30826 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1NFA provisions still refer to the ‘‘Secretary of 

the Treasury.’’ However, the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, 

transferred the functions of ATF from the 

Department of the Treasury to the Department of 

Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney 

General. 26 U.S.C. 7801(a)(2); 28 U.S.C. 599A(c)(1). 

Thus, for ease of reference, this notice of proposed 

rulemaking refers to the Attorney General 

throughout. 

2 Delegation of Authorities within the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 

Delegation Order 1100.168C (Nov. 5, 2018). 

3 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3) (GCA definition of firearm); 

26 U.S.C. 5845(a) (NFA definition of firearm). 

(i) Create a component history card or 

equivalent record to establish a life limit of 

9,000 total hours TIS. 

(ii) Thereafter, remove from service any 

grip assembly before it accumulates 9,000 

total hours TIS. 

(2) Thereafter, no alternative life limits 

may be approved for any grip assembly P/N 

204–011–121–005, P/N 204–011–121–113, or 

P/N 204–011–121–117. 

(3) As of the effective date of this AD, do 

not install any grip assembly having P/N 

204–011–121–005, P/N 204–011–121–113, or 

P/N 204–011–121–117 on any Model 205B 

helicopter unless the life limit is established 

in accordance with this AD. 

(h) Special Flight Permits 

Special flight permits are prohibited. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, DSCO Branch, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the DSCO Branch, send it 

to the attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ASW-190-COS@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

(j) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Kuethe Harmon, Safety Management 

Program Manager, DSCO Branch, Compliance 

& Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 

Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; 

telephone (817) 222–5198; email 

Kuethe.harmon@faa.gov. 

Issued on June 3, 2021. 

Lance T. Gant, 

Director, Compliance & Airworthiness 

Division, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12038 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives 

27 CFR Parts 478 and 479 

[Docket No. ATF 2021R–08; AG Order No. 

5070–2021] 

RIN 1140–AA55 

Factoring Criteria for Firearms With 

Attached ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’ 

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice 

(‘‘Department’’) proposes amending 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives (‘‘ATF’’) regulations to 

clarify when a rifle is ‘‘intended to be 

fired from the shoulder.’’ The 

Department proposes factors ATF 

considers when evaluating firearms 

equipped with a purported ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ to determine whether these 

weapons would be considered a ‘‘rifle’’ 

or ‘‘short-barreled rifle’’ under the Gun 

Control Act of 1968 (‘‘GCA’’) or a ‘‘rifle’’ 

or ‘‘firearm’’ subject to regulation under 

the National Firearms Act (‘‘NFA’’). 

This proposed rule is a separate action 

from the Notice on the Objective Factors 

for Classifying Weapons with 

‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’ published on 

December 18, 2020, and withdrawn on 

December 31, 2020. No comments 

received under the withdrawn notice 

were considered for this proposed rule, 

and no comments received pursuant to 

that notice will be considered as part of 

this proposed rule. Commenters will 

need to submit new comments in 

connection with this proposed rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked, and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before 

September 8, 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 

2021R–08, by any of the following 

methods— 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Denise Brown, Mail Stop 6N– 

518, Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

Enforcement Programs and Services, 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives, 99 New York Ave. NE, 

Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 

2021R–08. 

• Fax: (202) 648–9741. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

should include the agency name and 

docket number (ATF 2021R–08) for this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 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: 

Denise Brown, 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, Washington, DC 20226; 

telephone: (202) 648–7070 (this is not a 

toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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)(A)(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). Accordingly, the 

Attorney General and ATF have 

promulgated regulations implementing 

both the GCA and the NFA. See 27 CFR 

parts 478, 479. 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 and Services (‘‘EPS’’).2 FATD 

supports the firearms industry and the 

general public by, among other things, 

responding to technical inquiries and by 

testing and evaluating firearms 

voluntarily submitted to ATF for 

classification under the GCA or NFA. 

There is no requirement that the 

firearms industry or the public submit 

firearms to ATF for evaluation of the 

firearm’s proper classification under 

Federal law. 

The statutory definitions of ‘‘firearm’’ 

under the GCA and the NFA are 

different.3 In 1934, Congress passed the 

NFA in order to regulate certain 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30827 

4Congress chose to regulate these firearms by 

taxing them. Therefore, the NFA is part of the 

Internal Revenue Code. 

5Courts have recognized the dangerousness and 

uniqueness of NFA firearms and that possession of 

unregistered firearms poses a danger to the 

community. United States v. Jennings, 195 F.3d 

795, 799 (5th Cir. 1999) (Congress determined that 

the unregistered possession of the particular 

firearms regulated under the NFA should be 

outlawed because of ‘‘the virtual inevitability that 

such possession will result in violence’’); see 

United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2018) 

(‘‘[T]he historical tradition of prohibiting the 

carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons’’ 

supported limiting the Second Amendment’s 

protection to weapons ‘‘in common use at the time’’ 

of ratification. (quoting District of Columbia v. 

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 (2008)); United States 

v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85, 95 (3rd Cir. 2010) 

(explaining that a long gun with a shortened barrel 

is both dangerous and unusual, because ‘‘its 

concealability fosters its use in illicit activity,’’ and 

‘‘because of its heightened capability to cause 

damage’’); United States v. Amos, 501 F.3d 524, 531 

(6th Cir. 2007) (McKeague, J., dissenting) (‘‘[A] 

sawed-off shotgun can be concealed under a large 

shirt or coat. . . . [T]he combination of low, 

somewhat indiscriminate accuracy, large 

destructive power, and the ability to conceal . . . 

makes a sawed-off shotgun useful for only violence 

against another person, rather than, for example, 

against sport game.’’); Bezet v. United States, 276 

F. Supp. 3d 576, 611–12 (E.D. La. 2017), aff’d, 714 

F. App’x. 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (‘‘Prior to the 

enactment of the NFA, Congress recognized that the 

country struggled to control the violence wrought 

by ‘gangsters, racketeers, and professional 

criminals.’ . . . Similarly to the GCA, the NFA was 

adopted by Congress to establish a nationwide 

system to regulate the sale, transfer, license, and 

manufacturing of certain ‘dangerous weapons’ such 

as ‘machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off 

rifles, and other firearms, other than pistols and 

revolvers, which may be concealed on the persons, 

and silencers.’ . . . [T]he NFA targets ‘certain 

weapons likely to be used for criminal purposes.’ ’’); 

United States v. Gonzalez, No. 2:10-cr-00967, 2011 

WL 5288727, at *5 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2011) 

(‘‘Congress specifically found that ‘short-barreled 

rifles are primarily weapons of war and have no 

appropriate sporting use or use for personal 

protection.’ ’’ (quoting S. Rep. No. 90–1501, at 28 

(1968))). 

6See Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Brandon, 826 F.3d 598 (1st 

Cir. 2016) (noting that, in the firearms classification 

context, it is appropriate for ATF to consider ‘‘a 

part’s design features . . . as part of the inquiry 

into’’ the intended use of that part). The court noted 

that ‘‘[s]uch an objective approach to ferreting out 

a party’s intent is a very familiar one in the law. 

See, e.g., United States v. Siciliano, 578 F.3d 61, 77 

(1st Cir. 2009) (noting that objective evidence is 

useful to ‘buttress or rebut direct testimony as to 

intent’); cf. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 253, 

96 S. Ct. 2040, 48 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1976) (Stevens, 

J., concurring) (‘Frequently the most probative 

evidence of intent will be objective evidence of 

what actually happened rather than evidence 

describing the subjective state of mind of the 

actor.’); United States v. Gaw, 817 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 

2016) (‘[T]he law is long since settled that the 

prosecution may prove its case without direct 

evidence of a defendant’s guilty knowledge so long 

as the array of circumstantial evidence possesses 

sufficient persuasive power.’ (quoting United States 

v. O’Brien, 14 F.3d 703, 706 (1st Cir. 1994))).’’ 

7Classification request from NST Global LLC 

(Nov. 8, 2012). 

‘‘gangster’’ type weapons.4 These 

weapons were viewed as especially 

dangerous and unusual, and, as a result, 

are subject to taxes and are required to 

be registered with ATF.5 26 U.S.C. 5811, 

5821, 5841, 5845. The Supreme Court in 

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 

570 (2008), recognized these additional 

constraints as consistent with the 

Second Amendment. ‘‘We also 

recognize another important limitation 

on the right to keep and carry arms. 

[United States v. ] Miller[, 307 U.S. 174 

(1939),] said, as we have explained, that 

the sorts of weapons protected were 

those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 

U.S., at 179, 59 S. Ct. 816. We think that 

limitation is fairly supported by the 

historical tradition of prohibiting the 

carrying of ‘‘dangerous and unusual 

weapons.’’ Id. at 627. 

As a result of the different definitions 

in the GCA and NFA, classification of a 

weapon as a ‘‘firearm’’ under the GCA 

or the NFA affects how it is regulated 

under Federal law. For instance, a 

weapon classified as a ‘‘firearm’’ under 

only the GCA is subject to interstate 

controls, but is not subject to making or 

transfer taxes, and need not be 

registered in the National Firearms 

Registration and Transfer Record 

(‘‘NFRTR’’) as required by the NFA. See 

18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1); 26 U.S.C. 5812, 

5822, 5841, 5845. In contrast, weapons 

classified as NFA firearms are generally 

regulated under both statutes. This 

includes rifles having a barrel or barrels 

less than 16 inches in length (also 

known as ‘‘short-barreled rifles’’) and 

shotguns having a barrel or barrels less 

than 18 inches in length (also known as 

‘‘short-barreled shotguns.’’). Under the 

NFA and implementing regulations, the 

term ‘‘rifle’’ is 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.’’ 26 U.S.C. 

5845(c); 27 CFR 479.11. In addition to 

the NFA requirements, the GCA also 

imposes specific restrictions on the 

transportation, sale, and delivery of 

‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ and ‘‘shortbarreled shotguns.’’ 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(4), 

(b)(4). Therefore, FATD’s classifications 

of a particular firearm allow 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 

submitted firearm sample, it examines 

its overall configuration, physical 

characteristics, and 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 configuration as 

presented by that sample. The 

numerous configurations, materials, and 

designs of modern firearms require 

thorough examination and 

consideration to ensure proper 

classification. Even though firearms may 

have a similar appearance (i.e., shape, 

size, etc.), an ATF classification of a 

firearm pertains only to the particular 

sample submitted because of the vast 

variations in submissions, the 

application of different relevant statutes 

and judicial interpretations of these 

statutes, the manufacturer’s or maker’s 

stated intent,6 and the objective design 

features supporting or undercutting that 

stated intent that may be legally and 

technically significant. 

In recent years, some manufacturers 

have produced and sold devices 

(‘‘stabilizing braces’’) designed to be 

attached to large or heavy pistols and 

that are marketed to help a shooter 

‘‘stabilize’’ his or her arm to support 

single-handed firing. The first 

individual to submit a forearm brace to 

determine if it changed the 

classification of a ‘‘pistol’’ advised ATF 

that ‘‘the AR15 pistol is very difficult to 

control with the one-handed precision 

stance due to the forward weight of the 

weapon and the recoil of the 5.56, 7.62 

or 7.62[sic]x39 NATO caliber rounds.’’ 7

There, the submitter explained that the 

intent of the brace was to facilitate onehanded firing of the AR–15 pistol for 

those with limited strength or mobility 

due to a disability, and to reduce 

bruising to the forearm when firing with 

one hand. According to this individual, 

the brace concept was inspired by the 

needs of combat veterans with 

disabilities who still enjoy recreational 

shooting but could not reliably control 

heavy pistols without assistance. 

However, whereas some accessories 

marketed as ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ may 

make it easier for a person to fire a 

weapon with one hand and would not 

result in a determination that the 

firearm with the attached brace is a 

‘‘rifle,’’ there are other accessories also 

marketed as ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ that 

may be attached to a weapon platform 

for the purpose of circumventing the 

GCA and NFA prohibitions on the sale, 

delivery, transportation, or unregistered 

possession and taxation of ‘‘shortbarreled rifles.’’ As described below, the 

addition of an accessory that is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30828 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

8 Innovator Enters., Inc. v. Jones, 28 F. Supp. 3d 

14, 25 (D.D.C. 2014). 

9See, e.g., Cameron Knight, Dayton shooter used 

a modified gun that may have exploited a legal 

loophole USA Today (published Aug. 5, 2019, 

updated Aug. 6, 2019) https://www.usatoday.com/ 

story/news/nation/2019/08/05/dayton-shooterused-gun-may-have-exploited-legal-loophole/ 

1927566001/ (the firearm used in a shooting killing 

9 people and wounding 14 had a ‘‘pistol brace’’ 

used to ‘‘skirt[ ]’’ regulation of short-barrel rifles); 

Melissa Macaya et al., 10 killed in Colorado grocery 

store shooting, CNN (updated Mar. 23, 2021), 

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/bouldercolorado-shooting-3-23-21/h_0c662370eefaeff05

eac3ef8d5f29e94 (reporting that the firearm used in 

a shooting that killed 10 was an AR–15 pistol with 

an ‘‘arm brace’’). 

10ATF does, however, make these types of 

classifications under the Arms Export Control Act 

(‘‘AECA’’), 22 U.S.C. 2778, with respect to the 

permanent importation of ‘‘defense articles.’’ 

11See U.S. v. Black, 739 F.3d 931, 934–36 (6th 

Cir. 2014). 

12See FFL Newsletter, August 1997, at 5–6 

(https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/newsletter/ 

federal-firearms-licensees-newsletter-%E2%80%93- 

august-1997/download). 

13See ATF, Open Letter on the Redesign of 

‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ (Jan. 16, 2015); and a letter to 

industry counsel clarifying the 2015 Open Letter, 

Letter for Mark Barnes, Counsel to SB Tactical, LLC, 

from Marvin G. Richardson, Assistant Director, ATF 

Enforcement Programs & Services, 90000:GM, 5000, 

Re: Reversal of ATF Open Letter on the Redesign 

of ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’ (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). 

14As used in this rule and worksheet, the term 

‘‘accessory’’ is intended as a general term to 

describe the marketing of items commonly known 

as ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ and does not affect any ATF 

determinations whether such items when attached 

to a handgun are, in fact, ‘‘accessories’’ not 

necessary for the operation of the handgun, but 

which enhance its usefulness or effectiveness, or 

whether they are component parts necessary to 

properly operate a weapon, such as a rifle. 

Furthermore, use of that term does not affect any 

determinations whether such items are ‘‘defense 

articles’’ under the Arms Export Control Act. Please 

direct all inquiries as to possible liability for the 

firearms and ammunition excise tax, 26 U.S.C. 

4181–82, to the United States Department of 

Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau (‘‘TTB’’). 

marketed as a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ to a 

pistol does not guarantee that the 

resulting firearm will still be classified 

as a pistol. Indeed, classifying a firearm 

based on a limited or singular 

characteristic (i.e. the marketing label of 

the manufacturer that the item is a 

‘‘stabilizing brace), ‘‘has the potential to 

be significantly overinclusive or 

underinclusive.’’ 8

Because short-barreled rifles are 

among the firearms considered unusual 

and dangerous, subjecting them to 

regulation under the NFA, it is 

especially important that such weapons 

be properly classified. Indeed, firearms 

with ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ have been 

used in at least two mass shootings, 

with the shooters in both instances 

reportedly shouldering the ‘‘brace’’ as a 

stock, demonstrating the efficacy as 

‘‘short-barreled’’ rifles of firearms 

equipped with such ‘‘braces.’’ 9

The GCA and NFA regulate 

‘‘firearms’’ and, with limited exceptions, 

do not regulate individual components. 

Accordingly, ATF does not classify 

unregulated components or accessories 

alone under the GCA and NFA.10

However, components or accessories, 

when attached to a firearm, can affect 

the classification of a firearm because: 

(1) A component’s or an accessory’s 

likely use may be relevant in assessing 

the manufacturer’s or maker’s purported 

intent with respect to the design of a 

firearm; and (2) the design of a 

component or an accessory may result 

in a firearm falling within a particular 

statutory definition. Examples include: 

(1) The attachment of a forward 

secondary grip 11 to a ‘‘pistol,’’ where 

the resulting firearm would no longer be 

designed to be held and fired with a 

single hand; and (2) a wallet holster 12

where the handgun can be fired while 

inserted, thus changing the 

classification of these handguns into an 

‘‘any other weapon.’’ See 26 U.S.C. 

5845(e). A ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ of which 

there are several variations, is yet 

another example of a component or an 

accessory that may change the 

classification of the firearm to which it 

is attached. 

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 

brace’’ or ‘‘arm brace.’’ 13 When a 

purported ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ and an 

attached weapon’s objective design 

features indicate that the firearm is 

actually designed and intended to be 

fired from the shoulder, such weapon 

may fall within the scope of the NFA, 

requiring registration and payment of 

tax. Accordingly, ATF must evaluate on 

a case-by-case basis 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 is thus 

subject to the NFA. The use of a 

purported ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ cannot be 

a tool to circumvent the NFA (or the 

GCA) and the prohibition on the 

unregistered possession of ‘‘shortbarreled rifles.’’ 

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. This is the case even 

when a manufacturer characterizes or 

markets a firearm accessory in a manner 

that suggests a use 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 

evaluation of a submitted sample 

demonstrates that the objective design 

features of the firearm, as configured, do 

not support the manufacturer’s 

purported intent and, in fact, suggest an 

altogether different intent, ATF will 

classify the firearm based on the 

objective design features, as Federal law 

requires. See Sig Sauer, Inc. v. Brandon, 

826 F.3d 598, 601–02 (1st Cir. 2016). 

It is estimated that manufacturers of 

stabilizing braces have sold 3 million 

stabilizing braces since 2013. ATF has 

observed that the development and 

production of rifled barrel weapons 

with ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ has become 

more prevalent in the firearms industry 

and that, consequently, requests for 

classifications for this kind of firearm 

design have also increased. ATF has 

classified several firearms equipped 

with ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ and the 

objective features used to make these 

classifications have been described in 

letters to the industry as well as in 

criminal cases. However, ATF has 

received criticism for not more widely 

publishing the criteria and for not 

publishing a definitive approach in the 

application of that criteria. Therefore, to 

aid the firearms industry and public in 

understanding the criteria that FATD 

considers when evaluating firearm 

samples that are submitted with an 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ or similar 

component or accessory, ATF proposes 

a worksheet to be entitled Factoring 

Criteria for Rifled Barrel Weapons with 

Accessories 14 commonly referred to as 

‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ ATF Worksheet 

4999 (‘‘Worksheet 4999’’). The purpose 

of this worksheet is to allow individuals 

or members of the firearms industry to 

evaluate whether a weapon 

incorporating a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that 

they intend to submit to FATD or offer 

for sale will be considered a ‘‘shortbarreled rifle’’ or ‘‘firearm’’ under the 

GCA and NFA. FATD will use the 

criteria within ATF Worksheet 4999 and 

resulting point value when evaluating 

and classifying a submitted firearm. 

These criteria and worksheet do not 

apply to firearms with a smooth bore 

that use shotgun ammunition. These 

types of firearms, commonly referred to 

as ‘‘pistol grip shotguns,’’ were never 

designed to be fired from one hand (e.g., 

Mossberg Shockwave, Remington TacVerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\10JNP1.SGM 10JNP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30829 

15Cf., e.g., United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 

407–08 (5th Cir. 2006) (analyzing whether there was 

sufficient evidence that a firearm was ‘‘equipped 

with’’ a silencer); United States v. Thompson, 82 

F.3d 849, 851–53 & n.5 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing 

when a firearm may be ‘‘equipped with’’ a silencer); 

United States v. Rodriguez, 53 F.3d 545, 546 (2d 

Cir. 1995) (analyzing whether a firearm was 

‘‘equipped with’’ a silencer). 

14). ATF has always classified these 

weapons as GCA ‘‘firearms,’’ not 

shotguns or pistols, as they do not 

incorporate a stock, like a shotgun, and 

are not designed to be fired from one 

hand, like a pistol. Thus, the addition of 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ does not assist 

with single-handed firing, but rather 

redesigns the firearm to provide surface 

area for firing from the shoulder. 

II. Application of ATF Worksheet 4999 

Similar to the Factoring Criteria for 

Weapons, ATF Form 4590 (‘‘Form 

4590’’), which is used for the 

importation of pistols and revolvers, the 

proposed ATF Worksheet 4999 has a 

point system assigning a weighted value 

to various characteristics of the fully 

assembled firearm as configured when 

submitted for classification. A firearm 

that accumulates less than 4 points in 

Section II (Accessory Characteristics), 

and less than 4 points in Section III 

(Configuration of Weapon), will 

generally be determined not to be 

designed to be fired from the shoulder, 

unless there is evidence that the 

manufacturer or maker expressly 

intended to design the weapon to be 

fired from the shoulder. A firearm that 

accumulates 4 points or more in Section 

II or Section III will be determined to be 

designed and intended to be fired from 

the shoulder. 

As a preliminary factor when 

evaluating a submitted sample, certain 

prerequisites (i.e., weapon weight and 

overall length) will be applied to 

determine if the firearm will even be 

considered as a possible pistol or 

immediately determined to be a rifle, as 

defined by the applicable statutes. As 

discussed, ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ were 

originally marketed as intended to assist 

persons with disabilities and others 

lacking sufficient grip strength to 

control heavier pistols. Therefore, 

attaching a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ to a 

typical pistol, where no assistance is 

necessary, or attaching one to a firearm 

so heavy or difficult to control that onehanded shooting is impractical or 

inaccurate, regardless of the 

manufacturer’s stated intent, will 

change the design of the firearm into a 

rifle intended to be fired from the 

shoulder. Indeed, the purported 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ would have no 

design function other than to facilitate 

the firing of the weapon from the 

shoulder. 

On the proposed Worksheet 4999, 

objective design characteristics or 

features that are common to rifles, 

features associated with shoulder 

stocks, and those features limiting the 

ability to use the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ as 

an actual brace are assigned point 

values. These point values range from 0 

to 4 points based upon the degree of the 

indicator, explained as follows: 

• 1 point: Minor Indicator (the weapon 

could be fired from the shoulder) 

• 2 points: Moderate Indicator (the 

weapon may be designed and 

intended to be fired from the 

shoulder) 

• 3 points: Strong Indicator (the weapon 

is likely designed and intended to be 

fired from the shoulder) 

• 4 points: Decisive Indicator (the 

weapon is designed and intended to 

be fired from the shoulder) 

As in ATF Form 4590, the point 

values associated with particular 

features or designs are based upon their 

relative importance in classifying the 

firearm under the law. In this case, 

design factors that are more likely to 

demonstrate a manufacturer’s or maker’s 

intent to produce a ‘‘short-barreled 

rifle’’ and market it as a ‘‘braced pistol’’ 

accrue more points than those that 

reveal less evidence. There are certain 

inherent features that may support a 

design as a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ and also 

a shoulder stock. For example, a large 

amount of surface area on the rear of a 

purported ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ may 

indicate that it is designed to be fired 

from the shoulder and facilitate its use 

as a shoulder stock. However, that 

characteristic may also be the result of 

incorporating substantial stabilizing 

support that envelopes the shooter’s arm 

(e.g., the original SB15 ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’), allowing one-handed firing of a 

large pistol. These complexities cannot 

serve merely to exempt all firearms with 

purported ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ from 

classification as ‘‘rifles.’’ Indeed, the 

statutory definitions of ‘‘rifle’’ in the 

GCA and NFA describe that type of 

weapon as one ‘‘intended to be fired 

from the shoulder.’’ 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(7); 

26 U.S.C. 5845(c). The ATF Worksheet 

4999 is necessary to enforce the law 

consistently, considering the diversity 

of firearm designs and configurations. 

As stated above, if the total point 

value of the firearm submitted is equal 

to or greater than 4—in either Section II 

or III—then the firearm, with the 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ will be 

determined to be ‘‘designed or 

redesigned, made or remade, and 

intended to be fired from the shoulder,’’ 

or a ‘‘rifle’’ under the GCA and NFA. 

The firearm will be classified as a 

‘‘short-barreled rifle’’ under the GCA 

and NFA, and as an NFA ‘‘firearm,’’ if 

the attached barrel is also less than 16 

inches. The ATF Worksheet 4999 will 

provide the public and the firearms 

industry with a detailed methodology 

for ensuring legal compliance. 

By using ATF Worksheet 4999, ATF 

is ensuring uniform consideration and 

application of these criteria when 

evaluating firearm samples with 

attached ‘‘stabilizing braces.’’ ATF also 

notes that some makers or 

manufacturers have received a 

classification of a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

without it being attached to a firearm or 

may have received a classification for a 

firearm that would be considered a NFA 

firearm under these criteria. Therefore, 

any maker or manufacturer who has 

received a classification prior to the 

effective date of the rule is encouraged 

to resubmit the firearm with the 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ to ensure 

that the prior classification is consistent 

with this new rule and to avoid any 

possible criminal or tax penalties for the 

continued manufacture, transfer, or 

possession of a NFA firearm. As iterated 

above, FATD’s classifications allow 

industry members to plan and develop 

products that comply with the law, and 

thereby reduce their risk of incurring 

criminal or civil penalties, or the need 

for corrective actions, including a recall 

by the manufacturer. ATF recognizes 

that these factors may affect industry 

members and members of the public, as 

they may manufacture or already own 

firearms with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

attached. ATF wants to assist affected 

persons and industry members and 

provides the additional information in 

this proposed rule to aid them in 

complying with Federal laws and 

regulations. 

III. Proposed Rule 

Given the public interest surrounding 

these issues, ATF is proposing to amend 

the definition of ‘‘rifle’’ in 27 CFR 

478.11 and 479.11, respectively, by 

adding a sentence at the end of each 

definition. The new sentence would 

clarify that the term ‘‘rifle’’ includes any 

weapon with a rifled barrel and 

equipped with 15 an attached 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that has objective 

design features and characteristics that 

indicate that the firearm is designed to 

be fired from the shoulder, as indicated 

on ATF Worksheet 4999. 

Because the objective design features 

and characteristics considered will be 

on a new worksheet to be used by ATF, 

the Department is also publishing this 

proposed worksheet—ATF Worksheet 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30830 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

4999—as part of the preamble to this 

proposed rule and inviting interested 

members of the public and industry to 

provide comment. Similar to ATF Form 

4590, used to determine if a firearm is 

sporting for purposes of importation, 

ATF proposes to use ATF Worksheet 

4999 to determine if a firearm is 

designed and intended to be fired from 

the shoulder, as follows: 

Proposed Factoring Criteria for Rifled 

Barrel Weapons With Accessories 

Commonly Referred to as ‘‘Stabilizing 

Braces’’ 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.015</GPH>

l,J;S; DEPARTMENT.QF.JUSTICE 

BUREAUOFALCOHOL,TOBACCO,.FJREARMSAND.EXPLOSIVES 

FACTORING.CRITERIA•FORRIFLED·.•BARREL.WEAPONSWITH• 

,\C:C~RIES* commonly referredto as 14$TABtiJZING BRACES" 

SUMMARY: Thls·ehar.tllsts·thetacfutsi't)constdersw11eneva1ua~a·tlrearm:witk•.an.accesS(lty(coD11t10nty·teferrllll·f.o11s;a;•stablllz~braces~),tot 

cliiss!RctiUiililifider·theNiiUiifiillFlr!!iitifisAct(NFA}•·m:lbeGtifi.Coiitrol•ACt(GCA). 

)11/;!TE: 111e.!;lurellt!.<!f.All:pl\i>1;1'."'1a~co,Fjrellllllll,mdExpfosi\le~reservesthe.rigbftopr,;clude.;clas~ificaiitm.l!.sa·p~l:with·a•"~ilizi.irgl)races!'t~r811}'~.thatatbir:yesa11 

apPatentqnaiifyinjf.sc~butis•an·atteitiptto•makei·••sirottA>li!teledrifle"and.ciiturnvenfthe·oca. nrNFA, 

~.1\stis¢dirttlljswlil'k,;hect;llieieiilt·"~~(e!l$or')i"·•jair\tt!nd~·ailt&<rii:llillfflll.fodestjil>~llie.ill!irl<etitig.!lflt~·~lyliliowriu."stiihiliiili~.biiites."~rid.d~i:iit,ufec(iifii 

Atf·detcrminations.whetherrucldtemswhenattaciretito,a·lnindlitin•ace:lnfatt. i•actessorie~·notne1:e~sicyfoc.ihe .. opetatioriofiliehan<1gun,.•hurwhicli:enhance:itsusclltlness 

or effectiveness; a: wttethti'theyilfe. c11mpttiehtpiirtalie1:es$afytcii>rc(le\"ly q;erate a ~liti'l; such as a.ml~ ~erinore; use tiflhllttenn aces n~ alf~.ranydeteriniriations: 

wheth.er.suchitems.ace."dlifensearii<:l~lllldertheArrrlsilxpoci.eontrotAct l'~;<lirectallinqulrieslil!fupl>ssl~Ielial,ility·forthel"ireanns:andammuniiionexdsetax; 

26U:S.C. seclioriii4 lln -418216 llie United States:Dq,artlintitmTteiisw;',Alcohollrid·TO!iatciiToxiiiid Trade Bliniiiil (ITB): 

Weapon: Explanation: 

SECZTIQN'T~.PREREQUISll:FS [Su:ifu.bility of "Brae~• tllie] 

1. the.weanon must weigh at least.6,lounces. *Weighedwithmagazines,unloadedlaccessoriesremoyed 

*Leh2th measured with lill non°hi>mtioolil.atci:ssorlesten1oved 

\Veaponmustmeet bo.th Prel'.equlslte!lln .. order:toproceed·to StrllonIL 

POOO · PdINT 1---------------------1 'INDIVIDUAL·CHARACTERISTICS VALUE SUB 

'i'()TAL 

[Detenninatiort of use as a "Brace" vs.; Stoc~ J 

ACCESSORY DESIGN 

Norbased•on.aknown:should\ir-stockdesiglt 0 

Jncorporates• moulder; s.tock desum feature(s) 1 

.Based on. a kn()\\'11 shoulder stock desilm 2 

11.ElUlSURFACE.~ 

Devicfinciirpoi.'atesfeiillli'estb·jlti:'Vtfituseii&.ashoulderilli>de'Vice: 

Minim.ized Rein- SJJrfa~e. la~g feature;; to·diSCoutage shouldering 

R~.SurlaceusclulforshouldCl'ing.the·fkt81J11 

ADJlJSTABILITY 

N'on-adjustal:ile, fixed design 0 

Adjustlibie·ortelesco1>irig.attachment·designedforshoiilda:irtg: 2 

STABILIZING SUPPORT 

0 

Countfflllilance Design lliat Folds cr"8til1Jl Rear Contact Surface 

OR: 

"Fin- type" design WITH Ann. Strap 0 

"Fin- type" design WITHOUT Ann Strap 2 

OR: 

«Cuff-type'; design thatFULLYwraps around arrn 0 

"Guff-type" design that PARTIALLY wraps around arm 

"Guff-type" design that FAILS to wrap around arrn 2 

"Split-stock'' configuration not designed to wnqr around shooter'sann 3 

..... ______ ..__s_E_c_T_I_o_N_u_._s_co_RE_A_CHIE_ v_E_D_: ____ _,,,..... __ ~SCORE1----------------------------1 

Section II Must Score LESS than 4 in. order to oroceed to Sectfon III 

A.1F WORKSHEET4999 (5330.5) (5-21) 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30831 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–C 

Section I. Prerequisites 

As a preliminary factor when 

evaluating a submitted sample, certain 

prerequisites will be applied to 

determine if the firearm, without the 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ will even 

be considered a suitable weapon for the 

brace. As described above, ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ were originally marketed as 

being designed to assist persons with 

disabilities and others lacking sufficient 

grip strength to control heavier pistols. 

Accordingly, FATD will first examine 

the submitted sample’s weapon weight 

and overall length. 

Weapon Weight. Weapon weight is a 

key prerequisite in determining whether 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is appropriately 

used on a weapon. A traditional 

unloaded 1911-type pistol weighs 

approximately 39 ounces. Similarly, the 

polymer Glock 17 weighs 39 ounces 

when fully loaded. Weighing just over 2 

pounds, these firearms are easily held 

and fired with one hand without the 

need for a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ as such 

‘‘braces’’ are designed. This stands in 

contrast to the weight of the type of 

pistols or other firearms for which the 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ was designed to be 

attached. The AR-type pistol, a popular 

large handgun design, for example, 

weighs approximately 5 to 7 pounds 

(i.e., 80 ounces to 112 ounces) based on 

its configuration. Such weight is more 

difficult to manipulate and to keep on 

target, indicating the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

is in fact intended to assist one-handed 

fire. Based on the weights stated above, 

firearms weighing less than 64 ounces/ 

4 pounds (weighed with unloaded 

magazine and accessories removed) are 

not considered weapons suitable for use 

with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory 

because they are more easily held and 

fired with one hand without the need 

for a ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 

Overall Length. The overall length of 

a weapon is relevant in classifying it as 

a ‘‘rifle’’ or a ‘‘pistol’’ because, as a 

firearm becomes excessive in length, it 

is increasingly difficult to fire with one 

hand. The AR-type pistol has an overall 

length between 18 and 25 inches, 

depending on barrel length (due to the 

necessary inclusion of the buffer tube). 

Other large frame pistols range between 

14 and 22 inches, such as the AK-type 

DRACO, HK SP5, and CZ Scorpion 

EVO. Firearms possessing an overall 

length between 12 and 26 inches may be 

considered pistols for which a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ could reasonably be 

attached to support one-handed fire. 

Firearms with an overall length of less 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.016</GPH>

SECTIONm - Configuration of Weapon 

LEl'(GTII·OFPULL , w(AcceS'!ory.inReai:most''.Lockedl'osition" 

Less than 10,112..Jnches 0 

ll.il12:butunder 12• 1/Z Inches 

12,1./2butu11derU-lf2Inches. 3 

ATTACHMENTME1HOD 

Standant.AR..tone Pistol Buffer Tube (6-6-1/2 Inches) 0 

Adjusta\lle Rifle Buffer Tube 

Adjusta!lle PPW,typegiiide,lllils 

Exten'cledAR~ypePistillBilffer··Tube. 

Inclusion .of'l'oldlng Adapter extending lellgth of puU z 

Use. of''Spacers" to. extend lellgth ofpull 2 

Modifi~dt;ltouliier stoclcwith re11treplatedby "stabillzillg· brace" 3 

Attacllmmtml:thodereat,es an.uliusable aim:point•·(slant} 3 

"STABILIZING .. BRACE!'.MODU'ICATIONSJ··CONFIGURA.TION 

''Qlff-l:voe" ot"fin ctype" .dt$igti:with strap. to() iihort to futtction 

'·'Cilf'f,typ¢'or;.flnctype''.designWithstrap.•madeoufofelast.icm!\teria:l 

~Fili0twe" tackiltgan llflitstta{i ·z 

'.'Cuff-type~ <lesign with sttap REMOVED 4 

· "Bra:ce'' a~cessory rrtodifitd fo(sh6utderillg. 4 

ModifiedShoulderStock•(originally a:Shoulder·Stock) 4 

PERIPHERALACCESSORIES 

Presence oh Hand Stop 2 

4 

Presence of Rifle•type,Baclc-up I Flip-up. Sights/Or no sights 1 

Presence of'ReflCK Sight with ETS. Maimifier w/Limited.Eye-Relief 2 

Presence of aSillht/Scope.with Eye Relief Jnclllllpalible with one-handed. fll"e 4 

. Prest11<:eohb1pod/mom1pod ·2 

weap6li'as•contigoredweighing.•morcfthliil1•20 oorttes 4 

SECTION.]IISCORE,ACHIEVED: 

(,(sCbiiE.()FlPOi~Q~.MOimlNl)ICATESA ~Jl()ULDEk.-Eilm'QJ>~ 

CLASSIFICATION: 

[Detem1inationifweapon is shoulder fired] 

'"'Measured.from the. center•of·the. ttiJu!;erto.the center. of th.e 

!ihotilder.·device•l"stabilizillg brace'.' 

I 

I 

""Wei@edwitfrma2SZin~•uriloaded 

ATI'\JYQRKSHEE1'4999(5l305)(5C21) 
30832 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

16The location of a sling or quick detach (QD) 

mount is an indicator as to the intended use of the 

accessory. A sling attachment at the rear of the 

device could be a deterrent from shouldering the 

weapon, whereas some accessories incorporate QD 

mounts consistent with known shoulder stock 

designs. 17See FTISB Letter 303984, at 3 (Nov. 30, 2015). 

18See, e.g., US Patent 10,690,442 B2 June 23, 

2020. 

than 12 inches are considered too short 

to indicate any need for a ‘‘stabilizing 

brace.’’ Conversely, firearms exceeding 

26 inches in overall length are 

impractical and inaccurate to fire one 

handed, even with a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ 

due to imbalance of the weapon. 

Section II. Accessory Characteristics 

If the submitted firearm sample meets 

the prerequisites of weighing at least 64 

ounces and having an overall length 

between 12 and 26 inches, FATD will 

analyze various attachment 

characteristics. For FATD to determine 

that a weapon with an attached 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is not, in fact, 

designed and intended to be fired from 

the shoulder, the accessory must not 

have the characteristics of a shoulder 

stock. These characteristics are as 

follows: 

Accessory Design. The design of the 

accessory when attached is a factor in 

determining whether the item is 

actually a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ or is 

intended to be utilized as a stock, 

making the firearm designed to be fired 

from the shoulder. Specifically, because 

the NFA or GCA could be circumvented 

by substituting a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ for 

a traditional shoulder stock on a ‘‘shortbarreled rifle’’ (‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

sometimes share close similarities with 

known stocks), the more features a 

purported ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ has in 

common with known shoulder stock 

designs, the more points it will 

accumulate. ‘‘Stabilizing braces’’ that 

are not based on any known shoulder 

stock design will accrue zero points. 

‘‘Stabilizing braces’’ that incorporate 

one or more shoulder stock design 

features (e.g., adjustment levers or 

features that allow for the length of the 

device to be varied in a manner similar 

to an adjustable shoulder stock, sling 

mounts,16 or hardened surfaces) will 

accrue 1 point. Lastly, ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ that are modified versions of 

known shoulder stock designs will 

accrue 2 points. 

Rear Surface Area. Rear surface area 

is a design characteristic referring to the 

area on the rear of the purported 

‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ Since the purpose of 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is to be secured to 

a shooter’s forearm, there is no 

advantage for a manufacturer of 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ to include 

substantial surface area on the rear of 

the design unless the brace is attached 

to a firearm in order to redesign it to be 

fired from the shoulder. As with the 

other design characteristics, rear surface 

area is a consideration that must be 

evaluated in light of the overall design. 

Clearly, larger, more substantial 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ may have more 

surface area in which to shoulder a 

firearm. However, while smaller, less 

substantial ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ designs 

may have reduced surface area, this 

shouldering area may still be similar to 

known shoulder stock designs upon 

which they are based. The reduced 

contact area of the flaps to the shooter’s 

forearm, and the surface area necessary 

to shoulder the weapon work in tandem 

to indicate whether the purported 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is, in fact, a 

shouldering device. 

Any ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that 

incorporates a surface area feature that 

clearly makes it difficult to use as a 

shouldering device will accrue zero 

points. A ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory 

that is designed with only a minimal 

rear surface area (e.g., a ‘‘fin-type’’) with 

which a weapon could possibly be 

shouldered will accrue 1 point. A 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory that is 

designed with a rear surface area 

sufficient to shoulder the firearm, or 

approximating the rear surface of known 

shoulder stocks, which allows 

shouldering the firearm, will accrue 2 

points. Finally, a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

accessory that features material clearly 

designed to increase rear surface area to 

facilitate shoulder firing will accrue 3 

points. 

Adjustability. When ATF was first 

asked to classify an adjustable 

‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ it responded that 

adjustability is ‘‘a feature commonly 

associated with butt stocks/shoulder 

stocks as well as firearms designed and 

intended to be fired from the 

shoulder.’’ 17 Although ATF ultimately 

determined that adjustability, in and of 

itself, is not determinative of a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’s’’ design function on 

a firearm, it remains a significant 

indicator that the device is designed and 

intended to be shouldered. Weapons 

that do not incorporate an adjustable 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ will accrue zero 

points, while ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ designs 

that are adjustable will accrue 2 points. 

Stabilizing Support. To be effective, a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ must provide 

support for the weapon through 

sufficient and stable contact with the 

shooter’s forearm. Original ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ designs used a substantial 

amount of hardened material intended 

to contact a significant portion of the 

shooter’s forearm, and a strap to secure 

the device and limit movement. Later 

iterations substantially reduced these 

design features, mimicking the outline 

of low-profile (i.e., slim design) 

shoulder stocks. These later designs 

resulted in less contact with the forearm 

and instead rely heavily upon a Velcro 

strap to perform the function of the 

more substantial flaps present in earlier 

designs. While the strap may be used to 

tighten the minimal polymer flaps on 

top of the arm, these later designs were 

far less effective at providing stabilizing 

support—in contrast to the originally 

stated intent—and increase bruising to 

the forearm when firing with one hand. 

These later designs were also similar to 

the tactical shoulder stocks widely 

advertised and sold in the marketplace. 

Stabilizing support is a vital 

characteristic because it provides 

evidence to evaluate the purported 

purpose of the attached device, which is 

to provide shooters with forearm 

support for firing large, heavy 

handguns. It is therefore important for 

ATF to consider the various ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ designs and the forearm support 

they provide. ATF has categorized these 

different ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ designs into 

three broad categories: Counterbalance, 

‘‘Fin-type’’, and ‘‘Cuff-type.’’ 

Counterbalance designs 18 utilize the 

weight of the weapon as a lever to push 

the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ into the forearm 

and provide stability for firing. These 

designs do not typically include a strap 

because the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ itself 

contacts the side and bottom of the 

shooter’s arm and is held in place by the 

weight of the firearm, using the 

shooter’s hand as the fulcrum. However, 

whether characterized as a method of 

storage or otherwise, there is no forearm 

stabilizing purpose in a Counterbalance 

design that folds closed such that it can 

no longer be used as a ‘‘stabilizing 

brace.’’ Indeed, this type of design may 

create rear surface area such that the 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ may be suitable only 

as a shoulder stock when closed. The 

folding feature of the Counterbalance 

design stands in contrast to the 

purported intent of the device. This 

feature presents some evidence that a 

firearm equipped with a Counterbalance 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is intended to be 

fired from the shoulder and therefore 

will accrue 1 point. 

‘‘Fin-type’’ designs incorporate a thin 

‘‘blade’’ designed to rest against the 

shooter’s arm, and feature a minimal, 

thin rear surface area. Although 

originally submitted with the 

explanation that these devices would 

incorporate an arm strap or that a sling 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30833 

19See FTISB Letter 302672 (Sept. 8, 2014). 

20See, e.g., U.S. Patent 7,762,018 B1 (July 27, 

2010) (in which invention ‘‘provides structure for 

mounting the stock body and contains structure for 

the pre-set system utilized by stock bodies which 

are adjustable for length. The length of pull system 

comprises a series of pre-drilled threaded holes 56, 

which are off-set from a center axis. . . .’’). 

could be wrapped around the shooter’s 

arm and provide additional support,19

the majority of these accessories are 

now marketed and sold without such a 

strap, thus virtually eliminating their 

effectiveness as a ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 

‘‘Fin-type’’ accessories that do not 

incorporate an arm strap of suitable 

length or functionality will accrue 2 

points, while those that incorporate an 

arm strap long enough to secure a 

person’s forearm consistent with the 

purported intent will not accrue any 

points (zero). 

‘‘Cuff-type’’ designs are by far the 

most prevalent of all ‘‘stabilizing 

braces,’’ consisting of over two dozen 

different unique designs. ‘‘Cuff-type’’ 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ have evolved over 

the past decade, from non-adjustable, 

large articles into compact designs, 

clearly based on, or modified from, 

shoulder stocks. ‘‘Cuff-type’’ 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ vary greatly in 

design and the classification of firearms 

with these types of ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

is the most complex of the three 

categories. The original ‘‘cuff-type’’ 

designs incorporated large ‘‘arm flaps’’ 

to fully envelop the forearm and also a 

strap to limit movement of the cuff by 

tightening it. These designs were 

contoured so that a shooter’s forearm 

could easily fit through the cuff and the 

strap would tighten around the cuff to 

provide additional arm support. These 

designs were clearly devised to secure 

the firearm to the shooter’s forearm and 

were effective in doing so. Therefore, a 

‘‘cuff-type’’ ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that fully 

wraps around the shooter’s forearm 

(e.g., SB15/SBX–K) will not accrue any 

points (zero). 

Later designs of the ‘‘cuff-type’’ braces 

possessed arm flaps that lacked 

contouring and did not provide a 

suitable opening for the shooter’s 

forearm. These designs relied on softer 

materials that, while saving on 

production costs, mimicked the design 

of popular shoulder stocks and did not 

provide the same support for singlehanded firing of large handguns. These 

designs could be secured to the 

shooter’s forearm, but the brace rested 

on top of the arm, and relied on the 

Velcro strap to secure the firearm to the 

shooter’s arm. Because they are less 

effective at the stated purpose of 

stabilizing one-handed firing, it is 

appropriate that weapons with such 

devices attached accrue points as these 

are more evidently designed and 

intended for another purpose, which is 

to be fired from the shoulder. Such 

‘‘cuff-type’’ ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ that 

partially wrap around the shooter’s 

forearm (e.g., SOB/SB-Mini) will accrue 

1 point. Finally, those ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ incorporating arm flaps that do 

not wrap around the shooter’s forearm 

(e.g., SBA3/SB–PDW), thereby 

providing no arm support, will accrue 2 

points. 

Further, with the later ‘‘split stock’’ 

design, which is another ‘‘cuff-type’’ 

design where the flaps lack arm 

contouring, ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

developers simply used known or 

existing stocks, added a slot down the 

center of the stock, or otherwise slightly 

altered the original shoulder stock 

design and contended that these were 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ like any other ‘‘cufftype’’ design. However, the purpose of 

such designs is clearly indicated by the 

fact that they are far more effective 

when utilized as a shoulder stock than 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ These types of 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ are difficult to 

attach to the arm, provide minimal 

support in one-handed shooting, and are 

not effective to use as a ‘‘stabilizing 

brace.’’ As such, any ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

that is configured as a ‘‘split-stock’’ (e.g., 

SBT/FS1913) will accrue 3 points. 

Section III. Configuration of Weapon 

This section will be used to evaluate 

the entire weapon including how the 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is mounted to the 

firearm as well as the effectiveness of 

the brace in single-handed firing as 

opposed to firing from the shoulder. It 

will also consider all of the accessories 

that have been added to affect firing that 

will be used in conjunction with the 

‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 

Length of Pull. Length of pull is a 

common measurement of firearms that 

describes the distance between the 

trigger and the center of the shoulder 

stock. This is a measurement that may 

be used to fit a firearm to a particular 

shooter. Generally, taller shooters 

require a longer length of pull and 

shorter shooters require a shorter length 

of pull. Adjustable shoulder stocks are 

commonly available. Patents, 

advertising material, and other 

resources make clear that adjustability is 

meant to facilitate changing the length 

of pull.20 Such length of pull 

measurements are far less relevant when 

a pistol is involved because a shooter 

merely requires a device that reaches 

from the back of the firearm to the 

forearm. Far less variation exists 

between shooters in this way. A firearm 

with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ will accrue 

more points the further it is positioned 

rearward, indicating that it is intended 

for use as a shouldering device. 

Firearms with ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ that 

incorporate a length of pull of less than 

101⁄2 inches will not accrue any points 

(zero). However, a length of pull that is 

between 101⁄2 but under 111⁄2 inches 

will accrue 1 point, while 111⁄2 but 

under 121⁄2 will accrue 2 points, 121⁄2

but under 131⁄2 will accrue 3 points, and 

a length of pull of 131⁄2 inches or more 

will accrue 4 points as this is a standard 

length of pull for rifles and is a decisive 

indicator that the firearm is intended to 

be fired from the shoulder. 

Attachment Method. A ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’s’’ attachment method often 

provides critical insight as to how a 

firearm is intended to be used. 

‘‘Stabilizing braces’’ attached to a 

standard-length AR-type pistol buffer 

tube (extending 6 to 61⁄2 inches from the 

rear of the firearm) will not accrue any 

points (zero). Use of an AR-type pistol 

buffer tube with adjustment notches, an 

adjustable rifle buffer tube, or an 

adjustable PDW-type guide rail, will 

accrue 1 point as each indicates the 

ability to adjust the ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 

An extended AR-type pistol buffer tube 

(greater than 61⁄2 inches), folding 

adaptors, and the use of ‘‘spacers’’ are 

all indicators that the ‘‘brace’’ is being 

positioned to serve as a shouldering 

device because it increases the ‘‘length 

of pull,’’ thereby allowing a shooter to 

fire the weapon from the shoulder. 

Therefore, such firearm will accrue 2 

points. Additionally, a shoulder stock 

that has been modified to incorporate a 

‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ or any attachment 

method that results in an unusable aimpoint when the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is 

attached is also a strong indicator the 

weapon is actually intended to be 

shoulder fired and will accrue 3 points. 

‘‘Stabilizing Brace’’ Modifications/ 

Configuration. ‘‘Stabilizing brace’’ 

accessories that have been modified 

from their original configuration will 

accrue additional points. Any ‘‘cufftype’’ or ‘‘fin-type’’ accessory, which 

incorporates an arm strap too short to 

wrap around the shooter’s arm or is 

manufactured from an elastic material 

(eliminating stabilizing support), will 

accrue 2 points, as will a ‘‘fin-type’’ 

accessory lacking an arm strap. Further, 

if these modifications reconfigure the 

device into a shoulder stock, 4 points 

will be accrued. These modifications 

could include taping or strapping the 

arm flaps together on a ‘‘cuff-type’’ 

‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ or adding 

shouldering surface to a ‘‘fin-type’’ 

‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30834 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Peripheral Accessories. ATF has 

examined multiple firearms that include 

peripheral accessories, often added by 

the end user, that indicate the weapon 

is not designed and intended to be held 

and fired by a single hand. Such 

accessories include secondary grips, 

hand-stops, flip-up rifle-type sights, 

sights/scopes with limited eye-relief, 

and bipod/monopods. 

Certain hand-stop attachments have 

been determined to protect a shooter’s 

off-hand from being placed in front of 

the barrel and do not, in and of 

themselves, redesign a pistol to be fired 

with more than one hand. However, the 

presence of such an attachment is an 

indication the weapon may not be 

intended to be fired with a single hand, 

but rather intended to be fired from the 

shoulder. As such, the presence of a 

hand-stop will result in 2 points being 

accrued. Further, the presence of any 

secondary grip on a weapon with a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory changes 

the classification from a one-handed to 

a two-handed weapon, thereby 

disqualifying it from being classified as 

a ‘‘braced pistol,’’ and resulting in the 

subject firearm accruing 4 points. 

Installed sights are also indicators as 

to the intended use of a firearm with an 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ ATF has 

examined numerous AR-type firearms 

with ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessories that 

lack any sight or that incorporate rifletype flip-up or back-up iron sights 

(‘‘BUIS’’), which are only partially 

usable when firing the weapon with one 

hand. As such, the presence of this type 

of sight or lack of any sight will accrue 

1 point. Further, firearms that 

incorporate a reflex sight (e.g., Red Dot) 

in conjunction with a flip-to-the-side 

(‘‘FTS’’) magnifier with limited eye 

relief (distance between the shooter’s 

eye and rear of sight/scope) will accrue 

2 points. Finally, any weapon 

incorporating a sight or scope that 

possesses an eye relief (distance 

between the shooter’s eye and rear of 

sight/scope) incompatible with onehanded firing will accrue 4 points, as 

this is a decisive indicator that the 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is being utilized as a 

shouldering device. For example, a sight 

would be incompatible with onehanded firing if it cannot be seen clearly 

when held at arm’s length, thus showing 

the weapon must be shouldered in order 

for the sight to be used. 

Firearms that incorporate or are 

designed to rest on bipod/monopod 

accessories generally are not designed 

and intended to be held and fired by a 

single hand. Much like hand-stops, 

bipods/monopods do not necessarily, in 

and of themselves, change the 

classification of a ‘‘pistol’’ when 

installed. However, bipods/monopods 

offer ‘‘stabilizing support’’ to the 

firearms to which they are attached, 

which is often counter-intuitive to an 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ for 

example, Counterbalance ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ designs. Therefore, attachment of 

a bipod/monopod will accrue 2 points, 

regardless of the type of ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ attached. 

Finally, any complete firearm with an 

installed ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ that weighs 

more than 120 ounces (71⁄2 pounds), 

incorporating end user accessories, will 

be considered too heavy to be fired with 

one hand, and will accrue 4 points. The 

firearm will be weighed as configured, 

with an unloaded magazine. The upper 

limit of 120 ounces takes into account 

that in order to fire the weapon, the 

shooter will insert a loaded magazine, 

which will typically add an additional 

16–32 ounces. For example, a loaded 

30-round AR-type magazine with .223 

caliber ammunition weighs 

approximately 16 ounces (1 pound), 

while a loaded 30-round AK-type 

magazine with 7.62x39 caliber 

ammunition weighs approximately 29 

ounces (1.8 pounds). Additionally, a 20- 

round magazine with .308 Winchester 

caliber ammunition weighs 

approximately 23 ounces (1.4 pounds). 

These are typical types of magazines 

used with one-handed ‘‘stabilized’’ 

firing. Firearms may reach a weight 

where the use of a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

provides insufficient support for onehanded firing. Indeed, the existence of 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ on firearms that are 

too heavy to be ‘‘intended to be fired by 

one hand’’ indicates that the purported 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is actually intended 

as a shouldering device. 

Even if a weapon accrues less than 4 

points in each section, attempts by a 

manufacturer or maker to circumvent 

Federal law by attaching purported 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ in lieu of shoulder 

stocks may result in classification of 

those weapons as ‘‘rifles’’ and ‘‘shortbarreled rifles.’’ While some 

manufacturers have recognized that 

there is a market advantage in designing 

and selling ‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ as 

‘‘pistols’’ to customers seeking to avoid 

tax and registration requirements, 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ are not a method by 

which the Federal statutes may be 

circumvented. Therefore, efforts to 

advertise, sell, or otherwise distribute 

‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ as such will 

result in a classification as a ‘‘rifle’’ 

regardless of the points accrued on the 

ATF Worksheet 4999 because there is 

no longer any question that the intent is 

for the weapon to be fired from the 

shoulder. 

IV. Application of the Proposed 

Worksheet to Common ‘‘Stabilizing 

Braces’’ 

For the purpose of explaining how the 

factoring criteria in Worksheet 4999 

would be implemented, ATF applied 

the Worksheet 4999 to three weapons 

with common ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

attached: An AR-type firearm with an 

SB-Mini accessory, an AR-type firearm 

with an SBA3 accessory, and an ARtype firearm with a Shockwave Blade 

accessory. The results of that process 

follow. 

A. AR-Type Firearm With SB-Mini 

Accessory 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30835 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.017</GPH>

lfS. DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE 

BUREAU OFALCOHOL, TOBACCO;FlREARMs.ANb EXPLOSIVES 

FACTORINGCRITERIA FOR RIFLED.BARREL WEAPONSWITII 

ACCESSORIES~commonly ref~rrell to as "STABIUZING BRACES~ 

SUMMARY: This chart lists lhe factots·A TF ronsiders when evaluating a fire11rm wilh an acressoty (coinmoilly refetred to as a ~stabiliting braces~):for 

dassU'lcatton under lhe Natt on al Fltearms Att (NFA)ot tile Gun Control Act (GCA), 

NOTE: The·Btlreau of ,i\Jcoluil, Tobacco, Firearms andl~1,:losives.reserves: the right to preclude classificati\lns a pistolwilh a ''stabilizing bracell''.:fl)rllll)1,I1reann that achieves. 1lll 

awarent qmilifying swre.but is an attem()tto.niake a"short:batreledrifle"ilnd:citctnnventtheGCA or:NFA. 

~As used in thfa wNksheet; th~ tenn 'ilccessr,t)f' ·1s intm.ded as igeneral teh1t t.o destribt, the marketing of iteri\s ciinnriciiily kiii>Wn iis "sial:iiiizlng brace$'' alidiloesiiQt aJietf iniy 

ArF deterniiniitions\Vheiher such iiems when attached tq a h1llldgon are. ,n fact. ''acc.,.sories'' not necessary for the operation of the fumdgun, but whichenhanc.e its usefuiiiess 

or diectiveness, or-.i1eibc,rfueyaretornponmtpartsnecessary to prq;,i-ly q;cn,\e • wei.poo; such llS a rifle Furiblmiori,; usei:il'i.battenn doesnotaffectllll)1.deteh1tirtatioos 

'>fiethci'. such .items.are. "defense· articliiswiinderthe Arms Exp"ort Cori!rol Act: Please direct a1r inquiries as to possible liability for the fimirtns md ammliilition eltcise tax, 

26 U.1!cC. settions.4181.4182 trr the·United States Department ofTreaSUIY, ·Alcohol and.Tobacco Tax, 1111d Trade Bureau (Till), 

Weapon: 

SECTIONl-.PREREOUISITES 

1. The WellDOII mustwei!!lntt le3sl64 otmceS 

2. The weapon must have an .overall lene:th between.·12 and 26. Inch.es 

:Weannn must meet both Prereaulsites In order .to nroceed to Sectton.Il 

INDlVlDUAL CHAMCTERJSTI.GS 

SECTION II - Accessory Characteristics 

ACCESSORY DESIGN 

1"ot based on.a known should;:r stuck desiert 

Incorporates shoulder stock design feature(s) 

Bl!Sed on .a. 1:)10\Vll sh.oulder stock desien 

REARSURFACEAREA 

Device inrotporates featuresto prevent use. runt shouldering device 

Minimized RCffl' Surfllce lacking featuresto discourage shouldering 

Rear.Surface useful for should;:ringlhefirl:arm 

Material added to increase. Rear Surface for shoμlderiug 

ADJUST ABILITY 

Non,adjurutble, fixed design 

Adjustable or telescoping 1111:achment designed.for shouldering 

STABlLIZING StiITbRT 

Countci'balance Design - Non.Folding 

Coont«'Qalance. Desi~ .thaI.Folds crfflllng Rear Contact Surfac~ 

OR: 

~Fin- type" design WTIH Ann Strap 

"Fins type" design WITHOUT Arm Strap 

OR: 

"''Cuff-type" design that FULLY wraps ~ound ann: 

"Cuff-type'' design that PARTIALLY wraps around. ann: 

"cuff,type" design \hat FAILS to wrap ~ound ann 

''.Split-stl:lck," collfiguration nQt d~ign~d,(l wrap llfOUnd shooter's arm 

SECTI◊l'il•llSCORE.ACflIEVED: 

Section II Must SCore. LESS•than 4 In ordet·to procee1lcto Section III 

.91 ounces 

25'-1/8 

POINT 

VALUE 

0 

l 

2 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

Q 

1 

2 

3 

Torolanation: 

[Suitabilitv of "Brace." use l 

,. Weiehed with maelizinll' -·unloaded I accessories removed 

,. Length measured with all.noq ,operation!ll accessories r.emoved 

POINT 1---------------------- S UB 

'roTAL 

IDetennination of use as a':Brace" vs. Stock] 

0 

2 

3 * Weapon proceeds to Sectionlll 

ATFWORKSHEET·49!19(,33.Q;5),(5-21) 
30836 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

SB-Mini Accessory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.018</GPH>

SECTION ill - Confi~lll'.ation of Weapon [Detennination if weapon is.shoulder firedl 

LENG:rH OF PULL - wl;\ccessory.in R!'81: mqst ''Locked P~ition" *Measur.ed ftomthe center of the triAAert.o.the center ol'the 

Less than w,112 Inches 0 itionldei: device.I "stabilizing brace'' 

10-1/2 bnt under 11-112 luches 1 

ll-1/2 butunder 12-112 Inches 2 2 

12,J12 btiluriderB-1/2 luches 3 

B-1/2 Inches and Over 4 

,\TTACHMENT METHOO 

Stand\lrd AR,tvoe Piatol Euffer Tube (6·6,1/2 Inches) 0 0 

AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube.with Adjustment Notches (KAK,type) 1 

Atljustable Rifle Buffer Tube l 

Adjustable PD.W-type guide rails I 

E.ittendedARctype PistQI Buffer Tube 2 

Indusion.ofFoldmgAdapterextendinglength ofpull 2 

Use -Of"Spacers'' to extend length of pull 2 

Modified shonldei: stock with ~· replaced by''stabilizing bract<' 3 

Attachment method creates m unusable aim,point(slant) 3 

"STABILIZINGBRACE'' MODIFICATIONS/ CONFIGURATION 

'X)}ff.typt<' or"fin•type" design.with straptoo shott t-0 function 2 

''.Cuff,type'' or '<fin,type"· design with strap made ont of elastic material. 2 

"Fin.type" lacking Bit Mill strap 2 

"Cuff~e''. design with strap REMOVED 4 

'.'Brace'' acc.essory mod'lfied for: shouldering 4 

Modified Shonlder Stock (originally .a Shoulder Stock) 4 

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES 

Presence.of a Hand Stop 2 

Presence of asecondary.<3rip (indi<,ating,two-handedfire) 4 

Presence ofRifle•typeBack-up/Flip-up Sights I Orno sights I l 

Presl'!lce<if Reflea: !light wilh FT$. Magnifier.wt Limited Eye,Relief 2 

Presmce of a Sight/Scope with Eye. Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire 4 

Presence of a bipod I monopod 2 

Weapon as confignredweigh ing:more· than.120 ounces 4 * W ei!Uled with ma,razinc - nnloaded 

SECTION II[SCOREACHIEVED: 3 (A SCQ.RE OF JP<>iNTSOR.MOkEINDICATESJI SH<JtJiljJ!k .. Ff.REDD'Esl(;NJ 

CLASSIFICATION: Pistol with "stabilizin2 brace'' 

ATF WORKSHEET 4999. (5330,5)(5-21) 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30837 

Applying the criteria in Section I, the 

above firearm was determined to weigh 

approximately 91 ounces and have an 

overall length of 251⁄8 inches, and thus 

would be a suitable host firearm for a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory. In Section 

II, the firearm would score a total of 3 

points. The firearm with attached SBMini (sometimes referred to as the SBLMini) accessory would score 0 points in 

Accessory Design for not being based on 

a known shoulder stock design. In Rear 

Surface Area, the firearm would accrue 

2 points for possessing a rear surface 

useful for shouldering the firearm. In 

Adjustability, the firearm would accrue 

0 points for not being an adjustable 

design. Finally, in Stabilizing Support 

the firearm would accrue 1 point, as the 

flaps on the ‘‘Cuff-type’’ design only 

partially wrapped around a shooter’s 

forearm. As the firearm would score 3 

points in Section II, it would be able to 

proceed to Section III. 

Under Section III, the firearm would 

score a total of 3 points. In Length of 

Pull, the firearm was determined to 

possess a length of pull of 

approximately 113⁄8 inches; thereby it 

would accrue 2 points. In Attachment 

Method, the firearm would accrue 0 

points as the SB-Mini accessory is 

attached using a standard-length ARtype pistol buffer tube. In the 

‘‘Stabilizing Brace’’ Modification 

category, the firearm was determined to 

have no modifications, and would 

accrue 0 points. Finally, in the 

Peripheral Accessories, the firearm 

possessed rifle-type flip-up sights, 

which would accrue 1 point. As 

evaluated, no other accessories were 

installed onto the firearm. The firearm, 

in this configuration, would score a total 

of 3 points in this section, and 

accordingly would be determined not to 

be designed and intended to be fired 

from the shoulder. Therefore, since each 

section is evaluated separately, the 

firearm, as submitted, would be 

classified as a pistol with an attached 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory. 

B. AR-Type Firearm With SBA3 

Accessory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.019</GPH>
30838 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.020</GPH>

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACGO;FIREARMS ANDEXPLOSIVES 

FACTORINGCRlTElUA.FORRIFLED•BARRELWE:APONSWITH 

ACCESSQRIES* totnmonly refer~d to as "ST.IBIIJZING BR,\CF.S"' 

SUMMARY: This chart lists·the ractorsATF considers when evaluating a fltearln With an accessory (ctnnmonlyrd'erred toas a •stabllizfngbraces"l ftll' 

cla!!Slneauo:n.undtrthe:Nattonat Ftreatm$Act {NFA)ot theGun Control Act (GCA). 

NOTE. TheBllf',311 ()fAlcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and.Explosives reserves. !he rightto precludeclassification as apistol,wilh a; "stabilizingbraces" :fur any ftrearmlhat achieves. an 

apparent qualifying score hut ,s .an attemptto m\lkea:"shirt-barrel'ed rifle" and drcumventihe GCA or NFAa 

*As ilsedtn lhiswiiki,hecl, ihe teith "accessixy" is iritendedas.agenmil teith·to desci'ilie:tl1e marketing o(ifonisc<mrtioiilykiiiiwii.iis"stabifizirigllraces" imildoesiiotaffect l!lly 

ATF deternlinations: whether such items wlieti illtacbedto a handgun are, inf act, ,;atcessorielt' rtotnece~soifyfoc.tlie .opert,tioo of thefo,n~, but which i!:ilharice. itirnsefulness 

er etretliveneiis; rrwh~ertlier·are componentp1!ds·rieces.saiy to pro{ierly operate a Weapon, sili:h all a.rifle. Ftiitheriiiore, use.oflhat·tert:n does iiotaffect auy·.de@nttilitions 

whe:thersucliitem1n1re "dl,Thrlse articles;; U!1der tlie Amis E><poct Control Act Pleas~. direct Iii! mquiries. as to possilile lialiility f\ll' thefireamls l!lld ammurution excl$e tax; 

26U.S.R sci:tiotis21181-4l82 to lheUtiited States l)i;iiarttin:t\tcifTreas\Jfy; Akohi:ilimd Tooacci:iTilx ,ind.Trade Bureau (TIB). 

Weapon: 

AR-lypew/SB;Q acc.essocy 

SECTIO~I · PREREQlJISITES 

1. The weanon must welgll a ti east 64 ounces. 

2, The weapon must have an oyerall len<!th between .12 lllld 26 llitlielic 

Weapon must meet both.Prerequlliltes In, order. to pl'j)CCe() to Section IL 

INDIVIDUAL'CHARACmRISTICS 

SECTION II - Attessocy Chai'acteristics 

ACCESSORY DESIGN 

Not based on a known shouldet stock design 

lhcorporates moulder stock design fe;rture(s) 

Based ona known shoulder stock desi!!U 

REAR SURFACE AREA 

Devite iricotpotat~ fel1tllfes t\l preventuse a's a shouldeting device 

Minimize'dRellfSurfac~ lackingfeatUre$to discouf.jgeshouldering 

RearJ>urface useful for shouldering thefireomn 

Material added to increase Rear Surface for shoulderinil 

ADJUSTABILITY 

Non-adjustable, rtXed design 

Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for. shouldering 

STABILIZING SUPPORT 

.cotmtwalimce Design - NoiFFolding 

.couuterbalancebesign.thai.Fotds,creatine: Rear Contact.Sulfa~ 

OR: 

''.Fin- type~design WITIIArm Strap 

"Fin- type" design wrrnoUT Arm Strap 

OR: 

~Culf-type".design that.FULLYwraps.arourtd.ann 

"GufHype''designUiatPARTIALLXwrapSatill)lidlittti 

''Split-stock'' ci;mfiguration not desiguedto wrap around. sh~olel:'s ann 

SECTIONII.SCOREACHIEVED: 

Sectlon.IlMust. ScoreLES!tthan 4 ln.order,to proc;eedtltSectlonIIl 

89ounces 

25-1/8 

POINT POINT 

VALUE 

0 

2 

() 

2 

3. 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

l 

2 

SUB 

.TOTAL 

3 

2 

z 

Explanation: 

[Suitability of "Brace'' use] 

*Weighed with magazine -. unloaded / accessories removed 

.. Length mC11$1Ji'edwith an 11on-operational accessories rem·oved. 

----------------------1 

[Determination of use as a '°Brace" vs. Stock] 

*Wt,Joon fails to oro~eed fo Section Ill 

A.TI' WORKSHEET4999.(S3:305):(5~21) 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30839 

SBA3 Accessory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.021</GPH>

SECTION ill - Configuration of Weapon [Determination if weapon is shoulder fired] 

LENGTH OF PULL -·w/Atte§ory in-Rear most "Locked Position" * Measured from the center of the trigger lo the center of the 

Less than 10-1/2 Inches 0 shoulder device/ "stabilizine. brace" 

10-1/2 but under 11-1!2 Inches 1 

11-1/2 but under 12-1/2 Inches 2 

12-1/2 but under 13-1/2 Inches 3 3 

13-1/2 Inches andOver 4 

ATTACHMENT METHOD 

Standard AR-type PistotBuffer Tube (6-6-lf2 Inches) 0 

• .\R:type.Pistol Buffer Tube with MjuSl])lent Notches (K..-',K-type) 1 

Mjustable Rifle Buffu-Tube l 1 

Adjustable PDW-type guide rails 1 

Extended AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube 2 

Jnclusion ofFolding Adapter eKtending length of pull 2 

Use of"Spacers" to extend length.ofpull 2 

Modified shoulder-stock with rear replaced by "stabilizing brace" 3 

Attachment method creates an unusable aim-point (slant)_ 3 

"STABILIZli"IG BRACE" MODIFICATIONS I CONFIGURATION 

''Cuff-type' or "fin-type'.' design w1th strap too short to function 2 

"Cuff-type" or "fin-type" designwith strap made out of elastic material .2 

"Fin-type" lacking an arm strap 2 

"Cuff-type" design with strap REMOVED 4 

"Brace" accessory modified for shouldering 4 

Modified Shoulder Stock ( originally a Shoulder Stock) 4 

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES 

·Presence of a Hand Stop 2 

Presence of a Secondary.Grip (indicating two-handed fire) 4 

Presence of Rifle-type Back-up J Flip-up SighIB 1 Or no sighIB 1 1 

Presence of Reflex Sight with FTS Magnifier wt Limited Eye-Relief 2 

Pre_sence of a Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire 4 

·Presence of a bipod I monopod 2 

Weapon.as configured weighing more than 120 ounces 4 * Weighed with magazine - unloaded 

SECTION Ill SCORE ACHIEVED: 5 i,4 SCORE OF 4POINTSOR MORE INDICATES A SHOULDER-FiREDDitsIGN) 

CLASSIFICATION: Rifle /"'short-barreled rifle" A1F WORKSHEET 4999(5:130.5}(5-21) 
30840 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

ATF evaluated an AR-type firearm 

with the SBA3 accessory, and would 

determine the above firearm to be 

designed and intended to be fired from 

the shoulder. Applying the criteria in 

Section I, the firearm was determined to 

weigh approximately 89 ounces and 

have an overall length of 251⁄8 inches, 

and thus would be a suitable host 

firearm for a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

accessory. In Section II, the firearm 

would score a total of 8 points, 

precluding it from proceeding to Section 

III. The firearm with attached SBA3 

would accrue 1 point in Accessory 

Design for incorporating known 

shoulder stock features, such as an 

adjustment lever, a Quick Detach (QD) 

sling mount, and incorporation of 

hardened polymer-type material. In Rear 

Surface Area, the firearm would accrue 

3 points, as the SBA3 accessory has 

additional rear surface material added 

for use in shouldering. In Adjustability, 

the firearm would accrue 2 points for 

being an adjustable design. Finally, in 

Stabilizing Support the firearm would 

accrue 2 point, as the flaps on the ‘‘Cufftype’’ design fail to wrap around a 

shooter’s forearm. 

Although an evaluation under Section 

III is not necessary as the firearm would 

have already been determined to be 

designed to be fired from the shoulder, 

the firearm was further evaluated for 

informational purposes. Under Section 

III, the firearm would score a total of 5 

points. In Length of Pull, the firearm 

was determined to possess a length of 

pull of approximately 121⁄2 inches; 

thereby it would accrue 3 points. In 

Attachment Method, the firearm would 

accrue 1 point as the SBA3 accessory 

utilizes an M4-type rifle buffer tube. 

Under the ‘‘Stabilizing Brace’’ 

Modification category, the firearm was 

determined to have no modifications, 

and would accrue 0 points. Finally, in 

Peripheral Accessories, the firearm 

possessed rifle-type flip-up sights, and 

thereby would accrue 1 point. As 

evaluated, no other aftermarket 

components or accessories were 

installed onto the firearm. The firearm, 

in this configuration, would score a total 

of 5 points in this section, and would be 

determined to be designed and intended 

to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, 

the evaluated firearm, as submitted, 

would be classified as a ‘‘rifle.’’ Further, 

having a rifled barrel less than 16 inches 

in length, the firearm would be properly 

classified as a ‘‘short-barreled rifle’’ and 

an NFA ‘‘firearm.’’ 

C. AR-Type Firearm With Shockwave 

Blade Accessory 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30841 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.023</GPH>

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, F1REARl\,fS AND EXPLOSIVES 

FACTORING CRITERIA FOR RIFLED BARREL WEAPONS WITH 

ACCESSORIES* commonly referred to as "STABILIZING BRACES" 

SUl\1MARY: This chart lists the ractors ATF considers when evaluating a firearm with an accessory (commonly referred to as a "stabilizing braces") for 

classification under· the National Firearms Act (NFA) or the Gun Control Act (GCA). 

NOTE: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reserves the right to preclude classification as a pistol with a "stabilizing braces" for any firearm that achieves an 

apparent qualifying score but is an attempt to make a "short-barreled rifle" aud circumvent the GCA or NFA. 

•As used in this worksheet, the term "accessory" is intended as a general term to describe the marketing of items conimonly known as "stabilizing braces" and does not affect auy 

ATF determinations \\-itether such items when attached to a handgun are, in fact, '~accessories'' not necessary for the operation of the handgun. but which enhance its usefulness 

or effectiveness, or wt,ether 1hey are component parts necessary to propet'ly qierate a weapon, such as a rifle. FUltherm,~·e, use of that term does not affect any determinations 

whether such items are "defense articles" under the Arms Export Control Act. Please direct all inquiries as to possible liability for the firearms and aunnunition excise tax, 

26 U.S.C. sections 4181-4182 to the United States Department ofTreasmy, Alcohol aud Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). 

Weaoon: "Rxnlanation: 

Manufacturer/Model 

SECTION I - PREREQUISITES fSuitabilitv of "Brace" use l 

l. The weapon must wele;h at least 64 ounces. 93ounces * Weighed with magazine - unloaded/ accessories removed 

2. The weapon must have an overall length between 12 and 26 Inches. 23 * Length measured with all non-operational accessories removed 

Weapon must meet both Prerequisites In order to proceed to Section IL 

POINT POINT 

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS VALUE SUB 

TOTAL 

SECTION II - Accessory Characteristics fDetermination of use as a "Brace" vs. Stock] 

ACCESSORY DESIGN 

Not based on a known shoulder stock design 0 0 

Incorporates shoulder stock design featnre(s) 1 

Based on a known shoulder stock design 2 

REAR SURFACE AREA 

Device incorporates features to prevent use as a shouldering device 0 

Minimized Rear Surface lacking features to discourage shouldering 1 1 

Rear Surface useful for shouldering the firearm 2 

Material added to increase Rear Surface for shouldering 3 

ADJUST ABILITY 

Non-adjustable, fixed design 0 

Adjustable or telescoping attachment designed for shouldering 2 2 

STABILIZING SUPPORT 

Counterbalance Design - Non-Folding 0 

Counterbalance Design that Folds creating Rear Contact Surface 1 

OR: 

"Fin- type" design WITH Arm Strap 0 

"Fin- type" design WITHOUT Arm Strap 2 2 

OR: 

"Cuff-type" design that FULLY wraps around arm 0 

"Cuff-type" design that PARTIALLY wraps around arm I 

"Cuff-type" design that FAILS to wrap around arm 2 

"Split-stock" configuration Mt designed to wrnp around shooters ann 3 

SECTION II SCORE ACHIEVED: 5 Section IlMust Score LESS than 4 In order to proceed to Section III *Weapon fails to proceed to Section III 

ATF WORKSHEET 4999 (5330.5) (5-21) 
30842 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Shockwave Blade Accessory on KAK 

Tube Without Strap 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.024</GPH>

SECTION III• Confi2m·ation ofWeaoon fDetennination.if weaoon is shoulder firedl 

LENGTH OF PULL • w/Accessorv in Rear most"Locked Position" * Measured from the center of the trfager to the center of the 

Less than 10-1/2 Inches 0 shoulder device/ "stabilizin_g brace" 

10·1/2 but under 11-1/2 Jnches 1 

11-112 but under 12-112 Jn.ches 2 

1.2-1/2 but under 13-112 Inches 3 3 

13-112 lnches and Over 4 

ATTACHMENT METHOD 

Standard AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube (6-6-1/2 Inches) 0 

AR-type Pistol Buffer Tube with Adiustment Notches (!(AK-type) 1 I 

Adjustable Rifle Buffer Tube 1 

Adjustable PDW-type guide rails 1 

Extended AR-twe Pistol Buffer Tube 2 

Inclusion ofFoldingAdapter extending length of pull 2 

Use of"Spacers" tQ extend length of pull 2 

Modified shoulder stock with rear replaced by ''stabilizing brace" 3 

Attachment method creates an unusable aim-point (slant) 3 

"STABILIZING BRACE" MODIFICATIONS I CONFIGURATION 

"Cuff-.type" or "fin-type:' design with strap too shmt to.functfon 2 

"Cuff-type" or "fin-type" design with strap made out of elastic material 2 

"Fin-type" tacking an arm strap .2 z 

"Cuft~type" design with strap REMOVED 4 

"Brace" accessory modified for shouldering 4 

Modified Shoulder Stock (originally a Shoulder Stock) 4 

PERIPHERAL ACCESSORIES 

Presence of a Hand Stop 2 

Presence of a. Secondary Grip (indicating two-handed fire) 4 4 

Presence of Rifle-type Back-up I Flip-up Sights I or no sights 1 

Presence .of Reflex Sight with FTS Magnifier w/ Limited Eye-Relief 2 

Presence of a Sight/Scope with Eye Relief Incompatible with one-handed fire 4 4 

Presence of a bipod I monopod 2 

Weapon as configui'ed weigh i11g more th an l 20. ounces 4 ~ Weighed with magazine - unloaded 

SECTION III SCORE A.CHIEVED: 14 t,t SCORE OF 4 POINTS OR MORE INDICt-tTES A SHOlTLDER-FIRED DESIGNj 

CLASSJFJCA110N: Rifle / "short-barreled rifle" 

ATF WORKSHEET 4999.(5330.5) (5-21) 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30843 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–C 

ATF evaluated an AR-type firearm 

with the Shockwave Blade accessory, 

and would determine that the firearm, 

as configured, would be designed and 

intended to be fired from the shoulder. 

Applying the criteria in Section I, the 

firearm was determined to weigh 

approximately 93 ounces and have an 

overall length of 23 inches, and thus 

would be a suitable host firearm for a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ accessory. In Section 

II, the submitted firearm would score a 

total of 5 points, precluding it from 

proceeding to Section III. The submitted 

firearm with attached Shockwave Blade 

accessory would accrue 0 points in 

Accessory Design for not incorporating 

known shoulder stock features, such as 

an adjustment lever. In Rear Surface 

Area, the firearm would accrue 1 point, 

as the Shockwave Blade accessory has 

minimized rear surface area 

discouraging shouldering. In 

Adjustability, the firearm would accrue 

2 points because it is installed onto a 

KAK-type tube that incorporates 

adjustment notches for adjustability. 

Finally, in Stabilizing Support, the 

firearm would accrue 2 points for being 

submitted without an arm strap—greatly 

reducing any stabilizing support. 

Although an evaluation under Section 

III would not be necessary as the firearm 

would already have been determined to 

be designed to be fired from the 

shoulder, the firearm was further 

evaluated for informational purposes. 

Under Section III, the firearm would 

score a total of 14 points. In Length of 

Pull, the firearm was determined to 

possess a length of pull of 

approximately 131⁄4 inches, and thereby 

would accrue 3 points. In Attachment 

Method, the firearm would accrue 1 

point as the Shockwave Blade accessory 

utilizes a KAK tube with adjustment 

notches. Under the ‘‘Stabilizing Brace’’ 

Modification category, the firearm 

would accrue 2 points for lack of an arm 

strap. Finally, in Peripheral Accessories, 

the firearm would accrue an additional 

8 points. The firearm was submitted 

with a secondary forward grip, a 

determinative indicator that the weapon 

is not designed to be held and fired with 

one hand; thereby it would accrue 4 

points. Further, the firearm would 

accrue an additional 4 points due to it 

being submitted with a scope that has 

incompatible eye relief for one-handed 

firing (where the weapon must be fired 

from the shoulder in order to use the 

sight). The submitted firearm, as 

configured, would score a total of 14 

points in this section, and would be 

determined to be designed and intended 

to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, 

the firearm would be classified as a 

‘‘rifle.’’ Further, having a rifled barrel 

less than 16 inches in length, the 

firearm would be properly classified as 

a ‘‘short-barreled rifle’’ and an NFA 

‘‘firearm.’’ 

V. Options for Affected Persons 

As mentioned, ATF wants to assist 

affected persons or companies and is 

providing additional information to aid 

them in complying with Federal laws 

and regulations. Below are options for 

those persons that may be affected upon 

publication of a final rule. 

A. Current Unlicensed Possessors 

In order to comply with the 

provisions of the NFA, current 

unlicensed possessors of a firearm 

equipped with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ and 

a barrel length of less than 16 inches 

that would qualify as a ‘‘short-barreled 

rifle’’ as indicated on the ATF 

Worksheet 4999 contained in this 

proposed rule would need to take one 

of the following actions before the 

effective date of a final rule. 

(1) Permanently remove or alter the 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ such that it cannot 

be reattached, thus converting the 

firearm back to its original pistol 

configuration (as long as it was 

originally configured without a stock 

and as a pistol) and thereby removing it 

from regulation as a ‘‘firearm’’ under the 

NFA. Exercising this option would 

mean the pistol would no longer be 

‘‘equipped with’’ the stabilizing brace 

within the meaning of the proposed 

rule. 

(2) Remove the short barrel and attach 

a 16-inch or longer barrel to the firearm 

thus removing it from the provisions of 

the NFA. 

(3) Destroy the firearm. ATF will 

publish information regarding proper 

destruction on its website, www.atf.gov. 

(4) Turn the firearm into your local 

ATF office. 

(5) Complete and submit an 

Application to Make and Register a 

Firearm, ATF Form 1 (‘‘Form 1’’). As 

part of the submission, the $200 tax 

payment is required with the 

application. Pursuant to 27 CFR 

479.102, the name, city, and state of the 

maker of the firearm must be properly 

marked on the firearm. All other 

markings, placed by the original 

manufacturer, should be adopted. Proof 

of submission of the Form 1 should be 

maintained by all possessors. 

Documentation establishing submission 

of Form 1 includes, but is not limited 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP10JN21.025</GPH>
30844 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

to, eForm submission 

acknowledgement, proof of payment, or 

copy of Form 1 submission with 

postmark documentation. 

B. Federal Firearms Licensees Not 

Having Paid Special (Occupational) Tax 

(‘‘SOT’’) as a Class 2 Manufacturer 

Under the NFA 

In order to comply with the 

provisions of the NFA, Federal firearm 

licensees not having paid SOT as a Class 

2 manufacturer under the NFA currently 

in possession of a firearm equipped 

with a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ and a barrel 

length of less than 16 inches that would 

qualify as a ‘‘short-barreled rifle’’ under 

the ATF Worksheet 4999 contained in 

this proposed rule would be required to 

take one of the following actions before 

the effective date of a final rule. 

(1) Options 1–4 listed above. 

(2) Complete and submit an ATF 

Form 1. As part of the submission, the 

$200 tax payment is required with the 

application. Pursuant to 27 CFR 

479.102, the name, city, and state of the 

maker of the firearm must be properly 

marked on the firearm. All other 

markings, placed by the original 

manufacturer, should be adopted. Proof 

of submission of the Form 1 should be 

maintained by all possessors. 

Documentation establishing submission 

of Form 1 includes, but is not limited 

to, eForm submission 

acknowledgement, proof of payment, or 

copy of Form 1 submission with 

postmark documentation. An importer, 

manufacturer, or dealer licensed under 

the GCA, but not the NFA, may not 

engage in the business of dealing in 

NFA firearms prior to compliance with 

the payment of the SOT. 

C. Manufacturers Licensed Under GCA 

and Qualified Under NFA 

In order to comply with the 

provisions of the NFA, manufacturers 

licensed under the GCA and having 

paid SOT as a Class 2 manufacturer 

under the NFA currently in possession 

of a firearm equipped with a ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ and a barrel length of less than 

16 inches that would qualify as a ‘‘shortbarreled rifle’’ as indicated on the ATF 

Worksheet 4999 contained in this 

proposed rule would be required to take 

one of the following actions before the 

effective date of a final rule. 

(1) Options 1–4 listed above. 

(2) Complete and submit an ATF 

Form 2, Notice of Firearms 

Manufactured or Imported. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Review 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) directs agencies 

to assess the costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic benefits, environmental 

benefits, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review) emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this 

proposed rule is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ that is economically 

significant under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, because the rule 

will have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. 

Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 

by OMB. As required by OMB Circular 

A–4 (available at http://

www.whitehouse.gov), ATF has 

prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of 

expenditures associated with the NPRM. 

TABLE 1—OMB ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

Category Primary 

estimate 

Minimum 

estimate 

Maximum 

estimate 

Units 

Notes Dollar 

year Disc (%) 

Period 

covered 

(years) 

Benefits 

Annualized monetized benefits ($ Millions/year) ................. N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

10 

10 

Annualized quantified ........................................................... N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

10 

10 

Qualitative ............................................................................ —Prevents manufacturers and individuals from circumventing the 

requirements of the NFA. 

—Enhances public safety by reducing the criminal use of such firearms, 

which are easily concealable from the public and first responders. 

Costs 

Annualized monetized costs ($ Millions/year) ..................... $125.7 

114.7 

$125.7 

114.7 

$303.5 

278.2 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

10 

10 

Annualized quantified ........................................................... N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

10 

10 

Qualitative (unquantified) ..................................................... N/A 

Transfers 

Federal Annualized Monetized ($ Millions/year) ................. $20.1 

17.2 

$20.1 

17.2 

$46.7 

40.0 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

10 

10 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30845 

TABLE 1—OMB ACCOUNTING STATEMENT—Continued 

Category Primary 

estimate 

Minimum 

estimate 

Maximum 

estimate 

Units 

Notes Dollar 

year Disc (%) 

Period 

covered 

(years) 

From/To ................................................................................ From: Individuals and FFLs To: Federal Government 

Other Annualized monetized transfers ($ Million/year) ....... N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

2020 

2020 

7 

3 

10 

10 

From/To ................................................................................ From: N/A To: N/A 

Effects 

State, local, and/or tribal governments ................................ The rule would not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, 

significant or unique effect on small governments, or have Federalism 

or Tribal implications. 

Small businesses ................................................................. Approximately 3 manufactures of ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ would be 

significantly affected by more than 10% of their revenue. May affect 

13,210 Type 1 FFLs and 3,881 Type 7 FFLs. Most Type 1 FFLs are 

small businesses, but likely would need to make less than $2,357 in 

revenue to have an impact of 10 percent or more. 

Wages .................................................................................. N/A 

Growth .................................................................................. N/A 

Table 2 summarizes the affects that 

this proposed rule would have on the 

industry and public. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF AFFECTED POPULATION, COSTS, AND BENEFITS

Category Affected populations, costs, and benefits 

Affected Population ............................................................ • 8 Manufacturers of affected ‘‘stabilizing braces.’’ 

• 3,881 Manufacturers of ‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ that have a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ attachment. 

• 13,210 Dealers of ‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ that have a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ attachment. 

• 1.4 million firearm owners who have purchased pistols with ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ attached and those who intend to purchase them in the future. 

Costs (annualized) ............................................................. • $125.7 million at 7%. 

• $114.7 million at 3%. 

Total Quantified from Industry, to the Government 

(annualized).

• $20.1 million at 7% 

• $17.2 million at 3%. 

Unquantified Benefits ......................................................... • Prevents manufacturers and individuals from circumventing the requirements of the 

NFA. 

• Enhances public safety by reducing the criminal use of such firearms, which are 

easily concealable from the public and first responders. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

One of the reasons ATF is considering 

this proposed regulation is the failure of 

the market to compensate for negative 

externalities caused by commercial 

activity. A negative externality can be 

the by-product of a transaction between 

two parties that is not accounted for in 

the transaction. A negative externality 

addressed by this proposed rule is that 

individuals and manufacturers may try 

to use purported ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

and affix them to firearms to circumvent 

the requirements of the NFA, which 

requires registration and taxes to be paid 

on the making and transfer of NFA 

weapons. Further, Congress chose to 

regulate these items more stringently, 

finding them to be especially dangerous 

to the community if not regulated since 

they are used for violence and criminal 

activity. See United States v. Gonzalez, 

No. 2:10–cr–00967 CW, 2011 WL 

5288727, at *5 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2011) 

(‘‘Congress specifically found that 

‘short-barreled rifles are primarily 

weapons of war and have no 

appropriate sporting use or use for 

personal protection.’’ (quoting S. Rep. 

No. 90–1501, at 28 (1968))). Therefore, 

if persons can circumvent the NFA by 

effectively making unregistered ‘‘shortbarreled rifles’’ by using an accessory 

such as a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ these 

weapons can continue to proliferate and 

could pose an increased public safety 

problem given that they are easily 

concealable. 

Population 

Based on subject matter experts 

(‘‘SMEs’’), ATF estimates that there are 

at least eight manufacturers of 

‘‘stabilizing braces.’’ Anecdotal 

evidence from the manufacturers of the 

affected ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ indicates 

that the manufacturers have sold 

between 3 million and 7 million 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ between the years 

2013 to 2020 or over the course of eight 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30846 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

21https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/barrelparts/rifle-barrels/ar-15-6mm-arc-barrels-heavyprofile-prod135844.aspx (accessed May 10, 2021); 

https://www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/mossberg92062-rifled-barrel-wsights-gauge-slug-p13798.html (accessed May 10, 2021); https://

www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/mossberg-90831-ultibarrel-wparkerized-finish-accu-chokes-gauge-ultislug-p-13809.html (accessed May 10, 2021); https:// 

www.gunpartscorp.com/category/barrels/riflebarrels/sig-sauer/516-sig (accessed May 10, 2021); 

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/category/barrels/ 

rifle-barrels/sig-sauer/516-sig (accessed May 10, 

2021); https://www.gunpartscorp.com/category/ 

barrels/rifle-barrels/colt/lightning-cf-rifle (accessed 

May 10, 2021); https://www.midwayusa.com/ 

product/1017600744 (accessed May 10, 2021); 

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1017600744 

(accessed May 10, 2021); https://

www.midwayusa.com/product/1017600744 

(accessed May 10, 2021); https://

www.midwayusa.com/product/1023207522 

(accessed May 10, 2021). 

22https://www.aeroprecisionusa.com/ar15-atlasr-one-m-lok-handguard (accessed Apr. 14, 2021); 

https://slrrifleworks.com/hand-guards/5-56- 

handguards/ion-series/ion-ultra-lite/ (accessed Apr. 

14, 2021); https://www.odinworks.com/O2_Lite_M_

LOK_Forend_p/f-12-ml-o2.htm (accessed Apr. 14, 

2021);. https://seekinsprecision.com/noxs-mlokrail-1-1.html (accessed Apr. 14, 2021). 

23 $410 = $198 + $212. 

24 $132 = (($16.52 leisure hourly wage * 4 hours)) 

* 2 applications. 

25 $985 = (($82.08 average loaded hourly wage * 

4 hours)) * 3 applications. 

26 $47 = $62.93 average loaded hourly wage * 0.75 

hours. 

27https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/sba3/ 

(accessed Apr. 22, 2021); https://www.sbtactical.com/product/sbm47/(accessed Apr. 22, 

2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/hkpdw/ 

(accessed Apr. 22, 2021); https://www.sbtactical.com/product/tac13-sba3/(accessed Apr. 22, 

2021); https://www.sb-tactical.com/product/czpdw/ 

(accessed Apr. 22, 2021); https://www.sbtactical.com/product/fs1913/(accessed Apr. 22, 

2021); https://www.pewpewtactical.com/best-ar-15- 

pistols/(accessed Apr. 22, 2021). 

28 $443.9 million = ((905,523 individuals * 2 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’) + (10,642 Type 1 FFLs * 3 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’) + (1,263 Type 7 FFLs * 32 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’)) * $236 cost of brace. 

29 211,178 future ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ = 375,000 

annual ‘‘stabilizing braces’’¥(13,210 Type 1 FFL * 

3 stabilizing braces)¥(3,881 Type 7 FFL * 32 

stabilizing braces). 

years. For the purposes of this analysis, 

ATF uses 3 million as the low estimate 

and primary estimate of affected 

‘‘stabilizing braces.’’ This proposed rule 

may affect upwards of 1.4 million 

individuals, 13,210 Type 1 Federal 

Firearms Licensees (‘‘FFLs’’), and 3,881 

Type 7 FFLs. For more details, please 

refer to Chapter 2 and each of the 

specific cost chapters of the standalone 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (‘‘RIA’’) for 

this proposed rule. 

Scenario 1: Turn in Firearm to ATF 

One option for current owners of 

firearms with ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ to 

comply with the proposed rule would 

be to turn in the firearm with the 

attached stabilizing brace to ATF for 

disposal. As the individual possessing 

the firearm would be permitted to 

simply remove the ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ 

and dispose of it, while retaining the 

firearm, ATF believes it would be 

unlikely that individuals would turn in 

their entire firearm into ATF to be 

destroyed. As ATF does not anticipate 

anyone choosing to turn in a firearm 

with an attached stabilizing brace into 

ATF for disposal, so no cost was 

attributed to this scenario. Because 

braces themselves, as firearm 

accessories or components, are generally 

not regulated items, ATF requests 

comments regarding the population, 

methodology, and scope of this 

scenario. 

Scenario 2: Convert Firearm Into a LongBarreled Rifle 

Another scenario is for individuals 

and FFLs to retain the ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ but convert the firearm into a 

firearm under the GCA rather than 

under the NFA. More specifically, they 

may convert the firearm into a longbarreled rife. ATF anticipates the 

minimum need is to purchase a long 

barrel and handrails. The average cost of 

a long barrel is $198.21 The average cost 

for handrails is $212,22 making the cost 

per firearm $410.23 ATF estimates that 

the average affected individual may own 

approximately two firearms with an 

attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ while 

affected FFLs own an average of 3 

firearms with an attached ‘‘stabilizing 

brace.’’ The total cost for this scenario 

is $125.1 million. For more details, 

please refer to Chapter 4 of the 

standalone RIA. Because braces 

themselves are generally not regulated 

items, ATF requests comments 

regarding the population, methodology, 

and scope of this scenario. 

Scenario 3: Apply To Register Under the 

NFA 

Individuals and FFLs could keep their 

firearms with attached ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ and apply to register under the 

NFA. Under this scenario, individuals 

and Type 1 FFL dealers would need to 

complete a Form 1 for each and every 

firearm affected by this proposed rule. 

Type 7 FFL manufacturers would 

complete a Form 2 for all their affected 

firearms in inventory. FFLs would then 

be able to sell these firearms with 

attached ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ as NFA 

weapons to individuals who wish to 

purchase them. The estimated cost for 

an individual to apply for two firearms 

with attached ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

would be $132.24 The cost per Type 1 

FFL to fill out 3 Form 1s is $985.25 The 

cost per Type 7 FFL to fill out one Form 

2 is $47.26 The total industry cost to this 

scenario is a one-time cost of $51.3 

million. While individuals and Type 1 

FFLs would need to pay a $200 makings 

tax per firearm under the NFA, because 

this cost is a transfer payment from 

industry to the Federal Government, the 

transfer payment of these taxes is 

described under section 7.2 of the 

standalone RIA. For more details, please 

refer to Chapter 5 of the standalone RIA. 

Because braces themselves are generally 

not regulated items, ATF requests 

comments regarding the population, 

methodology, and scope of this 

scenario. 

Scenario 4: Permanently Remove or 

Alter Affected ‘‘Stabilizing Braces’’ 

Currently in Circulation and Foregone 

Future Sales 

Under this scenario, all parties 

affected could simply permanently 

remove or alter their ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ as they see fit. However, ATF 

has determined this would be a loss of 

property. There are various types of 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ that would be 

affected by this proposed rule. We 

assume that the lost value to owners of 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ would be at least 

as much as the cost of a new ‘‘stabilizing 

brace.’’ The average cost for a 

‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is $236.27 At 1.9 

million ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ affected 

under this scenario, ATF estimates that 

the cost for disposing of currently 

existing ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ would be 

$443.9 million.28

While these ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ have 

been purchased over the course of eight 

years, ATF uses that information to 

estimate the future sales of these 

affected ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ forgone. 

However, in lieu of promulgating a 

proposed regulation, ATF has been and 

will continue to use enforcement 

actions, to include criminal actions, 

against existing FFLs that manufacture 

firearms that do not comply with the 

intent of the law. ATF estimates that in 

the absence of this proposed rule, these 

individual enforcement actions against 

existing FFLs would change the market 

perception of these ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

and may affect the overall demand for 

these items regardless of the 

implementation of the proposed rule. 

Therefore, ATF estimates that the 

overall future demand for ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ would decrease by the 

estimated amount attributed to Type 1 

and Type 7 FFLs, making the primary 

estimate of future ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

211,178 per year.29 Thus, ATF estimates 

that this scenario would mean a loss of 

$49.7 million in sales per year. 

For more details, please refer to 

Chapter 6 of the standalone RIA. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30847 

30However, the real cost to the individual or FFL 

would be minimal since filling out the form would 

not necessarily incur an out-of-pocket cost and the 

tax would not be incurred either. 

Because braces themselves are not 

regulated items, ATF requests 

comments regarding the population, 

methodology, and scope of this 

scenario. 

Total Cost of the Proposed Rule 

This section summarizes the total 

costs of this proposed rule as described 

throughout this RIA. As noted in 

Chapter 5 of the standalone RIA, $151.0 

million was not accounted for in 

Chapter 5 due to the NFA tax. Because 

it would be considered a transfer 

payment from the public to the Federal 

Government, it was not included in the 

societal cost of the rule. The annualized 

cost of this proposed rule would be 

$114.7 million and $125.7 million, at 3 

percent and 7 percent, respectively. At 

this time, the government cost of this 

proposed rule was not included in this 

cost assessment. 

Benefits 

This proposed rule would affect 

attempts by manufacturers and 

individuals to circumvent the 

requirements of the NFA and would 

affect the criminal use of weapons with 

a purported ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ such as 

the shooting incident at the King 

Soopers in Boulder, Colorado. The 

purpose of this proposed rule is to 

amend ATF regulations to clarify when 

a rifle is ‘‘intended to be fired from the 

shoulder’’ and to set forth factors that 

ATF considers when evaluating firearms 

with an attached purported ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ to determine whether these are 

‘‘rifles’’ under the GCA or NFA, and 

therefore whether they are ‘‘firearms’’ 

subject to the NFA. Congress placed 

stricter requirements on the making and 

possession of ‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ 

because it found them to pose a 

significant crime problem. Providing 

clarity to the public and industry on 

how ATF enforces the provisions of the 

NFA through this proposed rule 

significantly enhances public safety and 

could reduce the criminal use of such 

firearms, which are easily concealable 

from the public and first responders. 

Alternatives 

This section outlines the various 

alternatives considered when creating 

this proposed rule. For a more detailed 

analysis, please refer to Chapters 1 and 

10 of the RIA. 

Proposed Alternative—Factoring 

Criteria for Firearms with Attached 

Stabilizing Braces. This proposed 

alternative would amend the definitions 

of rifle in 27 CFR 478.11 and 27 CFR 

479.11 to indicate that a rifle includes 

any weapon with a rifled barrel 

equipped with an accessory or 

component purported to assist the 

shooter to stabilize the weapon while 

shooting with one hand, commonly 

referred to as a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ that 

has objective design features and 

characteristics that facilitate shoulder 

fire as described in ATF Worksheet 

4999. 

Alternative 1—No change alternative. 

This alternative has no costs or benefits 

because it is maintaining the existing 

status quo. This alternative was 

considered and not implemented 

because the NFA requires regulation of 

certain types of firearms above what is 

required under the GCA. 

Alternative 2—Simple Criteria. This 

alternative would provide very short 

and simple parameters in terms of how 

a ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ or stock would be 

defined, such as length only. This 

alternative would be easy for the public 

to read and understand. Where this was 

feasible, ATF has incorporated these 

simple and easy to follow parameters. 

Alternative 3—Grandfather all 

existing firearms with an attached 

‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ In order to enforce 

the regulation, a complete 

grandfathering of existing firearms with 

an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ is 

problematic in that manufacturers could 

continue to produce these items that are 

actually ‘‘rifles’’ under the statutory 

definition and subject to the NFA and 

market them as grandfathered firearms 

with an attached ‘‘stabilizing brace’’ not 

subject to the same regulation. This 

could potentially pose an enforcement 

issue that may not be resolved for years 

if not decades. 

Alternative 4—Guidance documents. 

This alternative would publish a 

guidance document instead of a 

rulemaking. While this alternative 

minimizes cost because compliance in 

this scenario would be voluntary, it 

does not meet the objectives outlined in 

this proposed rule as guidance 

documents do not have the same force 

and effect as a regulation. Guidance 

documents do not in and of themselves 

impose binding legal obligations. This 

would pose an enforcement issue. 

Moreover, issuing a proposed rule 

invites comments from the public, 

creating greater transparency and notice. 

Alternative 5—Forgiveness of the 

NFA Tax. This alternative would allow 

individuals and entities that currently 

have firearms with attached ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ to apply and register firearms 

under the NFA without paying the $200 

making tax. In this scenario, the societal 

costs would be the same except there 

would be no transfer payment. Similar 

to the proposed rule, the bulk of this 

cost would be the foregone future 

revenue and the loss in property for 

individuals not applying under the 

NFA.30 This scenario was rejected 

because ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ are not 

serialized and an individual or entity 

could merely register all firearms 

possessed with the intent of later 

obtaining a ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ Further, 

although the ‘‘brace’’ is used on a 

particular weapon, an individual might 

register all pistols as SBRs and then 

attempt to utilize other stocks on these 

firearms. 

B. Executive Order 13132 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132 (Federalism), the Attorney 

General has determined that this 

proposed rule 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). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), ATF prepared 

an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) that examines the 

impacts of the proposed rule on small 

entities (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 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 fewer than 50,000 

people. 

Summary of Findings 

ATF performed an IRFA of the 

impacts on small businesses and other 

entities from the Factoring Criteria for 

Firearms with Attached ‘‘Stabilizing 

Braces’’ proposed rule [2021R–08] . We 

performed this assessment using the 

cost information discussed in chapters 2 

through 7 of the RIA. 

Based on the information from this 

analysis, we found: 

• ATF estimates that this proposed 

rule would potentially affect at least 8 

manufactures of ‘‘stabilizing braces.’’ 

Based on SME commentary, it is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30848 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

31Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, 

sec. 2(b), 94 Stat. 1164 (1980). 

anticipated 3 of them would go out of 

business; 

• ATF also anticipates that this 

proposed rule would affect 17,091 FFLs, 

many of whom would be considered 

small businesses; 

• However, the highest anticipated 

cost to would be if a Type 1 FFL had 

24 ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ (the high 

estimate that a Type 1 FFL may have) 

and opted to file under the NFA. Should 

they own 24 arm braces and opt to 

apply under the NFA, ATF anticipates 

these FFLs would need to make 

$111,855 in revenue or less in order to 

incur an impact of 10 percent or more. 

• There are no relevant government 

entities. 

Preliminary Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis 

The RFA establishes that agencies 

must try to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this goal, 

agencies must solicit and consider 

flexible regulatory proposals and 

explain the rationale for their actions to 

assure that such proposals are given 

serious consideration.31

Under the RFA, we are required to 

consider what, if any, impact this rule 

would have on small entities. Agencies 

must perform a review to determine 

whether a rule will have such an 

impact. Because the agency has 

determined that it will have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the agency has 

prepared an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis as described in the RFA. 

Under section 603(b) of the RFA, the 

regulatory flexibility analysis must 

provide 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 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule; and 

• Descriptions of any significant 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

accomplish the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes and that minimize 

any significant economic impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

A Description of the Reasons Why 

Action by the Agency Is Being 

Considered 

One of the reasons ATF is considering 

this proposed rule is the failure of the 

market to compensate for negative 

externalities caused by commercial 

activity. A negative externality can be 

the by-product of a transaction between 

two parties that is not accounted for in 

the transaction. A negative externality 

addressed by this proposed rule is that 

individuals and manufacturers may try 

to use purported ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

and affix them to firearms to circumvent 

the requirements of the NFA, which 

requires registration and taxes to be paid 

on the making and transfer of NFA 

weapons. If persons can circumvent the 

NFA by effectively making unregistered 

‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ by using an 

accessory such as a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ 

these weapons can continue to 

proliferate and could pose an increased 

public safety problem given that they 

are easily concealable. 

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. This 

responsibility 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)(A), 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 U.S.C. 599A(b)(1); 28 

CFR 0.130(a)(1)–(2). Accordingly, the 

Department and ATF have promulgated 

regulations implementing both the GCA 

and the NFA. See 27 CFR parts 478, 479. 

This proposed rule would prevent 

persons from circumventing the NFA by 

using arm braces as stocks on ‘‘shortbarreled rifles’’. If persons can 

circumvent the NFA by effectively 

making unregistered ‘‘short-barreled 

rifles’’ by using an accessory such as a 

‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ these weapons can 

continue to proliferate and could pose 

an increased public safety problem 

given that they are easily concealable. 

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 three 

manufacturers of certain ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ that have been primarily used as 

an alternative to a stock on a firearm. It 

is anticipated they would lose their 

business of manufacturing ‘‘stabilizing 

braces.’’ 

This proposed rule would also affect 

FFLs that sell these affected arm braces, 

and other small retailers of firearm 

accessories that have invested in the 

arm brace industry. ATF anticipates that 

this proposed rule would affect 17,091 

FFLs, many of whom would be 

considered small businesses. 

Based on data gleaned from persons 

who turned in bump stocks, an FFL 

could have as many as 24 ‘‘stabilizing 

braces’’ affected by this proposed rule. 

The majority are likely to own only one. 

The cost for an FFL could range from 

$236 to dispose of one ‘‘stabilizing 

brace’’ to $11,185 to submit 24 

applications under the NFA. ATF 

anticipates the majority of FFLs to 

experience a one-time cost of $236 for 

the disposal of one ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 

However, the highest anticipated cost 

would occur if an FFL had 24 

‘‘stabilizing braces’’ and opted to file 

under the NFA. Should they own 24 

arm braces and opt to apply under the 

NFA, ATF anticipates that these FFLs 

would need to make $111,855 in 

revenue or less in order to incur an 

impact of 10 percent or more. 

Assuming that the average Type 1 FFL 

has an average of 3 ‘‘stabilizing braces’’ 

in inventory and opts to dispose of 

them, the FFL would lose $707 per 

entity. This would mean that the FFL 

would need to make $7,071 or less to 

incur a significant impact. 

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 That 

Accomplish the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes and That Minimize 

Any Significant Economic Impact of the 

Proposed Rule on Small Entities 

Please see Chapter 9 of the RIA on the 

discussion of alternatives. ATF did not 

create any alternatives specific to small 

businesses but notes that the majority of 

the affected businesses would be 

considered small. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30849 

E. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

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. See 5 U.S.C. 

804. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, 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 

(‘‘UMRA’’), Public Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 

48, based on the proposed rule’s impact 

on State, local, or Tribal governments. 

However, based on the analysis 

presented in the RIA, the Department 

concludes that the proposed rule would 

impose a Federal mandate on the 

private sector in excess of $100 million 

in expenditures in any one year. The 

RIA constitutes the written statement 

containing a qualitative and quantitative 

assessment of the anticipated costs, 

benefits, and alternatives required under 

section 202(a) of the UMRA (2 U.S.C. 

1532). 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed rule would call for 

collections of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–20). As defined in 5 CFR 

1320.3(c), ‘‘collection of information’’ 

comprises reporting, recordkeeping, 

monitoring, posting, labeling, and other 

similar actions. The title and 

description of the information 

collection, a description of those who 

must collect the information, and an 

estimate of the total annual burden 

follow. The estimate covers the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing sources of data, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the 

collection. 

Under the provisions of this proposed 

rule, there would be a one-time increase 

in paperwork burdens of NFA 

applications. This requirement would 

be added to an existing approved 

collection covered by OMB control 

number 1140–0011 and 1140–0012. 

Title: Application to Make and 

Register a Firearm. 

OMB Control Number: OMB 1140– 

0011. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

ATF Form 1 (5320.1) is required to 

register an NFA firearm by any person, 

other than a qualified manufacturer, 

who wishes to make and register an 

NFA firearm. The implementing 

regulations are in 27 CFR 479.61– 

479.71. Under the provisions of 26 

U.S.C. 5822, no person can make an 

NFA firearm until he or she has applied 

for and received approval from the 

Attorney General (delegated to ATF). 

Subject to certain exceptions, the 

making of an NFA firearm is subject to 

a tax of $200 (26 U.S.C. 5821). The 

proposed use of this information is to 

ensure that applicants are in compliance 

with relevant laws. 

Description and Number of 

Respondents: Currently, there is a total 

of 25,716 respondents to this 

information collection. Of these 25,716 

respondents, 477 of them are FFLs, 

21,879 of them are trusts and legal 

entities, and 3,360 of them are 

individuals. For the purposes of this 

proposed rule, ATF estimates 1,679 

FFLs and 375,000 individuals would 

submit a response due to this proposed 

rule. For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, the number of trusts and legal 

entities were not calculated. 

Frequency of Response: One time. 

Burden of Response: Currently, one 

time. For this proposed rule, 2 to 3 

times, depending on the number of 

firearms. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: The 

existing hourly burden is 102,808 hours, 

with an additional 3,020,148 hours due 

to this proposed rule. 

Title: Notice of Firearms 

Manufactured or Imported. 

OMB Control Number: OMB 1140– 

0012. 

Proposed Use of Information: The 

Notice of Firearms Manufactured or 

Imported, ATF Form 2 (5320.2), is 

required of (1) a person who is qualified 

to manufacture NFA firearms, or (2) a 

person who is qualified to import NFA 

firearms to register manufactured or 

imported NFA firearm(s). In general, 

under the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 5822, 

no person can make an NFA firearm 

until he or she has applied for and 

received approval from the Attorney 

General of the United States (delegated 

to ATF). Subject to certain exceptions, 

the making of an NFA firearm is subject 

to a tax of $200. Section 5841(b) 

provides that each manufacturer and 

importer shall register each firearm 

manufactured or imported. Section 

5841(c) provides that each manufacturer 

shall notify the Attorney General about 

the manufacture of a firearm, as 

provided by the regulations. These 

regulations further stipulate that each 

importer must obtain authorization as 

required by regulations, prior to 

importing a firearm. Section 5852(c) 

exempts a qualified manufacturer from 

payment of the making tax for 

manufactured firearms. The proposed 

use of this information is to ensure that 

applicants are in compliance with 

relevant laws. 

Description and Number of 

Respondents: Currently, there are 

14,384 FFLs with SOT. 

Frequency of Response: One time. 

Burden of Response: Currently, 

respondents will respond one time. This 

proposed rule may require a second 

response to incorporate a change in 

inventory. 

Estimate of Total Annual Burden: 

Currently, the burden hours is 7,192. 

This rule would add an additional 

burden of 1,323 hours. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we have submitted a copy of 

this proposed rule to the OMB for its 

review of the collections of information. 

We ask for public comment on the 

proposed collection of information to 

help us determine how useful the 

information is; whether it can help us 

perform our functions better; whether it 

is readily available elsewhere; how 

accurate our estimate of the burden of 

collection is; how valid our methods for 

determining burden are; how we can 

improve the quality, usefulness, and 

clarity of the information; and how we 

can minimize the burden of collection. 

You need not respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid control number from 

OMB. Before the requirements for this 

collection of information become 

effective, we will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register of OMB’s decision to 

approve, modify, or disapprove the 

proposed collection. 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Comments Sought 

ATF requests comments on the 

proposed rule from all interested 

persons. ATF specifically requests 

comments on the clarity of this 

proposed rule and how it may be made 

easier to understand. ATF also requests 

comments on the costs or benefits of the 

proposed rule and on the appropriate 

methodology and data for calculating 

those costs and benefits. Additionally, 

ATF requests comments on providing a 

tax forgiveness for the registration of 

‘‘short-barreled rifles’’ pursuant to this 

proposed rule. 

ATF recognizes that individuals may 

have submitted comments previously in 

response to a notice ATF published on 

December 18, 2020, titled ‘‘Objective 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
30850 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Factors for Classifying Weapons with 

‘Stabilizing Braces.’ ’’ 85 FR 82516. 

However, the notice was withdrawn on 

December 31, 2020, prior to the 

comment period ending. 85 FR 86948. 

Moreover, this proposed rule 

incorporates different provisions than 

the December 2020 notice did, 

including a series of objective factors 

that are weighted in order to reflect 

objective decisions based on the design 

elements of each ‘‘stabilizing brace.’’ 

Comments received pursuant to that 

notice have not been, and will not be, 

considered as part of this proposed rule. 

Commenters will need to submit new 

comments in connection with this 

proposed rule. 

All comments should reference this 

document’s docket number ATF 2021R– 

08, be legible, and include the 

commenter’s complete first and last 

name and full mailing address. ATF 

may not consider, or respond to, 

comments that do not meet these 

requirements or comments containing 

excessive profanity. ATF will retain all 

comments as part of this rulemaking’s 

administrative record. 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. 

In addition to the broader requests for 

comment outlined above, ATF is 

interested in specific comments from 

the public that may help address the 

following questions: 

1. How do current owners of 

stabilizing braces anticipate that they 

will choose to comply with this 

rulemaking if it is finalized? Are owners 

more likely to permanently remove or 

alter their braces, turn in their firearms 

with a brace to ATF, or register them 

with ATF as NFA firearms and pay the 

associated tax? Would owners be more 

likely to register their firearms instead 

of choosing one of the other options if 

the tax on the registration is forgiven? 

2. How do manufacturers anticipate 

they will comply with this rulemaking, 

if finalized? Will manufacturers stop 

making stabilizing braces, alter their 

stabilizing braces in some manner so 

they don’t meet the criteria in this 

rulemaking, or market their braces 

differently? 

3. Has ATF selected the most 

appropriate criteria for determining 

whether a stabilizing brace has made a 

firearm subject to the NFA? Do 

commenters have additional criteria that 

should be considered? 

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 should reference 

this docket number (2021R–08). 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 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. 

Comments not satisfying these 

requirements may not be considered by 

ATF. 

• 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 the ADDRESSES section 

of this document. Written comments 

should 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. Mailed comments will be 

treated as timely if they are postmarked 

on or before the last day of the comment 

period. 

• 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 proposed rule and the 

comments received in response to it will 

be available through the Federal 

eRulemaking portal, at 

www.regulations.gov (search for RIN 

1140–AA55), 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 478 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Arms and munitions, 

Exports, Freight, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Law 

enforcement officers, Military 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Proposed Rules 30851 

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 

recordkeeping requirements, Seizures 

and forfeitures, Transportation. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 are 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 478—COMMERCE IN FIREARMS 

AND AMMUNITION 

■ 1. 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; 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). 

■ 2. In § 478.11, add a sentence to the 

end of the definition of ‘‘rifle,’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Rifle. * * * The term shall include 

any weapon with a rifled barrel 

equipped with an accessory or 

component purported to assist the 

shooter stabilize the weapon while 

shooting with one hand, commonly 

referred to as a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ that 

has objective design features and 

characteristics that facilitate shoulder 

fire, as indicated on Factoring Criteria 

for Rifled Barrel Weapons with 

Accessories commonly referred to as 

‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ ATF Worksheet 

4999, published on [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF THE FINAL RULE]. 

* * * * * 

PART 479—MACHINE GUNS, 

DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND 

CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 27 CFR 

part 479 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 5812; 26 U.S.C. 5822; 

26 U.S.C. 7801; 26 U.S.C. 7805. 

■ 4. In § 479.11, add a sentence to the 

end of the definition of ‘‘rifle’’, to read 

as follows: 

§ 479.11 Meaning of terms. 

* * * * * 

Rifle. * * * The term shall include 

any weapon with a rifled barrel 

equipped with an accessory or 

component purported to assist the 

shooter stabilize the weapon while 

shooting with one hand, commonly 

referred to as a ‘‘stabilizing brace,’’ that 

has objective design features and 

characteristics that facilitate shoulder 

fire, as indicated on Factoring Criteria 

for Rifled Barrel Weapons with 

Accessories commonly referred to as 

‘‘Stabilizing Braces,’’ ATF Worksheet 

4999, published on [EFFECTIVE DATE 

OF THE FINAL RULE]. 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 7, 2021. 

Merrick B. Garland, 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12176 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket Number USCG–2021–0214] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation; Breton Bay, 

McIntosh Run, Leonardtown, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to establish special local regulations for 

certain waters of Breton Bay and 

McIntosh Run. This action is necessary 

to provide for the safety of life on these 

navigable waters located at 

Leonardtown, MD, during a high-speed 

power boat demonstration event on July 

31, 2021, and August 1, 2021. This 

proposed rulemaking would prohibit 

persons and vessels from being in the 

regulated area unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Maryland-National 

Capital Region or the Event Patrol 

Commander. We invite your comments 

on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before June 25, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2021–0214 using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email MST1 Shaun 

Landante, U.S. Coast Guard Sector 

Maryland-National Capital Region; 

telephone 410–576–2570, email D05- 

DG-SectorMD-NCR-MarineEvents@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

PATCOM Patrol Commander 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

The Southern Maryland Boat Club of 

Leonardtown, MD, has notified the 

Coast Guard that it will be conducting 

the Southern Maryland Boat Club Wharf 

Summer Regatta from 9:30 a.m. to 4 

p.m. on July 31, 2021, and from 10:15 

a.m. to 4 p.m. on August 1, 2021. The 

high-speed boat event consists of 

approximately 50 participating vintage 

and historic race boats—including 

runabouts, v-bottoms, tunnel hulls, and 

hydroplanes—12 to 21 feet in length. 

The boats will be participating in an 

exhibition, operating in heats along a 

marked racetrack-type course 1 mile in 

length and 150 feet in width, located in 

Breton Bay and McIntosh Run at 

Leonardtown, MD. The Regatta is not a 

competition, but rather a demonstration 

of the vintage race craft. Hazards from 

the high-speed power boat 

demonstration event include 

participants operating within and 

adjacent to designated navigation 

channels and interfering with vessels 

intending to operate within those 

channels, as well as operating within 

approaches to local public boat 

landings. The Captain of the Port 

(COTP) Maryland-National Capital 

Region has determined that potential 

hazards associated with the high-speed 

power boat event would be a safety 

concern for anyone intending to operate 

within certain waters of Breton Bay and 

McIntosh Run at Leonardtown, MD, 

operating in or near the event area. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is to 

protect event participants, nonparticipants, and transiting vessels 

before, during, and after the scheduled 

event. The Coast Guard proposes this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). 

The Coast Guard is requesting that 

interested parties provide comments 

within a shortened comment period of 

15 days instead of the more typical 30 

days for this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. The Coast Guard believes 

the 15-day comment period still 

provides for a reasonable amount of 

time for interested parties to review the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS