Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09162

COMMENTS OF B&T USA, LLC -- RIN 1140-AA93 Docket No. ATF-2026-0069 / ATF No. 2025R-06P "Firearm Activities in Foreign Trade Zones, Customs-Bonded Warehouses," 91 FR 25237 (May 8, 2026) A full comment letter, including our cost analysis at Part III, is attached as a PDF; it controls. WHO WE ARE. B&T USA, LLC is a federal firearms licensee and special occupational taxpayer in Herriman, Utah, holding Type 11 (importer) and Type 10 (manufacturer) licenses. We hold neither a Type 07 nor a Type 08. We import and manufacture firearms, including NFA firearms, for government, law enforcement and commercial customers, and file 200-300 Form 5330.3A applications a year. We lease space in a foreign-trade zone and are establishing zone status at our own facility -- so we are today paying the costs this rule would let similar licensees avoid, because of the October 2024 Open Letter. POSITION. We support this rule without reservation, and ask ATF to finalize it substantially as proposed and make it effective upon publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which exempts a rule relieving a restriction from the 30-day delay. ATF has found it imposes no costs. 1. ATF UNDERSTATES THE BENEFIT BY ROUGHLY FIFTY TO ONE HUNDRED TIMES. Our cost model (Part III) shows a one-time FTZ-versus-CBW establishment differential of $92,600-$173,800 and a recurring annual differential of $56,100-$120,300. ATF's $10,000 application fee corresponds to no federal fee; the Board charges nothing for a usage-driven site boundary modification. ATF identified a $10,000 annual servicing fee, then built its savings figure on the one-time fee alone. The dominant costs are recurring FTZ obligations with no CBW analogue -- annual reconciliation (19 CFR 146.25) and annual systems review and certification (19 CFR 146.26) -- which ATF did not count. On ATF's own population assumption the ten-year present value is $81.3M-$170.1M, not $1.67 million. 2. THE AFFECTED POPULATION OMITS LICENSEES THE RULE GOVERNS. ATF's analysis rests on 1,666 Type 08 importers and 21,499 Type 07 manufacturers -- two columns of ATF's own license report. That report (July 10, 2025) also shows 302 Type 11 importers and 503 Type 10 manufacturers, who appear nowhere. Over fifteen percent of licensed importers fall outside the population ATF says will benefit. The omission matters most where the rule does its NFA work: it amends 27 CFR 479.11, and the license authorizing import of destructive devices and NFA firearms is the Type 11 -- of which ATF counted zero. We are that licensee, governed by both amended definitions, and supplying the data in this record. 3. WHAT WE WOULD DO IF "FOR STORAGE" IS REMOVED. Destruction and demilitarization of machineguns -- our NFA activity in these facilities, where articles are brought in to be permanently rendered inoperable; destruction of rejected or defective articles; reconfiguration into importable configuration prior to permanent importation; assembly, fitting and finishing of export-destined articles using domestic labor; configuration and kitting for foreign government and law enforcement contracts; and testing, inspection and rework pending export. We hold roughly $2 million in articles outside the United States that we cannot bring into a domestic bonded facility today. We have never applied to reconfigure non-importable articles because ATF's position made the outcome predetermined; the absence of applications in ATF's files is not evidence of absent demand. 4. PUBLIC SAFETY. Some comments assert this rule removes import verification. It does not. Section 447.11 is unamended, so an approved Form 6 Part I is still required before admission, and a Form 6A at removal. Form 2 and NFRTR registration, and marking under 478.92 and 479.102, still apply. 18 U.S.C. 922(r) still bars assembling non-importable rifles and shotguns from imported parts, and 925(d) and 5844 still screen eligibility at removal. 5. TEXT. (a) Except removal in bond to another FTZ or CBW, and removal for exportation -- as drafted, an in-bond transfer reads as importation in transit. (b) Run the marking and Form 2 periods from the Form 6A filing; those clocks now run from "release from Customs custody," undefined for these facilities. (c) Confirm that dropping "pending shipment to a foreign country or subsequent importation" was deliberate. (d) Conform 27 CFR 447.11 or explain the asymmetry. (e) Revisit the PRA statement -- the forms are unchanged, the number of responses may not be. (f) Add an express severability statement; none appears. (g) Confirm sequencing with RIN 1140-AA68, which announced a 478.11 amendment its text omitted. We ask that neither be combined or delayed. 6. GUIDANCE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE. We endorse ATF's rejection of Alternative 2. The October 2024 Open Letter reversed settled practice without notice and comment. We are spending money on a zone today because of a document that was not a rule. That is the argument for finishing this one.