I received an email today containing my newly approved E-form 1 for an SBR build.

Fine and dandy, just a little over 3 months from filing, but here's the twist, The form has "draft" plastered all over it.

The site is down, so I can't download another copy from there to see if it too has the word "draft" plastered across it. Maybe it won't and everything will be just like everyone else's...

Do you suppose this means that I'll be getting a physical form in the mail?

people at arfcom have mentioned the "draft" thing. they have said to email them and they will resend it. you will not get a real stamp with eForms.

DirtyHandsRob wrote:people at arfcom have mentioned the "draft" thing. they have said to email them and they will resend it. you will not get a real stamp with eForms.

Interesting. I haven't been following the stuff over at arfcom, so Thanks for the info!

That's nuts. Is the transparent 'stamp' in the right hand corner of this 'draft'?

A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case.

karb wrote:That's nuts. Is the transparent 'stamp' in the right hand corner of this 'draft'?

A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case.

Yeah, the stamp and examiner signature are on the form, everything is as it should be, with the exception that the thing says "draft" across the form.

Tony M. wrote:

karb wrote:That's nuts. Is the transparent 'stamp' in the right hand corner of this 'draft'?

A picture is worth a thousand words, in this case.

Yeah, the stamp and examiner signature are on the form, everything is as it should be, with the exception that the thing says "draft" across the form.

Disheartening indeed.
My condolences.

My initial response to the Email didn't result in any action, so I used the contact form on the E-forms website, and still had no joy. Yesterday a member here sent me some information about someone to contact, and within a few hours of sending that email, I had a corrected form in my in-box.

Now for the 'twist': The initial form was approved on Jan 3. The form that was sent without the "draft" watermark was marked as approved on the date it was sent (Jan 14), instead of Jan 3.

Interesting to say the least.

Is the ATF form 4 that is approved, signed and the stamp attached but marked "draft" a legal document? Can the dealer use that to release the suppressor or will it take a week or two for the corrected form 4 to be emailed.
I know they emailed them (ATF) using the e-form system but they have not replied to email.

Thanks

Ashton wrote:Is the ATF form 4 that is approved, signed and the stamp attached but marked "draft" a legal document? Can the dealer use that to release the suppressor or will it take a week or two for the corrected form 4 to be emailed.
I know they emailed them (ATF) using the e-form system but they have not replied to email.

Thanks

This is a similar problem to what I had. considering the change in date on my form when receiving the updated form, I would be very cautious.

I suggest your dealer emails: [email protected] directly requesting the correction. That's what I did, and had the corrected forms in my inbox less than an hour after he arrived at the office the next morning.

Tony M. wrote:My initial response to the Email didn't result in any action, so I used the contact form on the E-forms website, and still had no joy. Yesterday a member here sent me some information about someone to contact, and within a few hours of sending that email, I had a corrected form in my in-box.

Now for the 'twist': The initial form was approved on Jan 3. The form that was sent without the "draft" watermark was marked as approved on the date it was sent (Jan 14), instead of Jan 3.

Interesting to say the least.

they hold hard line on making sure the date matches actual date it was approved. thus if someone "re-approved" on the 14th, then the date should match that fact.

silencer_kid wrote:

Tony M. wrote:My initial response to the Email didn't result in any action, so I used the contact form on the E-forms website, and still had no joy. Yesterday a member here sent me some information about someone to contact, and within a few hours of sending that email, I had a corrected form in my in-box.

Now for the 'twist': The initial form was approved on Jan 3. The form that was sent without the "draft" watermark was marked as approved on the date it was sent (Jan 14), instead of Jan 3.

Interesting to say the least.

they hold hard line on making sure the date matches actual date it was approved. thus if someone "re-approved" on the 14th, then the date should match that fact.

Well, since the approval took place on the 3rd, there shouldn't have been a 're-approval' just a re-issue of the form.

The date issue is pretty typical of an Oracle based work flow document handling system.
Basically, the system is set up to route the document through various users at the ATF for processing. On the final step, the examiner probably un-checks the "draft" box and clicks the approve button, which automatically puts the current date on the form, stores the eform on their end, prints out a copy for their paper system and emails a copy to the submitter.

The document itself is probably also (what oracle calls) date tracked. You can pull up a history of who opened the document and what was done.

So, it doesn't surprise me that the non-draft marked form shows a different date, the date of the approval (second) due to the auto population of the date during the approval work flow. Nor does it matter.

I'm a sys admin for these types of oracle systems and deal with date tracked work flows ( HR, payroll and AP) this type of thing happens a lot on our accounts payable side when they are approving purchase orders and such. If there is any modification to the PO, it gets resubmitted for approval, re-date stamped and re-signed and printed.

Thank you for the tip on the email address. That worked. New form was received the next day.

The approval date did change by one day. 15th on "draft" copy, 16th on final copy.

The stamp does print out to be light green in color if you are using a color printer.