Guidance for Requesting Marking Variances

Written by jon rydberg

|

August 06, 2014

|

0 comments
It’s a subject affecting many manufacturers and importers:  how do you apply for a marking variance?  In a world of sub-contracted vendors and out-sourced machinists, many firearms these days require ATF’s permission to either mark the required markings of others or the permission not to place markings at all.  The first step is to read through the applicable statutes and regulations that first set forth the marking requirements at 18 USC 923(i), 26 USC 5842, 27 CFR 478.92, and 27 CFR 479.102. Any variance that is applied for from the ATF is the request for permission to do something other than what the laws and regulations require.  When the original marking regulations themselves were written, most manufacturing operations were done in-house, from forging and bluing to polishing and assembly. But as the industry and their processes have evolved, so have the needs to find the right way to comply with the marking requirements. As the regulation currently reads, all manufacturers and importers must place their required marking on the firearms.  So, if one company forges the frame, one company heat-treats the firearm, and another company assembles the firearm, it theoretically may potentially need three separate manufacturers marks.  Well, no consumer wants their firearm littered with markings and no law enforcement officer attempting to trace the firearm wants to struggle to figure what who the manufacturer is, the marking variance makes the most sense. In addition to the laws and regulations themselves, the ATF has provided additional guidance in the ATF September 2013 Newsletter (Vol. 2).  The article is titled as a “guidance,” giving it added legal authority.  “Guidance” documents are written with simplicity and may appear no more formal than a newsletter article, but the “guidance” piece can be argued by attorneys in court and are relied upon by judges in making rulings.  Marking variances are handled by the ATF Firearms Industry Programs Branch.  The request must be signed by an FFL “responsible person,” who is registered by the FFL with the ATF and who has authority to direct the management and policies of the FFL.  Alternatively, a responsible person can delegate authority to submit such request, in writing, to an employee. For several years, this process took the form of a letter, then an email, and just this past year a new ATF Form was created.  The form titled “Application for Alternate Means of Identification of Firearm(s) (Marking Variances)” is known as the ATF Form 3311.4; it essentially requests the same information that the letters and emails of old required, yet in a new helpful, user-friendly format.  The Guidance includes a listing of the information to be included in the request, such as the name and license number of the FFL, a copy of the Special (Occupancy) Tax Stamp, and any prior marking variance approval. The applicant additionally should include the details of what is proposed to be marked on the firearm, including the name of the manufacturer or importer, model, caliber or gauge, city and state, and serial number(s) that is/are not a duplicate(s) appearing on any other firearm made by or for the manufacturer or importer on any firearm at any location. Licensed dealer-gunsmiths should also review ATF Ruling 2010-10.

The official text is at 91 FR 24357, Federal Register Volume 91, Issue 87 (May 6, 2026), pages 24357–24362. The docket is also open for comment at regulations.gov (Docket ATF-2026-0009) through midnight Eastern on June 5, 2026. This rule is part of ATF’s broader New Era of Reform package announced earlier this spring — see Orchid’s previous coverage of the Trump DOJ / ATF rule reforms for FFLs.

Unlike many publications on the Federal Register, this change was posted as a Direct Final Rule, making it immediately effective August 4, 2026 without a separate notice-for-comment cycle — unless significant adverse comments are received by June 5.

 

What Didn’t Change?

Permitting FFLs to verify a transferee’s license via ATF eZ Check does not eliminate the regulatory mandate to actually verify the transferee’s license prior to a firearm transfer. The change is in the method of verification — not whether verification is required.

 

Orchid Customers Already Benefit

Orchid eBound, POS, and eCommerce have integrated directly with ATF FFL eZ Check for years. Every FFL transfer routed through your account is already being validated against ATF’s live data — no separate window, no PDF chasing, no manual license-number lookup. This is the same architecture that helped Orchid stay compliant through the ATF Ruling 2021R-05 changes and powers Orchid’s ATF Transaction Advisory Program for retail dealers.

For higher-volume transferors — manufacturers, distributors, and ERP-driven FFLs — our eFFL API delivers FFL and Letter of Authorization (LOA) data directly into the systems where your team actually works. The eFFL API is in production at customers running BSP NetSuite, Epicor, Infor, and other major ERPs, and is widely used inside eCommerce checkout flows to geo-select valid FFL ship-to destinations. See, for example, Prudent American’s launch with Orchid eBound, eSerial, eFFL API and the BSP NetSuite Firearms Edition (part of the JJE Capital Holdings family, alongside Palmetto State Armory).

 

Questions?

Contact your Orchid customer service or compliance services representative, or visit the Orchid eBound page or Orchid eState / eFFL API page to learn more.

0 Comments