One new item is a proposal governing posting changes
in retail fuel price posting. This new requirement would
specify the order in which pricing is updated on street
signage and pump displays. The idea is that the pump
price must re;ect the lower price during any switchover.
So if the price is going up, the sign at the street must be
changed ;rst. Conversely, if the price is going down, the
price shown on the dispenser must be changed ;rst. In
a committee meeting, Mike Roach of Verifone pointed
out many systems allow for the street sign and the pump
display to change simultaneously. A strict interpretation
of the initial draft would have made that illegal. The
committee agreed this was not their intent and decided
to continue working on the proposal to eliminate any
possible misconception or misinterpretation.
Another pricing-related issue that continues to be
re;ned (no pun intended) is the way retail fuel discounts
are handled. An NCWM workgroup formed in 2012
drafted language that would clarify exactly how retailers
could offer discounts through mechanisms such as loyalty
cards or coupons. One sticking point continues to be the
method for recording these discounts on a consumer’s
receipt. The Laws and Regulations Committee asked
to see more examples showing acceptable formats. The
;nal word in Albuquerque was that the discussion will
continue—no ;nal vote will occur at the 2014 Annual
Meeting in Detroit.
A retail pricing item that did move forward is a
proposal to allow electronic fuel receipts. Several people
testi;ed during the open hearings that, as consumers,
they would not want to be forced to accept an electronic
receipt. The governing committee assured them this
was not the intent. The language appears to have been
carefully crafted so that consumers—not the retailer—
will make the decision on paper or pixels for their receipts.
It’s also important to note that this proposal would not
require all retailers to offer electronic receipts—it would
only apply when a retailer’s dispensing system has that
capability. This item will be up for a vote in July.
DIESEL EXHAUST FLUID
Out on the island, the fast growth of diesel exhaust
;uid (DEF) has caught the attention of regulators. For
some time, industry representatives have tried to make
NCWM aware of the importance of DEF purity and the
effects of temperature on the ;uid.
As a result, a proposal to require certain informational
markings on all DEF containers and dispensers will be
voted on this summer. The original language included a
requirement that even customer receipts would have to
contain this information. That was stricken from the ;nal
language after it was pointed out that most receipts could
not legibly display the level of detail that would be required.
Retailers offering E85 should take note of a proposal
that would require a slight change to the labels that
appear on ;ex fuel dispensers. The words “Check
Owner’s Manual” or “Consult Vehicle Manufacturer
Fuel Recommendations” must appear on the device if
this measure passes in July.
Another labeling proposal speci;es that motor oil
speci;cations be displayed on receipts and storage containers at lube facilities. Once again, the level of detail that
regulators are asking for on receipts and container ;ll
points could create challenges. The proposal goes beyond
the typical data, such as brand and viscosity, to include SAE
service category and the vehicle manufacturer’s standard
in 1/8 -inch-tall letters. This item is still undergoing review—
and perhaps revision—as this article is being written.
One of the most hotly debated proposals involved
speci;cations for ;lters used on diesel dispensers. Current
rules call for a 30-micron ;lter for diesel dispensers. The
proposal seeks to specify a 10-micron ;lter, the same size
Gordon Johnson and Tom McGee visit after