Let p and q be odd primes with q ≡ ±3(mod8), p ≡ 1(mod8) = a2 + b2 = c2 + d2 and with the signs of a and c chosen so that a ≡ c ≡ 1(mod4). In this paper we show step‐by‐step how to easily obtain for large q necessary and sufficient criteria to have for j = 1, …, 8 (the cases with j odd have been treated only recently [3] in connection with the sign ambiguity in Jacobsthal sums of order 4. This is accomplished by breaking the formula of A.E. Western into three distinct parts involving two polynomials and a Legendre symbol; the latter condition restricts the validity of the method presented in section 2 to primes q ≡ 3(mod8) and significant modification is needed to obtain similar results for q ≡ ±1(mod8). Only recently the author has completely resolved the case q ≡ 5(mod8), j = 1, …, 8 and a sketch of the method appears in the closing section of this paper.Our formulation of the law of octic reciprocity makes possible a considerable extension of the results for q ≡ ±3(mod8) of earlier authors. In particular, the largest prime ≡3(mod8) treated to date is q = 19, by von Lienen [6] when j = 4 or 8 and by Hudson and Williams [3] when j = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, or 7. For q = 19 there are 200 distinct choices relating a, b, c, d which are equivalent to (−q)(p−1)/8 ≡ ((a−b)d/ac)j(modp) for one of j = 1, …, 8. We give explicit results in this paper for primes as large as q = 83 where there are 3528 distinct choices.This paper makes several other minor contributions including a computationally efficient version of Gosset′s [2] formulation of Gauss′ law of quartic reciprocity, observations on sums ∑γi,j where the γi,j′s are the defining parameters for the distinct choices mentioned above, and proof that the results of von Lienen [6] may not only be appreciably abbreviated, but may be put into a form remarkably similar to the case in which q is a quadratic residue but a quartic non‐residue of p.An important contribution of the paper consists in showing how to use Theorems 1 and 3 of [3], in conjunction with Theorem 4 of this paper, to reduce from (q + 1/4)2 to (q − 1)/2 the number of cases which must be considered to obtain the criteria in Theorems 2 and 3.