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

March 10, 2026

Federal energy regulators are assuming expanded roles as the administration prioritizes energy dominance and infrastructure development to meet unprecedented power demand. FERC Chairman Laura Swett has vowed to expedite data center interconnections while addressing jurisdictional challenges, warning that unmet electricity demand could drive data centers abroad and create national security risks. The agency is processing pipeline applications faster than in prior years and considering blanket authorizations for certain LNG and hydroelectric projects to streamline approvals. 

Pipeline projects previously stalled by Clean Water Act permits are being revitalized, particularly in northeastern states where historically high electricity prices have increased openness to natural gas infrastructure. The Department of Energy is expanding its emergency authority to require retention of generation resources and has granted major LNG export approvals, signaling commitment to expanding U.S. export capacity under a streamlined framework that deprioritizes climate considerations.  

The Administration is bullish on the opportunities for the U.S. energy industry in Venezuela and eager to support companies willing to navigate the political risk inherent in the operations at the moment. Early meetings with President Trump and industry leaders showed the path forward may be longer and more complex than anticipated by the President. 

As permitting reforms advance and the pendulum swings toward fossil fuel favorability, the regulatory and policy landscape is fundamentally reshaping energy infrastructure development timelines and investment opportunities. 

Oil & Gas in 2026: Energy Policy & Regulation 

Delve into the complete regulatory & policy outlook at our Oil & Gas in 2026 report.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

March 3, 2026

Macroeconomic turbulence and volatile commodity markets significantly influenced oil & gas M&A activity throughout 2025, with deals showing renewed momentum only in the year's second half.  

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 24, 2026

On February 19, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order rescinding the soft price cap for bilateral spot market energy sales in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region.1 As previously covered, on July 15, 2025, FERC initiated a Federal Power Act Section 206 proceeding following the D.C. Circuit’s decision finding that FERC must apply the Mobile-Sierra public interest standard before ordering refunds for above-cap bilateral sales and vacating FERC’s orders requiring refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the WECC region that exceeded the $1,000 MWh soft price cap.2 FERC’s Order follows through on the proposal it made last July to eliminate the WECCs soft price cap and marks a recognition that Western wholesale markets have evolved over the past two decades to become sufficiently competitive to render the soft price cap unnecessary.  

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

February 23, 2026

The oil & gas industry is experiencing a fundamental transformation in how companies access and deploy capital in 2026. Despite strong balance sheets and robust free cash flow generation, the sector is witnessing strategic shifts in funding sources and investment priorities that signal a new era of capital allocation.

...

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.