of a comment that is
confidential under law on pages
separate from the balance of the
comment with each page prominently
marked ‘‘confidential’’ at the top of the
page.
Confidential information will be
included in the rulemaking record but
will not be disclosed to the public. Any
comments containing material that is
not confidential under law may be
disclosed to the public. In any event, the
name of the person submitting a
comment is not exempt from disclosure.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three
ways (but do not submit the same
comments multiple times or by more
than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF
strongly recommends that you submit
your comments to ATF via the Federal
eRulemaking portal. Visit https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
tracking number that regulations.gov
provides 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 (.17 inches), include the
commenter’s complete first and last
name and full mailing address, be
signed, and may be of any length.
• Facsimile: Submit comments by
facsimile transmission to (202) 648–
9741. Faxed comments must:
(1) Be legible and appear in minimum
12-point font size (.17 inches);
(2) Be on 81⁄2″ x 11″ paper;
(3) Be signed and contain the
commenter’s complete first and last
name and full mailing address; and
(4) Be no more than five pages long.
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 of
ATF 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 notice and the
comments received will be available at
https://www.regulations.gov (search for
Docket No. 2017R–22) and for public
inspection by appointment during
normal business hours at: ATF Reading
Room, Room 1E–063, 99 New York Ave.
NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone:
(202) 648–8740.
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 447
Administrative practice and
procedure, Arms and munitions,
Chemicals, Customs duties and
inspection, Imports, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Scientific equipment,
Seizures and forfeitures.
27 CFR Part 478
Administrative practice and
procedure, Arms and munitions,
Customs duties and inspection, Exports,
Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Law enforcement officers, Military
personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research,
Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.
27 CFR Part 479
Administrative practice and
procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise
taxes, Exports, Imports, Military
personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 61 / Thursday, March 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
4. In § 478.11, amend the definition of
‘‘Machine gun’’ by adding two sentences
at the end of the definition to read as
follows:
recordkeeping requirements, Seizures
and forfeitures, Transportation.
Accordingly, for the reasons
discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR parts
447, 478, and 479 are proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 447—IMPORTATION OF ARMS,
AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF
WAR
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 447 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2778, E.O. 13637, 78
FR 16129 (Mar. 8, 2013).
2. In § 447.11, amend the definition of
‘‘Machinegun’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 447.11
Meaning of terms.
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
Machinegun. A ‘‘machinegun’’,
‘‘machine pistol’’, ‘‘submachinegun’’, or
‘‘automatic rifle’’ is a weapon which
shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically
more than one shot, without manual
reloading, by a single function of the
trigger. The term shall also include the
frame or receiver of any such weapon,
any part designed and intended solely
and exclusively, or combination of parts
designed and intended, for use in
converting a weapon into a machinegun,
and any combination of parts from
which a machinegun can be assembled
if such parts are in the possession or
under the control of a person. For
purposes of this definition, the term
‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies ‘‘shoots,
is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot,’’ means functioning as
the result of a self-acting or selfregulating mechanism that allows the
firing of multiple rounds through a
single function of the trigger; and
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a
single pull of the trigger. The term
‘‘machinegun’’ includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS
AND AMMUNITION
3. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 478 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921–
931.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:03 Mar 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Dated: March 23, 2018.
Jefferson B. Sessions III,
Attorney General.
§ 478.11
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P
■
Authority and Issuance
13457
Meaning of terms.
*
*
*
*
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition,
the term ‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies
‘‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot,’’ means
functioning as the result of a self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism that allows
the firing of multiple rounds through a
single function of the trigger; and
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a
single pull of the trigger. The term
‘‘machine gun’’ includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–06292 Filed 3–28–18; 8:45 am]
*
PART 479—MACHINE GUNS,
DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND
CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS
5. The authority citation for 27 CFR
part 479 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
6. In § 479.11, amend the definition of
‘‘Machine gun’’ by adding two sentences
at the end of the definition to read as
follows:
■
§ 479.11
Meaning of terms.
*
*
*
*
*
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition,
the term ‘‘automatically’’ as it modifies
‘‘shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot,’’ means
functioning as the result of a self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism that allows
the firing of multiple rounds through a
single function of the trigger; and
‘‘single function of the trigger’’ means a
single pull of the trigger. The term
‘‘machine gun’’ includes bump-stocktype devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more
than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of
the semiautomatic firearm to which it is
affixed so that the trigger resets and
continues firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by
the shooter.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0164; FRL–9976–
14—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Ohio NSR
PM2.5 Precursors
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
revisions to Ohio’s state implementation
plan (SIP) as requested by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) on March 10, 2017, and
supplemented on July 18, 2017. The
revisions to Ohio’s SIP implement
certain EPA regulations for particulate
matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers
(PM2.5) for nonattainment areas by
establishing definitions related to PM2.5
and defining PM2.5 precursors. The
revisions also incorporate the findings
of a comprehensive precursor
demonstration performed by OEPA,
which determined that volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3)
are an insignificant source of PM2.5 for
the purpose of new source review in
nonattainment areas in Ohio.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 30, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0164 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
damico.genevieve@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29MRP1.SGM
29MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13442-13457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06292]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
27 CFR Parts 447, 478, and 479
[Docket No. 2017R-22; AG Order No. 4132-2018]
RIN 1140-AA52
Bump-Stock-Type Devices
AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF),
Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to amend the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulations to
clarify that ``bump fire'' stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with
certain similar characteristics (bump-stock-type devices) are
``machineguns'' as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)
and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), because such devices allow a
shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing
cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices
convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by
functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that
harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner
that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional
physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. Hence, a
semiautomatic firearm to which a bump-stock-type device is attached is
able to produce automatic fire with a single pull of the trigger. With
limited exceptions, primarily as to government agencies, the GCA makes
it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun unless
it was lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of the statute.
The bump-stock-type devices covered by this proposed rule were not in
existence prior to the GCA's effective date, and therefore would fall
within the prohibition on machineguns if this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) is implemented. Consequently, current possessors of
these devices would be required to surrender them, destroy them, or
otherwise render them permanently inoperable upon the effective date of
the final rule.
DATES: Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must
be submitted on or before June 27, 2018. Commenters should be aware
that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept
comments after midnight Eastern Daylight Time on the last day of the
comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number ATF
2017R-22, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the directions for submitting comments.
Fax: (202) 648-9741.
Mail: Vivian Chu, Mailstop 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: 2017R-22.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this notice of proposed rulemaking. All properly
[[Page 13443]]
completed comments received will be posted without change to the
Federal eRulemaking portal, https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' section of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivian Chu, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Enforcement Programs Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Ave.
NE, Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 1, 2017, a shooter attacked a
large crowd attending an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada. By using
several AR-type rifles with attached bump-stock-type devices, the
shooter was able to fire several hundred rounds of ammunition in a
short period of time, killing 58 people and injuring over 800. The
bump-stock-type devices recovered from the hotel room from which the
shooter conducted the attack included two distinct, but functionally
equivalent, model variations from the same manufacturer. These devices
were readily available in the commercial marketplace through online
sales directly from the manufacturer, and through multiple retailers.
The manufacturer of these devices is the primary manufacturer and
seller of bump-stock-type devices; it has obtained multiple patents for
its designs, and has rigorously enforced the patents to prevent
competitors from infringing them. Consequently, at the time of the
attack, very few competing bump-stock-type devices were available in
the marketplace.
The devices used in Las Vegas and the other bump-stock-type devices
currently available on the market all utilize essentially the same
functional design. They are designed to be affixed to a semiautomatic
long gun (most commonly an AR-type rifle or an AK-type rifle) in place
of a standard, stationary rifle stock, for the express purpose of
allowing ``rapid fire'' operation of the semiautomatic firearm to which
they are affixed. They are configured with a sliding shoulder stock
molded (or otherwise attached) to a pistol-grip/handle (or ``chassis'')
that includes an extension ledge (or ``finger rest'') on which the
shooter places the trigger finger while shooting the firearm. The
devices also generally include a detachable rectangular receiver module
(or ``bearing interface'') that is placed in the receiver well of the
device's pistol-grip/handle to assist in guiding and regulating the
recoil of the firearm when fired.
These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate
with the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially
the same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic
shoulder stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-
trigger hand on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and
maintaining the trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with
constant rearward pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil
energy of the firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic
fire.
In general, bump-stock-type devices--including those currently on
the market with the characteristics described above--are designed to
channel recoil energy to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic
firearms from a single trigger pull. Specifically, they are designed to
allow the shooter to maintain a continuous firing cycle after a single
pull of the trigger by directing the recoil energy of the discharged
rounds into the space created by the sliding stock (approximately 1.5
inches) in constrained linear rearward and forward paths. Ordinarily,
to operate a semiautomatic firearm, the shooter must repeatedly pull
and release the trigger to allow it to reset, so that only one shot is
fired with each pull of the trigger. When a bump-stock-type device is
affixed to a semiautomatic firearm, however, the device harnesses the
recoil energy to slide the firearm back and forth so that the trigger
automatically re-engages by ``bumping'' the shooter's stationary
trigger finger without additional physical manipulation of the trigger
by the shooter. The bump-stock-type device functions as a self-acting
and self-regulating force that channels the firearm's recoil energy in
a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain
continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger so long as the
trigger finger remains stationary on the device's extension ledge (as
designed). No further physical manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter is required.
In 2006, ATF concluded that certain bump-stock-type devices
qualified as machineguns under the GCA and NFA. Specifically, ATF
concluded that devices attached to semiautomatic firearms that use an
internal spring to harness the force of the recoil so that the firearm
shoots more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger are
machineguns. Between 2008 and 2017, however, ATF also issued
classification decisions concluding that other bump-stock-type devices
were not machineguns, including a device submitted by the manufacturer
of the bump-stock-type devices used in the Las Vegas shooting. Those
decisions did not include extensive legal analysis relating to the
definition of ``machinegun.'' Nonetheless, they indicated that
semiautomatic firearms modified with these bump-stock-type devices did
not fire ``automatically,'' and were thus not ``machineguns,'' because
the devices did not rely on internal springs or similar mechanical
parts to channel recoil energy. ATF has now determined that that
conclusion does not reflect the best interpretation of the term
``machinegun'' under the GCA and NFA. In this proposed rule, the
Department accordingly interprets the definition of ``machinegun'' to
clarify that all bump-stock-type devices are ``machineguns'' under the
GCA and NFA because they convert a semiautomatic firearm into a firearm
that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading,
by a single function of the trigger.
I. Background
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as
amended, and the NFA, as amended.\1\ This includes the authority to
promulgate regulations necessary to enforce the provisions of the GCA
and NFA. See 18 U.S.C. 926(a); 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2)(ii), 7805(a). The
Attorney General has delegated the responsibility for administering and
enforcing the GCA and NFA to the Director of ATF, subject to the
direction of the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General. See
28 CFR 0.130(a)(1)-(2). The Department and ATF have promulgated
regulations implementing both the GCA and the NFA. See 27 CFR pts. 478,
479. In particular, while still part of the Department of the Treasury,
ATF for decades promulgated rules governing ``the procedural and
substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacture,
making, exportation, identification and registration of, and the
dealing in, machine guns.'' 27 CFR 479.1; see, e.g., United States v.
Dodson, 519 F. App'x 344, 348-49 & n.4 (6th Cir. 2013) (acknowledging
ATF's role in interpreting the NFA's definition of
[[Page 13444]]
``machinegun''); F.J. Vollmer Co. v. Higgins, 23 F.3d 448, 449-51 (D.C.
Cir. 1994) (upholding an ATF determination regarding machinegun
receivers). Courts have recognized ATF's leading regulatory role with
respect to firearms, including in the specific context of classifying
devices as machineguns under the NFA. See, e.g., York v. Sec'y of
Treasury, 774 F.2d 417, 419-20 (10th Cir. 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NFA provisions still refer to the ``Secretary of the
Treasury.'' 26 U.S.C. ch. 53. However, the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002), 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 refers to the Attorney General.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The GCA defines ``machinegun'' by referring to the NFA
definition,\2\ which includes ``any weapon which shoots, is designed to
shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one
shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.''
26 U.S.C. 5845(b). The term ``machinegun'' also includes the frame or
receiver of any such weapon or any part, or combination of parts,
designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,
and ``any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled
if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.''
Id. With limited exceptions, the GCA prohibits the transfer or
possession of machineguns under 18 U.S.C. 922(o).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(23).
\3\ Regulations implementing the GCA and the NFA spell the term
``machine gun'' rather than ``machinegun.'' E.g., 27 CFR 478.11,
479.11. For convenience, this notice uses ``machinegun'' except when
quoting a source to the contrary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA),
Pub. L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, which included a provision that
effectively froze the number of legally transferrable machineguns to
those that were registered before May 19, 1986. 18 U.S.C. 922(o). Due
to the fixed universe of ``pre-1986'' machineguns that may be lawfully
transferred by nongovernmental entities, the value of those machineguns
has steadily increased over time. For example, the current average
price range for pre-1986 fully automatic versions of AR-type rifles is
between $20,000 and $30,000, while the price range for semiautomatic
versions of these rifles is between $600 and $2,500.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ These figures are based on a review of prices posted on
websites maintained by federal firearms licensees on March 1, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This price premium on automatic weapons has spurred inventors and
manufacturers to attempt to develop firearms, triggers, and other
devices that permit shooters to use semiautomatic rifles to replicate
automatic fire without converting these rifles into ``machineguns''
under the GCA and NFA. ATF began receiving classification requests for
such firearms, triggers, and other devices in the period from 1988 to
1990. ATF has observed a significant increase in such requests since
2004, often in connection with rifle models that were, until 2004,
defined as ``semiautomatic assault weapons'' and prohibited under the
Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.
921(a)(30) (commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban)
(repealed effective Sept. 13, 2004). Consistent with ATF's experience,
the inventor and manufacturer of the bump-stock-type devices used in
the Las Vegas shooting has attributed his innovation of those products
specifically to the high cost of fully automatic firearms. In a 2011
interview, he stated that he developed the original device because he
``couldn't afford what [he] wanted--a fully automatic rifle--so . . .
[he made] something that would work and be affordable.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany
News (Dec. 22, 2011), https://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. ATF's Determinations Regarding Bump-Stock-Type Devices
Shooters use bump-stock-type devices with semiautomatic firearms to
accelerate the firearm's cyclic firing rate to mimic automatic fire.
Such devices are designed principally to increase the rate of fire of
semiautomatic firearms. These devices replace a rifle's standard stock
and free the weapon to slide back and forth rapidly, harnessing the
energy from the firearm's recoil either through a mechanism like an
internal spring or in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of
pressure (typically constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand
on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and constant rearward
pressure on the device's extension ledge with the shooter's trigger
finger).
As noted above, ATF has regulated some of these devices as
machineguns. Other bump-stock-type devices currently on the market,
however, have not been regulated by ATF as machineguns under the GCA or
NFA, and thus have not typically been marked with a serial number and
other identification markings. Individuals therefore may purchase these
devices without undergoing a background check or complying with any
other federal regulations applicable to firearms.
A. ATF's Interpretation of ``Single Function of the Trigger''
In 2002, an inventor submitted a device known as the ``Akins
Accelerator'' to ATF for classification. To operate the Akins
Accelerator, the shooter initiated an automatic firing sequence by
pulling the trigger one time, which in turn caused the rifle to recoil
within the stock, permitting the trigger to lose contact with the
finger and manually reset. Springs in the Akins Accelerator then forced
the rifle forward, forcing the trigger against the finger, which caused
the weapon to discharge the ammunition. The recoil and the spring-
powered device thus caused the firearm to cycle back and forth,
impacting the trigger finger, which remained rearward in a constant
pull without further input by the shooter while the firearm discharged
multiple shots. The device was advertised as able to fire approximately
650 rounds per minute. See ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 2.
ATF's classification of the Akins Accelerator focused on
application of the ``single function of the trigger'' prong of the
statutory definition of ``machinegun.'' In an initial assessment of the
Akins Accelerator, ATF concluded that the device did not qualify as a
machinegun because ATF interpreted ``single function of the trigger''
to mean a single movement of the trigger itself. In 2006, however, ATF
undertook a further review of the Akins Accelerator based on how it
actually functioned when sold. ATF determined that the Akins
Accelerator was properly classified as a machinegun because the best
interpretation of the phrase ``single function of the trigger'' was a
``single pull of the trigger.'' \6\ The Akins Accelerator thus
qualified as a machinegun because ATF determined through testing that
when the device was installed on a semiautomatic rifle (specifically a
Ruger Model 10-22), it resulted in a weapon that ``[with] a single pull
of the trigger initiates an automatic firing cycle that continues until
the finger is released, the weapon malfunctions, or the ammunition
supply is exhausted.'' Akins v. United States, No. 8:08-cv-988, slip
op. at 5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In classifying the Akins Accelerator, ATF used the term
``pull'' specifically because that was the manner in which the
firearm's trigger was activated with the device. For purposes of
analyzing firearms and devices designed for use on firearms,
however, the term ``pull'' is interchangeable with terminology
describing all trigger activations, including a push or a flip of a
switch. See, e.g., United States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 655-56
(7th Cir. 2002) (finding that a ``trigger is a mechanism used to
initiate a firing sequence,'' and rejecting the argument that a
``switch'' could not be a trigger, because such a definition would
``lead to the absurd result of enabling persons to avoid the NFA
simply by using weapons that employ a button or switch mechanism for
firing'' (internal quotation marks omitted)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13445]]
In conjunction with its reclassification of the Akins Accelerator,
ATF published ATF Ruling 2006-2, ``Classification of Devices
Exclusively Designed to Increase the Rate of Fire of a Semiautomatic
Firearm.'' The Ruling explained that ATF had received requests from
``several members of the firearms industry to classify devices that are
exclusively designed to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic
firearm.'' ATF Ruling 2006-2, at 1. After setting forth a detailed
description of the components and functionality of the Akins
Accelerator and devices with similar designs, ATF Ruling 2006-2
determined that the phrase ``single function of the trigger'' in the
statutory definition of ``machinegun'' was best interpreted to mean a
``single pull of the trigger.'' Id. at 2 (citing National Firearms Act:
Hearings Before the Comm. on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Second Session on H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., at 40 (1934)). ATF further
indicated that it would apply this interpretation to its classification
of devices designed to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic
firearms. Thus, ATF concluded in Ruling 2006-2 that devices exclusively
designed to increase the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms are
machineguns if, ``when activated by a single pull of the trigger, [such
devices] initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until
either the finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.''
Id. at 3. Finally, because the ``single pull of the trigger''
interpretation constituted a change from ATF's prior interpretations of
the phrase ``single function of the trigger,'' Ruling 2006-2 concluded
that ``[t]o the extent previous ATF rulings are inconsistent with this
determination, they are hereby overruled.'' Id.
Following its reclassification of the Akins Accelerator as a
machinegun, ATF determined that removal and disposal of the internal
spring would render the device a non-machinegun under the statutory
definition. Hence, ATF advised individuals who had purchased the Akins
Accelerator that they had the option of removing and disposing of the
internal spring, thereby placing the device outside the classification
of machinegun and allowing the purchaser/possessor to retain the device
in lieu of destroying or surrendering the device.
The inventor of the Akins Accelerator filed a complaint against the
United States in May 2008, challenging the classification of the device
as a machinegun as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative
Procedure Act. Akins v. United States, No. 8:08-cv-988, slip op. at 7-8
(M.D. Fla. Sept. 23, 2008). The United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida rejected the plaintiff's challenge, holding
that ATF was within its authority to reconsider and change its
interpretation of the phrase ``single function of the trigger'' in the
NFA's statutory definition of machinegun. Id. at 14. The court further
held that the language of the statute and the legislative history
supported ATF's interpretation of the statutory phrase ``single
function of the trigger'' as synonymous with a ``single pull of the
trigger.'' Id. at 11-12. The court concluded that in Ruling 2006-2, ATF
had set forth a ```reasoned analysis''' for the application of that new
interpretation to the Akins Accelerator and similar devices, including
the need to ``protect the public from dangerous firearms.'' Id. at 12.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision, holding that ``[t]he
interpretation by the Bureau that the phrase `single function of the
trigger' means a `single pull of the trigger' is consonant with the
statute and its legislative history.'' Akins v. United States, 312 F.
App'x 197, 200 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The Eleventh Circuit
further concluded that ``[b]ased on the operation of the Accelerator,
the Bureau had the authority to `reconsider and rectify' what it
considered to be a classification error.'' Id.
In ten letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, ATF assessed other
bump-stock-type devices. Like the Akins Accelerator, these other bump-
stock-type devices allowed the shooter to fire more than one shot with
a single pull of the trigger. As discussed below, however, ATF
ultimately concluded that these devices did not qualify as machineguns
because, in ATF's view, they did not ``automatically'' shoot more than
one shot with a single pull of the trigger. ATF has also applied the
``single pull of the trigger'' interpretation to other trigger
actuators, two-stage triggers, and other devices submitted to ATF for
classification. Depending on the method of operation, some such devices
were classified to be machineguns that were required to be registered
in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Examples of recent ATF classification letters relying on the
``single pull of the trigger'' interpretation to classify submitted
devices as machineguns include the following:
On April 13, 2015, ATF issued a classification letter regarding
a device characterized as a ``positive reset trigger,'' designed to
be used on a semiautomatic AR-style rifle. The device consisted of a
support/stock, secondary trigger, secondary trigger link, pivot
toggle, shuttle link, and shuttle. ATF determined that, after a
single pull of the trigger, the device utilized recoil energy
generated from firing a projectile to fire a subsequent projectile.
ATF noted that ``a `single function of the trigger' is a single
pull,'' and that the device utilized a ``single function of the
trigger'' because the shooter need not release the trigger to fire a
subsequent projectile, and instead ``can maintain constant pressure
through a single function of the trigger.''
On October 7, 2016, ATF issued a classification letter
regarding two devices described as ``LV-15 Trigger Reset Devices.''
The devices, which were designed to be used on an AR-type rifle,
were essentially identical in design and function and were submitted
by the same requestor (per the requestor, the second device included
``small improvements that have come as the result of further
development since the original submission''). The devices were each
powered by a rechargeable battery and included the following
components: a self-contained trigger mechanism with an electrical
connection, a modified two-position semiautomatic AR-15 type
selector lever, a rechargeable battery pack, a grip assembly/trigger
guard with electrical connections, and a piston that projects
forward through the lower rear portion of the trigger guard and
pushes the trigger forward as the firearm cycles. ATF held that ``to
initiate the firing . . . a shooter must simply pull the trigger.''
It explained that although the mechanism pushed the trigger forward,
``the shooter never releases the trigger. Consistent with [the
requestor's] explanation, ATF demonstrated that the device fired
multiple projectiles with a ``single function of the trigger''
because a single pull was all that was required to initiate and
maintain a firing sequence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ATF's Interpretation of ``Automatically''
Prior ATF rulings concerning bump-stock-type devices have not
provided substantial legal analysis regarding the meaning of the term
``automatically'' as it is used in the GCA and NFA. Moreover, ATF's
prior rulings concerning such devices have applied different
understandings of the term ``automatically.'' ATF Ruling 2006-2
concluded that devices like the Akins Accelerator initiated an
``automatic'' firing cycle because, once initiated by a single pull of
the trigger, ``the automatic firing cycle continues until the finger is
released or the ammunition supply is exhausted.'' ATF Ruling 2006-2, at
1. ATF letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, however, concluded that
bump-stock-type devices that enable a semiautomatic firearm to shoot
more than one shot with a single function of the trigger by harnessing
a combination of the recoil and the maintenance of pressure by the
shooter do not fire ``automatically.'' Some of these rulings concluded
that such devices were not machineguns because they did not
``initiate[] an automatic firing cycle that continues until either the
finger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted,'' without
further defining the term ``automatically.'' E.g., Letter for Michael
Smith from ATF's Firearm Technology Branch Chief (April 2, 2012). Other
rulings instead concluded
[[Page 13446]]
that these bump-stock-type devices were not machineguns because they
lacked any ``automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and
perform[ed] no mechanical function[s] when installed,'' again without
further defining the term ``automatically'' in this context. E.g.,
Letter for David Compton from ATF's Firearm Technology Branch Chief
(June 7, 2010).
III. Las Vegas Mass Shooting and Requests To Regulate Bump-Stock-Type
Devices
Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, ATF
has received correspondence from members of the United States Senate
and the United States House of Representatives, as well as
nongovernmental organizations, requesting that ATF examine its past
classifications and determine whether bump-stock-type devices currently
on the market constitute machineguns under the statutory definition.
In response, on December 26, 2017, as an initial step in the
process of promulgating a federal regulation interpreting the
definition of ``machinegun'' with respect to bump-stock-type devices,
ATF published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the
Federal Register. Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ``Bump
Fire'' Stocks and Other Similar Devices, 82 FR 60929. The ANPRM was
limited to soliciting comments concerning the market for bump-stock-
type devices and manufacturer and retailer data. Id. at 60930-31.
Public comment on the ANPRM concluded on January 25, 2018. While ATF
received over 115,000 comments, the vast majority of these comments
were not responsive to the ANPRM.
On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum to
Attorney General Sessions concerning ``bump fire'' stocks and similar
devices. 83 FR 7949. The memorandum noted that the Department of
Justice had already ``started the process of promulgating a Federal
regulation interpreting the definition of `machinegun' under Federal
law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be
illegal.'' Id. at 7949. The President then directed the Department of
Justice, working within established legal protocols, ``to dedicate all
available resources to complete the review of the comments received [in
response to the ANPRM], and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose
for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal
weapons into machineguns.'' Id. Publication of this NPRM is the next
step in the process of promulgating such a rule.
Consistent with its authority to ```reconsider and rectify'''
potential classification errors, Akins, 312 F. App'x at 200, ATF has
reviewed its original classification determinations for bump-stock-type
devices from 2008 to 2017 in light of its interpretation of the
relevant statutory language, namely the definition of ``machinegun.''
These bump-stock-type devices are generally designed to operate with
the shooter shouldering the stock of the device (in essentially the
same manner a shooter would use an unmodified semiautomatic shoulder
stock), maintaining constant forward pressure with the non-trigger hand
on the barrel-shroud or fore-grip of the rifle, and maintaining the
trigger finger on the device's extension ledge with constant rearward
pressure. The device itself then harnesses the recoil energy of the
firearm, providing the primary impetus for automatic fire.
ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant
statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness
recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of
pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns.
Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an
``automatic[]'' firing cycle sequence ``by a single function of the
trigger'' because the device is the primary impetus for a firing
sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the
trigger. 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). ATF's classifications of bump-stock-devices
between 2008 and 2017 did not include extensive legal analysis of these
terms in concluding that the bump-stock-type devices at issue were not
``machineguns.'' The statutory definition of machinegun includes bump-
stock-type devices--irrespective of whether the devices harness recoil
energy using a mechanism like an internal spring or in conjunction with
the shooter's maintenance of pressure--because these devices enable a
semiautomatic firearm to fire ``automatically more than one shot,
without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.'' Id.
This proposed rule is the appropriate mechanism for ATF to set forth
its analysis for its changed assessment. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 57 (1983).
IV. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Based on ATF's initial review of the comments it received on the
ANPRM, the vast majority of comments concern the legal authority to
regulate bump-stock-type devices. Some of those comments opined that
the Department has the power to regulate bump-stock-type devices. Most,
however, contended that the Department lacks such authority, either
because only Congress has the authority to regulate bump-stock-type
devices or because the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
precludes any federal regulation of such devices.
The Department disagrees. Congress has granted the Attorney General
authority to issue rules to administer the GCA and NFA, and the
Attorney General has delegated to ATF the authority to administer and
enforce those statutes and implementing regulations. See supra Part I.
Because, with some exceptions, the possession of a machinegun is
prohibited by the GCA, the Department is well within its authority to
issue a rule that further clarifies and interprets the statutory
definition of machinegun. Nor is regulation of bump-stock-type devices
as machineguns inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Supreme
Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), noted
that the Second Amendment does not extend to ```dangerous and unusual
weapons''' not in ```common use.''' Id. at 627. Heller further observed
that it would be ``startling'' to conclude ``that the National Firearms
Act's restrictions on machineguns . . . might be unconstitutional.''
Id. at 624. Since Heller, federal courts of appeals have repeatedly
held that federal statutes prohibiting machineguns comport with the
Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436, 451 (5th
Cir. 2016) (upholding federal statute banning possession of machineguns
because they are ``dangerous and unusual and therefore not in common
use''); accord United States v. Henry, 688 F.3d 637, 640 (9th Cir.
2012); United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 94-95 (3d Cir. 2010);
Hamblen v. United States, 591 F.3d 471, 472, 474 (6th Cir. 2009);
United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 874 (8th Cir. 2008). No court
has interpreted Heller as encompassing a constitutional right to
possess machineguns or machinegun conversion devices.
Numerous persons commented that bump-stock-type devices do not fall
under the statutory definition of ``machinegun because, when attached,
they do not change the mechanical functioning of a semiautomatic
firearm, and still require a separate trigger pull for each fired
round.'' They noted that bump firing is a technique, and pointed to
many other ways in which a shooter
[[Page 13447]]
can increase a firearm's rate of fire without using a bump-stock-type
device.
The Department disagrees. The relevant statutory question is
whether a particular device causes a firearm to ``shoot * * *
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger.'' 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). Bump firing and other
techniques for increasing the rate of fire do not satisfy this
definition because they do not produce an automatic firing sequence
with a single pull of the trigger. Instead, bump firing without an
assistive device requires the shooter to exert pressure with the
trigger finger to re-engage the trigger for each round fired. The bump-
stock-type devices described above, however, satisfy the definition.
ATF's classification decisions between 2008 and 2017 did not reflect
the best interpretation of the term ``automatically'' as used in the
definition of ``machinegun,'' because those decisions focused on the
lack of mechanical parts like internal springs in the bump-stock-type
devices at issue. The bump-stock-type devices at issue in those
rulings, however, utilized the recoil of the firearm itself to maintain
an automatic firing sequence initiated by a single pull of the trigger.
As with the Akins Accelerator, the bump-stock-type devices at issue
cause the trigger to ``bump'' into the finger, so that the shooter need
not pull the trigger repeatedly to expel ammunition. As stated above,
ATF previously focused on the trigger itself to interpret ``single
function of the trigger,'' but adopted a better legal and practical
interpretation of ``function'' to encompass the shooter's activation of
the trigger by, as in the case of the Akins Accelerator and other bump-
stock-type devices, a single pull that causes the weapon to shoot until
the ammunition is exhausted or the pressure on the trigger is removed.
Because these bump-stock-type devices allow multiple rounds to be fired
when the shooter maintains pressure on the extension ledge of the
device, ATF has determined that bump-stock-type devices are machinegun
conversion devices, and therefore qualify as machineguns under the GCA
and the NFA. See infra Part V.
Commenters also argued that banning bump-stock-type devices will
not significantly impact public safety. Again, the Department
disagrees. The shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, highlighted
the destructive capacity of firearms equipped with bump-stock-type
devices and the carnage they can inflict. The shooting also made many
individuals aware that these devices exist--potentially including
persons with criminal or terrorist intentions--and made their potential
to threaten public safety obvious. The proposed regulation aims to
ameliorate that threat.
Some commenters objected to any regulation of bump-stock-type
devices because, they argued, it will decrease innovation in the
firearms accessories market and result in the loss of manufacturing and
associated jobs. They suggested that the Federal Government should
prevent the misuse of firearms through other means, such as by
enforcing existing firearms laws, preventing mentally ill persons from
acquiring weapons, and enacting more stringent criminal penalties for
those who commit crimes with bump-stock-type devices. However, an
important step in the enforcement of existing firearms laws is ensuring
that ATF's regulations correctly interpret those laws.
This proposed rulemaking will have an economic impact, see infra
Part VI, but the impact will not be widespread, and the costs
associated with this rule are easily exceeded by the benefits it will
provide for public safety. The Department also disagrees that the
proposed rulemaking will decrease innovation in the firearms
accessories market. The fact that more than 65,000 industry
professionals from the United States and foreign countries attend the
annual Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show, where many new
and improved firearms accessories are introduced, is a clear market
signal that there is strong demand for innovation and development of
new shooting accessories irrespective of whether the bump-stock-type
devices described in this rulemaking are prohibited.
V. Proposed Rule
The regulations in 27 CFR part 479 contain the procedural and
substantive requirements relative to the importation, manufacturing,
making, exportation, identification and registration of, and dealing in
machineguns, destructive devices, and certain other firearms and
weapons under the NFA. Currently, the regulatory definition of
``machine gun'' in 27 CFR 479.11 matches the statutory definition of
``machinegun'' in the NFA quoted in Part I, above. The definition
includes the terms ``single function of the trigger'' and
``automatically,'' but those terms are not expressly defined in the
statutory text. Those terms are best interpreted, however, to encompass
firearms equipped with bump-stock-type devices. As discussed above,
bump-stock-type devices like the Akins Accelerator and other devices
that operate to mimic automatic fire when added to semiautomatic rifles
present the same risk to public safety that Congress has already deemed
unacceptable by enacting and amending the GCA (18 U.S.C. 922(o)).
Therefore, the Department proposes to exercise its delegated authority
to clarify its interpretations of the statutory terms ``single function
of the trigger,'' ``automatically,'' and ``machinegun.'' Specifically,
the Department proposes to amend 27 CFR 479.11 by defining the term
``single function of the trigger'' to mean ``single pull of the
trigger.'' The Department further proposes to amend these regulations
by defining the term ``automatically'' to mean ``as the result of a
self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of
multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.'' Finally, the
Department proposes to clarify that the definition of a ``machinegun''
includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than
one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil
energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the
trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical
manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-
stock-type devices).
The interpretation of the phrase ``single function of the trigger''
to mean ``single pull of the trigger'' reflects ATF's position since
2006, and it is the best interpretation of the statute. The Supreme
Court in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), indicated that
a machinegun under the NFA ``fires repeatedly with a single pull of the
trigger.'' Id. at 602 n.1. This interpretation is also consistent with
how the phrase ``single function of the trigger'' was understood at the
time of the NFA's enactment in 1934. For instance, in a congressional
hearing leading up to the NFA's enactment, the National Rifle
Association's then-president testified that a gun ``which is capable of
firing more than one shot by a single pull of the trigger, a single
function of the trigger, is properly regarded, in my opinion, as a
machine gun.'' National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on
Ways and Means, H.R. 9066, 73rd Cong., 2nd Sess., at 40 (1934).
Furthermore, and as noted above, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that
ATF's interpretation of ``single function of the trigger'' to mean
``single pull of the trigger'' ``is consonant with the statute and its
legislative history.'' Akins v. United States, 312 F. App'x 197, 200
(11th Cir.
[[Page 13448]]
2009). No other court has held otherwise.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ As used in this proposed rule, the term ``pull'' is
synonymous with ``push'' and other terms that describe activation of
a trigger. The courts have made clear that whether a trigger is
operated through a ``pull,'' ``push,'' or some other action such as
a flipping a switch, does not change the analysis of the
functionality of a firearm. For example, in United States v.
Fleischli, 305 F.3d at 655-56, the Seventh Circuit rejected the
argument that a switch did not constitute a trigger for purposes of
assessing whether a firearm was a machinegun under the NFA, because
such an interpretation of the statute would lead to ``the absurd
result of enabling persons to avoid the NFA simply by using weapons
that employ a button or switch mechanism for firing.'' See also
United States v. Camp, 343 F.3d 743, 745 (5th Cir. 2003) (```To
construe ``trigger'' to mean only a small lever moved by a finger
would be to impute to Congress the intent to restrict the term to
apply only to one kind of trigger, albeit a very common kind. The
language [in 18 U.S.C. 922(o)] implies no intent to so restrict the
meaning[.]''' (quoting United States v. Jokel, 969 F.2d 132, 135
(5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis removed))). Examples of machineguns that
operate through a trigger activated by a push include the Browning
design, M2 .50 caliber, the Vickers, the Maxim, and the M134 hand-
fired Minigun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interpreting the term ``automatically'' to mean ``as the result of
a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of
multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger'' also reflects
the ordinary meaning of that term at the time of the NFA's enactment in
1934. The word ``automatically'' is the adverbial form of
``automatic,'' meaning ``[h]aving a self-acting or self-regulating
mechanism that performs a required act at a predetermined point in an
operation[.]'' Webster's New International Dictionary 187 (2d ed.
1934); see also 1 Oxford English Dictionary 574 (1933) (defining
``Automatic'' as ``[s]elf-acting under conditions fixed for it, going
of itself'').
Relying on these definitions, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit accordingly interpreted the term
``automatically'' as used in the NFA as ``delineat[ing] how the
discharge of multiple rounds from a weapon occurs: as the result of a
self-acting mechanism'' ``set in motion by a single function of the
trigger and . . . accomplished without manual reloading.'' United
States v. Olofson, 563 F.3d 652, 658 (7th Cir. 2009). So long as the
firearm is capable of producing multiple rounds with a single pull of
the trigger for some period of time, the firearm shoots
``automatically'' irrespective of why the firing sequence ultimately
ends. Id. (``[T]he reason a weapon ceased firing is not a matter with
which Sec. 5845(b) is concerned.''). Olofson thus requires only that
the weapon shoot multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger
``as the result of a self-acting mechanism,'' not that the self-acting
mechanism produce the firing sequence without any additional action by
the shooter. This definition accordingly requires that the self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism must perform an act that is primarily
responsible for causing the weapon to shoot more than one shot.
Finally, it is reasonable to conclude, based on these
interpretations, that the term ``machinegun'' includes a device that
allows a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a
single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the
semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets
and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the
trigger by the shooter. When a shooter who has affixed a bump-stock-
type device to a semiautomatic firearm pulls the trigger, that movement
initiates a firing sequence that produces more than one shot. And that
firing sequence is ``automatic'' because the device harnesses the
firearm's recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that
allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of
the trigger, so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the
device's ledge (as designed). Accordingly, these devices are included
under the definition of machinegun and, therefore, come within the
purview of the NFA.
The GCA and its implementing regulations in 27 CFR part 478
incorporate the NFA's definition of machinegun. Accordingly, this
proposed rule makes the same amendments to the definitions of ``single
function of the trigger,'' ``automatically,'' and ``machine gun'' in 27
CFR 478.11.
The Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended, does not include
the term ``machinegun'' in its key provision, 22 U.S.C. 2778. However,
regulations in 27 CFR part 447 that implement the AECA include a
similar definition of ``machinegun,'' and explain that machineguns,
submachineguns, machine pistols, and fully automatic rifles fall within
Category I(b) of the U.S. Munitions Import List when those defense
articles are permanently imported. See 27 CFR 447.11, 447.21.
Currently, the definition of ``machinegun'' in Sec. 447.11 provides
that ``[a] `machinegun', `machine pistol', `submachinegun', or
`automatic rifle' is a firearm originally designed to fire, or capable
of being fired fully automatically by a single pull of the trigger.''
This proposed rule would harmonize the AECA's regulatory definition of
``machinegun'' with the definitions in 27 CFR parts 478 and 479, as
those definitions would be amended by this rule.
The proposed rule would replace prior classifications of bump-
stock-type devices, including devices that ATF previously determined
were not machineguns. The rule thus would supplant any prior letter
rulings with which it is inconsistent so that any bump-stock-type
device described above qualifies as a machinegun. Accordingly,
manufacturers, current owners, and persons wishing to purchase such
devices would be subject to the restrictions imposed by the GCA and
NFA.
The Department has determined that there would not be a
registration period for any device that would be classified as
``machinegun'' as a result of this rulemaking. The NFA provides that
only the manufacturer, importer, or maker of a firearm may register
it.\9\ Accordingly, there is no means by which the possessor may
register a firearm retroactively, including a firearm that has been
reclassified. Further, 18 U.S.C. 922(o) prohibits the possession of
machineguns that were not lawfully possessed before the effective date
of the statute. Accordingly, if the final rule is consistent with this
NPRM, current possessors of bump-stock-type devices will be obligated
to dispose of those devices. A final rule will provide specific
information about acceptable methods of disposal, as well as the
timeframe under which disposal must be accomplished to avoid violating
18 U.S.C. 922(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 26 U.S.C. 5841(b); 27 CFR 479.101(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review
A. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771
Executive Orders 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
and 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs. This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771
[[Page 13449]]
regulatory action. Details on the estimated costs of this proposed rule
can be found in the rule's economic analysis below.
This rule has been designated a ``significant regulatory action''
that is economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. This proposed rule is intended to interpret the
definition of ``machinegun'' within the GCA and NFA such that it
includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of
the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic
firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues
firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One of the
reasons is to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in
statutes. Here, this rulemaking aims to apply Congress's policy
decision to prohibit machineguns. Another reason underpinning
regulatory action is the failure of the market to compensate for
negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative
externality can be the byproduct of a transaction between two parties
that is not accounted for in the transaction. This proposed rule is
addressing a negative externality. The negative externality of the
commercial sale of bump-stock-type devices is that they could be used
for criminal purposes. This poses a public safety issue that the
Department is trying to address.
Executive Summary
Table 1 provides a summary of the affected population and
anticipated costs and benefits to promulgating this rule.
Table 1--Summary of Affected Population, Costs, and Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected populations, costs,
Category and benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.......................... Manufacturers of bump-
stock-type devices.
Retail sellers of bump-
stock-type devices.
Gun owners who own
bump-stock-type devices or
would have purchased them in
the future.
Affected Population.................... 2 manufacturers of
bump-stock-type devices.
2,281 retailers of
bump-stock-type devices.
Owners and future
consumers of bump-stock-type
devices.
Total Quantified Costs to Industry, $217.0 million present value
Public, and Government (7% Discount over 10 years, $36.3 million
Rate). annualized.
Unquantified Costs..................... Costs of destruction.
Costs of advertising
to inform owners of the need
to dispose of their bump-stock-
type devices.
Lost consumer surplus
to users of bump-stock-type
devices.
Unquantified Benefits.................. Prevents criminal
usage of bump-stock-type
devices.
Could reduce
casualties in an incident that
would have involved a weapon
fitted with a bump-stock-type
device, as well as assist
first responders when
responding to incidents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
The populations affected by this rule are manufacturers of bump-
stock-type devices, retailers who sell them either in brick-and-mortar
stores or online, and individuals who have purchased or would have
wanted to purchase bump-stock-type devices. The number of entities and
individuals selling or purchasing bump-stock-type devices are as
follows:
2 manufacturers
2,281 retailers
An uncertain number of individuals who have purchased bump-
stock-type devices or would have purchased them in the future
Because many bump-stock-type devices--including those ATF addressed
in classification letters between 2008 and 2017--have not been subject
to regulation under the GCA, ATF does not keep track of manufacturers
or retailers of bump-stock-type devices, nor does ATF keep track or
maintain a database of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type
devices. Therefore, the affected population of manufacturers and
retailers is an estimate and based on publicly available information
and, with respect to retailers who are also Federal firearms licensees
(FFLs), is also based on ATF's records in the Federal Firearms
Licensing System.
ATF estimates that since 2010, as many as six domestic bump-stock-
type device manufacturers have been in the marketplace, but due to
patent infringement litigation, only two remain in the market. For the
estimate of the number of retailers, ATF filtered all FFLs for a list
of potential sellers. While there are approximately 80,000 FFLs
currently licensed, only certain types sell firearms to the public. ATF
first removed FFLs that do not sell firearms to the public. Next, since
not all FFLs sell firearm accessories, ATF needed to estimate the
number that do sell accessories. ATF assumed that FFLs that are likely
to sell bump-stock-type devices would have online websites. ATF
requests public comment on the reasonableness of the assumption that
retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to be businesses with
an online presence. ATF ran a query on the FFL database and found that
of those that sell firearms to the public, 2,270 have websites. Because
sellers of firearm accessories do not necessarily sell firearms, ATF
also performed an online search and found an additional 11 retailers
who sell firearm accessories, but not firearms. Adding these two totals
together, ATF estimates that there are 2,281 retailers of bump-stock-
type devices.
Because there are no records of individuals who have purchased
firearm accessories, ATF does not have an estimated number of
individuals who would be affected by this proposed rule. Although ATF
lacks data on the number of individuals who have purchased bump-stock-
type devices, ATF has some information from one manufacturer and four
retailers on the volume of sales of such devices. Based on these
reported amounts, ATF estimates that the number of bump-stock-type
devices that were purchased during the 8-year period beginning in 2010
ranges from
[[Page 13450]]
35,000 per year as a low estimate to 75,000 per year as the high and
primary estimate. ATF used a public commenter's 400,000 total estimate
as a third estimate. For further information on the methodology of
these estimates, please review the analysis regarding ``Costs'' below.
Costs
There are three primary sources of costs from this rule. First, for
owners of bump-stock-type devices, there will be a lost value from no
longer being able to possess or use the devices. Second, there will be
a lost value to manufacturers who would have manufactured and sold the
devices in the future and to gun owners who would have purchased them.
Finally, there is a disposal cost associated with the need to destroy
the devices or render them inactive.
Cost to the Public for Loss of Property
As reported by public comments, individuals purchase bump-stock-
type devices so that they can simulate automatic firing on a
semiautomatic firearm. Commenters noted a variety of purposes for which
bump-stock-type devices have been advertised and used, including for
recreation and fun, assisting persons with mobility issues in firing
quickly, self-defense, killing invasive pig species, and target
practice (although, as some commenters observed, bump-stock-type
devices impede firing accuracy). If the proposed rule became effective,
bump-stock-type devices would be considered machineguns under the NFA
and could not be lawfully possessed because the GCA prohibits persons
from possessing a machinegun unless it was lawfully possessed before
the effective date of the statute. Bump-stock-type devices currently
possessed by individuals would have to be destroyed or turned in upon
implementation of the regulation.
The lost value from no longer being able to use or purchase bump-
stock-type devices will depend on the volume of sales in the market and
the value that consumers place on the devices. ATF has limited
information about the market for bump-stock-type devices. One commenter
estimated that more than 400,000 bump-stock-type devices may have been
sold. Based on publicly available information, ATF estimates that in
the first two years that bump-stock-type devices were in the market,
approximately 35,000 were sold per year.\10\ However, after 2011, other
manufacturers entered the market and there is no available information
regarding the total number of bump-stock-type devices manufactured. ATF
is using publicly available information on manufacturing and combining
it with the information on retail sales to estimate a range of the
number of bump-stock-type devices in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany
News (Dec. 22, 2011), https://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF first developed an estimate of the number of bump-stock-type
devices in the marketplace, based on information on retail sales
provided in response to the ANPRM. One retailer stated that it sold an
average of 4,000 to 5,000 bump-stock-type devices per year.\11\ Public
comments indicated that one retailer sold 3,800 bump-stock-type devices
annually, one sold 60 per year, and one sold approximately 5-10 per
year.\12\ For the purposes of this regulatory analysis (RA), ATF
assumes that a large retailer would have sold 4,400, a midrange
retailer would have sold 60, and a small retailer would have sold
8.\13\ For the purposes of this analysis, ATF assumes the number of
retailers by size are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Based on an internal survey of large retailers.
\12\ Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0001-27509, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-27509 (last visited on
Mar. 6, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0001-0433,
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0433 (last
visited on Mar. 6, 2018); Regulations.gov, Docket ID: ATF-2018-0001-
0128, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0001-0128
(last visited on Mar. 6, 2018).
\13\ For a large retailer the average sales were 4,400 = (3,800
+ 5,000)/2. For a small retailer, the average sales were 8 = (5 +
10)/2.
4 large * 4,400 annual sales
755 midrange * 60 annual sales
1,511 small * 8 annual sales
The number of large retailers is a known number. As stated in the
Affected Population section above, based on ATF's internal database and
online research, the remaining number of retailers is 2,270. For the
purposes of this RA, ATF assumed that one-third of the remaining
retailer population are midrange retailers, and the remaining 1,511 are
small retailers. Using these assumed numbers of retailers and annual
sales by size of retailer, ATF estimated annual sales of about 75,000
[(4 * 4,400) + (755 * 60) + (1,511 * 8)].
ATF next developed an estimate of the number of bump-stock-type
devices in the United States based on information about the numbers of
bump-stock-type devices manufactured. Based on publicly available
information, ATF estimates that approximately 35,000 bump-stock-type
devices were sold in 2010.\14\ Only in 2012 did other manufacturers
enter the marketplace. For the purposes of this RA, ATF assumes that in
the first two years of production, the one manufacturer produced the
same 35,000 in years 2010 and 2011. ATF has two sets of production
estimates. Because no information is otherwise known about the
production of bump-stock-type devices, ATF assumes that the low
estimate of annual bump-stock-type device production is a constant
35,000, based on the one data point. As stated earlier, a public
commenter provided an estimate of 400,000 bump-stock-type devices
currently in circulation. To account for how these were purchased over
the last 8 years, ATF also assumed the same 35,000 production in the
first 2 years, but spread out the remaining 330,000 over the remaining
6 years, or about 55,000 per year. However, incorporating the provided
retail sales information, ATF developed a third, higher estimate
reflecting that when the other manufacturers entered the market, the
number of bump-stock-type devices sold on the market annually could
have been 75,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Donnie A. Lucas, Firing Up Some Simple Solutions, Albany
News (Dec. 22, 2011), https://www.thealbanynews.net/archives/2443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The high estimate is ATF's primary estimate because ATF knows that
there was an increase in production starting in 2012. In 2012, there
were other manufacturers who entered the market, and the first
manufacturer increased production at some point thereafter.
Furthermore, the primary estimate includes information provided by
retailers as a more comprehensive outlook on the overall production
numbers. For the purposes of this analysis, ATF assumes that both the
increase in production and the market entry of other manufacturers all
occurred in 2012. Table 2 provides the breakdown of production for the
low estimate, public comment estimate, and primary estimate.
[[Page 13451]]
Table 2--Number of Bump-Stock-Type Devices Produced, Based on Manufacturer and Retail Sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public comment Primary
Year Low estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010............................................................ 35,000 35,000 35,000
2011............................................................ 35,000 35,000 35,000
2012............................................................ 35,000 55,000 75,000
2013............................................................ 35,000 55,000 75,000
2014............................................................ 35,000 55,000 75,000
2015............................................................ 35,000 55,000 75,000
2016............................................................ 35,000 55,000 75,000
2017............................................................ 35,000 55,000 75,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 280,000 400,000 520,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, the number of bump-stock-type devices held by the
public could range from about 280,000 to about 520,000.
ATF does not know the production cost of bump-stock-type devices,
but for the purposes of this RA, ATF uses the retail sales amounts as a
proxy for the total value of these devices. For devices that have
already been sold, there are two countervailing effects that affect the
value of the devices. There may have been some depreciation of the
devices since they were originally purchased, resulting in a value
somewhat reduced from the retail price. On the other hand, some
consumers would have been willing to pay more than the retail price for
a bump-stock-type device, and for these individuals the devices would
have a higher valuation than the retail price. Both of these effects
are difficult to estimate, and here ATF assumes that the retail sales
price is a reasonable proxy for the value of the devices.
The primary manufacturer of bump-stock-type devices sells them at a
price of $179.95 to $425.95.\15\ For the purposes of this RA, ATF
estimates that the average sale price for these bump-stock-type devices
was $301.00 during the first two years they were sold. In 2012, at
least one other manufacturer entered the market and started selling
their devices at the rate of $99.99, making the overall prices for
these devices lower.\16\ For the purposes of this RA, ATF assumes that
the average sale price for bump-stock-type devices from 2012 to 2017
was $200.00. Based on these costs, multiplied by the number of bump-
stock-type devices in the market, Table 3 provides the sales value that
the public has spent on these devices over the course of the last eight
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Slide Fire AR-15 Bump Fire Stocks (archived page on Jan.
28, 2017), https://web.archive.org/web/20170128085532/https://www.slidefire.com/products/ar-platform (last visited Mar. 6, 2018).
\16\ Bump Fire Systems (archived page on Feb. 21, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20150221050223/https://bumpfiresystems.com/
(last visited Mar. 6, 2018).
Table 3--Amount Spent on Bump-Stock-Type Devices (Undiscounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public comment Primary
Year Low estimate estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................ $10,533,250 $10,533,250 $10,533,250
2012............................................................ 10,533,250 10,533,250 10,533,250
2013............................................................ 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250
2014............................................................ 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250
2015............................................................ 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250
2016............................................................ 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250
2017............................................................ 7,016,450 11,025,850 15,035,250
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 56,148,750 76,195,750 96,242,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF estimates that the total, undiscounted amount spent on bump-
stock-type devices was $96.2 million. While the retail prices of these
bump-stock-type devices remained constant over the eight years of
sales, these purchases occurred over time; therefore, ATF presents the
discounted value at 3% and 7% in Table 4 to account for the present
value of these purchases.
Table 4--The Amount Spent Purchasing Bump-Stock-Type Devices, Discounted at 3% and 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Undiscounted 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................................................ $10,533,250 $12,210,924 $14,773,428
2012............................................................ 10,533,250 11,855,266 13,806,942
2013............................................................ 15,035,250 16,429,424 18,418,828
2014............................................................ 15,035,250 15,950,897 17,213,858
2015............................................................ 15,035,250 15,486,308 16,087,718
2016............................................................ 15,035,250 15,035,250 15,035,250
2017............................................................ 15,035,250 14,597,330 14,051,636
-----------------------------------------------
[[Page 13452]]
Total....................................................... 96,242,750 101,565,397 109,387,659
-------------------------------
Annualized Cost......................................... .............. 14,468,640 18,318,906
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these purchases occurred in the past, ATF's discount years
start at -5 and increase to 0 to account for the Executive Order 13771
standard that costs be presented in 2016 dollars. With these
assumptions, ATF estimates that the annualized, discounted amount spent
on bump-stock-type devices was $14.5 million and $18.3 million at 3%
and 7%, respectively.
Based on the same discounting formula, ATF estimates that the total
undiscounted cost for the low estimate would be $56.1 million, and the
total discounted values would be $60.2 million and $66.3 million at 3%
and 7%, respectively. The annualized values for the low estimates of
total number of bump-stock-type devices sold are $8.6 million and $11.1
million at 3% and 7%, respectively. For the 400,000-unit estimate
provided by the public commenter, the total undiscounted amount would
be $76.2 million, and the total discounted values would be $80.9
million and $87.8 million at 3% and 7%, respectively. The annualized
values for the 400,000-unit sales estimate are $11.5 million and $14.7
million at 3% and 7%, respectively.
Forgone Future Production and Sales
ATF has estimated the lost production and lost sales that would
occur in the 10 years after the implementation of this proposed rule,
should this proposed rule take effect. In order to do this, ATF needed
to predict the number of devices that would be sold in the future in
the absence of a rule. Such a prediction should take account of recent
expected changes in the demand for and supply of bump-stock-type
devices. For example, based on a survey, half of the known, large
former retailers of bump-stock-type devices no longer sell bump-stock-
type devices as a result of the Las Vegas shooting, nor do they intend
to sell them in the future. Moreover, while ATF has estimated the
number of bump-stock-type devices manufactured since 2010, ATF is
without sufficient information to estimate the number of individuals
who were interested in acquiring bump-stock-type devices prior to the
Las Vegas shooting but would no longer want them due to the shooting.
Another recent change affecting individuals' future purchases of
bump-stock-type devices is that certain States have already banned such
devices. These States are California, Florida, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, and Washington. The effect of States' bans on
individuals' future purchases of bump-stock-type devices should not be
attributed to this proposed rule since these reductions in purchases
would happen with or without the rule. However, ATF was unable to
quantify the impact of States' bans and thus was unable to account for
the future effects of these bans in the estimate of the effects of the
proposed rule.
Based on previously mentioned comments from large retailers, ATF
expects that, in the absence of this rule, some retailers would not
sell bump-stock-type devices in the future. In order to estimate the
expected future reduction in demand for bump-stock-type devices as a
result of the Las Vegas shooting, ATF assumes that the reduction of
sales by large retailers that has already occurred would be a
reasonable estimate of the future reduction of sales overall that would
occur in the absence of the rule. ATF estimates that there are four
large retailers of bump-stock-type devices, of which two have stated
that they would no longer sell bump-stock-type devices regardless of
this proposed rule. For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, it is
estimated that each of the two large retailers sell 4,400 bump-stock-
type devices annually. Removing the effects of these two large
retailers from the future market reduces ATF's primary estimate of
74,988 in past annual production to an estimate of 66,484 (75,284 -
8,800) in annual sales that would occur in the future in the absence of
a rule. Table 5 provides the estimated breakdown of lost production and
sales forgone should this rule become final.
Table 5--Forgone Production and Sales of Future Bump-Stock-Type Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of bump-
Year stock-type Undiscounted 3% 7%
devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................ 66,484 $20,008,360 $19,425,592.04 $18,699,401.68
2019................................ 66,484 20,008,360 18,859,798.10 17,476,076.34
2020................................ 66,484 20,008,360 18,310,483.59 16,332,781.62
2021................................ 66,484 20,008,360 17,777,168.53 15,264,281.89
2022................................ 66,484 20,008,360 17,259,386.92 14,265,684.01
2023................................ 66,484 20,008,360 16,756,686.33 13,332,414.96
2024................................ 66,484 20,008,360 16,268,627.51 12,460,200.90
2025................................ 66,484 20,008,360 15,794,783.99 11,645,047.57
2026................................ 66,484 20,008,360 15,334,741.74 10,883,222.03
2027................................ 66,484 20,008,360 14,888,098.77 10,171,235.54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... ................. 200,083,598 170,675,367.53 140,530,346.56
--------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost............. ................. ................. 24,313,796.52 23,534,302.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these estimates, ATF estimates that the undiscounted value
of forgone future sales over 10 years would be $200.1 million,
undiscounted, or $24.3 million and $23.5 million, annualized and
discounted at 3% and 7%.
[[Page 13453]]
Disposal
This proposed rule would require the destruction of existing bump-
stock-type devices. The cost of disposal would have several components.
For individuals who own bump-stock-type devices, there would be a cost
for the time and effort to destroy the devices or ensure that they are
destroyed by another party. For retailers, wholesalers, and
manufacturers, there would be a cost of the time and effort to destroy
or ensure the destruction of any devices held in inventory. Based on
the response from public comments, it is not clear if there would also
be a cost from the lost value of that inventory.
Individuals who have purchased bump-stock-type devices prior to the
implementation of this rule would have the option of destroying the
devices themselves, turning the devices in to the nearest ATF office
for destruction by ATF or, subject to compliance with U.S. Mail
regulations and the policies of commercial shipment services, sending
the devices to ATF through the U.S. Mail or other commercial delivery
service. Options for destroying the devices may include melting,
crushing, or shredding in a manner that renders the device incapable of
ready restoration. Since the majority of bump-stock-type devices are
made of plastic material, individuals wishing to destroy the devices
themselves could simply use a hammer to break apart the devices and
throw the pieces away. Other destruction options that ATF has
historically accepted include torch cutting or sawing the device in a
manner that removes at least \1/4\ inch of material for each cut and
completely severs design features critical to the functionality of the
device as a bump-stock-type device.
If a possessor chooses to turn in the device to the local ATF
office, the cost to the public to destroy the device would be the cost
to drive to the nearest ATF office, the cost of sending through the
U.S. Mail, or the cost of sending via private shipper. For the purposes
of this regulatory analysis, ATF assumes that most individuals
disposing of their existing bump-stock-type devices would destroy these
devices themselves rather than turn them into the nearest ATF office
through personal delivery, mail, or private shipper.
Should this rule take effect, public comments suggest that
unsellable inventory could be worth approximately $35,000 per large
retailer. One public commenter, assumed to be a large retailer, stated
that its gross sales were $140,000. Another public commenter assumed to
be a midrange retailer had gross sales of $18,000. No known sales were
reported for a small retailer. Based on the proportion of sales among
the large, midrange, and small retailers, ATF estimates that the amount
in existing inventory for a midrange retailer would be $4,500 and, for
a small retailer, $74.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Midrange: $4,500 = ($18,000/$140,000) * $35,000. Small: $74
= (8/3,800) * $35,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The retailer, assumed to be large, also commented that the
opportunity cost of time needed to destroy existing inventory would be
approximately $700. ATF's subject matter experts estimate that a
retailer could use a maintenance crew to destroy existing inventory. To
determine the hourly time needed to destroy existing inventory, ATF
used the $700 reported amount, divided by the loaded wage rate of a
building cleaning worker. ATF subject matter experts also suggest that
existing packers would be used for a midrange retailer and the minimum
wage would be used for a small retailer. The loaded rate of 1.43 was
used to account for fringe benefits.\18\ Table 6 provides the wages
used for this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ BLS Series ID CMU2010000000000D, CMU2010000000000P (Private
Industry Compensation = $32.35)/(Private Industry Wages and Salaries
= $22.55) = 1.43. BLS average 2016. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
https://beta.bls.gov/dataQuery/find?fq=survey:[cm]&s=popularity:D.
Table 6--Wage Series to Destroy Existing Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unloaded wage Loaded wage
Wage series Series code rate rate Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual....................... ................... $13.60 $13.60 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20Travel%20Time%20Guidance.pdf.
Minimum Wage Rate................ Min Wage........... 7.25 10.40 https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm.
Packers, Packagers, and Handlers. 53-7064............ 11.74 16.84 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes537064.htm.
Retail Salespersons.............. 41-2031............ 13.07 18.75 https://www.bls.gov/oes/2016/may/oes412031.htm.
Building Cleaning Workers, All 37-2019............ 14.88 21.34 https://www.bls.gov/oes/
Other. 2016/may/oes372019.htm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the estimated wages and reported opportunity cost of time,
ATF estimates that it would take a large retailer 32.8 hours, a
midrange retailer 0.45 hours, and a small retailer 0.25 hours to
destroy existing inventory. Table 7 provides the per-retailer estimated
opportunity cost of time.
Table 7--Opportunity Cost of Time to Destroy Existing Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Opportunity
Population cost Hourly burden cost of time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual...................................................... $13.60 0.25 $3.40
Retailer (Large)................................................ 21.34 32.8 699.95
Retailer (Midrange)............................................. 16.84 0.45 7.58
Retailer (Small)................................................ 19.51 0.25 4.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13454]]
As stated earlier, ATF estimates that there are 519,927 bump-stock-
type devices already purchased by the public. Based on the opportunity
cost of time per bump-stock-type device, and the estimated opportunity
cost of time per retailer, ATF provides the cost to destroy all
existing bump-stock-type devices in Table 8.
Table 8--Opportunity Cost of Time to Destroy Existing Devices by
Individual and Retailer Size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual................................................. $1,768,000
Retailer (Large)........................................... 2,800
Retailer (Midrange)........................................ 5,752
Retailer (Small)........................................... 3,947
------------
Total Disposal Cost...................................... 1,780,498
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATF estimates that it would cost a total of $1.8 million to destroy
all existing bump-stock-type devices.
We treat all costs of disposal of existing devices owned by
individuals or held in inventory by retailers or manufacturers as if
they occur in 2018. Therefore, the costs of the rule in 2018 would
include the total undiscounted value of existing stock of bump-stock-
type devices in Table 4 ($96.2 million), the year 2018 loss of future
production from Table 5 ($20.0 million), and the total cost of disposal
from Table 8 ($1.8 million). Overall, ATF estimates that the total cost
of this proposed rule would be $297.2 million over a 10-year period of
future analysis. This cost includes the first-year cost to destroy all
existing bump-stock-type devices, including unsellable inventory and
opportunity cost of time. Table 9 provides the 10-year cost of this
proposed rule.
Table 9--10-Year Cost of Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Undiscounted 3% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018................................................... $118,031,608 $111,256,111 $103,093,378
2019................................................... 20,008,360 18,310,484 16,332,782
2020................................................... 20,008,360 17,777,169 15,264,282
2021................................................... 20,008,360 17,259,387 14,265,684
2022................................................... 20,008,360 16,756,686 13,332,415
2023................................................... 20,008,360 16,268,628 12,460,201
2024................................................... 20,008,360 15,794,784 11,645,048
2025................................................... 20,008,360 15,334,742 10,883,222
2026................................................... 20,008,360 14,888,099 10,171,236
2027................................................... 20,008,360 14,454,465 9,505,828
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 298,106,846 258,100,553 216,954,074
--------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost................................ ................. 36,768,073 36,332,813
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the paragraph above, the total undiscounted cost is
$297.2 million, and the discounted costs would be $36.8 million and
$36.3 million annualized at 3% and 7% respectively.
Government Costs
Government costs are estimated as de minimis because collection of
the bump-stock-type devices by ATF would be an ancillary duty of
existing ATF Special Agents.
Cost Savings
ATF did not calculate any cost savings for this proposed rule.
Benefits
As reported by public comments, this proposed rule would affect the
criminal use of bump-stock-type devices in mass shootings, such as the
Las Vegas shooting incident.
The purpose of this rule is to amend ATF regulations to clarify
that bump-stock-type devices are ``machineguns'' as defined by the NFA
and GCA. Banning bump-stock-type devices could reduce casualties in an
incident involving a weapon fitted with a bump-stock-type device, as
well as assist first responders when responding to incidents, because
it prevents shooters from using a device that allows them to shoot a
semiautomatic firearm automatically.
Alternatives
Alternative 1--No change alternative. This alternative would leave
the regulations in place as they currently stand. Since there would be
no changes to regulations, there would be no cost, savings, or benefits
to this alternative.
Alternative 2--Patronizing a shooting range. Individuals wishing to
experience the shooting of a ``full-auto'' firearm could go to a
shooting range that provides access to lawfully registered ``pre-1986''
machineguns to customers, where the firearm remains on the premises and
under the control of the shooting range. ATF does not have the
information to determine which, where, or how many gun ranges provide
such a service and is therefore not able to quantify this alternative.
Alternative 3--Opportunity alternatives. Based on public comments,
individuals wishing to replicate the effects of bump-stock-type devices
could also use rubber bands, belt loops, or otherwise train their
trigger finger to fire more rapidly. To the extent that individuals are
capable of doing so, this would be their alternative to using bump-
stock-type devices.
No other feasible alternatives were identified, and thus none were
considered.
B. Executive Order 13132
This regulation 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 Attorney General has determined
that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
C. Executive Order 12988
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform).
[[Page 13455]]
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
Summary of Findings
ATF performed an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
impacts on small businesses and other entities from the NPRM. Based on
the information from this analysis, ATF found:
It is estimated that of the two remaining manufacturers,
at least one manufacturer only produces bump-stock-type devices and
therefore could completely go out of business;
There are 2,281 retailers, of which most are estimated to
be small;
There are no relevant government entities.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) establishes ``as a principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit
regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit
and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale
for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' Public Law 96-354, 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980).
Under the RFA, the agency is required to consider if this rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule
will have such an impact. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA.
Under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(b)-(c)), the regulatory flexibility
analysis must provide and/or address:
A description of the reasons why action by the agency is
being considered;
A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis
for, the proposed rule;
A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
An identification, to the extent practicable, of all
relevant Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with
the proposed rule; and
Descriptions of any significant alternatives to the
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities.
The RFA covers a wide range of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, 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. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(6). ATF determined that the rule affects a
variety of large and small businesses (see the ``Description of the
Potential Number of Small Entities'' section below). Based on the
requirements above, ATF prepared the following regulatory flexibility
analysis assessing the impact on small entities from the rule.
A Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being
Considered
Agencies take regulatory action for various reasons. One of the
reasons is to carry out Congress's policy decisions, as expressed in
statutes. Here, this rulemaking aims to apply Congress's policy
decision to prohibit machineguns. Another reason underpinning
regulatory action is the failure of the market to compensate for
negative externalities caused by commercial activity. A negative
externality can be the byproduct of a transaction between two parties
that is not accounted for in the transaction. This proposed rule is
addressing a negative externality. The negative externality of the
commercial sale of bump-stock-type devices is that it could be used for
criminal purposes. This poses a public safety issue, which the
Department is trying to address.
A Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the
Proposed Rule
The Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the GCA, as
amended, and the NFA, as amended.
A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of
Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
This rule would affect primarily manufacturers of bump-stock-type
devices, FFLs that sell bump-stock-type devices, and other small
retailers of firearm accessories that have invested in the bump-stock-
type device industry. Based on publicly available information, there
are two manufacturers affected. Of the known retailers, the large
retailers do not intend to continue selling bump-stock-type devices.
There may be some small retailers that would intend to continue selling
these devices should this proposed rule not go into effect and would
thus be affected by this proposed rule. Based on the information from
this analysis, ATF found:
There are 2,270 retailers who are likely to be small
entities;
There are no government jurisdictions affected by this
proposed rule; and
There are no nonprofits found in the data.
A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule, Including an Estimate of
the Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement
and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the
Report or Record
There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements for this
proposed rule. The only relevant compliance requirement consists of
disposing of all existing inventory of bump-stock-type devices for
small entities that carry them. There would not be any professional
skills necessary to record or report in this proposed rulemaking.
An Identification, to the Extent Practicable, of All Relevant Federal
Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule does not duplicate or conflict with other
Federal rules.
Descriptions of Any Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule on Small
Entities
Alternatives were considered in this proposed rule. Alternatives
include making no regulatory changes. ATF rejected this alternative
because it does not address the public safety concerns raised by bump-
stock-type devices, and would not be consistent with ATF's
interpretation of the statutory term ``machinegun.'' There were no
other regulatory alternatives to this proposal that ATF has been able
to identify that would accomplish the intent of this proposed rule.
E. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966
This rule is a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small
Business
[[Page 13456]]
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 804. This rule is
likely to be considered major as it is economically significant and is
projected to have an effect of over $100 million on the economy in at
least the first year of the rule.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not 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, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
VII. Public Participation
A. Comments Sought
ATF requests comments on the proposed rule from all interested
persons. ATF specifically requests comments on the scope of this
proposed rule and the definition of ``machinegun.'' ATF also requests
comments on the costs and benefits of the proposed rule and on the
appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and
benefits. Further, ATF requests public comment on the reasonableness of
the assumption that retailers of bump-stock-type devices are likely to
be businesses with an online presence. In addition, ATF specifically
requests comments regarding how ATF should address bump-stock-type
devices that private parties currently possess, and the appropriate
means of implementing a final rule.
All comments must reference the docket number ATF 2017R-22, be
legible, and include the commenter's complete first and last name and
full mailing address. ATF will not consider, or respond to, comments
that do not meet these requirements or comments containing profanity.
In addition, if ATF cannot read your comment due to 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, and will give comments received after
that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments
received on or before the closing date. ATF will not acknowledge
receipt of comments.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments, whether submitted electronically or on
paper, available for public viewing at ATF and on the internet as part
of the eRulemaking initiative, and subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. Commenters who do not want their name or other
personal identifying information posted on the internet should submit
comments by mail or facsimile, along with a separate cover sheet
containing their personal identifying information. Both the cover sheet
and comment must reference this docket number (ATF 2017R-22).
Information contained in the cover sheet will not appear on the
internet. ATF will not redact personal identifying information that
appears within the comment, and it will appear on the internet.
The commenter should not include material that he or she considers
inappropriate for disclosure to the public. Any person submitting a
comment shall specifically designate that portion (if any) of the
comment that contains material that is confidential under law (e.g.,
trade secrets, processes). The commenter shall set forth any portion of
a comment that is confidential under law on pages separate from the
balance of the comment with each page prominently marked
``confidential'' at the top of the page.
Confidential information will be included in the rulemaking record
but will not be disclosed to the public. Any comments containing
material that is not confidential under law may be disclosed to the
public. In any event, the name of the person submitting a comment is
not exempt from disclosure.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same
comments multiple times or by more than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF strongly recommends that
you submit your comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal.
Visit https://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for
submitting comments. 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 regulations.gov
provides 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 (.17 inches), include the commenter's
complete first and last name and full mailing address, be signed, and
may be of any length.
Facsimile: Submit comments by facsimile transmission to
(202) 648-9741. Faxed comments must:
(1) Be legible and appear in minimum 12-point font size (.17
inches);
(2) Be on 8\1/2\'' x 11'' paper;
(3) Be signed and contain the commenter's complete first and last
name and full mailing address; and
(4) Be no more than five pages long.
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 of ATF 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 notice and the comments received will be available
at https://www.regulations.gov (search for Docket No. 2017R-22) and for
public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at: ATF
Reading Room, Room 1E-063, 99 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20226;
telephone: (202) 648-8740.
List of Subjects
27 CFR Part 447
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions,
Chemicals, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Penalties, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Seizures and
forfeitures.
27 CFR Part 478
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Customs
duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Intergovernmental relations,
Law enforcement officers, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research, Seizures and forfeitures,
Transportation.
27 CFR Part 479
Administrative practice and procedure, Arms and munitions, Excise
taxes, Exports, Imports, Military personnel, Penalties, Reporting and
[[Page 13457]]
recordkeeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Transportation.
Authority and Issuance
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, 27 CFR
parts 447, 478, and 479 are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 447--IMPORTATION OF ARMS, AMMUNITION AND IMPLEMENTS OF WAR
0
1. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 447 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2778, E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129 (Mar. 8,
2013).
0
2. In Sec. 447.11, amend the definition of ``Machinegun'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 447.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Machinegun. A ``machinegun'', ``machine pistol'',
``submachinegun'', or ``automatic rifle'' is a weapon which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically
more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of
the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any
such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or
combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a
weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a
machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or
under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the
term ``automatically'' as it modifies ``shoots, is designed to shoot,
or can be readily restored to shoot,'' means functioning as the result
of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of
multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and ``single
function of the trigger'' means a single pull of the trigger. The term
``machinegun'' includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that
allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single
pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the
semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets
and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the
trigger by the shooter.
* * * * *
PART 478--COMMERCE IN FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION
0
3. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 478 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 18 U.S.C. 921-931.
0
4. In Sec. 478.11, amend the definition of ``Machine gun'' by adding
two sentences at the end of the definition to read as follows:
Sec. 478.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition, the term ``automatically''
as it modifies ``shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot,'' means functioning as the result of a self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds
through a single function of the trigger; and ``single function of the
trigger'' means a single pull of the trigger. The term ``machine gun''
includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of
the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic
firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues
firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter.
* * * * *
PART 479--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS
0
5. The authority citation for 27 CFR part 479 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.
0
6. In Sec. 479.11, amend the definition of ``Machine gun'' by adding
two sentences at the end of the definition to read as follows:
Sec. 479.11 Meaning of terms.
* * * * *
Machine gun.
* * * For purposes of this definition, the term ``automatically''
as it modifies ``shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily
restored to shoot,'' means functioning as the result of a self-acting
or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds
through a single function of the trigger; and ``single function of the
trigger'' means a single pull of the trigger. The term ``machine gun''
includes bump-stock-type devices, i.e., devices that allow a
semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of
the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic
firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues
firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the
shooter.
* * * * *
Dated: March 23, 2018.
Jefferson B. Sessions III,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2018-06292 Filed 3-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P
