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 abovecaptioned 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices 82517 

1National 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. 

2National 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). 5Under 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.’’ 

6Under 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
82518 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices 

8See 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/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/ATF-Letter-March-21- 

2017.pdf and https://www.sigsauer.com/wpcontent/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: 

Æ The comparative function of the 

attachment when utilized as a 

stabilizing brace compared to its 

alternate use as a shouldering device; 

Æ The design of the stabilizing brace 

compared to known shoulder stock 

designs; 

Æ The 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; 

Æ The 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; 

Æ Any shared or interchangeable 

parts with known shoulder stocks; and 

Æ Any 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 244 / Friday, December 18, 2020 / Notices 82519 

9Only ‘‘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 stabilizerequipped 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. 


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 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES