federal regulatory management of the automobile in the united states, 1966–1988

438 Pages·2011·2.59 MB·English

by  Abigail Middleton

FEDERAL
 REGULATORY
 MANAGEMENT
 OF
 THE
 AUTOMOBILE

IN
 THE
 UNITED
 STATES,

1966–1988

by

LEE
 JARED
 VINSEL

DISSERTATION

Presented
 to
 the
 Faculty
 of
 the
 College
 of
 Humanities
 and

Social
 Sciences
 of
 Carnegie
 Mellon
 University
 in

Partial
 Fulfillment
 of
 the
 Requirements

For
 the
 Degree
 of

DOCTOR
 OF
 PHILOSOPHY

Carnegie
 Mellon
 University

May
 2011

Dissertation
 Committee:

Professor
 David
 A.
 Hounshell,
 Chair

Professor
 Jay
 Aronson

Professor
 John
 Soluri

Professor
 Joel
 A.
 Tarr

Professor
 Steven
 Usselman
 (Georgia
 Tech)
©
 2011
 Lee
 Jared
 Vinsel

  ii
Dedication

For
 the
 Vinsels,
 the
 McFaddens,
 and
 the
 Middletons

and

for
 Abigail,
 who
 held
 the
 ship
 steady

  iii
Abstract

Federal
 Regulatory
 Management
 of
 the
 Automobile

in
 the
 United
 States,
 1966–1988

by
 LEE
 JARED
 VINSEL

Dissertation
 Director:

Professor
 David
 A.
 Hounshell

Throughout
 the
 20th
 century,
 the
 automobile
 became
 the
 great
 American
 machine,
 a

technological
 object
 that
 became
 inseparable
 from
 every
 level
 of
 American
 life
 and

culture
 from
 the
 cycles
 of
 the
 national
 economy
 to
 the
 passions
 of
 teen
 dating,
 from

the
 travails
 of
 labor
 struggles
 to
 the
 travels
 of
 “soccer
 moms.”
 Yet,
 the
 automobile

brought
 with
 it
 multiple
 dimensions
 of
 risk:
 crashes
 mangled
 bodies,
 tailpipes

spewed
 toxic
 exhausts,
 and
 engines
 “guzzled”
 increasingly
 limited
 fuel
 resources.

During
 the
 1960s
 and
 1970s,
 the
 United
 States
 Federal
 government
 created

institutions—primarily
 the
 National
 Highway
 Traffic
 Safety
 Administration
 within

the
 Department
 of
 Transportation
 and
 the
 Office
 of
 Mobile
 Source

Pollution
 Control
 in
 the
 Environmental
 Protection
 Agency—to
 regulate
 the

automobile
 industry
 around
 three
 concerns,
 namely
 crash
 safety,
 fuel
 efficiency,
 and

control
 of
 emissions.
 This
 dissertation
 examines
 the
 growth
 of
 state
 institutions
 to

regulate
 these
 three
 concerns
 during
 the
 1960s
 and
 1970s
 through
 the
 1980s
 when

  iv
the
 state
 came
 under
 fire
 from
 new
 political
 forces
 and
 governmental
 bureaucracies

experienced
 large
 cutbacks
 in
 budgets
 and
 staff.

While
 most
 previous
 studies
 of
 regulation
 have
 focused
 either
 on
 biographies
 of

regulatory
 visionaries
 (a.k.a.
 policy
 entrepreneurs)
 or
 on
 legislative
 histories,
 this

dissertation
 examines
 how
 the
 federal
 government
 built
 bureaucratic
 organizations

and
 administrative
 capacity
 to
 regulate
 and
 force
 change
 in
 the
 automobile
 through

performance
 standards.
 Employees
 of
 these
 agencies
 helped
 shape
 automobile

design
 by
 creating
 routine
 regulatory
 procedures
 that
 intervened
 in
 the

longstanding
 traditions
 of
 automobile
 design.
 Only
 by
 examining
 these
 micro-­‐
practices
 of
 governmental
 power,
 I
 argue,
 can
 we
 understand
 how
 regulatory

regimes
 have
 truly
 influenced
 their
 intended
 objects.
 My
 dissertation
 examines
 how

these
 institutions
 developed,
 learned,
 and
 evolved,
 with
 an
 eye
 to
 how
 these

transformations
 shaped
 technological
 change
 in
 the
 automobile
 industry.
 By

examining
 the
 mundane
 world
 of
 federal
 test
 procedures,
 scientific
 studies,
 agency

meetings,
 and
 administrative
 hearings,
 I
 will
 show
 how
 low-­‐level
 bureaucrats

formed
 new
 networks
 between
 government
 and
 industry,
 established
 the
 state
 of

the
 art
 in
 automobile
 technology,
 and
 forced
 innovation
 in
 automobile
 design.

  v
Acknowledgments

Over
 the
 three
 years
 of
 this
 dissertation’s
 making,
 a
 number
 of
 institutions

have
 supported
 my
 research
 and
 writing.

 Two
 National
 Science
 Foundation
 grants

funded
 my
 research
 and
 studies
 early
 on,
 the
 grant
 that
 created
 the
 Climate
 Decision

Making
 Center
 and
 the
 grant
 titled
 “The
 Socio-­‐Political
 Construction
 of
 Technologies

under
 "Technology-­‐Forcing"
 Regulations:
 A
 Tale
 of
 Two
 Automotive
 Technologies,

"One"
 Government
 and
 "One"
 Industry.”
 I
 was
 pleased
 and
 honored
 to
 receive
 a

Dissertation
 Improvement
 Grant
 from
 the
 National
 Science
 Foundation
 and
 the
 John

E.
 Rovensky
 Fellowship
 in
 American
 Business
 or
 Economic
 History
 for
 the
 2009–
2010
 academic
 year.

 Two
 dissertation
 workshops
 helped
 me
 improve
 and
 winnow

down
 my
 work:
 Sheila
 Jasanoff
 and
 Clark
 Miller
 challenged
 me
 to
 clarify
 and
 refine

my
 thinking
 during
 the
 Social
 Science
 Research
 Council
 Dissertation
 Proposal

Development
 Fellowship
 in
 2008.

 Pamela
 Laird,
 Mary
 O’Sullivan,
 and
 Steve
 Tolliday

also
 helped
 me
 consider
 new
 avenues
 of
 research
 and
 unexplored
 corners
 of
 my

topic
 at
 the
 Business
 History
 Conference’s
 Oxford
 Journals
 Colloquium
 in
 Business

History
 in
 2009.

 (Thanks,
 too,
 to
 Jenna
 Alden
 for
 organizing
 the
 BHC
 Colloquium
 in

Milan,
 Italy.)
 Finally,
 in
 2008,
 a
 Ford
 Motor
 Company
 Research
 Funding
 grant

assisted
 my
 continuing
 work.

 Thanks
 also
 to
 the
 librarians
 at
 Carnegie
 Mellon,

especially
 Kara
 Kreger
 and
 Sue
 Collins,
 who
 always
 effectively
 answered
 my

questions.
A
 number
 of
 people
 inside
 and
 outside
 government
 helped
 me
 in
 locating

both
 people
 and
 records.

 The
 librarians
 and
 record
 managers
 David
 Doernberg

(Department
 of
 Transportation)
 and
 Kirk
 Nims
 (Environmental
 Protection
 Agency)

  vi
led
 me
 to
 important
 archival
 discoveries.

 My
 work
 at
 the
 EPA
 may
 have
 gone

nowhere
 at
 all
 if
 not
 for
 Joseph
 Somers,
 who
 both
 shared
 recollections
 from
 his
 near

photographic
 memory
 and
 gave
 me
 the
 contact
 info
 of
 several
 retired
 EPA
 staff

members.

 The
 most
 important
 of
 these
 contacts
 was
 Eric
 Stork.

 Eric
 helped
 me
 in

innumerable
 ways,
 offering
 his
 time
 whenever
 I
 requested
 it,
 allowing
 me
 to

interview
 him
 several
 times,
 sharing
 his
 large
 collection
 of
 press
 clipping
 and

private
 papers,
 and
 reviewing
 my
 chapter
 drafts
 to
 ensure
 that
 I
 did
 not
 botch
 some

matter
 of
 fact.
 I
 owe
 him
 a
 great
 deal.

 Karl
 Hellman
 also
 helped
 by
 trusting
 me
 with

his
 memories
 and
 with
 his
 large
 collection
 of
 EPA
 memos
 and
 reports,
 which
 he

gave
 me
 in
 the
 summer
 of
 2010.

 Thanks
 also
 to
 other
 present
 and
 former
 EPA
 staff

members
 who
 allowed
 me
 to
 interview
 them,
 including
 Ernie
 Rosenberg,
 Janet

Auerbach,
 Richard
 Lawrence,
 Joseph
 Merenda,
 Charles
 Gray,
 Rich
 Cook,
 and

Katherine
 A.
 Sargent.

 Though
 I
 chose
 in
 the
 end
 not
 to
 rely
 on
 oral
 histories
 in
 the

chapters
 on
 federal
 auto
 safety
 regulations,
 I
 could
 not
 have
 negotiated
 the

landscape
 of
 automotive
 crash
 safety
 without
 several
 interviews
 that
 gave
 me
 some

insight
 into
 the
 workings
 of
 the
 National
 Highway
 Traffic
 Safety
 Administration.

 I

am
 particularly
 indebted
 to
 Michael
 Finkelstein,
 Marilena
 Amoni,
 Joseph
 Kanianthra,

Sam
 Daniels,
 Clarke
 Harper,
 Harry
 Thompson,
 Jim
 Simons,
 and
 John
 Hinch.

 Through

interviews,
 Bill
 King
 and
 Richard
 Klimisch
 gave
 me
 insight
 into
 the
 auto
 industry’s

side
 of
 the
 story,
 and
 Steve
 Plotkin
 helped
 me
 see
 the
 complexity
 of
 auto
 regulation.

It
 has
 become
 a
 convention
 for
 authors’
 to
 list
 a
 number
 of
 commentators

who
 have
 improved
 their
 work,
 and
 then
 to
 write
 something
 like,
 “All
 errors
 are

mine
 and
 mine
 alone.”

 We
 should
 equally
 say
 this
 about
 our
 selves.
 I
 have
 been

  vii
blessed
 to
 have
 many
 people
 (and
 institutions)
 in
 my
 life
 who
 have
 helped
 shape
 me

in
 positive
 ways—including
 the
 part
 of
 me
 that
 wrote
 this
 dissertation.

 All

remaining
 errors
 (of
 self)
 are
 mine
 and
 mine
 alone.

At
 Carnegie
 Mellon,
 I
 benefited
 greatly
 from
 being
 a
 member
 of
 the
 Climate

Decision
 Making
 Center,
 an
 interdisciplinary
 group
 dedicated
 to
 studying
 climate

change
 policy-­‐
 and
 decision-­‐making
 under
 uncertainty.

 The
 professors
 and
 students

of
 that
 group
 formed
 my
 thinking
 in
 ways
 that
 I
 did
 not
 come
 to
 realize
 until
 much

later.

 I
 am
 indebted
 to
 Granger
 Morgan,
 Lester
 Lave,
 Marija
 Ilic,
 and
 Jay
 Apt.
 The

students
 of
 the
 CDMC
 always
 enlivened
 me
 and
 led
 me
 to
 think
 about
 new
 subjects.

I
 am
 particularly
 thankful
 to
 (and
 miss)
 Inês
 Azevedo,
 Vanessa
 Schweizer,

Constantine
 Samaras,
 Josh
 Stolaroff,
 and
 Andy
 Grieshop.

 I
 was
 also
 lucky
 to
 be
 able

to
 sit
 in
 on
 the
 seminars
 of
 SETChange
 (Strategy,
 Entrepreneurship,
 and

Technological
 Change).

 Being
 around
 Steven
 Klepper
 and
 Francisco
 Veloso
 taught

me
 a
 great
 deal,
 and
 their
 student
 Leonardo
 Reyes-­‐Gonzalez
 left
 an
 indelible

impression.
 In
 the
 History
 Department,
 Steve
 Schlossman
 guided
 my
 early
 forays

into
 the
 archive
 in
 the
 graduate
 research
 seminar.
 Paul
 Eiss
 kept
 my
 theory
 chops

honed.
 Scott
 Sandage
 taught
 me
 not
 only
 about
 the
 arts
 of
 writing
 history
 and

teaching
 but
 also
 about
 the
 art
 of
 living.
 It’s
 rare
 to
 find
 someone
 who
 can
 teach
 you

so
 much,
 and
 I
 can’t
 thank
 him
 enough
 for
 it.
 Kevin
 Brown,
 Cian
 McMahon,
 Susan

Spellman,
 and
 Patrick
 Zimmerman
 have
 been
 true
 friends.
 Susan
 has
 frequently

tightened
 my
 prose,
 challenged
 my
 hazy
 thoughts,
 and,
 generally,
 kicked
 me
 when
 I

needed
 kicking.
 Thanks,
 sister.

 Thanks,
 finally,
 to
 the
 History
 Department’s
 staff

members,
 especially
 Natalie
 Taylor
 and
 Gail
 Tooks.

  viii
I
 am
 very
 lucky
 to
 have
 found
 such
 an
 excellent
 dissertation
 committee
 in

David
 Hounshell,
 Jay
 Aronson,
 John
 Soluri,
 Joel
 Tarr,
 and
 Steven
 Usselman.
 Jay
 led

me
 in
 an
 important
 guided
 reading
 on
 Science
 and
 Technology
 Studies
 and
 has

helped
 me
 along
 in
 other
 essential
 ways.

 John
 also
 carried
 out
 an
 extended
 guided

reading
 with
 me
 on
 global
 environmental
 history.
 John
 has
 always
 asked
 me
 very

hard
 and
 smart
 questions
 and
 has
 pushed
 me
 to
 broaden
 my
 thinking
 on
 all
 levels.

Joel
 has
 always
 encouraged
 my
 broad
 interests
 and
 searching
 mind.

 He
 honed
 my

historical
 skills
 by
 allowing
 me
 to
 assist
 his
 research
 and
 by
 teaching
 me
 what
 he

was
 thinking
 as
 I
 did
 so.

 I
 thank
 him
 for
 always
 being
 supportive.
 Joel
 will
 have

always
 been
 my
 intellectual
 grandfather
 .
 .
 .
 or,
 perhaps
 more
 appropriately,

Godfather.

As
 an
 undergraduate,
 I
 trained
 in
 philosophy
 and
 imagined
 that
 I
 would

always
 remain
 in
 that
 field.
 Then,
 fatefully,
 I
 happened
 upon
 a
 book
 called

Regulating
 Railroad
 Innovation
 by
 a
 man
 named
 Steven
 Usselman.
 Steve
 was
 kind
 to

reply
 a
 random
 fan
 letter
 from
 a
 kid
 in
 Chicago
 but
 kinder
 to
 become
 a
 mentor
 and

friend.
 His
 work
 continues
 to
 provide
 a
 model
 of
 great
 historical
 thinking.
 Steve
 put

me
 in
 touch
 with
 historians
 of
 technology
 in
 Chicago,
 who
 brought
 me
 into
 the
 fold.

Thanks
 especially
 to
 Richard
 John,
 who
 trusted
 a
 stranger
 to
 assist
 his
 research
 and

taught
 me
 a
 great
 deal.
 And
 thanks
 to
 the
 regular
 attendees
 of
 the
 Newbery
 Library’s

seminar
 in
 the
 history
 of
 technology,
 particularly
 Tom
 Misa.

 I
 have
 benefited

immensely
 from
 being
 a
 member
 of
 that
 happy
 republic,
 the
 Society
 for
 the
 History

of
 Technology,
 and
 of
 the
 Business
 History
 Conference.

 Thanks
 particularly
 to
 Meg

Graham,
 Hugh
 Gorman,
 Bill
 Leslie,
 Daniel
 Holbrook,
 Chris
 Rosen,
 Arwen
 Mohun,
 and

  ix
Bernie
 and
 Jane
 Carlson.
 I
 am
 blessed
 to
 have
 found
 an
 excellent
 group
 of
 peers
 in

these
 societies—my
 own
 little
 intellectual
 “school.”
 Thanks
 to
 Hyungsub
 Choi,

Barbara
 Hahn,
 Eric
 Hintz,
 Eric
 Nystrom,
 Dominique
 Tobell,
 Ben
 Waterhouse,
 and

especially
 to
 my
 historical
 soul
 mate,
 Andy
 Russell.

Three
 men
 have
 been
 instrumental
 in
 mentoring
 my
 intellectual
 life.
 After
 a

random
 inquiry
 I
 made
 after
 watching
 the
 movie
 Clueless,
 my
 high
 school
 English

teacher,
 Mark
 Wilson,
 gave
 me
 some
 Nietzsche
 to
 read
 in
 my
 sophomore
 year.
 He

then
 mentored
 me
 as
 I
 moved
 through
 that
 irascible
 German
 to
 the
 existentialists

and,
 finally,
 by
 my
 senior
 year,
 the
 structuralists
 and
 post-­‐structuralists.

 He

answered
 my
 every
 curiousity
 and
 counseled
 me
 in
 the
 life
 of
 the
 heart
 as
 well
 as

that
 of
 the
 mind.

 I
 know
 that
 I
 would
 not
 be
 who
 I
 am
 today
 were
 it
 not
 for
 “Mr.

Wilson.”

 In
 my
 days
 as
 an
 undergraduate,
 Professor
 Bill
 Schroeder
 became
 the

person
 who
 answered
 my
 long
 list
 of
 philosophical
 questions
 and
 who
 lectured
 with

such
 furious
 enthusiasm
 that
 I
 became
 assured
 of
 earlier
 inklings
 that
 I
 wanted
 to

get
 a
 PhD.

 Most
 of
 all,
 Bill
 taught
 me
 that
 study
 required
 the
 fire
 of
 passion
 as
 much

as
 it
 did
 the
 cool
 order-­‐making
 of
 reason.
 He
 remains
 a
 fast
 friend
 who
 continues
 to

inspire
 me
 in
 important
 ways.

Finally,
 Professor
 David
 Hounshell
 has
 taught
 me
 in
 more
 ways
 than
 I
 can

enumerate.

 He
 has
 always
 patiently
 humored
 my
 whim
 and
 curiousity,
 while

fostering
 in
 me
 whatever
 discipline,
 rigor,
 and
 clarity
 I
 possess.

 His
 encyclopedic

knowledge
 of
 history
 and
 historiography
 answered
 my
 every
 query.
 Most

importantly,
 David
 took
 on
 a
 student
 who
 wrote
 broken
 and
 mangled
 prose
 and

turned
 him
 into
 someone
 who
 is
 occasionally
 capable
 of
 producing
 a
 clear
 English

  x