Making gas cans great again: White House asks for redesign after years of user frustration
In a July 24 letter, the EPA has asked gas can manufacturers to redesign their much-maligned products to fix a long-standing problem: "People hate 'em," said Florida-based eBay gas can reseller Steven Watt, 63. "It's all about the spout."
Federal regulations implemented in 2009 required portable gas cans for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVs and stranded vehicles to have special vents to stop vapors from escaping, contributing to ozone pollution.
But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, instead frustrated users often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design.
Gas cans regulations developed to protect kids, reduce emissions
Other regulations require the cans to be child-resistant and limit the risk of flash fires, and the EPA can't change those.
But the EPA said manufacturers should figure out how to make their gas cans work both safely and effectively.
Trump has sought a similar change to low-flow bathroom fixtures as part efforts to roll back regulations he considers anti-consumer and of dubious environmental benefit.
"Part of powering the great American comeback means ensuring manufacturers have the clarity and encouragement to deliver products Americans want," EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a statement.
"The confusion surrounding gas cans has been a frustration for years. We are proud to address this issue head on. Moving forward, Americans should have gas cans that are compliant, but most importantly, that are effective and consumer friendly," he said.
Looking for alternatives
The vapor-emissions regulations were first developed by regulators who noted that the approximately 80 million gas cans in the United States were a surprising source of air pollution: Emissions from a single old-style can could be 60 times higher than from a car's gas tank if both were left open side-by-side.
But the new rules left many people looking for alternatives.
Now, for the same price as new, Watt sells used "pre ban" cans ‒ those made before the regulations phased in in 2009 ‒ sourcing them from flea markets and recycling centers. He recently sold three of them to a man in Michigan for $300, although most of that was actually the shipping cost.
Watt said he's always surprised by what people want to buy. But each year, he makes sure to stock up before hurricane season begins. He planned to pick up 50 used cans from a recycling center later in the day.
"I sell a lot of stuff that's a mystery to me. I mean, it's not a collectible," he said of the old-style gas cans. "But I know that people who buy used ones like them."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Make gas cans great again: White House pushes for changes
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Extended mayoral term, salary increases and more among proposed charter amendments in NSB
Five years after New Smyrna Beach residents approved changes to the city charter, another set of proposed amendments is on the way for voters to consider, this time involving mayoral terms, primary election rules, city commission salary increases and more. Those changes are in the New Smyrna Beach Charter Review Committee's final report, presented to the City Commission for the first time Monday, July 28. City commissioners appointed the 11-member committee earlier this year to review and propose updates to the charter. The group met seven times since April 1, discussing and voting on proposals to amend city code language regarding several topics. The 11 members were Mark Billings (who served as chair); Spencer Hathaway; Michael Ison; Judy Reiker; Palmer Wilson; Steve Fusilier; Farley Palmer; Sandra Smith; Khalid Resheidat; Diana Puhl; and Dan Rokjer. Chairman Billings presented eight recommendations to the City Commission during a workshop July 28. Seven of the recommendations are proposed modifications to the city charter, while the other requests the city hold a special election with the proposed changes in November. Previous coverage: NSB Charter Review Committee recommends expanding mayor's term, primary election rules During the workshop, city commissioners and residents voiced their views about the proposed changes, which will only appear on the ballot in a special election in 2025 or 2026 if the City Commission gives its final approval. The city published a video on its Facebook and YouTube pages showing clips from the committee's meetings throughout the last three months, highlighting points of discussion and what the process will look like in the future. Proposed amendments to the New Smyrna Beach charter The seven proposed amendments to the city charter include: Increasing the New Smyrna Beach mayor's term from two to four years. Declaring a candidate a winner in the August primary election 'if the individual garners 50% plus one vote of the votes cast, without the need for a vote at the general election.' Designating the city clerk, currently a charter officer post, as an employee under the city manager. Increasing 'the salary of the commission members to 75% of the County Council Chair for the mayor, and 75% of the mayor's salary for the four other commissioners.' Clarifying the 'prioritization of historic preservation, rather than mandating certain actions.' Adopting a new charter section guiding 'all future commissions on the prioritization of the arts and cultural events in the city.' Clarifying and mandating that 'the Charter be reviewed at least once every 10 years.' According to City Attorney Carrie Avallone, 'once the ballot language is finalized, it must be translated into Spanish and then the ordinances will be presented to the City Commission' twice in August; first on Aug. 12 for a first reading, and again on Aug. 26 for a second reading/public hearing, followed by the final vote. NSB commission, residents weigh in on proposed mayoral term extension The committee considered the pros and cons of changing Sec. 2.02 of the city charter, and extending the mayor's term from two to four years. 'The change (in term years) would align (the mayor) with zone commissioners, afford the mayor additional time to gain experience, and thus the energy and time of the mayor would be better served with issues of our community and fewer days managing an election campaign,' Billings said during the meeting. Commissioner Jason McGuirk, who has served the City Commission for the last 16 years, said the topic of mayoral term length is one the most 'debated topics as far back as I can remember.' 'As far as I can tell, it's 50-50,' McGuirk said. 'The idea is that you can throw out a majority (of the City Commission) every two years, if they are that bad.' While the four zone commissioners serve four-year terms, elections for two of the seats happen every two years. This way, New Smyrna Beach voters will always elect a mayor and two commissioners every two years. 'As far as I know that's never happened,' he added. 'Certainly, it might have happened by coincidence if it did, but the city has never been in such peril that they threw out a majority at a single election.' McGuirk said he is 'comfortable either way' on this issue but stressed that 'the voters are going to decide this.' During public comments, Leslie Sachs said she would vote 'no' on the proposed mayor term's extension, as it 'takes away the power of the people to change the commission by majority every two years.' 'The only way I and everyone I spoke with would vote 'yes' would be term limits,' Sachs said. 'Because this shouldn't be a coronation.' Cindy Sniezak said 'the most compelling reason not to change the mayoral term to four years is it keeps that right with the voter' to change the commission majority every election. 'Because there are no term limits, and because the incumbent always has a large advantage, that's not something I'm willing to give up without getting strict term limits in exchange.' Commissioner Valli Perrine highlighted the potential advantages of the extension. 'I've been out there in the weeds trying to campaign, and it's exhausting,' she said. 'It's not about which mayor is up here, because that is going to cycle out and in, but it's the work they have to do when the rest of (city commissioners) don't do that.' Committee proposes increasing, codifying City Commission salaries Another recommendation is 'increasing the compensation of the mayor to 75% of the Volusia County chair and the city commissioners to 75% of the base salary compensation paid to the NSB mayor.' The mayor's base salary is $27,189.24, while each zone commissioner earns $20,329.06. The Volusia County Council chair's current annual salary is $67,394.40, while other council members earn $56,162.00. That would change the city charter's current language, which gives the city commission power to determine the annual salary for the mayor and commissioners by way of ordinance. Cleveland asked Billings the reasoning behind the proposal. 'It was recognized by the committee as a whole that each of you are at many events outside of (City Commission meetings),' Billings said. 'We felt that we are a city that is a role model for other cities … . And we should have leaders that are compensated to align with the duties you are performing.' Billings added that tying the salary figures to Couty Council numbers 'took away the guess work.' 'It didn't make you have to sit and have a discussion about your salary, and what we believe as a committee is that if changes (occur) at the county level, that means something has evolved and changed within our community where it should be accordingly be rolled down to our elected officials,' the committee chair said. Robbie Gibson-Minor said she 'is all for increases in salaries, if it is something the budget will allow.' 'I also understand how difficulty it is to vote on your own salary increase,' Gibson-Minor said. 'But do you want to be tied to another governmental body in the budgeting process? Are there other ways to look at it?' The first reading for the seven proposed ordinances will take place Aug. 12 at 6:30 p.m. Avallone encouraged commissioners to bring any changes or comments to the proposed language that day, 'so that we can make sure it is ready to go on Aug. 26, should we proceed with the November 2025 special election.' The city attorney added that the board should also decide Aug. 12 whether to send the charter amendments to a special election this year or to 2026's general election. This article originally appeared on The Daytona Beach News-Journal: NSB City Charter Committee proposes 7 changes Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
America Needs a Digital Dollar
As China accelerates deployment of its digital yuan, and the European Central Bank advances toward a digital euro, the Republican Party is seeking to prevent the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in the United States. Their insistence on clinging to an increasingly obsolete financial infrastructure means that Americans will continue to be saddled with billions in unnecessary fees every year and that corporations will be empowered to erode our privacy in Orwellian fashion. What's more, handicapping ourselves in this way will only make it more likely that the dollar's dominance in global finance will come to a premature end. America needs a digital dollar, and we need it now. The Trump administration's recent digital assets report explicitly prohibits federal agencies from establishing or promoting CBDCs, arguing they "threaten the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States." This position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital currencies actually work—and ignores the privacy advantages they could provide over our current system. Consider this analogy: when you send a package through the United States Postal Service, the Fourth Amendment protects its contents from unreasonable government search. That same package sent via FedEx or UPS enjoys no such constitutional protection. Similarly, a government-issued digital currency would operate under constitutional constraints and democratic oversight that private payment systems simply don't face. As such, a government run service inherently offers more privacy protection than its privately run counterpart. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. A visual representation of digital cryptocurrency coins sit on display in front of a European flag in Paris, France. Chesnot/Getty Images Today, every swipe of your credit card, every electronic transfer, and every digital payment flows through private corporations that collect, analyze, and monetize your financial data. Banks routinely share transaction information with third parties, build detailed consumer profiles, and sell insights about your spending habits. In contrast, a properly designed CBDC could implement strong privacy protections by design, limiting data collection to only what's necessary for monetary policy and financial crime prevention. The economic benefits of a digital dollar are even more compelling. Americans currently pay $5-10 billion annually in overdraft fees alone—money that could stay in families' pockets with a CBDC system that allows direct government-to-citizen transfers and eliminates many banking intermediaries. The millions of Americans who remain unbanked or underbanked would finally have access to basic financial services without requiring a traditional bank account. Even for those in the baking system, the benefits of a CBDC are potentially enormous. Wire transfers, which cost $13-$44 each on average and take days to settle, could become nearly instantaneous and free. That speed in payment settlement would also make a huge difference to Americans when they need emergency aid quickly, as a CBDC could allow the government to deliver relief payments in minutes rather than weeks. The urgency in America to adopt a CBDC extends beyond domestic concerns. In an era of growing geopolitical competition, monetary policy has become a tool of statecraft. The country that controls the dominant digital payment infrastructure will wield enormous influence over global commerce. China understands this, which is why it has invested heavily in digital yuan infrastructure and is actively promoting its use. China is creating first-mover advantages that will be difficult or even impossibly to overcome if we continue to stall. The Federal Reserve has spent years studying CBDC technology. We should be encouraging and guiding them on this task rather than holding them back. In doing so, critics should keep in mind that CBDC implementation need not be revolutionary. A digital dollar should complement rather than replace physical currency, giving Americans choice while maintaining familiar monetary arrangements. So too could retailers freely choose whether to accept digital payments, just as they currently decide whether to accept credit cards. Additional privacy protections for all users can also be built into the system's architecture, not added as an afterthought. The real threat to American privacy and financial sovereignty isn't a democratically governed CBDC—it's ceding monetary leadership to authoritarian competitors and unaccountable private corporations that enrich themselves off our data while impoverishing the worst off among us. The question isn't whether digital currencies will reshape global finance, it's whether America will lead this transformation or watch from the sidelines as others determine the future of money. For the sake of American competitiveness, financial inclusion, and yes, even privacy, it's time for a digital dollar. Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
13 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Top EU court rules that soccer governing body FIFA's decisions can be challenged outside Switzerland
BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union's top court ruled on Friday that the decisions of world soccer's governing body FIFA can be challenged outside Switzerland, opening up a system that currently binds athletes, officials and clubs to accept verdicts there. A statement from the European Court of Justice said that tribunals in the 27 EU member states 'must be able to carry out an in-depth review of those awards for consistency with the fundamental rules of EU law.' The ECJ ruling in Luxembourg means that EU national courts should be able to review verdicts from the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. 'The awards made by the CAS must be amenable to effective judicial review," the statement said. It said that 'national courts or tribunals must be empowered to carry out ... an in-depth judicial review' to ensure that CAS rulings "are consistent with EU public policy.' There was no immediate comment from FIFA or CAS. The decision could end a decade-long legal fight by Belgian soccer club RFC Seraing and Maltese investment fund Doyen Sports. They opposed FIFA rules prohibiting third-party ownership of a player's registration and transfer rights, and in 2015 asked a commercial court in Brussels to review if those rules breached EU law. CAS was created in 1984 to give sports a unified and binding legal forum for settling disputes and appeals based in the International Olympic Committee's home city Lausanne in Switzerland. The ruling marks a new legal blow to the authority of sports bodies in Switzerland. The same European court in Luxembourg has handed down two other major rulings in the last two years under EU competition law — in the Super League case and Lassana Diarra transfer dispute — that challenged the authority of soccer bodies FIFA and UEFA. ___
