Comment on FR Doc # 2026-08925

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. RIN 1140-AA69; Docket No. ATF-2026-0011. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has proposed an amendment to the regulations concerning the definition of "business premises" under 27 CFR 478.11 and 478.50. The core of this proposed rule is to refine the criteria for what constitutes a single business location for federal firearms licensees (FFLs). Specifically, the proposal aims to clarify that the definition of business premises encompasses properties that "adjoin" (touch) each other, as well as properties that are "adjacent" (lying near or close to each other) while sharing a common parking lot, sidewalk, or road. From a technical standpoint, this proposal addresses a practical issue often faced by licensees whose operations span multiple, non-contiguous properties. Under the current regulatory framework, FFLs managing operations across such locations have frequently been required to seek separate licenses for each property or request formal variances through the process established in 27 CFR 478.22. By explicitly incorporating "adjacent" properties—those sharing infrastructure like sidewalks or parking facilities—into the regulatory definition of a single business premises, the rule provides a clearer, codified standard for when a single license may cover multiple physical sites. This change effectively formalizes a specific scope of "adjacent" property, relying on proximity factors such as shared common access points, rather than requiring case-by-case administrative determinations. The implications of this change are primarily operational. By aligning the definition of business premises more closely with common physical arrangements found in commercial or retail settings, such as shopping centers or multi-building office complexes, the rule streamlines the regulatory requirements for entities with these specific site layouts. For the agency, this clarifies the criteria for licensure, potentially reducing the frequency of variance requests while maintaining the oversight necessary for licensing compliance. For regulated entities, this provides a more definitive boundary for licensing, which may offer greater clarity regarding whether a particular expansion of physical space requires an additional license application or an amendment to an existing one. The proposed rule appears to balance the need for precise regulatory definitions with the practical realities of modern commercial property use.