Comment on FR Doc # 2026-09159

Comments of B&T USA, LLC on RIN 1140-AA88, Docket ATF-2026-0265. The attached PDF is the full comment and controls where abbreviated here. B&T USA, LLC holds Type 10 and Type 11 licenses and is an NFA SOT, manufacturing and importing firearms including silencers, SBRs, machineguns, and destructive devices. The comments filed to date come predominantly from retail dealers and the organizations representing them. B&T USA SUPPORTS the rule. ATF read the statute correctly, chose codification over guidance for the right reason (91 FR 25207), included severability, and rejected full vicarious liability. Seven recommendations: 1. CONFORM (c)(1) TO (c). Paragraph (c) requires "actual knowledge that the person's conduct is unlawful." Paragraph (c)(1) requires only "knowledge of the law's requirements" - the first half of the circuit formulation ATF disclaims at 91 FR 25203, with repetition standing in for plain indifference. ATF's own drafting shows the oversight: (c)(2) refers to "the actual knowledge requirement in paragraph[] (1)," which (c)(1) does not contain. One clause fixes it; text attached. Marking variances sharpen this: we hold variances tied to more than five companies covering NFA items, and where one is in force the governing requirement is the authorization, not the regulation - so knowledge of the regulation is knowledge of the wrong thing. 2. CONFORM (c)(2) TO GLOBAL-TECH, 563 U.S. 754, 769: subjective belief in a high probability AND deliberate avoidance. The proposal codifies only the second; without the first, willful blindness drifts toward recklessness. Replacement text attached. 3. DEFINE "APPROPRIATE REMEDIAL OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION" in (c)(3)(iii) by reference to a documented compliance program. The preamble already says adverse employee action is not required in all cases (25205); that belongs in the text, not the preamble. 4. ADD THE DEFINITION TO 478.11 AND EXTEND (c)(1)-(3) TO 478.47. We endorse NRA's 478.11 recommendation, but the bare definition is not enough: NRA leaves (c)(1)-(3) in 478.73, and those paragraphs decide cases. At renewal under 478.47(b)(3), repeat violations, willful blindness, and employee attribution would still be resolved under circuit law. 923(e) says "may" revoke; 923(d)(1) says "shall be approved if" - a partial fix gives one standard at revocation, another at renewal. ATF's FOPA history (25203, citing Rich) shows Congress cured that divergence in 1986. 5. REQUIRE THE NOTICE UNDER (b) TO STATE THE WILLFULNESS FACTS, not just violation facts. This is the operative half of GOA's pre-initiation point (joined by ~1,800 commenters): (a)(1) already requires reason to believe a willful violation; what is missing is disclosure. 6. ADDRESS TEMPORAL APPLICATION - the NPRM is silent and no other comment reaches it. Apply it to pending proceedings and to applications decided after the effective date, including from prior revokees, and state that a revocation under the prior standard is not itself conclusive of willfulness under 923(d)(1)(C). Otherwise ATF's invitation to EREP-era revokees to reapply is empty. 7. 923(d)(1)(C) IS NOT A LIFETIME BAR. No temporal limit appears in the text, and reading silence as permanence makes the civil consequence harsher than the criminal one. Codify factors: time elapsed, nature of violation, remediation, changed ownership, later record. DATA (Part V). We make ~50,000 firearms and import ~12,000 a year; filings run ~124,000 documents annually (~2 NFA forms per firearm made, ~2 import forms per imported), plus 200-300 Form 5330.3A applications (not additive). At that volume a 99.9% accuracy rate still yields ~124 errors a year: repetition is arithmetic, not intent, which is why (c)(1) matters. Documented program: written departmental procedures, weekly walk-arounds, quarterly audits at 40 hrs/cycle (160 hrs/yr at $35 = $5,600), written corrections, 4 compliance staff, 2 RPs. On cost: ATF's $2,100 per hearing is contradicted here - GOA reports $25,000 retainers and $27,000 on one 2023 hearing - and ATF counts only the 45.9% of 2024 noticed licensees who requested one (173/377, Table 1). The real measure of an erroneous revocation is the licensed activity: ~$50 million in annual revenue, not a $2,100 fee. Table 1 reconciles for 2020-2024, but the 2018-2019 "other dispositions" fields are blank, so those notice counts are understated - this does not affect the benefit figure, which rests on the complete hearings row. DRAFTING: Section III has two subheadings lettered "F." Alternative 3 reads "revocation, of civil fine" for "or." (c)(2) should cross-reference "paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(3) of this section." "Responsible person" appears in (c)(3) but is defined only in 479.11, for unlicensed entities. EFFECTIVE DATE: none proposed. Make it effective on publication under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1); the rule relieves a restriction and requires nothing of licensees. No hearing requested