Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08915

I submit this comment in strong support of the proposed amendment to 27 CFR § 479.102. The change is both practical and legally sound. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a), Congress required that each manufacturer, importer, or maker “shall identify each firearm... by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe.” The statute focuses on ensuring proper identification and traceability. It does not expressly require a maker to apply entirely new markings when a firearm already carries compliant markings placed by a licensed manufacturer or importer that satisfy the statutory purposes. The existing regulation at 27 CFR § 479.102(a)(1) goes beyond this by effectively mandating new markings in all cases. The proposed rule correctly exercises the regulatory authority granted by the statute to permit makers to adopt existing compliant markings in appropriate circumstances. This is consistent with the flexibility already provided elsewhere in the same section for licensed manufacturers and importers (see § 479.102(a)(3)). The amendment recognizes that redundant markings are unnecessary when the original markings already fulfill the statutory goals of identification and traceability. The change should apply retroactively. The current rule was written too restrictively and imposed burdens not required by the statute. Retroactive application would correct this past error and ensure makers that have form 1 approval and have yet to make the firearm into an NFA item do not have to engrave under the old incorrectly written rule. Furthermore, it will protect anyone that may have not marked a NFA item under the old rule from potential prosecution. Such corrective action falls well within the Attorney General’s authority under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842 and 7805. This proposal reduces unnecessary regulatory burden while fully preserving the enforcement and tracing objectives of the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act. Duplicative engravings often add little practical value once a firearm already bears legible, original manufacturer markings. ATF has appropriately identified this as an area for sensible reform. I urge finalization of the rule, including retroactive effect, as soon as possible.