OPMCA Connection
Keeping You Informed!

OPMCA Connection keeps you informed and current on regulations from all state and national agencies as well as laws pertaining to the petroleum marketing/c-store industry.

Candace McGinnis
Executive Director  

Hannah Fite
Director of Member Services  

6420 N. Santa Fe, Suite B
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
Phone: (405) 842-6625 
(800) 256-5013 
Fax: (405) 842-9562
OPMCA Welcomes New Member:
Reddy Ice
Patrick Lemmon
5240 N. Towne Center Dr. Suite 103
Ozark, MO 65721
(417) 343-6713
2019-2020 Board of Directors

Jerry Davidson, Chairman  
 Pete's Corporation

Tommy Shreffler
OnCue Marketing, LLC

Teresa Hollenbeck
Red Rock Distributing Company

Kurtis Hutchinson
Hutchinson Oil Company

Jason Flinn
Flowers Oil Company

Rob Toth
Coffeyville Resource
Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2020

  • U.S. Gas Stations Rush to Adopt Chip Cards After Failed Bid to Delay Deadline

  • Oklahoma to begin issuing Real IDs on April 30 at select locations

  • FDA E-Cigarette Flavor Ban Takes Effect February 6

  • SBLC Webinar on the Secure Act

  • U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Consider if EPA Must Make Annual Determinations on Placement of the Point of Obligation Under the RFS
PMAA received the following update last week on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMSCA) driver drug and alcohol Clearinghouse online portal:

  • By Jan. 8th a series of fixes and upgrades were completed. The servers are running smoothly and there has not been any downtime today. The registration and reporting functions are working well, with 11,000+ registrants today at this point.

  • The portal authentication function for the Clearinghouse was restored on Ja. 9th. If a carrier is having issues with their portal account (locked out, password issues etc.) they may still register for the Clearinghouse and their account can be linked at a later date.

  • The remaining issue is centered around problems with Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) validation that impacts a carrier’s ability to query and drivers to register. An upgrade to CDLIS was deployed last week that hopefully improved this issue.

PMAA will keep you updated with the latest news.

U.S. Gas Stations Rush to Adopt Chip Cards After Failed Bid to Delay Deadline
Gas stations around the U.S. are rushing to upgrade fuel pumps to accept credit and debit cards with chips after Visa Inc. and Mastercard Inc. rejected a request to delay a looming deadline to complete the work.

Beginning in October, station operators that haven’t modernized their pumps will face liability for any card fraud that happens at their businesses. The industry is “massively under-prepared,” said Joshua Smith, chief executive officer of Gas Pos, which sells point-of-sale systems.
“There’s not enough technicians to do the installments,” Smith said. “There’s not enough inventory. Even if there were enough contractors, there’s not enough dispensers available.”

Most retailers began to upgrade payment systems in 2015 -- the first of a series of deadlines set by Visa and Mastercard as the U.S. worked to catch up with nations in Europe and Asia that had long adopted the more-secure chip cards. For fuel retailers, the deadline was ultimately pushed back five years as the industry faced costs of more than $3.9 billion to do the work.
In a 2019 survey by Conexxus, a non-profit that represents convenience stores, almost 70% of respondents who own a convenience store said they haven’t upgraded any outside pumps to the new so-called EMV technology.
Few companies manufacture the required pumps. Those that do -- such as Dover Corp. or Fortive Corp.’s Gilbarco Veeder-Root -- have said they’re expecting an increase in sales ahead of the deadline. Once the hardware is installed, fuel companies must have the pump software certified.

Fuel retailers that don’t upgrade could face costs of as much as $201,000 per store over the next seven years, according to data compiled by Conexxus. The group expects the fuel industry to suffer $451 million of card fraud in 2020 alone.

“There’s going to be quite a surprise come October,” Laura Townsend, senior vice president of the Merchant Advisory Group, said in an interview. “Folks that have been trying to transition to EMV will be unable to because of things outside their control. But they will bear a significant increase in losses either come October or shortly thereafter because we know fraudsters will find the weakest link.”

In the Conexxus survey, more than half of participants cited a lack of available software for not having chip technology fully deployed, while about 15% pointed to a shortage of hardware. The convenience-store industry blames Visa and Mastercard for not consulting them when setting deadlines.

“The payment standard-setting process needs to be more open,” said Anna Ready Blom, director of government relations for NACS, a trade association for the convenience-store industry. “Retailers and technology companies should have been part of the planning and decision-making on chip cards from the start. If they had been, rather than Visa and Mastercard making all the decisions without understanding them fully, we wouldn’t be in this mess.”

Visa has previously highlighted its discussions with merchants when it announced its decision to extend the deadline for gas station operators in 2016.

Visa and Mastercard aren’t willing to give gas stations more time. The networks recently rejected a plea for a delay from the Merchant Advisory Group, which helps retailers navigate payment-systems issues.

“We believe extending chip technology to fuel pumps is an important step to take to protect businesses and consumers who want to pay securely as well as conveniently,” Visa said in a statement. Mastercard said it’s seeing good adoption of EMV technology and a reduction in fraud.

Visa and Mastercard began calling for a migration to chips years ago to head off counterfeit-card fraud. The underlying technology -- called EMV for founders Europay, Mastercard and Visa -- generates new codes for each transaction, while the information on magnetic stripes is permanent and can be copied and stored by hackers.

More than 3.7 million merchants -- or 80% of U.S. storefronts -- currently accept chip cards. Since 2015, the amount of money merchants lost to counterfeit fraud has declined by 62%, according to Visa .

As gas stations start to make the switch, they’re also facing an increased threat from hackers looking to take advantage of one of the last industries that remains vulnerable to counterfeit-card fraud.

“As long as the magnetic stripe readers are in place, fuel dispenser merchants are becoming an increasingly attractive target for advanced threat actors,” Visa said in a security alert issued in November. It recommended these merchants deploy chip acceptance along with other security measures such as encryption and educating employees about phishing attacks.

Click HERE to view the full article.
Oklahoma to begin issuing Real IDs on April 30 at select locations
The clock is ticking on getting Oklahoma upgraded to Real ID.

Starting Oct. 1, passengers will need a Real ID or another acceptable form of ID to board a commercial flight at all U.S. airports. But it will still be a few months before Oklahomans can get their hands on one.

According to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, the state will begin issuing Real IDs on April 30 at select locations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa, with full statewide implementation by the end of August.

Click HERE for a checklist on what documents you need to bring to apply for a Real ID.

Click HERE to view the full KOCO News article.
FDA E-Cigarette Flavor Ban Takes Effect February 6
Last Tuesday, the FDA’s Final Guidance titled “Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) and Other Deemed Products on the Market Without Premarket Authorization” was published in the Federal Register. The Final Guidance bans the sale of most flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes other than tobacco and menthol flavoring, meaning that stores must remove these items from their shelves by February 6.

The final guidance document does not single out convenience stores, but rather focuses on specific kinds of electronic nicotine products (i.e., certain flavored cartridge-based electronic nicotine products). In a statement from FDA, it said that “this Final Guidance prioritizes enforcement with respect to any flavored, cartridge-based ENDS products (other than a tobacco and menthol-flavored ENDS product) without regard to the location or method of sale.” After the FDA’s Draft Guidance was released in March, PMAA and other like-minded associations opposed the FDA provision allowing sales of flavored e-cigarettes in stores that are considered adult-only, such as vape shops, while prohibiting them from being sold in convenience stores.

Below is a summary of the additional provisions in the Final Guidance document courtesy of the National Association of Tobacco Outlets: 

  • The FDA will prioritize enforcement against those companies that manufacture, distribute or sell flavored cartridge-based electronic nicotine delivery products (except tobacco-flavored, menthol-flavored and non-flavored cartridge-based electronic nicotine delivery products) that have not received a premarket authorization order from the FDA. 

  • Flavored cartridge-based electronic nicotine delivery products (except tobacco-flavored, menthol flavored, and non-flavored cartridge-based products) would need to be removed from the market, including from retail stores by February 6. The FDA states in the Final Guidance document that these products are not being completely banned from the market but could come back on the market if manufacturers file premarket authorization applications by May 12, 2020 and the FDA subsequently approves the application.

  • The FDA also intends to prioritize enforcement against those cartridge-based products for tobacco-flavored, menthol-flavored, or non-flavored electronic nicotine products and any non-cartridge flavored electronic nicotine products if they lack a premarket authorization order from the FDA and the manufacturer has not taken or is not taking adequate measures to prevent minors’ access to these products. 

  • The FDA also intends to prioritize enforcement against any electronic nicotine products targeted to, or whose marketing is likely to promote use by, underage persons. Examples include electronic nicotine products with labeling or advertising that resembles kid-friendly foods and drinks (e.g., juice boxes, candy or kid-friendly cereal), or with youth-appealing cartoon or animated character advertising or marketed on popular children’s YouTube channels and television shows.

  • The FDA also intends to prioritize enforcement of any electronic nicotine product (either cartridge-based or non-cartridge based product) that is offered for sale after May 12, 2020, and for which the manufacturer has not submitted a premarket authorization application (or after a negative action by FDA on a timely submitted application). 

  • The FDA will not at this time take enforcement action against “open system” electronic nicotine products nor small manufacturers such as vape shops that mix e-liquids on-site and primarily sell non-cartridge-based electronic nicotine products, unless they market to youth, fail to take adequate measures to prevent youth access, or do not file a premarket authorization. 

  • The FDA has decided not to prioritize enforcement against flavored cigars and flavored hookah tobacco products before May 12, 2020 because underage use of these tobacco products is significantly lower than cartridge-based electronic nicotine products. However, the FDA reiterates in the Final Guidance document that flavored cigars and flavored hookah tobacco are required to submit premarket authorization applications to the agency for those products by May 12, 2020. The FDA acknowledges that there are a number of “grandfathered” flavored cigars that are lawfully marketed and would remain available to consumers regardless of FDA’s enforcement of premarket authorization requirements.
Click here to view the full FDA Final Guidance document.

SBLC Webinar on the Secure Act
The Small Business Legislative Council (SBLC) is hosting a webinar on Jan 28 th at 12:30pm eastern. The webinar will provide an overview of the SECURE Act, signed into law on December 20, 2019. SBLC will review significant changes made by the law to retirement plans, with a special emphasis on the elimination of the stretch IRA, changes you may need to make in your estate planning documents because of that change and ways to reduce the loss in the value of retirement benefits.
This live webinar will be open to all PMAA state associations and its members, free of charge. When registering, please type “PMAA” at the bottom of the registration page when asked: Which SBLC member association are you affiliated with?

After registering, you will receive a confirmation e-mail containing information about joining the webinar.

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Consider if EPA Must Make Annual Determinations on Placement of the Point of Obligation Under the RFS
Valero Energy Corporation and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (the petitioners) filed a legal brief with the United States Supreme Court asking whether the U.S. EPA is required to consider rulemaking petitions to change the point of obligation under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The point of obligation was established in a 2010 EPA final rulemaking. Since that time, the EPA has steadfastly rejected any petitions from stakeholders to move the point of obligation from refiners down to terminal position holders. The petitioners argue that the EPA must make a determination of whether it is appropriate to move the point of obligation during the agency’s annual rulemaking establishing renewable fuel obligations. 

The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to move the point of obligation only if it is “appropriate” to do so and does not result in “redundant obligations.” In 2017, the EPA ruled that moving the point of obligation would result in no net benefits to the RFS program. The agency found that such a move would do nothing to increase the use of renewable fuels and would “be very disruptive to the program, and likely the fuels marketplace as well…” The petitioners told the Court that the EPA is refusing to reconsider the placement of the point of obligation based solely on its own convenience and not whether it is appropriate to do so based on the facts. The EPA’s response to the petition filed by Valero and AFPM is due February 3. The Court has yet to decide whether it will consider the petition.