Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69047 

references to IA ACCESS (Import 

Administration Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System) to ACCESS 

(Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System) 

in 19 CFR 351.303. Upon the effective 

date of this rule, the Web site is changed 

from https://iaaccess.trade.gov to 

https://access.trade.gov and the Help 

Desk email is changed from ia_access@

trade.gov to access@trade.gov. 

Savings Provision 

This rule shall constitute notice that 

all references to IA ACCESS (Import 

Administration Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System) in any 

documents, statements, or other 

communications, in any form or media, 

and whether made before, on, or after 

the effective date of this rule, shall be 

deemed to be references to ACCESS 

(Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Centralized Electronic Service System). 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. This final rule has been determined 

to be not significant for purposes of 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

2. This rule does not impose 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Consequently, it need not be reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

3. This rule does not contain policies 

with Federalism implications as that 

term is defined in Executive Order 

13132. 

4. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), good 

cause exists to waive the provisions of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 553) otherwise requiring notice 

of proposed rulemaking and the 

opportunity for public participation. 

This rule involves a nonsubstantive 

change to the regulations to update the 

name of Enforcement and Compliance’s 

electronic filing system. This rule does 

not impact any substantive rights or 

obligations. The change implemented by 

this rule needs to be implemented 

without further delay to avoid the 

confusion caused by the reference to the 

previous organization name that is no 

longer contained in the name of the 

system, the Web site, and the Help Desk 

email address. No other law requires 

that a notice of proposed rulemaking 

and an opportunity for public comment 

be given for this final rule. Accordingly, 

this rule is issued in final form. 

For the reasons listed above, the 

provision of the Administrative 

Procedure Act requiring a 30-day delay 

in effectiveness is also waived for good 

cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) as 

this rule involves a nonsubstantive 

change to the regulations to update the 

name of Enforcement and Compliance’s 

electronic filing system. This rule does 

not contain any provisions that require 

regulated entities to come into 

compliance and failure to implement it 

immediately might cause confusion. 

5. Because a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and an opportunity for 

public comment are not required to be 

given for this rule under 5 U.S.C. or by 

any other law, the analytical 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) are 

not applicable. Accordingly, no 

regulatory flexibility analysis is required 

and none has been prepared. 

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 351 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Antidumping, Business and 

industry, Cheese, Confidential business 

information, Countervailing duties, 

Freedom of information, Investigations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 19 CFR part 351 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 351—ANTIDUMPING AND 

COUNTERVAILING DUTIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 351 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 1202 

note; 19 U.S.C. 1303 note; 19 U.S.C. 1671 et 

seq.; and 19 U.S.C. 3538. 

§ 351.303 [AMENDED] 

■ 2. Amend § 351.303 to remove ‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’ wherever it appears and add 

in its place ‘‘ACCESS’’. 

Dated: November 17, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27530 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

28 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FBI 152; AG Order No. 3477– 

2014] 

RIN 1110–AA27 

National Instant Criminal Background 

Check System Regulation 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Department 

of Justice (‘‘the Department’’) is 

publishing this final rule to amend the 

regulations implementing the National 

Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (‘‘NICS’’) pursuant to the Brady 

Handgun Violence Prevention Act 

(‘‘Brady Act’’). This final rule authorizes 

tribal criminal justice agencies to access 

the NICS Index for purposes of issuing 

firearm-related permits and licenses, 

authorizes criminal justice agencies to 

access the NICS Index for purposes of 

disposing of firearms in their 

possession, and updates the storage 

location of NICS Audit Log records 

relating to denied transactions. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

20, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Ragan, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System Section, 

Module A–3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, 

Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306–0147, 

(304) 625–3500. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

finalizes the proposal in the Federal 

Register on January 28, 2013 (78 FR 

5757). The Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (‘‘FBI’’) accepted 

comments on the proposed rule from 

interested parties until March 29, 2013, 

and received 38 comments. With the 

exception of deleting the requirement 

for a form as explained below, the 

proposed rule is adopted as final. 

Significant Comments or Changes: 

On January 28, 2013, the Department 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) that proposed 

three changes to the FBI’s NICS 

regulations. The proposed changes were 

to authorize tribal criminal justice 

agencies to access the NICS Index for 

purposes of issuing firearm-related 

permits and licenses; authorize criminal 

justice agencies to access the NICS 

Index for purposes of disposing of 

firearms in their possession; and to 

update the storage location of NICS 

Audit Log records relating to denied 

transactions. The proposed changes 

balance the Brady Act’s mandate that 

the Department protect legitimate 

privacy interests of law-abiding firearm 

transferees (Pub. L. 103–159, section 

103 (h)) and the Department’s obligation 

to enforce the Brady Act (Id., section 

103 (b)) and prevent prohibited persons 

from receiving firearms. Comments 

received for each of the three proposals 

are addressed below. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Proposal #1: Authorizing Tribal 

Criminal Justice Agencies To Access 

NICS Index Records (28 CFR 25.6(j)(1)) 

The Department proposed to extend 

to tribal criminal justice agencies 

authority to access the NICS Index. 

Some commenters were concerned that 

the proposal would undermine tribal 

sovereignty. 

That is a misunderstanding of the 

rule. This rule does not, in any way, 

preempt tribal law. Rather, it extends to 

federally recognized tribes authorization 

to access the NICS Index and provides 

a tool to help tribes exercise their law 

enforcement responsibilities, including 

the regulation of firearms, within the 

territories they oversee. NICS access is 

wholly discretionary on the part of the 

tribes. This rule does not in any way 

mandate tribal government action. 

Because NICS access is wholly 

voluntary on the part of tribal 

governments, the rule does not impose 

compliance costs on those governments. 

This rule merely provides authorization 

for a tribal government to use the NICS 

in connection with the issuance of 

firearm-related permits should the tribal 

government choose to do so. 

Tribal governments are responsible 

for law enforcement and the 

maintenance of good order within their 

Indian country. Some tribes have for 

years issued firearm permits authorizing 

persons in their territories to possess 

and to carry concealed firearms. If a 

tribe chooses to access NICS pursuant to 

this rule, it will improve that tribe’s 

ability to prevent and reduce illegal gun 

possession in its jurisdiction. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that storing tribal information in a 

national database would ‘‘take[] away’’ 

that tribe’s sovereignty. The Department 

does not believe that to be the case. This 

rule does not address the ability of a 

tribe to submit information to the NICS. 

What the rule does address is the ability 

of the tribes to access the information 

stored in the NICS for issuing firearm 

permits and other authorized purposes. 

Tribal use of this authorized access is 

completely voluntary. The Federal 

Government in no way mandates tribal 

use of the NICS. 

Proposal #2: Authorizing Law 

Enforcement Agencies To Conduct 

NICS Checks Before Transferring 

Firearms (28 CFR 25.6(j)(3)) 

The Department proposed to permit 

law enforcement agencies to conduct 

NICS checks before transferring to 

another person or persons a firearm. 

Comments regarding this proposal were 

generally favorable. Therefore, the 

Department is finalizing the proposal 

unchanged. 

Proposal #3: Storage Location of NICS 

Audit Log Records Relating to Denied 

Transactions (28 CFR 25.9(b)(1)(i)) 

The Department proposed a change to 

the storage location and storage agency 

for its Audit Log records relating to 

denied transactions retained for more 

than 10 years. Specifically, the 

Department proposed to retain those 

records on-site after the National 

Archives and Records Administration 

(‘‘NARA’’) informed the FBI that it 

could not accept the records for storage. 

Retaining denied transaction records 

indefinitely is specifically authorized by 

the Brady Act, Pub. L. 103–159, section 

103(i)(2) (codified at 18 U.S.C. 922(t) 

note)). The Department intends to retain 

Audit Log records of denied 

transactions on-site with the NICS 

Section given the unavailability of space 

to accommodate those records 

elsewhere. This change modifies the 

prior regulation only with regard to the 

storage location for denied transaction 

records older than 10 years. The change 

will not affect the extent to which 

denied transaction records may be 

disseminated or accessed. 

The original determination of where 

to store denied transactions older than 

10 years was made by the Department 

in conjunction with NARA. When NICS 

reached its 10th anniversary, NARA 

determined that it lacked the capacity to 

house the NICS denied transaction 

records. However, the FBI was directed 

by NARA to retain its NICS denied 

records for a period up to 110 years. 

This period is consistent with the 

retention period prescribed by NARA 

for the other records in the FBI’s 

Criminal Justice Information Service 

(‘‘CJIS’’) Division. Because the NICS 

business model obliges it to maintain all 

of its records in electronic format, it is 

a simple matter for the FBI to retain the 

NICS denied transaction records older 

than 10 years in an electronic format onsite for the period prescribed by NARA. 

One commenter questioned the 

benefit of retaining its denied 

transaction records for more than 10 

years on-site. On-site retention beyond 

10 years will enhance NICS operations 

for those rare occasions when a person 

appeals a very old denied transaction. 

There is no statute of limitations for 

appealing denied transactions. Denied 

transaction record information is not 

provided to any firearms dealer or 

private third party. It is used to defend 

lawsuits, respond to appeals, respond to 

law enforcement queries, support 

criminal prosecutions, provide 

precautionary alerts to law enforcement, 

and provide information for NICS 

audits. On those occasions when the FBI 

must resort to archived denied 

transaction records, there will be no 

need for the FBI to make a separate 

request for the record, wait while 

warehouse personnel search for it, and, 

if it is located, wait for its receipt. By 

storing the records on-site, the FBI will 

maintain control over the record 

location, establish its own retrieval 

priorities, and improve the efficiency of 

the search and retrieval process. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Department should impose on itself a 

requirement to report annually to 

Congress the number of firearm 

transactions denied by the NICS 

Section, the reason(s) for the denials, 

and the number of transactions denied 

then later found to be in error in the 

year immediately preceding the report. 

The commenter further suggested that 

the report should be indexed by Federal 

judicial district and that it include the 

number of Federal prosecutions for any 

applicable violations of law as a result 

of the attempted purchase(s) of a 

firearm. 

The Department already reports much 

of this information in other locations. 

For example, Federal prosecution 

information can be found on the 

Department’s Web site for the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys. 

Statistics regarding denied transactions 

are annually published by the NICS on 

the CJIS Division’s Web site. Therefore, 

there is no need to duplicate this 

information in a new reporting 

requirement. 

Finally, some commenters expressed 

concern that storing the denied records 

on-site by the FBI versus storage by 

NARA presented a risk of improper use 

by the FBI due to its law enforcement 

and national security missions. 

Specifically, one commenter feared that 

storage by the FBI could lead to an 

erosion of the data’s protection and 

adherence to ‘‘the rules’’ (not further 

identified) to the same degree as NARA. 

Other commenters feared this change 

could cause creation of arbitrary 

blacklists of innocent persons, 

otherwise erode the privacy of citizens, 

or result in an illegal registry. 

These fears are unfounded as the only 

records retained will be those 

authorized to be retained by law and 

belonging to persons who were denied 

firearms transactions based on statutory 

criteria specified under 18 U.S.C. 922(g) 

or (n). Moreover, the security provided 

by the FBI for NICS data is 

comprehensive and robust. Those 

records are not publicly accessible and 

will be appropriately safeguarded and 

protected from unauthorized access or 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69049 

use. NICS system information is stored 

electronically in an FBI computer 

environment in a locked room within a 

secure facility. Access to the facility is 

restricted to authorized personnel who 

have identified themselves and their 

need for access to a system security 

officer. Additionally, access to NICS 

data by other duly authorized agencies 

is similarly restricted. 

The only change in this proposal to 

store denial records by the FBI is one of 

agency location for the storage. It should 

be emphasized that the records 

concerned are those of denied 

transactions. The Brady Act, Public Law 

103–159, section 103(i)(2), permits the 

Attorney General to create registries of 

‘‘persons [ ] prohibited by section 922(g) 

or (n) of title 18, United States Code or 

State law [ ] from receiving a firearm’’; 

i.e., persons who have been denied a 

firearm. Even if NARA retained Audit 

Log records of NICS denied transaction 

records older than 10 years as originally 

envisioned, those records are of denied 

transactions. The FBI would retain 

ownership of those records and the right 

to access them. See 28 CFR part 25. 

Moreover, the history of the FBI 

operation of the NICS has demonstrated 

its commitment to the privacy and 

security of the information housed in 

the NICS. See, for example, 28 CFR 25.8 

and 25.9(b)(3). 

Cost/Benefit Analysis 

Several commenters requested that 

the Department perform a more detailed 

cost/benefit analysis. As explained in its 

NPRM, the Department lacks sufficient 

information to conduct a detailed 

verifiable cost/benefit analysis. For 

example, the Department knows neither 

how many of the more than 18,000 state, 

tribal, and local law enforcement 

agencies (LEAs) will take advantage of 

the new provisions nor the specific 

implementation cost for each agency. 

The Department estimates that the time 

required for an LEA to submit its NICS 

query should not exceed two to three 

minutes. That span includes the time 

needed to gather the minimum 

identifying information (name, sex, date 

of birth, race, and state of residence), to 

enter it on the computer screen, and to 

press the submit key. 

Even given the foregoing information, 

the Department cannot estimate the 

costs that will be imposed on Federal, 

state, tribal, and local LEAs by their use 

of the new access authority. This 

inability is caused by the uncertainty of 

how many LEAs will avail themselves 

of this new use of the NICS and the 

unknown number of the potential 

eligible firearms in the hands of LEAs. 

However, a range of expense potentially 

incurred by a LEA using this access 

authority can be estimated if one begins 

the analysis by using the mean hourly 

wages for either a clerical/

administrative assistant or a law 

enforcement officer (Police and Sheriff’s 

Patrol Officer) conducting the checks. 

The following figures are derived from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics as of 2010 

for administrative employees and 2012 

for law enforcement officers. As noted, 

the FBI estimates that the entire process 

of conducting the NICS check should 

take no more than two to three minutes. 

The 2010 administrative mean hourly 

wage is $16.66. The 2012 mean hourly 

wage for a law enforcement officer is 

$27.78. The cost for a clerical NICS 

check should be between 56 and 83 

cents. If a law enforcement officer 

conducts the check, then the cost 

should be between 93 cents and $1.39. 

The FBI was unable to estimate how 

often any one of the thousands of LEAs 

might choose to employ the access and 

which staff member will make the check 

is similarly unknown. 

Beyond the personnel costs, the 

Department has determined that the 

LEAs should not incur any start-up or 

new capital expenses in order to use 

their new authority. The LEAs already 

have the computer and communications 

equipment necessary for them to access 

and query the National Crime 

Information Center (‘‘NCIC’’) and the 

Interstate Identification Index (III) for 

their day-to-day law enforcement 

activities. These two FBI criminal 

history databases are part of the same 

information system used to conduct a 

NICS check. Moreover, the LEAs can 

conduct a NICS check from the same 

terminals that they use to query the 

NCIC and III. 

General NICS Concerns 

A few commenters expressed 

concerns about the NICS statutory and 

regulatory scheme as a whole. One 

commenter expressed concern generally 

regarding the intent of this rule and 

specifically that it would apply to 

hunting license applicants. That is not 

the case. Neither the current NICS 

regulations nor the changes to the NICS 

regulations made by this final rule 

permit NICS records to be used to 

process hunting licenses. Because this 

rulemaking makes three specific 

changes to the NICS regulations, 

comments generally expressing 

favorable or unfavorable opinions about 

the NICS legal framework are outside 

the scope of this regulatory action and 

the Department does not address them 

herein. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Order 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Review 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), The Principles of 

Regulation, and in accordance with 

Executive Order 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 

section 1(b), General Principles of 

Regulation. 

The Department of Justice has 

determined that this rule is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and 

accordingly, this rule has been reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

Further, both Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 

costs and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. 

The Department of Justice believes 

that this rule has substantial operational 

benefits. One benefit of this rule is 

enhanced access to the NICS for tribal 

criminal justice agencies that issue 

firearm-related licenses or permits. This 

access, while discretionary, will assist 

the tribes in evaluating any legal 

prohibitions or public safety risks 

associated with issuing a particular 

firearm permit or license. Another 

benefit of this rule is that state, tribal, 

and local criminal justice agencies in 

the possession of firearms will be able 

to ensure that persons to whom they 

transfer recovered, seized, or 

confiscated firearms are legally 

permitted to receive and possess those 

firearms. In both cases, such actions by 

criminal justice agencies will help to 

improve public safety by reducing the 

risk that firearms will be obtained and 

used by persons who are prohibited by 

law from doing so. Finally, the retention 

of denied transaction information at 

CJIS will enhance the efficiency and 

operational capability of the NICS 

Section. 

The costs of this rule stem from 

staffing and funding required by state, 

tribal, and local agencies and the NICS 

Section to conduct additional 

background checks for the disposition of 

firearms in the possession of law 

enforcement or criminal justice 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
69050 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

agencies, or in connection with the 

issuance of firearm-related licenses or 

permits by tribal criminal justice 

agencies. The full impact of the increase 

in background checks resulting from 

these changes cannot be reliably 

projected due to uncertainty about the 

number of firearms that currently are in, 

or regularly come into, the possession of 

law enforcement, and the number of 

such firearms that ultimately are 

appropriate for transfer to an unlicensed 

recipient. Similarly, the FBI cannot 

predict how often tribal criminal justice 

agencies are likely to access the NICS in 

connection with firearms license or 

permit decisions. Because these uses of 

the NICS are discretionary with state, 

tribal, and local criminal justice 

agencies, the FBI is unable to estimate 

the extent to which the states will use 

these capabilities and, therefore, cannot 

provide reliable monetized estimates of 

the cost of this rule. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This regulation will not have a 

substantial, direct effect on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. While it provides 

that LEAs that are authorized users of 

the NICS with access to the NCIC will 

be authorized to conduct Disposition of 

Firearm background checks of the NICS 

Index, such background checks are not 

mandatory. 

In drafting this rule, the FBI consulted 

the FBI’s CJIS Division Advisory Policy 

Board (APB). The APB is an advisory 

committee established pursuant to the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 

U.S.C. App. 2. It consists of 

representatives from numerous Federal, 

state, tribal, and local criminal justice 

agencies across the United States. It 

provides general policy 

recommendations to the FBI Director 

regarding the philosophy, concept, and 

operational principles of the FBI’s 

Integrated Automated Fingerprint 

Identification System, Law Enforcement 

Online, the NCIC, the NICS, Uniform 

Crime Reporting, and other systems and 

programs administered by the FBI’s CJIS 

Division. In accordance with Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a Federalism 

Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Department, in accordance with 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), has reviewed this regulation 

and, by approving it, certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule 

imposes no costs on businesses, 

organizations, or governmental 

jurisdictions (whether large or small). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, tribal, and local 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no action was 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804). This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more, a major increase in costs or prices, 

or have significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Information collection associated with 

this regulation has been approved by the 

OMB for review under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). The OMB control 

number for this collection is 1110–0055. 

In the NPRM, the Department 

solicited comments regarding the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Specifically, 

it requested assistance to help it— 

• evaluate whether the proposed collection 

of information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the agency, 

including whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and assumptions 

used; 

• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on those who are to respond, 

including through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or other 

forms of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

78 FR 5760 (Jan. 28, 2013). 

Commenters offered several 

suggestions on modifying the proposed 

information collection by the 

Disposition of Firearms Form. Some 

commenters suggested eliminating the 

hard copy version of the form in favor 

of one electronically submitted. One 

commenter suggested keeping the hard 

copy and expanding its function by 

increasing the amount of information 

required to be entered on it including 

details also found on the ATF Form 

4473 and the circumstances of how the 

firearm was acquired by the LEA. 

The modifications suggested for the 

proposed creation and use of a form are 

not necessary. The FBI decided not to 

create the form proposed because it 

would serve no function that could not 

be otherwise accomplished more 

efficiently. The form was intended to 

fulfill two functions. First, the form was 

intended to establish an audit trail the 

NICS Section could periodically review 

to ensure the system was not being 

misused. After some research, the FBI 

determined that there were alternate 

methods it could use to detect misuse 

and that the form was not necessary to 

accomplish compliance reviews. 

Second, the form was intended to 

ensure that law enforcement officers 

gathered and entered the minimum 

amount of data necessary to successfully 

initiate a firearm disposition check with 

the NICS. The FBI has determined this 

purpose can also be accomplished 

without publishing a form. The 

alternative is to post instructions on the 

FBI NICS Web site, complete with a list 

of the minimum data required to 

successfully initiate a NICS check. 

Finally, there is no regulatory or 

statutory mandate for the form. In an 

effort to minimize the fiscal impact of 

this change on state, tribal, and local 

law enforcement, the Department has 

determined a new form is not necessary 

and will abandon the publication of the 

form originally proposed. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 25 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Computer technology, 

Courts, Firearms, Law enforcement 

officers, Penalties, Privacy, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Security measures, 

Telecommunications. 

Authority and Issuance 

Accordingly, part 25 of title 28 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

PART 25—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 25 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69051 

■ 2. In § 25.2, revise the definition of 

‘‘ATF’’ to read as follows: 

§ 25.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

ATF means the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 25.6, revise paragraph (j) to 

read as follows: 

§ 25.6 Accessing records in the system. 

* * * * * 

(j) Access to the NICS Index for 

purposes unrelated to NICS background 

checks required by the Brady Act. 

Access to the NICS Index for purposes 

unrelated to NICS background checks 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) shall be 

limited to uses for the purposes of: 

(1) Providing information to Federal, 

state, tribal, or local criminal justice 

agencies in connection with the 

issuance of a firearm-related or 

explosives-related permit or license, 

including permits or licenses to possess, 

acquire, or transfer a firearm, or to carry 

a concealed firearm, or to import, 

manufacture, deal in, or purchase 

explosives; 

(2) Responding to an inquiry from the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives in connection with a 

civil or criminal law enforcement 

activity relating to the Gun Control Act 

(18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) or the National 

Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. Chapter 53); or, 

(3) Disposing of firearms in the 

possession of a Federal, state, tribal, or 

local criminal justice agency. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 25.9, revise paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 25.9 Retention and destruction of 

records in the system. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) NICS denied transaction records 

obtained or created in the course of the 

operation of the system will be retained 

in the Audit Log for 10 years, after 

which time they will be transferred to 

an appropriate FBI-maintained 

electronic database. 

* * * * * 

Dated: November 13, 2014. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27386 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0772; FRL–9919–10- 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Inspection and Maintenance Program 

Updates 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of North Carolina, through the 

North Carolina Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources (NC 

DENR) on January 31, 2008, May 24, 

2010, October 11, 2013, and February 

11, 2014, pertaining to rules for changes 

to the North Carolina Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) program. 

Specifically, these SIP revisions update 

the North Carolina I/M program as well 

as repeal one rule that is included in the 

federally-approved SIP. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on January 20, 2015 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives relevant 

adverse comment by December 22, 

2014. If EPA receives such comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that this rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0772, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0772,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0772’’. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES