Options for Obtaining Regulatory Guidance and/or Approval Related to the Export of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

Jul 22, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

Currently, there are several options for obtaining regulatory guidance and/or approval related to the export of crude oil and petroleum products:

  1. Meeting with the Agency – An informal meeting with relevant BIS officials can provide companies with the opportunity to discuss their concerns with the agency and get a better sense of their policy as it relates to a company’s operations, including potential avenues for expanding business opportunities.  The outcome of the meeting could be actionable guidance that the company can put into immediate operation.  Alternatively, it could provide insight into how best to proceed with one of the options discussed below.

  2. Classification Request (CCATS) – A CCATS is a regulatory filing requesting that BIS determine the export classification of an item under the Commerce Control List (CCL) within the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).  Through this request, a company can obtain formal confirmation from BIS on whether the product obtained by processing petroleum in a specific way either qualifies as “crude oil” or as a “petroleum product.”   BIS’s response will take at least two to three weeks, but may take longer (e.g., one or two months) given the political debate surrounding this issue.  At least two energy companies have sought and obtained CCATS that give guidance on how to structure export operations. The CCATS determinations reportedly conclude that the product that results from processing crude oil through a “distillation tower” or “splitter” is no longer classified as crude oil.  These rulings have sparked a potential political debate as two U.S. Senators questioned the legality of BIS’s rulings, requested copies of them, and demanded that BIS explain its rationale and process for reaching its conclusions that the subject condensate did not qualify as “crude oil” under the regulatory definition of that term. 

  3. Advisory Opinion – Another option is to seek an Advisory Opinion.  In approximately the same timeframe as a CCATS, BIS will provide more general guidance in an Advisory Opinion regarding its interpretation of the EAR, including principles for determining the classification of items on the CCL.  Therefore, this request can be cast more broadly than a CCATS.  For instance, a company could request clarification regarding what constitutes a “distillation tower” for purposes of the EAR definition of crude oil.  However, unlike a CCATS, the determination does not have binding effect on the classification of specific items.  The principles in the Advisory Opinion must thereafter be used to self-classify an item.  In addition, BIS may release the Advisory Opinion to the public in redacted form.

  4. Self-Determination – A company can also self-classify commodities based on the existing regulations and guidance.  Indeed, the EAR do not require that companies obtain formal classifications or opinions from BIS, but the companies are legally responsible for the accuracy of these determinations.

  5. License Request – Lastly, depending on the circumstances, a company could submit a license request to authorize the export of crude oil to one or more specific destinations.  Despite the general ban on exporting crude oil, the EAR identify certain types of exports that may qualify for a license (e.g., certain exports from Alaska’s Cook Inlet, exports to Canada, exports of heavy California crude, etc.).  If the proposed exports do not fit within one of these identified categories, applicants can nevertheless submit a license request arguing that the export is “consistent with the national interest and the Energy Policy Conservation Act.”  Pursuant to this authority, BIS could approve requests in persuasive cases, such as certain types of swaps, particularly with adjacent countries, and applications that demonstrate compelling economic or technological reasons, beyond the control of the applicant, why the crude oil cannot reasonably be marketed within the United States.  The average processing time for a BIS license request is one month; however, given the political debate surrounding this issue, the timeline could be extended by a month or more.

Conclusion
There are a number of pros and cons associated with the various options above and each option should be carefully reviewed in the context of your overall business strategy.  We are happy to assist your company with any of the above and answer any questions that you may have:

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

February 10, 2026

The global energy sector enters 2026 amid major policy shifts, geopolitical tension and evolving market dynamics. The Trump administration’s reversal of Biden-era climate initiatives and renewed emphasis on domestic production have reshaped the policy landscape, offering a more favorable regulatory environment even as conflicts abroad, oil price volatility and shifting trade policies tempered deal activity through 2025.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

January 22, 2026

On January 16, 2026, the National Energy Dominance Council (NDEC) and governors from each of the 13 states in PJM issued a Statement of Principles urging PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) to hold an emergency backstop auction and take other measures to support the entry of new capacity to preserve the reliability of the PJM region. The Statement of Principles calls on PJM to expeditiously file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) tariff revisions that would overhaul aspects of PJM’s market rules to address rising electricity prices and growing reliability risks in the PJM region. The Statement of Principles comes at a time of growing concern that PJM will not have sufficient capacity in the coming years to meet demand due to the retirement of existing generation resources, the glacial pace of new entry and projected increased demand associated with data center development.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

December 21, 2025

On December 19, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued its much-anticipated order on show cause proceeding concerning the co-location of generation and load within the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) market.[1] In the order, the Commission finds that PJM’s tariff is unjust and unreasonable because it does not provide sufficient clarity on the rates, terms, and conditions of service applicable to generators serving Co-Located Load and does not include transmission services appropriate for customers that are willing and able to limit their use of the transmission system in certain conditions. 

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

November 25, 2025

We are pleased to share the program materials and a recording of Akin’s recently presented webinar, “Navigating the Evolving Landscape of Corporate PPAs.”

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.