From Gino DiCaro at the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, the Mpowered Blog, “‘Cool Cars’ embodies Sacramento’s ‘bumbling, well-intentioned, paternalistic nonsense’,” the offense because the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) attempt to force through regulation more energy-efficient cars.The policy won’t work, imposes unnecessary additional costs, threatens public safety, and further damages California’s economy. Gino gives us the nickel tour:

CARB’s  “Cool Cars” policy was set up in 2009 as an AB 32 early action item to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by reflecting heat away from cars, thereby requiring less air conditioning and less fuel.

CARB originally tried to ban dark colored vehicles.  That didn’t fly with the public, auto dealers, manufacturers and anyone else who breathes in California.  Whew.

CARB then focused on a policy that mandated a reflective layer in all car windshields by 2012 and all windows by 2016.  They did this before any analysis on economic or safety impacts and without regard for alternatives with similar emission reductions.

Policies like this require extensive research to ensure proper benefit with the least amount of economic burden.  Over the past few months important information and data on these two fronts has emerged from the Wireless Association and the Auto Alliance that prove that the proposed “Cool Cars” policy creates:

• A substantial economic burden (costs 2 and a half times more than CARB reported)
• A serious concern about public safety because of negative effects on GPS ankle mechanisms and less cell phone 911 call completion
• Overall administrative nightmares for any system using toll road and bridge transponders

Even when presented with these problems and new information on better alternatives, CARB is still unwilling to budge and provide any flexibility or necessary changes in the regulation.

Well, at least the escaped felons speeding across the desert won’t be able to mock their victims with a cell phone call.

We’re always hearing that California is a pioneer, blazing the path for the rest of the country (as in auto emission controls). Pretty awful stuff. At what point do we drop the “well-intentioned” description?

All the work of many, many people has paid off. We’re pleased by the new look for the National of Manufacturers, and the website — www.nam.org — has all the modern communications conveniences.

“As the voice of all manufacturing in the United States, our mission is to achieve an economic environment that promotes job creation and encourages the expansion of manufacturing. We believe the new branding – communicated across all our media platforms – better reflects modern manufacturing, from the issues to the products to the people we represent,” said John Engler, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. “Manufacturing is the engine that drives the U.S. economy with high-paying jobs, innovation, opportunity and prosperity.”

“We developed the site with extensive input from NAM members and other key stakeholders. The result is a logo, brand and Web site that more effectively portray the face of modern manufacturing in the United States,” said Maureen Davenport, senior vice president of communications, National Association of Manufacturers. “Our brand and Web site were no longer reflective of modern manufacturing. Our new look really focuses on who we are and who we represent – manufacturers. And, the Web site significantly upgrades our Web-based communications, making it easier to locate information on policy issues and breaking news affecting all manufacturers in the United States.”

Here at Shopfloor.org, the look will stay the same for a little while longer, but changes are coming, you can be sure.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered an important, excellent speech on the Internet on Thursday, speaking at the Newseum. Clinton stressed the role the Internet plays in individual freedom and commerce around the globe, and stated principles that should guide technological progress. From the transcript:

• We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.
• A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity. In the early years of these technologies, many believed that they would divide the world between haves and have-nots. But that hasn’t happened. There are 4 billion cell phones in use today. Many of them are in the hands of market vendors, rickshaw drivers, and others who’ve historically lacked access to education and opportunity. Information networks have become a great leveler, and we should use them together to help lift people out of poverty and give them a freedom from want.
• Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.

And a response, via ABC News, “China Slams Clinton Speech on Internet Freedom.”

In light of the White House-Congress-Big Labor deal to give unions an exemption from the excise tax on “Cadillac health plans,” we wanted to post the Drive By Truckers doing “Carl Perkins Cadillac,” but the quality is poor. Instead, here’s Bulldozers and Dirt (with a little bit of off-color language).

And here’s DBT’s Patterson Hood doing “George Jones Talking Cell Phone Blues,” which should appropriately be the theme song for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s alliance with activists groups to ban cell phone use in cars. Seriously. It’s a campaign of full-blown prohibition.

The National Association of Manufacturers has joined a letter with leaders in the telecom and Internet industry to the Senate Commerce and House Energy and Commerce Committee chairmen and ranking members asking Congress to pass legislation affirming that all Internet Protocol (“IP”)-based services are, if regulated at all, regulated at the federal level for purposes of consistency and predictability(Copy of letter.)

The letter’s conclusion:

The continuing evolution of IP-based services will create a more competitive environment and will bring new and innovative services to consumers in all areas of the country. For this trend to continue, Congress must ensure that these inherently interstate services are regulated exclusively at the federal level, to the extent these services need to be regulated at all, and reject efforts to apply legacy state telecommunication regulation to the IP world. By doing so, Congress will encourage the continued development and deployment of new and innovative IP services as well as of the broadband platforms on which those services depend.

Other signers are AT&T, Google, Microsoft, TechAmerica, Telecommunications Industry Association, T-Mobile, Verizon and VON Coalition.

(Hat tip: Tech Daily Dose, National Journal)

The Washington Times today editorializes on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) latest act of reality-ignoring arrogance, a proposal to mandate reflective window glazings on vehicles to keep the vehicle insides cool. Turns out the materials block GPS and wireless signals and would add about $250 to the cost of each car and light truck.

From “Unhealthy CARB“:

The problem is that the new windows would reflect radio waves, thus highly compromising the use of GPS units, garage-door openers, laptop computers, satellite radio systems, parolee ankle bracelets, wireless medical equipment and cell phones. CARB admits the mandate would interfere with radio signals but is poised to promulgate the new rule later this month anyway. A 15-day public comment period would follow, during which alert consumers could overwhelm the bureaucrats with objections. …

The rule would be particularly infuriating because it’s unnecessary. Manufacturers have offered at least two other nonmetallic methods - using light-absorbing materials rather than reflecting materials - to reduce the warming effect of sunlight on cars. Those methods do not interfere with radio signals and are cheaper.

The San Diego Union Tribune earlier weighed in on the regulation, calling the CARB’s actions both farcical and a travesty. In its editorial, “Common sense-less,” the paper quotes veteran auto-industry analyst Drew Winter:

CARB regulators don’t know anything about the business of building and selling vehicles and only care about improving fuel economy. Unlike automotive engineers, they are not required to care about safety, durability, customer satisfaction or unintended consequences…

CARB regulators have forced positive change in the auto industry with tough regulatory actions for the past 30 years, but this new strategy of telling auto engineers how to hit fuel-economy targets in addition to mandating them is bizarre and potentially dangerous. CARB needs to give up trying to design vehicles or be stopped before its arrogance and ignorance cause real harm.

Of course. Everyone knows that designing cars is a job best left to Congress and the EPA.

From George Ou at Digital Society, “California vehicle standard blocks cell, radio, and GPS“:

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) just passed a new regulation that requires glazed glass in automobiles that is supposed to reduce the need to use air conditioning.  The catch is that the same properties that block electromagnetic sunlight radiation also blocks lower frequency electromagnetic radio waves.  That means radios, satellite radios, GPS, garage door openers, and cell phones will be severely degraded.  Even more surprising is that it requires this glass even for jeeps that have soft covers, plastic windows, and no air conditioning.  Furthermore, the rules are so stringent that they effectively make sunroofs black, even though many consumers use the covers.

Here’s some background on CARB.  This is the same group of regulators who passed a controversial regulation that would require completely new diesel engines which will cause the state tremendous economic loss, and the same group who mandated the costly use of carcinogenic MTBE in California’s reformulated gasoline.

Meanwhile, the California State Energy Commission is getting ready to ban larger flatscreen televisions because of their energy consumption. But there surely will be no unintended consequences from this latest regulatory fiat, right?

In an editorial last Sunday, “Dont’ squeeze the telecoms, ” The Washington Times beat us to the topic of S. 1725, the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and three other Democratic Senators on September 29.

[They] are reopening a fight to make telecommunications companies liable for trillions of dollars for complying with a presidential directive to assist in a “warrantless surveillance” program against suspected terrorists. This has negative consequences for public safety, for the already staggering economy and for the cause of basic fairness and justice.

Even though the Senate just last year - after many months of debate - gave immunity to the telecoms for participating in the program, some senators want to take immunity away.

The Times regards the legislation as typical Senatorial solicitousness toward trial lawyer campaign contributors, since vitiating immunity  would revive the 46 lawsuits against the companies dismissed in June. (For more history, see our Friday post, “FISA Update: Civil Immunity? No, We Changed Our Minds.”) We tend to think the proposed policies derives more from civil libertarian absolutism and a distrust of any government surveillance; since these policies are generally unpopular and cannot be enacted in Congress, some turn to the courts to achieve the same ends.

Whatever the case, as the Times contends, removing immunity is wrong in terms of “basic fairness and justice.” It’s akin to reopening a case despite the statute of limitations having expired, or an ex post facto prosecution. The Times concludes:

The Senate last year granted immunity only after instituting a careful series of safeguards for civil liberties. There’s no need to reopen that careful compromise just for the sake of a few dozen wealthy lawyers trying to get still wealthier - especially when it would come at the expense of the nation’s economic health and safety.

UPDATE (Sunday 11:15 a.m.): Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI), one of the bill’s cosponsors, submitted and then withdraw an amendment last week during the Judiciary Committee’s markup of the Patriot Act extension. His amendment would have re-opened the FISA debate by banning bulk collection of data; he quickly withdrew it, leaving the impression he was just making a point.

Four Senators recently introduced a bill that would resurrect litigation against U.S. telecom companies that complied with U.S. government orders to assist in electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas. The bill sends a terrible message that legal immunity, once established, can still be taken away by Congress in the pursuit of political goals.  The legislation also reminds private citizens who want to help fights terrorism that they should expect to be sued for their trouble.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) introduced S. 1725, the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, on September 29 joined by Sens. Feingold, Leahy and Merkley. The bill would “remove retroactive immunity protection for electronic communications service providers that participated in the Terrorist Surveillance Program and for other purposes.” (Senators’ news release.) Vitiating legally established immunity is disturbing in any context, but in this case, it’s especially troubling because it would allow the continuation of legal harassment of good corporate citizens.

The Senators are reviving a debate settled in 2008 when Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 6304, to extend the federal authority (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) to conduct surveillance of overseas electronic communications. These communications — phone calls, text messages, etc. — may have had a U.S. nexus, i.e., crossing through U.S. network or involving foreigners calling into the United States to speak to a non-citizen.  However, as applied to overseas communications, the Justice Department held that this surveillance did not require a judicial warrant; passage of the FISA Amendments reaffirmed that position.

A key issue in the FISA reauthorization was whether civil immunity should be granted to telecommunications companies that complied with federal orders to assist in the surveillance.  Lawmakers supported granting civil immunity in the wake of the September 11 terrorism attacks, concluding that companies should not be punished for helping to stop terrorism, especially when the companies are following what they understand to be legal orders.

Walter Olson at Overlawyered.com, who helped create the genre of legal blogging, has thoughts about the Federal Trade Commission’s proposal to regulate the social media to force disclosure of economic relationships. From “Required FTC blogger disclosure“:

Publishers sometimes send me books in hopes I’ll review or at least mention them. I occasionally attend free advance screenings of new movies (typically law-related documentaries) that filmmakers hope I’ll write about. This site has an Amazon affiliate store which has from time to time provided me with commissions after readers click links and proceed to purchase items, though it’s been almost entirely inactive for years. I get invited to attend the odd institutional banquet whose hosts sometimes give away a free book or paperweight along with the hotel meal. I’ve been sent “cause” T-shirts and law firm/support service provider promotional kits over the years, pretty much a waste of effort since I don’t much care for wearing such T-shirts and am not exactly famed for posts that sing the praises of law firms or their service providers.

Under new Federal Trade Commission guidelines in the works for some time, I could apparently get in trouble for not disclosing these and similarly exciting things. In addition, the commission’s scrutiny will extend to areas less relevant to this site, such as targeted Google advertising and results-not-typical testimonials.

With many more links to commentary on what appears to us an aggressive effort by a federal agency to regulate for the sake of regulating.  Our question: What is the terrible threat that warrants this government attack on free speech?

UPDATE (1:40 p.m. Friday): More from Walter, with reaction to this remarkable photo taken by the blogger WhiteCoat at the American College of Emergency Physicians. No, no reason for bloggers to fear overregulation by government.