EMA Welcomes FMCSA's Deregulatory Initiatives to Streamline Energy Transportation
The Energy Marketers of America (EMA) applauds the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) for finalizing a series of deregulatory rules aimed at reducing unnecessary compliance burdens on the energy and transportation sectors. These actions follow EMA's July 2025 comments submitted in strong support of FMCSA's proposals, emphasizing the elimination of duplicative requirements that do not enhance transportation safety while maximizing efficiencies for the safe, reliable, and affordable delivery of energy liquids.
EMA's previously submitted comments highlighted the importance of these changes, particularly for small business fuel marketers who bear a disproportionate share of regulatory costs. Key finalized changes relevant to EMA marketers include:
Elimination of CDL Self-Reporting Requirement: Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders would no longer be required to self-report motor vehicle violations to state agencies, as this process is now redundant following the implementation of a nationwide electronic violation reporting system in 2024.
Rescission of the Fuel Tank Overfill Design Restriction: FMCSA finalized the removal of the longstanding requirement under 49 C.F.R. 393.67(c) that liquid fuel tanks manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, be designed to prevent filling beyond 95 percent of capacity during normal operations. This decades-old requirement was deemed outdated and unnecessary.
Rear Impact Guard Labeling: FMCSA removed the requirement that rear impact guards be permanently marked or labeled with manufacturer certification, addressing a longstanding industry concern that labels routinely became illegible or wore off over a trailer's service life.
Auxiliary Fuel Tank Exception: FMCSA finalized an exception to the ban on gravity and siphon feeds for auxiliary pumps with a capacity of 5 gallons or less, provided they are mounted on a trailer and used only when the vehicle is stationary.
FMCSA has stated that eliminating obsolete regulatory verbiage is expected to save the motor carrier industry millions of dollars annually, noting that burdensome trucking regulations led to nearly 25,000 unnecessary violations in 2024 alone.
The White House has formally requested an $87.6 billion supplemental, of which roughly $67 billion would replenish the Department of War following the Iran conflict (Operation Epic Fury). To draw Democratic votes, the administration packaged in $11.1 billion in farm aid, $1.4 billion for the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa, and other items including Washington restoration projects and a modernized Penn Station. The request arrived late Wednesday following President Trump’s abrupt decision to withhold signing a bipartisan housing affordability bill until Congress passes, or at least the Senate votes on, the SAVE America Act.
For EMA members, the energy-relevant rider is the administration's push for permanent, year-round sale of E15. The request states the White House "strongly supports" the measure as a tool to ease pump prices. On hemp, the request takes the form of a special finding request to Speaker Johnson urging him to revise hemp's regulatory framework to align with Rep. Andy Barr's amendment to H.R. 8646, the Lawful Hemp Protection Act, or at a minimum to delay the hemp ban set to take effect November 12. Barr's amendment failed in the House Rules Committee, but it would have preserved the legality of many hemp products now slated for recriminalization. Specifically, it would have redefined hemp to allow up to 1 percent delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis, measured (in the amendment's words) on the finished consumer product rather than on raw floral or work-in-process material, including any unfinished hemp ingredient. For now, the ban remains in place. Standalone bills addressing the hemp framework are pending, though their prospects are uncertain; the White House letter may help spur movement.
Both provisions complicate an already difficult vote. The E15 measure splits the conference along familiar lines, with corn-state Republicans favoring it and oil-state Republicans long opposed; the hemp language has pitted Kentucky's Mitch McConnell against Rand Paul. Republican Appropriations leaders such as Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) signaled, they will move quickly to process the request, the proposal faces significant internal and bipartisan hurdles.
Also, this week, Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-AR) unveiled a budget-neutral farm bill proposal intended for markup before the Senate's August break. This draft largely reflects the House GOP version passed in April but omits several of the more contentious elements, such as provisions barring states from setting their own pesticide labeling or animal confinement rules. Additionally, the Senate version does not include House language that has received public attention and would allow SNAP benefits to be used for hot rotisserie chicken. The proposal sets the stage for a potential partisan conflict by rejecting Democratic requests to delay the date states must begin cost sharing for SNAP benefits.
President Donald Trump has directed the Department of Justice to investigate major oil companies for alleged price gouging, arguing that gasoline prices have not declined in line with falling crude oil prices. In social media posts, the president noted that crude oil has dropped from roughly $120 to approximately $70 per barrel while retail gasoline prices remain elevated. The directive comes amid continued inflation concerns and ahead of the November midterm elections, where energy prices are expected to remain a key voter issue.
Industry participants have pushed back on the premise of the investigation, noting that gasoline prices do not move in lockstep with crude oil due to refining costs, distribution expenses, taxes, and market disruptions, including the ongoing conflict involving Iran. While the DOJ has stated it is committed to protecting consumers, it has not confirmed that a formal investigation has been opened.
Federal Judge Strikes Down State SNAP Pilot Programs Restricting Food Purchases
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled on Monday that the U.S. Department of Agriculture cannot approve state pilot programs limiting what Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients may purchase with their benefits. The decision blocks ongoing efforts in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
In a sharply worded opinion, Judge Jackson—an Obama appointee—found that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins exceeded her authority under federal law by greenlighting the waivers. She concluded that the pilots improperly attempt to override Congress’s statutory definition of “food” eligible for SNAP purchases.
“With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of ‘food’ as it was laid down by Congress,” Jackson wrote. “Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k).”
The ruling directly challenges a centerpiece of the Make America Healthy Again agenda. Secretary Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have actively encouraged states to seek waivers restricting purchases of soda, candy, and other items they consider unhealthy. They argue that federal nutrition assistance should support better health outcomes and that taxpayer dollars should not subsidize junk food.
Secretary Kennedy reinforced the push by conditioning portions of federal rural health funding on whether states had applied for the waivers. USDA data show that at least 23 states have now submitted applications to limit certain foods in SNAP.
The underlying concept—restricting SNAP purchases to healthier options—has attracted bipartisan interest in Congress for years. However, the state-level pilots have produced inconsistent rules. A product deemed ineligible in one state could remain purchasable in another, creating a patchwork that complicates administration and participant understanding.
Critics maintain that the restrictions lack strong evidence of improving health outcomes for SNAP households. They warn that added complexity could confuse beneficiaries and discourage program participation, particularly among those already facing barriers to enrollment.
The decision leaves the broader question of SNAP reform unresolved and returns the issue to ongoing legislative and administrative debate.
In a bipartisan victory for small businesses, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Main Street Competes Act (H.R. 8882). The legislation, introduced by Rep. Derek Schmidt (R-KS) and Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI), expands the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) role in promoting competitive markets and evaluating whether current antitrust enforcement adequately protects opportunities for entrepreneurs and independent businesses.
EMA is a member of the Main Street Competition Coalition (MSCC), which represents thousands of independent businesses and agricultural producers nationwide, and strongly welcomed the measure.
“Small businesses depend on open and competitive markets to innovate, invest, and grow,” said Chris Jones, Executive Director of the Main Street Competition Coalition. “Today’s House passage of the Main Street Competes Act is an important recognition that competition policy is small business policy. By giving the Small Business Administration a more active role in assessing the health of competition in our economy, Congress has taken an important step toward ensuring that the voices of independent businesses and agricultural producers are heard in our nation’s antitrust debates.”
The coalition had previously sent a letter to House members in support of the bill. It commended Representatives Schmidt and Scholten for their bipartisan leadership and thanked the House Small Business Committee for advancing legislation that recognizes the critical link between competitive markets, entrepreneurship, consumer choice, and broad-based economic opportunity.
The MSCC said it looks forward to continuing its work with policymakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure that competition policy serves the interests of Main Street businesses and consumers alike.
This legislative development underscores growing bipartisan interest in making competition enforcement more responsive to the needs of smaller players in the economy. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
A Minnesota Lawsuit Every Fuel Distributor Should Watch
A quiet case working its way through a Minnesota district court may carry more long-term significance for the fuel distribution industry than almost any regulatory development in recent memory from EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has sued a conventional fuel wholesaler, asserting that it qualifies as an "operator" of an underground storage tank (UST) system it never owned, managed, or controlled. The Energy Marketers of America (EMA) is supporting the defense of this case with funds from its Marketer Defense Fund, reflecting how seriously the industry views the potential consequences.
The facts of the case are straightforward. The company supplied fuel to a third-party-owned retail gas station, arranged deliveries through an independent common carrier, and received an automated data feed from the station's tank gauge — used solely to determine delivery timing. When a petroleum release occurred at the site, the MPCA bypassed Minnesota's petroleum cleanup fund and instead pursued the distributor as the liable party, arguing that access to tank gauge inventory data made the company an "operator" for purposes of cleanup liability.
That argument inverts nearly four decades of established regulatory interpretation. Since EPA first promulgated UST rules in 1988, an "operator" has been consistently defined as any person in control of, or having responsibility for, the daily operation of the UST system. Minnesota, like most states with EPA-approved programs, adopted this definition verbatim. In nearly 40 years of enforcement, no environmental agency has successfully applied that definition to a product supplier whose only connection to the tank was a data feed used for logistics planning — until now.
The implications of an MPCA victory would ripple across every state in the country. Distributors could find themselves legally responsible for tank and line leak detection, UST maintenance and repair, operator training and recordkeeping requirements, and — most consequentially — cleanup costs and third-party liability at every customer site they supply. That financial exposure would be compounding: standard pollution and storage tank liability insurance typically excludes non-owned sites, meaning distributors could face pressure to separately insure each customer's individual tanks. For the typical jobber supplying dozens or hundreds of retail locations, that burden would be commercially untenable.
The case also raises a practical impossibility: a wholesaler that does not own, manage, or have legal authority over a site simply cannot perform the compliance functions the law assigns to operators. Imposing that obligation anyway does not make stations safer — it just reallocates liability onto parties with no ability to act on it.
This case deserves close attention well beyond Minnesota's borders. A legal outcome that effectively makes wholesalers co-insurers of every retail site they supply would crush smaller operators who lack the capital to insure and assume compliance responsibility across dozens or hundreds of customer locations. Given the broad implications of the case, EMA is supporting the fuel company with funds from its Marketer Defense Fund to ensure this regulatory overreach does not propagate across the nation.
EMA's Fall Meeting at the NACS Show 2026: October 5-6: Website and Registration Open!
Get ready for an exciting and productive EMA Fall Meeting, held alongside the NACS Show! Connect with industry leaders, gain valuable insights, and celebrate excellence at the Wynn Las Vegas!
Event Highlights:
Oct 5, Afternoon: Kick off with a New Attendee Orientation & Federal Legislative Update to get up to speed on key issues.
Oct 5, Evening: Join the EMA/NACS Reception Salute to State Association Executives at the Wynn/Encore Chopin Patio sponsored by Altria and PMI.
Oct 6 Morning: Start your day with a Buffet Breakfast, followed by Region and Committee Meetings to collaborate and strategize.
Oct 6, Afternoon: Celebrate at the Distinguished Service Award Luncheon, honoring former Kentucky/Ohio Marketer and EMA Past Chair Jeff Lykins, proudly sponsored by Federated Insurance. The EMA Board of Directors Meeting will follow.
Register now in the link below and be part of the EMA Fall Meeting at the NACS Show. We look forward to seeing you in Las Vegas! For more details, visit the website.
An invitation was sent to your inbox on June 17. Responding to the links on the invitation email is the recommended way to register. Housing registration deadline is September 16, 2026 (subject to change) for Sunday, October 4, 35 percent sold out, for Monday, October 5, 26 percent is sold out, for Tuesday, October 6, 23 percent is sold out and for Wednesday, October 7, 4 percent is sold out so please do not delay in making plans! Members have access to all other hotels with availability in the block. If the general block has rooms, you will continue to see those options.
| Click Here for EMA's Fall Meeting at the NACS Show Information! |
Remember, the NACS Show registration is separate from EMA's Fall Meeting registration.
Special EMA Members Code for NACS Show 2026 Registration
Using the EMANS2026 code provides EMA with $100 for every retailer or marketer paid registration at any rate. EMA encourages EMA state execs to promote and share with your state association's member companies. Click here for the flyer.
**Please note that EMA State Execs are comped for NACS Show registration. Additionally, the NACS Show registration is separate from EMA's Fall Meeting registration.
Questions registering for NACS Show? Contact NACS Show registration customer service at nacs@maritz.com or 469-513-9489, Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST, for assistance.
| Click Here to Register for the NACS Show |
Current price of oil as of June 24, 2026 | Fortune
Oil back to pre-war levels as Hormuz traffic rebounds, US tries to reassure Gulf allies | yahoo!news
Oil falls below $75 for the first time since March as Hormuz traffic begins to recover |NBC News
7-Eleven, Circle K named in lawsuit over using AI to boost gas prices | C-Store Dive
Trump threatens DOJ probe of oil companies | AXIOS
US Refiners Get Rare Chance to Buy Iranian Crude Again | Bloomberg
Federated Insurance: It’s Your Life
Does Your Estate Plan Protect Loved Ones with
Disabilities?
Estate planning for business owners often focuses on succession, taxes, and fairness among heirs. But when a family member has disabilities, the process can become more complex.
Parents or guardians of children with disabilities often want to provide long-term financial support. However, leaving assets directly to these children can unintentionally disqualify them from government programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid, which have strict asset limits, usually around $2,000.1 For business owners, failing to plan can lead to unequal inheritances, family disputes, or financial instability.
Benefits of a Special Needs Trust
One strategy to plan ahead includes A Special Needs Trust (SNT). This can help by allowing families to:
Set aside assets and ensure they are managed by a trustee according to a guardian’s wishes.
Supplement government benefits for care, quality-of-life expenses, and long-term needs without affecting eligibility.
Balance inheritances among children involved in the business, those who aren’t, and those needing lifelong support.
Life insurance can be an efficient way to fund an SNT. In addition, a Last Survivor policy for a child with disabilities can provide liquidity when needed, equalize inheritances, and ensure the trust is adequately funded without disrupting your business.
Talk to your Federated® marketing representative for a referral to a member of Federated’s network of independent attorneys to learn more or to discuss this in further detail, please contact your Federated regional representative or EMA’s National Account Executive Jack West at 262.719.7750 for any additional information or risk management questions. Federated is a Partner in EMA’s Board of Directors Council.
At Federated Insurance, It’s Our Business to Protect Yours®
This article is for general information and risk prevention only and should not be considered an offer of insurance or legal, financial, tax, or other expert advice. The recommendations herein may help reduce, but are not guaranteed to eliminate, any or all losses. The information herein may be subject to, and is not a substitute for, any laws or regulations that may apply. This information is current as of its publication date and is subject to change. Some of the services referenced herein are provided by third parties wholly independent of Federated. Federated provides access to these services with the understanding that neither Federated nor its employees provide legal or other expert advice. All products and services not available in all states. Qualified counsel should be sought with questions specific to your circumstances. All rights reserved.