Objective Factors for Classifying Weapons with “Stabilizing Braces”

Published date18 December 2020
Citation85 FR 82516
Record Number2020-27857
SectionNotices
CourtAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, And Explosives Bureau,Justice Department
82516
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices
SUMMARY
: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to review
the presiding administrative law judge’s
(‘‘ALJ’’) initial determination (‘‘ID’’)
(Order No. 52) granting summary
determination of no substantial injury to
a domestic industry in the above-
captioned investigation. On review, the
Commission has determined to reverse
the ID’s grant of summary determination
and remand the investigation to the ALJ
for further proceedings. The
Commission has also determined to
deny Complainants’ motion for leave to
file a reply brief.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Cathy Chen, Office of the General
Counsel, U.S. International Trade
Commission, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202–
205–2392. Copies of non-confidential
documents filed in connection with this
investigation may be viewed on the
Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS)
at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help
accessing EDIS, please email
EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
Hearing-impaired persons are advised
that information on this matter can be
obtained by contacting the
Commission’s TDD terminal on (202)
205–1810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
: The
Commission instituted this investigation
on July 3, 2019, based on a complaint
filed on behalf of Illinois Tool Works,
Inc. of Glenview, Illinois; Vesta Global
Limited of Hong Kong; Vesta
(Guangzhou) Catering Equipment Co.,
Ltd. of China; and Admiral Craft
Equipment Corp. of Westbury, New
York (collectively, ‘‘Complainants’’). 84
FR 31911 (Jul. 3, 2019). The complaint,
as supplemented, alleges violations of
section 337(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1)(A), based upon the
importation of articles into the United
States, or in the sale of such articles by
the owner, importer, or consignee of
certain foodservice equipment and
components thereof by reason of
misappropriation of trade secrets and
unfair competition through tortious
interference with contractual
relationships, the threat or effect of
which is to destroy or substantially
injure a domestic industry. Id. at 31911–
12. The plain language description of
the accused products or category of
accused products, which defines the
scope of the investigation, is
‘‘commercial kitchen equipment and
components thereof for use in
restaurants, bars, cafes, cafeterias, or the
like.’’ Id. at 31912. The notice of
investigation named Guangzhou
Rebenet Catering Equipment
Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Zhou Hao;
Aceplus International Limited (aka Ace
Plus International Ltd.); Guangzhou
Liangsheng Trading Co., Ltd.; and Zeng
Zhaoliang (collectively,
‘‘Respondents’’), all of China as
respondents. Id. at 31912. The Office of
Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is
also named as a party. Id.
On May 21, 2020, OUII filed a motion
for summary determination of no
substantial injury to a domestic industry
under section 337(a)(1)(A), 19 U.S.C.
1337(a)(1)(A). Complainants opposed
the motion, and Respondents supported
the motion. OUII also filed a reply brief
in support of its motion.
On July 9, 2020, the ALJ issued the
subject ID (Order No. 52) granting
OUII’s motion for summary
determination of no substantial injury to
a domestic industry under section
337(a)(1)(A). Presuming the existence of
a domestic industry as alleged by
Complainants, the ID found that
‘‘Complainants have not demonstrated
injury’’ to ‘‘the specific activities and
investments that give rise to [the
alleged] domestic industry.’’ Id. at 16,
18. The ID found that Complainants
identified ‘‘generalized competitive
harm ‘to the industry as a whole,’ such
as lost sales and profits, rather than
pointing specifically to injury or
threatened injury to the alleged
domestic activities.’’ Id. at 16. The ID
reasoned that ‘‘generalized lost profits
and lost sales, etc., cannot suffice to
show substantial harm because even a
mere importer will suffer such harm if
a competitor imports and sells the same
products cheaper.’’ Id. at 17.
On July 20, 2020, Complainants
petitioned for review of the ID.
Thereafter, Respondents and OUII
opposed the petition. On August 4,
2020, Complainants filed a motion for
leave to file a reply to Respondents’ and
OUII’s responses to its petition.
Respondents and OUII opposed
Complainants’ motion.
The Commission has determined to
review the ID in its entirety and to deny
Complainants’ motion for leave to file a
reply brief. On review, the Commission
has determined to reverse the ID’s grant
of summary determination finding that
Complainants’ evidentiary showing is
insufficient to establish substantial
injury to Complainants’ alleged
domestic industry, and remand the
investigation to the ALJ for further
proceedings consistent with the
Commission’s order and concurrent
opinion.
The Commission vote for this
determination took place on December
14, 2020.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part
210 of the Commission’s Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part
210.
By order of the Commission.
Issued: December 14, 2020.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020–27858 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives
[Docket No. 2020R–10]
Objective Factors for Classifying
Weapons with ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’
AGENCY
: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, Department of
Justice.
ACTION
: Notice; request for comment.
SUMMARY
: The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(‘‘ATF’’) is publishing the objective
factors it considers when evaluating
firearms with an attached stabilizing
brace to determine whether they are
considered firearms under the National
Firearms Act (‘‘NFA’’) and/or the Gun
Control Act (‘‘GCA’’). ATF publishes
this notice to inform and invite
comment from the industry and public
on the proposed guidance, Objective
Factors for Classifying Weapons with
‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ prior to issuing a
final document. Upon issuance of final
guidance, ATF will provide additional
information to aid persons and
companies in complying with Federal
laws and regulations. This notice also
outlines ATF’s enforcement priorities
regarding persons who, prior to
publication of this notice, made or
acquired, in good faith, firearms
equipped with a stabilized brace.
Finally, this notice previews ATF’s and
the Department of Justice’s plan to
subsequently implement a separate
process for current possessors of
stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose
to register such firearms in compliance
with the NFA, including an expedited
application process and the retroactive
exemption of such firearms from the
collection of NFA taxes.
DATES
: Written comments must be
postmarked and electronic comments
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:22 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82517
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices
1
National Firearms Act provisions still refer to
the ‘‘Secretary of the Treasury.’’ 26 U.S.C. ch. 53.
However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, transferred the
functions of ATF from the Department of the
Treasury to the Department of Justice, under the
general authority of the Attorney General. 26 U.S.C.
7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). Thus, for ease of
reference, this notice refers to the Attorney General.
2
National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. ch. 53; Gun
Control Act, 18 U.S.C. ch. 44; Arms Export Control
Act, 22 U.S.C. 2778.
3
Delegation of Authorities within the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
Delegation Order 1100.168C (November 5, 2018).
4
18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) (GCA definition of firearm);
26 U.S.C. 5845(a) (NFA definition of firearm).
5
Under 26 U.S.C. 5845(d), the term ‘‘shotgun’’ is
further defined to mean ‘‘a weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned
and made or remade to use the energy of the
explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through
a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball
shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the
trigger, and shall include any such weapon which
may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun
shell.’’
6
Under 26 U.S.C. 5845(c), the term ‘‘rifle’’ is
further defined to mean ‘‘a weapon designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned
and made or remade to use the energy of the
explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single
projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull
of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon
which may be readily restored to fire a fixed
cartridge.’’
7
‘‘When classifying a part as a firearm silencer,
the statute imposes an intent requirement.
Therefore, the manufacturer’s stated intent for the
part is clearly relevant,’’ however, ‘‘the objective
design features of the part must support the stated
intent.’’ Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Jones, 133 F. Supp. 3d
364, 370 (D.N.H 2015) aff’d Sig Sauer, Inc. v.
Brandon, 826 F.3d 598 (1st Cir. 2016).
must be submitted on or before January
4, 2021. Commenters should be aware
that the electronic Federal Docket
Management System will not accept
comments after midnight Eastern time
on the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES
: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number ATF
2020R–10, by any of the following
methods—
Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Enforcement Programs and Services,
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE,
Mail Stop 6N–518, Washington, DC
20226; ATTN: ATF 2020R–10.
Fax: (202) 648–9741.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number (ATF 2020R–10). All
properly completed comments received
will be posted without change to the
Federal eRulemaking portal,
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’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
:
Andrew Lange, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Enforcement Programs and
Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, U.S.
Department of Justice, 99 New York
Ave. NE, Mail Stop 6N–518,
Washington DC 20226; telephone: (202)
648–7070 (this is not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
:
I. Background
The Attorney General
1
is responsible
for enforcing the NFA, GCA, and the
Arms Export Control Act (‘‘AECA’’).
2
The Attorney General has delegated the
responsibility for administering and
enforcing these statutes 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 ATF Director
delegated the authority to classify
firearms pursuant to the GCA and NFA
to ATF’s Firearms Technology Criminal
Branch (‘‘FTCB’’) and the Firearms
Technology Industry Services Branch
(‘‘FTISB’’), within the Firearms and
Ammunition Technology Division
(‘‘FATD’’), Office of Enforcement
Programs & Services (‘‘EPS’’).
3
FATD supports the firearms industry
and the general public by, among other
things, responding to technical
inquiries, and by testing and evaluating
firearms submitted to ATF for
classification as to their regulation
under the GCA and/or NFA. There is no
requirement that the firearms industry
or the public submit firearms to ATF for
assessment of the firearm’s proper
classification. The statutory definition
of ‘‘firearm’’ under the GCA and the
NFA is different.
4
As a result, whether
an item meets the definition of
‘‘firearm’’ under the GCA or the NFA
affects how it will be regulated under
Federal law. For instance, the GCA
restricts the transportation, sale, and
delivery of short-barreled shotguns and
short-barreled rifles. 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(4)
and (b)(4). Shotguns having a barrel or
barrels of less than 18 inches in length,
5
and rifles having a barrel or barrels less
than 16 inches in length,
6
and certain
weapons made from shotguns and rifles,
are ‘‘firearms’’ as defined by the NFA,
and are subject to registration and taxes.
26 U.S.C. 5845(a). Therefore, FATD’s
classifications of a particular firearm
allows industry members to plan,
develop, and distribute products in
compliance with the law, thereby
reducing their risk of incurring criminal
or civil penalties, or the potential for
costly corrective actions, including a
possible recall by the manufacturer.
Generally, when FATD evaluates a
firearm sample, it examines its overall
configuration, physical characteristics,
objective design features that are
relevant under the statutory definitions
of the GCA and NFA, and any other
information that directly affects the
classification of a particular firearm
sample. Even though firearms may
appear to have similar features, an ATF
classification pertains only to the
particular sample submitted, because
variations in submissions, applicable
statutes, judicial interpretations of these
statutes, the manufacturer’s or maker’s
intent,
7
and the objective design
features supporting that intent, make the
general applicability of any particular
classification exceedingly rare.
In recent years, some manufacturers
have produced and sold devices
designed to be attached to large and/or
heavy pistols which are marketed to
help a shooter ‘‘stabilize’’ his or her arm
to support single-handed fire (‘‘braces’’).
ATF was advised by the first
manufacturer to submit an arm brace for
classification that the intent of the arm
brace was to facilitate one-handed firing
of the AR15 pistol for those with limited
strength or mobility due to a handicap,
and to reduce bruising to the forearm
when firing with one hand. According
to this manufacturer, the brace concept
was inspired by the needs of disabled
combat veterans who still enjoy
recreational shooting but could not
reliably control heavy pistols without
assistance. Consequently, ATF agrees
that there are legitimate uses for certain
‘‘stabilizing braces.’’
The GCA and NFA generally regulate
‘‘firearms’’ and not individual
components and, as such, ATF does not
classify unregulated components or
accessories alone. However,
components or accessories can affect the
overall classification of a firearm
because: (1) How a component or
accessory is actually used may be
relevant in assessing the manufacturer’s
or maker’s intent with respect to the
design of a firearm; or (2) the design of
a component or accessory may result in
a firearm falling within a particular
statutory definition. Stabilizing braces
are one such component or accessory
that ATF has encountered.
ATF’s longstanding and publicly
known position is that a firearm does
not evade classification under the NFA
merely because the firearm is configured
with a device marketed as a ‘‘stabilizing
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:22 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82518
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices
8
See ATF, Open Letter on the Redesign of
‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ (Jan. 16, 2015); and an open
letter to industry counsel clarifying the 2015 Open
Letter, see Marvin G. Richardson, Assistant
Director, ATF Enforcement Programs & Services,
90000:GM, 5000 (Mar. 21, 2017) (made widely
available to the public on various websites, for
example, see https://johnpierceesq.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/ATF-Letter-March-21-
2017.pdf and https://www.sigsauer.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/atf-letter-march-21-
2017.pdf).
brace’’ or ‘‘arm brace.’’
8
When an
accessory and a weapon’s objective
design features, taken together, are not
consistent with use of the accessory as
an arm brace, that is, not to stabilize a
handgun when being operated with one
hand, such weapon, configured with the
accessory may fall within the scope of
the NFA, particularly where the
accessory functions as a shoulder stock
for the weapon. Accordingly, ATF must
evaluate whether a particular firearm
configured with a stabilizing brace bears
the objective features of a firearm
designed and intended to be fired from
the shoulder, and thus subject to the
NFA, on a case-by-case basis.
As the purpose of the NFA is ‘‘to
regulate certain weapons likely to be
used for criminal purposes,’’ United
States v. Thompson/Center Arms Co.,
504 U.S. 505, 517 (1992), ATF cannot
ignore the design features of a firearm
that place it within the scope of the
NFA’s regulation simply because the
manufacturer characterizes or markets a
firearm accessory in a manner that does
not correspond to its objective design.
The characterization of an accessory by
the manufacturer, including assertions
in advertising, is not dispositive. If
ATF’s classification of a submitted
sample demonstrates that the objective
design features of the firearm, as
configured, do not support the
manufacturer’s purported intent and
characterization of the accessory on that
particular firearm as a ‘‘stabilizing
brace’’ or ‘‘arm brace,’’ ATF will classify
the firearm based on the objective
design features, as Federal law requires.
See Sig Sauer v. Brandon, 826 F.3d 598,
601–02 (1st Cir. 2016).
ATF has observed that the
development and production of firearms
with arm braces has become more
prevalent in the firearms industry and,
relatedly, that requests for
classifications for this kind of firearm
design have also increased. Therefore,
ATF is publishing this notice to aid the
firearms industry and public in
understanding the objective design
features that FATD considers when
evaluating firearm samples submitted
with a stabilizing brace or similar
attachment.
The objective design features ATF
considers in determining whether a
weapon with an attached ‘‘stabilizing
brace’’ has been ‘‘designed or
redesigned, made or remade, and
intended to be fired from the shoulder’’
include, but are not limited to:
Type and Caliber. The type and
caliber of firearm to which the
stabilizing brace or similar item is
installed. A large caliber firearm that is
impractical to fire with one hand
because of recoil or other factors, even
with an arm brace, is likely to be
considered a rifle or shotgun.
Weight and Length. The weight and
length of the firearm used with the
stabilizing brace. A firearm that is so
heavy that it is impractical to fire or aim
with one hand, or so long that it is
difficult to balance the firearm to fire
with one hand, is likely to be
considered a rifle or shotgun.
Length of Pull. The ‘‘length of pull’’
refers to the distance from the trigger to
the point at which a stock meets the
shoulder. This is a measurement for
rifles and shotguns used to
accommodate shooters of different sizes.
Because an arm brace need only reach
the forearm, the distance between the
trigger and the back of the brace is
generally expected to be shorter than the
distance between the trigger and the
back of a stock on a weapon designed
and intended to be fired from the
shoulder. This measurement is not
necessarily determinative of the intent
of the manufacturer but is used in
making an evaluation of the firearm. If
a brace is of a length that makes it
impractical to attach to the shooter’s
wrist or forearm, then that may
demonstrate that it is not designed as
brace but rather for shoulder fire.
Attachment Method. The method of
attachment of the stabilizing brace, to
include modified stock attachments,
extended receiver extensions, and the
use of spacers. These items extend the
distance between the trigger and the
part of the weapon that contacts the
shooter, whether it is a stock or
stabilizing brace. Use of these items
indicates that the weapon is designed
and intended to be fired from the
shoulder because they extend a
stabilizing brace beyond a point that is
useful for something other than
shoulder support.
Stabilizing Brace Design Features.
The objective design features of the
attached stabilizing brace itself are
relevant to the classification of the
assembled weapon, and include:
ÆThe comparative function of the
attachment when utilized as a
stabilizing brace compared to its
alternate use as a shouldering device;
ÆThe design of the stabilizing brace
compared to known shoulder stock
designs;
ÆThe amount of rear contact surface
area of the stabilizing brace that can be
used in shouldering the weapon as
compared to the surface area necessary
for use as a stabilizing brace;
ÆThe material used to make the
attachment that indicates whether the
brace is designed and intended to be
pressed against the shoulder for
support, or actually used on the arm;
ÆAny shared or interchangeable
parts with known shoulder stocks; and
ÆAny other feature of the brace that
improves the weapon’s effectiveness
from the shoulder-firing position
without providing a corresponding
benefit to the effectiveness of the
stability and support provided by the
brace’s use on the arm.
Aim Point. Appropriate aim point
when utilizing the attachment as a
stabilizing brace. If the aim point when
using the arm brace attachment results
in an upward or downward trajectory
that could not accurately hit a target,
this may indicate the attachment was
not designed as a stabilizing brace.
Secondary Grip. The presence of a
secondary grip may indicate that the
weapon is not a ‘‘pistol’’ because it is
not designed to be held and fired by one
hand.
Sights and Scopes. Incorporation of
sights or scopes that possess eye relief
incompatible with one-handed firing
may indicate that the weapon is not a
‘‘pistol’’ because they are designed to be
used from a shoulder-fire position and
are incompatible for the single-handed
shooting that arm braces are designed
and intended.
Peripheral Accessories. Installation
of peripheral accessories commonly
found on rifles or shotguns that may
indicate that the firearm is not designed
and intended to be held and fired with
one hand. This includes, but is not
limited to, the installation of bipods/
monopods that improve the accuracy of
heavy weapons designed and intended
to be fired from the shoulder; or the
inclusion of a magazine or drum that
accepts so many cartridges that it
increases the overall weight of the
firearm to a degree that it is impractical
to fire the weapon with one hand even
with the assistance of a stabilizing
brace.
These factors are based on known
stabilizing braces and similar
attachments. No single factor or
combination of factors is necessarily
dispositive, and FATD examines each
weapon holistically on a case-by-case
basis. Because of changes in design or
configuration of a weapon or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:22 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82519
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices
9
Only ‘‘significant guidance documents,’’ as
defined 28 CFR 50.27(a)(2), are required to be made
available for public notice and comment for at least
30 days, except when the Department or component
finds that notice and public comment are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. 28 CFR 50.27(c)(2)(iii).
attachment, as well as future changes in
technology, this list is not exhaustive
and other factors may become relevant
to a weapon’s classification. Moreover,
in addition to the objective design
features of a submitted sample, FATD
also considers the marketing of both the
item and the firearm to which it is
attached, compared to the
manufacturer’s stated intent when
submitting an item. FATD has found
that manufacturers sometimes assert
that a device is a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’
when submitting a firearm for
classification. The same manufacturers
will then advertise their products as
devices that permit customers to fire
their ‘‘pistols’’ from the shoulder—that
is, making a ‘‘short-barreled rifle’’—
without complying with the
requirements of the NFA. This is far
from the ‘‘incidental’’ use of an arm
brace as a shouldering device as
described in ATF’s 2017 guidance (see
footnote 8), but is instead marketing
material that directly contradicts the
purpose or intent that the manufacturer
conveyed to ATF. Although not a
determinative factor, the actual use by
members of the firearms industry,
firearm writers, and the general public
may provide further indication of the
design and intent. These sources
provide insight into the ways that
manufacturers market their products.
Finally, although the above are the most
common objective factors that
demonstrate the design and intent of a
manufacturer or maker, other factors
may be relevant. For example, if FATD
classified a firearm with an arm brace as
a ‘‘pistol,’’ that classification would be
subject to FATD’s review if the
manufacturer sold the product with the
instruction that the weapon is actually
designed and intended to be fired from
the shoulder.
This compilation of relevant objective
factors is consistent with what has been
applied in evaluations of firearms with
an attached stabilizing brace previously
conducted by FATD at the request of the
firearms industry. By setting out these
factors in this notice, ATF is ensuring
members of the public are equally aware
of the criteria when considering the
making or purchase of a firearm. As
explained above, FATD’s classifications
allow industry members to plan,
develop, and distribute products that
comply with the law, and thereby
reduce their risk of incurring criminal or
civil penalties, or potentially costly
corrective actions, including a possible
recall by the manufacturer.
In order to ensure consistency in
classifying firearms, FATD uses the
following procedure. A firearm
voluntarily submitted to FTISB for
classification is assigned to a Firearms
Enforcement Officer (‘‘FEO’’) who
evaluates the firearm. This may include
disassembly, test-firing, or other
processes necessary to determine
whether a submission falls under the
purview of the NFA, GCA, or AECA.
That FEO produces a draft report and
that report is peer reviewed by another
qualified FEO, and includes a review of
the steps taken in the evaluation, the
analysis and the conclusions. Therefore,
it is not the case that a single FEO is
solely responsible for a particular
classification. Because of this, prior to
any necessary legal review and before
the classification letter is signed and
finalized, at least two FEOs have
reviewed the submission. No
classification will depend upon the
physical attributes of a particular FEO
including, for example, whether a
firearm is too heavy to be held and fired
in a single hand by the individual
examiner, as all FEOs apply the
evaluation factors objectively, not
subjectively, based on the objective
features of the submission that
demonstrate, in the present case, the
design of the weapon and the intent of
the maker or manufacturer. After the
review by two FEOs, the classification is
then reviewed by the Chief, FTISB, to
further ensure consistency.
On August 19, 2020, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) published regulations
defining ‘‘guidance documents’’ and the
required procedures that the
Department and its components must
follow to issue guidance documents
consistent with Executive Order 13891.
See 28 CFR 50.26. The regulation
defines the term ‘‘guidance document’’
as ‘‘an agency statement of general
applicability, intended to have future
effect on the behavior of regulated
parties that sets forth (i) a policy on a
statutory, regulatory, or technical issue,
or (ii) an interpretation of a statute or
regulation.’’ 28 CFR 50.26(a)(1). As ATF
started to receive samples of firearms
configured with an arm brace for
classification, FATD applied objective
factors to interpret the NFA and GCA
definitions of ‘‘firearm’’ to determine
when attachment of an accessory
purporting to be a stabilizing brace to a
specific firearm results in a
configuration subject to the provisions
of the NFA. Due to the rise of firearms
configured in this manner and a
correlating increase in the number of
classification requests from industry,
ATF is publishing this list of objective
factors it considers when classifying
such firearms, including an explanation
as to why those factors are important, to
aid industry and the public in
understanding ATF’s interpretation and
application of the NFA and GCA
definition of ‘‘firearm’’ when evaluating
these types of firearms configurations.
Although there is no requirement that a
guidance document be published for
notice and comment,
9
ATF has decided
to publish the proposed objective factors
in the Federal Register for a brief
comment period, given the public
interest surrounding these issues. ATF
will consider the comments it receives
before finalizing this guidance.
ATF recognizes that before issuance
of this notice, there was a
misunderstanding by some that a pistol
assembled with any item purported to
be a stabilizing brace still would be
considered a ‘‘pistol’’ regardless of other
characteristics. The objective factors
discussed here make clear that while
some stabilizing braces may lawfully be
used on pistols without bringing the
firearm within the purview of the NFA,
that is not necessarily the case for every
‘‘pistol’’ because some firearms are
configured or have characteristics such
that they meet the statutory definition of
‘‘rifle or shotgun’’ (hereafter, ‘‘affected
stabilizer-equipped firearms’’). ATF
understands that most individuals who
acquired affected stabilizer-equipped
firearms did so in good-faith reliance on
representations, made by those selling
the stabilizing braces or the firearms,
that those firearms were not subject to
the NFA.
Consequently, following issuance of
this notice, ATF and DOJ plan to
implement a separate process by which
current possessors of affected stabilizer-
equipped firearms may choose to
register such firearms to be compliant
with the NFA. As part of that process,
ATF plans to expedite processing of
these applications, and ATF has been
informed that the Attorney General
plans retroactively to exempt such
firearms from the collection of NFA
taxes if they were made or acquired,
prior to the publication of this notice, in
good faith. This separate process may
include the following options:
registering the firearm in compliance
with the NFA (described above),
permanently removing the stabilizing
brace from the firearm and disposing of
it, replacing the barrel of the firearm
(16’’ or greater for a rifle, or 18’’ or
greater for a shotgun), surrendering the
firearm to ATF, or destroying the
firearm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:22 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82520
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices
Until that process is separately
implemented, and absent a substantial
public safety concern, ATF will exercise
its enforcement discretion not to enforce
the registration provisions of the NFA
against any person who, before
publication of this notice, in good faith
acquired, transferred, made,
manufactured, or possessed an affected
stabilizer-equipped firearms.
This document is not an
administrative determination that any
particular weapon equipped with a
stabilizing arm brace is a ‘‘firearm’’
under the NFA. To the extent that the
ATF Director subsequently issues such
a determination, the ATF Director, at
the direction of the Attorney General,
plans retroactively to exempt such
firearms from the collection of NFA
taxes, provided those firearms were
made or acquired in good faith prior to
the publication of this notice. See 26
U.S.C. 7805.
The contents of this document do not
have the force and effect of law and are
not meant to bind the public in any
way. This document is intended only to
provide clarity to the public regarding
existing requirements under the law or
Department policies. This guidance
does not alter in any way the
Department’s authority to enforce
federal law and is not intended to, does
not, and may not be relied upon to
create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law by any
party in any matter civil or criminal.
Public Participation
A. Comments Sought
ATF is accepting comments from all
interested persons on the use of the
objective factors listed in this document.
All comments must reference this
document’s docket number, ATF
2020R–10, 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 excessive
profanity. Comments that do not meet
these criteria will not be considered.
ATF will retain anonymous comments
and those containing excessive
profanity as part of this administrative
record, but will not publish such
documents on www.regulations.gov.
ATF will treat all comments as originals
and will not acknowledge receipt of
comments. In addition, if ATF cannot
read your comment due to 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 after that date the same
consideration if practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be
given except as to comments received
on or before the closing date.
B. Confidentiality
ATF will make all comments meeting
the requirements of this section,
whether submitted electronically or on
paper, available for public viewing at
ATF and on the internet through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, and subject
to the Freedom of Information Act (5
U.S.C. 552). 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 (2020R–10). For
comments submitted by mail or
facsimile, information contained on the
cover sheet will not appear when posted
on the internet but any personal
identifying information that appears
within a comment will not be redacted
by ATF and it will appear on the
internet.
A commenter may submit to ATF
information identified as proprietary or
confidential business information. The
commenter shall place any portion of a
comment that is proprietary or
confidential business information under
law on pages separate from the balance
of the comment with each page
prominently marked ‘‘PROPRIETARY
OR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ at the top of the page.
ATF will not make proprietary or
confidential business information
submitted in compliance with these
instructions available when disclosing
the comments that it received, but will
disclose that the commenter provided
proprietary or confidential business
information that ATF is holding in a
separate file to which the public does
not have access. If ATF receives a
request to examine or copy this
information, it will treat it as any other
request under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). In
addition, ATF will disclose such
proprietary or confidential business
information to the extent required by
other legal process.
C. Submitting Comments
Submit comments in any of three
ways (but do not submit the same
comment multiple times or by more
than one method). Hand-delivered
comments will not be accepted.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: ATF
recommends that you submit your
comments to ATF via the Federal
eRulemaking portal at
www.regulations.gov and follow the
instructions. Comments will be posted
within a few days of being submitted.
However, if large volumes of comments
are being processed simultaneously,
your comment may not be viewable for
up to several weeks. Please keep the
comment tracking number that is
provided after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Mail: Send written comments to the
address listed in
ADDRESSES
section of
this document. Written comments must
appear in minimum 12-point font size
(.17 inches), include the commenter’s
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 8
1
2
x 11paper;
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.
Regina Lombardo,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 2020–27857 Filed 12–17–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Notice of Extension of Public
Comment Period for Proposed
Consent Decree Pursuant To the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, And
Liability Act
On December 2, 2020, the Department
of Justice lodged a proposed Consent
Decree (‘‘Consent Decree’’) in the United
States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama (Eastern Division),
in the lawsuit entitled the United States
of America v. Pharmacia, LLC and
Solutia, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:02–CV–
0749 (KOB).
This Consent Decree represents a
settlement of certain claims of the
United States (‘‘Plaintiff’’) against
Pharmacia, LLC and Solutia, Inc.
(‘‘Defendants’’) under Sections 106, 107,
and 113 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9606, 9607, and
9613, relating to the Anniston PCB
Hazardous Waste Site (‘‘Site’’) located in
and around Anniston, Alabama. Under
the proposed Consent Decree, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:22 Dec 17, 2020 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\18DEN1.SGM 18DEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT