National Highway Traffic Safety Administration#Aerodynamics brings change to NHTSA

In 1964 and 1966, public pressure grew in the United States to increase the safety of cars, culminating with the publishing of Unsafe at Any Speed, by Ralph Nader, an activist lawyer, and the report prepared by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Accidental Death and Disability: The Neglected Disease of Modern Society.{{cn|date=March 2025}}

In 1966, Congress held a series of publicized hearings regarding highway safety, passed legislation to make the installation of seat belts mandatory, and created the U.S. Department of Transportation on October 15, 1966 ({{USPL|89|670}}). Legislation signed by President Lyndon Johnson earlier on September 9, 1966, included the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ({{USPL|89|563}}) and Highway Safety Act ({{USPL|89|564}}) that created the National Traffic Safety Agency, the National Highway Safety Agency, and the National Highway Safety Bureau, predecessor agencies to what would eventually become NHTSA. Once the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) came into effect, vehicles not certified by the maker or importer as compliant with US safety standards were no longer legal to import into the United States.

Congress established NHTSA in 1970 with the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (Title II of {{USStatute|91|605|84|1713|1970|12|31}}, at {{USStat|84|1739}}). In 1972, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ({{USStatute|92|513|86|947|1972|10|20}}) expanded NHTSA's scope to include consumer information programs. Despite improvements in vehicle design and public awareness of issues like drunk driving, traffic fatalities have remained stubbornly high. In the early 2020s, more than 40,000 U.S. residents died in automotive collisions yearly.{{cite press release |title=NHTSA Estimates for 2022 Show Roadway Fatalities Remain Flat After Two Years of Dramatic Increases |url=https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/traffic-crash-death-estimates-2022 |date=April 20, 2023 |location=Washington, DC |access-date=March 3, 2025 |website=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |publisher=USDOT}}

NHTSA has conducted numerous high-profile investigations of automotive safety issues, including the Audi 5000/60 Minutes affair, the Ford Explorer rollover problem, and the Toyota sticky accelerator pedal problem. The agency has proposed to mandate Electronic Stability Control on all passenger vehicles by the 2012 model year. This technology was first brought to public attention in 1997, with the Swedish moose test. Most of the reduction in vehicle fatality rates during the last third of the 20th century was gained from the initial NHTSA safety standards during 1968–1984 and subsequent voluntary changes in vehicle crashworthiness by vehicle manufacturers.{{cite book |first=Leon S. |last=Robertson |title=Injury Epidemiology |edition=Third |pages= [https://archive.org/details/injuryepidemiolo00robe_0/page/186 186–194] |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-19-506956-3 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/injuryepidemiolo00robe_0/page/186}}{{explain|date=March 2025}}

File:US traffic deaths per VMT, VMT, per capita, and total annual deaths.png (red), miles traveled (blue), per one million people (orange), total annual deaths (light blue), VMT in tens of billions (dark blue), and population in millions (teal), from 1921 to 2017]]

Audits by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General in 2011, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2021 have concluded that NHTSA is ineffectual;{{explain|date=December 2023}} the 2021 audit found NHTSA failing to issue or update Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards effectively or to act within timeframes on petitions and investigations; having no process in place for critical agency responsibilities like evaluating petitions, and having failed to implement consensus recommendations derived from the Inspector General's audit a decade before, in 2011.{{cite web |last1=Stern |first1=Daniel |title=Systemic Dysfunction at NHTSA: Audit |url= https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/news/2021/11/16/systemic-dysfunction-at-nhtsa-audit/ |publisher=Driving Vision News |date=November 16, 2021 |access-date=September 19, 2022}}[http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/NHTSA%20FMVSS%20Final%20Report_11-9-21.pdf Weaknesses in NHTSA's Training and Guidance Limit Its Ability To Set and Enforce Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards] The 2018 audit found NHTSA incapable of conducting adequate, timely safety recalls.[https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/36626 NHTSA's Management of Light Passenger Vehicle Recalls Lacks Adequate Processes and Oversight] The 2015 audit found NHTSA's collection and analysis of safety-related data to be inadequate,[https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/32523 Inadequate Data and Analysis Undermine NHTSA's Efforts To Identify and Investigate Vehicle Safety Concerns] and the agency to be lackadaisical and careless in examining safety defects.{{cite web |last1=Ballaban |first1=Michael |title=Scathing Audit Reveals NHTSA Is A Five-Star Government Clusterfuck |url=https://jalopnik.com/scathing-audit-reveals-nhtsa-is-a-five-star-government-1713128651?rev=1435001957366 |publisher=Jalopnic |date=June 22, 2015 |access-date=September 19, 2022}}

Government data (from FARS for the U.S.) in a 2004 book by former General Motors safety researcher Leonard Evans shows other countries achieving greater traffic safety improvements over time than those achieved in the United States:{{Update inline|date=September 2021}}

Research suggests one reason the U.S. continues to lag in traffic safety is the relatively high prevalence in the U.S. of pickup trucks and SUVs, which a 2003 study by the U.S. Transportation Research Board found are significantly less safe than passenger cars.{{cite web |last1=Wenzel |first1=Tom |last2=Ross |first2=Marc |title=Are SUVs Safer than Cars? An Analysis of Risk by Vehicle Type and Model |publisher=Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting |date=January 15, 2003 |url= http://www.neotrucks.com/pdf/trb_safety_1-03.pdf |archive-url= http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130503020729/http://www.neotrucks.com/pdf/trb_safety_1%2D03.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 3, 2013 |access-date=December 21, 2020}} Comparisons of past data with the present in the U.S. can result in distortions, due to a significant population increase and since the level of large commercial truck traffic has substantially increased from the 1960s, but highway capacity has not kept up.{{cite web|author=Federal Highway Administration | title = Chapter 14 Freight Transportation |publisher=United States Department of Transportation |year=2006 |url= http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/chap14.htm |work=2006 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070823204506/http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2006cpr/chap14.htm |archive-date=August 23, 2007 |access-date=December 21, 2020}}{{cite journal|first=Leon S. |last=Robertson |title=Motor Vehicle Deaths: Failed Policy Analysis and Neglected Policy |journal=Journal of Public Health Policy |volume=27 |issue=2 |pages=182–189 |date=2006 |doi=10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200074 |pmid=16961196|s2cid=19954345 }} However, other factors exert significant influence; Canada has lower roadway death and injury rates despite a vehicle mix and regulations similar to those of the U.S.{{cite book|last=Evans |first=Leonard |title=Traffic Safety |publisher=Science Serving Society |date=2004 |isbn=978-0-9754871-0-5 }} Nevertheless, the widespread use of truck-based vehicles as passenger carriers is correlated with roadway deaths and injuries not only directly by dint of vehicular safety performance per se, but also indirectly through the relatively low fuel costs that facilitate the use of such vehicles in North America. Motor vehicle fatalities decline as gasoline prices increase.{{cite journal|first1=David C. |last1=Grabowski |first2=Michael A. |last2=Morrissey |title=Gasoline Prices and Motor Vehicle Fatalities |journal=Journal of Policy Analysis and Management |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=575–593 |date=2004 |doi=10.1002/pam.20028}}

In January 2025, NHTSA opened a preliminary investigation into 877,710 General Motors trucks and SUVs (model years 2019–2024) after receiving 39 complaints and reports of engine failures caused by bearing issues. The probe aims to assess the scope and severity of the problem, with General Motors stating its full cooperation.{{Cite web |title=NHTSA to investigate potential for engine failure in nearly 1 million GM trucks, SUVs |url=https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2025/01/17/nhtsa-engine-failure-gm-trucks-suvs/77775481007/ |access-date=2025-01-17 |website=Detroit Free Press |language=en-US}}

In 1958, under the auspices of the United Nations, a consortium known as the Economic Commission for Europe was established to standardize vehicle regulations across Europe. Its goals included promoting best practices in vehicle design and equipment and reducing technical barriers to pan-European vehicle trade and traffic. This organization eventually evolved into the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which developed what became the UN Regulations on vehicle design, construction, and safety and emissions performance for vehicles and their components. While many countries adopted or required adherence to the UN Regulations,{{cite web |url= https://share.ansi.org/Shared%20Documents/Standards%20Activities/International%20Standardization/Standards%20Alliance/ANDEAN_Mexican%20Delegation%20Visit/Powerpoints/Day%203/Presentation_Automotive_Regulations_and-Certification_Processes.pptx |title=Automotive Regulations and Certification Processes: Global Manufacturers' Perspective |work=U.S. Automotive Industry Coalition Meeting - Andean/Mexico Delegation |date=December 7, 2016 |access-date=December 21, 2020}} the United States did not recognize these standards and restricted the importation of vehicles and components not certified by manufacturers as compliant with U.S. regulations.{{cite web |url=http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/grey-market-cars-everything-you-need-to-know/ |title=What you need to know to avoid seeing your grey market car get crushed |date=August 30, 2013 |work=Digital Trends |access-date=May 30, 2015}}

Because of the unavailability in America of certain vehicle models, a grey market arose in the late 1970s. This provided a method to acquire vehicles not officially offered in the United States, but enough vehicles imported this way were faulty, shoddy, and unsafe{{cite news |last1=Ramos |first1=George |title=U.S. Accuses 'Gray Market' Car Importer |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-05-23-fi-8240-story.html |newspaper=The Los Angeles Times |date=May 23, 1985 |access-date=December 21, 2020}}{{cite news |title=Deception on Engines Charged: 'Gray Market' Mercedes Dealer Held |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-04-26-me-2291-story.html |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=April 26, 1986 |access-date=December 21, 2020}}{{cite news |last1=Dean |first1=Paul |title=Wheeling-Dealing Gray Market Hits the Skids: Bad Publicity, Corporate Action, Legislation Put Brakes on Car Conversions |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-11-vw-19912-story.html |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |date=July 11, 1986 |access-date=December 21, 2020}} that Mercedes-Benz of North America helped launch a successful congressional lobbying effort to close down the grey market in 1988.{{cite web|url= http://blog.caranddriver.com/how-to-win-the-car-importing-game/|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150203062314/http://blog.caranddriver.com/how-to-win-the-car-importing-game/|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 3, 2015|title=How To: Win the Car-Importing Game |access-date=May 30, 2015}} As a result, it was no longer possible to import foreign vehicles into the United States as a personal import, with few exceptions—primarily vehicles meeting Canadian regulations substantially similar to those of the United States, and vehicles imported temporarily for display or research purposes. In practice, the gray market involved a few thousand cars annually, before its virtual elimination in 1988.{{cite web |url= http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-european/car-show-classic-1985-citroen-cx-25-gti-automatic-series-2-a-retrospective/ |title=Car Show Classic: 1985 Citroen CX 25 GTi Series 2 – Blue Is A Warmer Color Than Grey|work=Curbside Classic |date=January 10, 2014 |access-date=May 30, 2015}}

In 1998, NHTSA exempted vehicles older than 25 years from the rules it administers, since these are presumed to be collector vehicles. In 1999, certain very low production volume specialist vehicles were also exempt for "Show and Display" purposes.

In the mid-1960s, when the framework was established for US vehicle safety regulations, the US auto market was an oligopoly, with three companies (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) controlling 85% of the market.{{cite web|url= http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/01/big-threes-dramatic-u-turn.html |title=Carpe Diem |access-date=May 30, 2015}}{{better source needed|date=September 2021}} The ongoing ban on newer vehicles considered safe in countries with lower vehicle-related death rates has created a perception that an effect of NHTSA's regulatory activity is to protect the U.S. market for a modified oligopoly consisting of the three U.S.-based automakers and the American operations of foreign-brand producers. It has been suggested{{cite web |first1=M.E. |last1=Wenners |first2=J.M. |last2=Frusti |first3=J.S. |last3=Ninomiya |title=Global Regulatory Harmonization—One American Manufacturer's Perspective |series=SAE Technical Paper Series |publisher=Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) |date=September 29, 1998 |volume=1 |doi=10.4271/982266 |url=http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/982266 |access-date=December 21, 2020}} that the impetus for NHTSA's seeming preoccupation with market control rather than vehicular safety performance is a result of overt market protections such as tariffs and local-content laws having become politically unpopular due to the increasing popularity of free trade, thus driving the industry to adopt less visible forms of trade restrictions in the form of technical regulations different from those outside the United States.{{cite web |last1=Stern |first1=Daniel |title=Crouching Tariff, Hidden Trade Barrier? |url= https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/news/2013/06/24/crouching-tariff-hidden-trade-barrier/ |publisher=Driving Vision News |date=June 24, 2013 |access-date=September 19, 2022}}

An example of the market-control effects of NHTSA's regulatory protocol is found in the agency's 1974 banning of the Citroën SM automobile, which contemporary journalists{{who|date=September 2022}} described as one of the safest vehicles available at the time.{{Citation needed|date=September 2022}} NHTSA disapproved the SM's designs featuring steerable headlamps that were not of the sealed beam design that was then mandatory in the U.S. as well as its height adjustable suspension, which made compliance with the 1973 bumper requirements cost-prohibitive. The initial bumper regulations were intended to prevent functional damage to a vehicle's safety-related components such as lights and fuel system components when subjected to barrier crash tests at {{convert|5|mph|km/h|0}} at the front and {{convert|2.5|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}} at the rear.{{cite web |first1=Warren G. |last1=La Heist |first2=Frank G. |last2=Ephraim |url= http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html |title=An Evaluation of the Bumper Standard - As Modified in 1982 - NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 807 072 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090304122233/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/807072.html |archive-date=March 4, 2009 |access-date=December 21, 2020}} However, these regulations at low-speed collisions did not enhance occupant safety.{{cite web|url= http://www.cnet.com/videos/top-5-citroen-sm-innovations-that-saw-the-future/|title=Top 5: Citroen SM innovations that saw the future video - CNET |publisher=CBS Interactive|work=CNET|access-date=May 30, 2015}}

Vehicle manufacturers have acknowledged the functional equivalence of the UN and U.S. regulations, encouraged developing countries to recognize and accept both, and advocated for equal recognition of both systems in developed countries.{{cite web |last1=Stern |first1=Daniel |title=Ford Push for Global Regs...Meaning What? |url= https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/news/2013/05/20/ford-push-for-global-regsmeaning-what/ |publisher=Driving Vision News |date=May 20, 2013 |access-date=September 19, 2022}} However, some structural features of the U.S. legal system are incompatible with some aspects of the UN regulatory system.{{cite web |last1=Stern |first1=Daniel |title=Legal Hurdles to Regulatory Harmony |url= https://www.drivingvisionnews.com/news/2013/10/28/legal-hurdles-to-regulatory-harmony/ |publisher=Driving Vision News |access-date=September 19, 2022 |date=October 28, 2013}} Studies have concluded that commonizing regulations between the US and the rest of the world (which uses U.N. Regulations) would save significant money, likely without affecting safety.{{cite journal|last=Beene |first=Ryan |archive-url = http://web.archive.org/web/20220919000000/http://www.autonews.com/article/20150725/OEM/307279968/wiping-out-u.s.-eu-rules-disparities-would-yield-big-savings |archive-date =September 19, 2022 |url= http://www.autonews.com/article/20150725/OEM/307279968/wiping-out-u.s.-eu-rules-disparities-would-yield-big-savings |journal=Automotive News |date=July 25, 2015 |title=Wiping out U.S.-EU rules disparities would yield big savings |access-date=December 4, 2018}} [https://txtify.it/https://www.autonews.com/article/20150725/OEM/307279968/wiping-out-u-s-eu-rules-disparities-would-yield-big-savings Alt URL]

NHTSA uses cost–benefit analysis for every safety device, system, or design feature mandated for installation on vehicles.Viscusi, Kip [http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3919&context=lcp Regulatory Economics in the Courts: an Analysis of Judge Scalia's NHTSA Bumper Decision] Law and Contemporary Problems volume 50 issue 4 1988 Retrieved July 29, 2015. No device, system, or design feature may be mandated unless it costs no more than a specified amount of money per life saved, or will save more money (in property damage, health care, etc.) than it costs. Requirements are balanced through estimated costs and estimated benefits. For example, FMVSS #208 effectively mandates the installation of frontal airbags in all new vehicles in the United States, for it is written such that no other technology can meet the stipulated requirements.{{Citation needed|date=September 2022}} It has been argued that even using conservative cost figures and optimistic benefit figures, airbags' cost–benefit ratio so extreme that it may fall outside of the cost–benefit requirements for mandatory safety devices.{{cite web |url=http://www.riskworld.com/NEWS/97q1/nw7aa028.htm |title=John Graham Releases Results of Cost–Benefit Analysis of Air Bag Safety |website=Riskworld.com |date=March 25, 1997 |access-date=November 13, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928020856/http://www.riskworld.com/NEWS/97q1/nw7aa028.htm |archive-date=September 28, 2011 }}{{cite journal|journal=Risk Analysis |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=803–811 |date=October 3, 2002 |doi=10.1111/0272-4332.00070 |last1=Thompson |first1=Kimberly M.|last2=Segui-Gomez |first2=Maria |last3=Graham |first3=John D. |title=Validating Benefit and Cost Estimates: The Case of Airbag Regulation |pmid=12224752 |bibcode=2002RiskA..22..803T |s2cid=27273577 }} Cost–benefit requirements have been used as the basis for lighting-related regulation in the U.S; for example, while many countries in the world since at least the early 1970s have required rear turn signals to emit amber light so they might be distinguished from adjacent red brake lamps, U.S. regulations permit rear turn signals to emit either amber or red light. This has historically been justified on grounds of lower manufacturing cost and greater automaker styling freedom in the context of no demonstrated safety benefit to amber over red.[http://www.drivingvisionnews.com/download.php?fileid=20110830 Automotive Lighting in North America], Driving Vision News, 2011

{{citation|first1=Erwin G. |last1=Hitzemeyer |first2=Helmut |last2=Wilde |first3=Donald |last3=Ellenberger |title=SAE Technical Paper Series |chapter=What Color Should Rear Turn Signals Be? |publisher=Society of Automotive Engineers - Technical Papers |year=1977 |volume=1 |doi=10.4271/770812 |chapter-url= https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/770812/ |access-date=March 31, 2022}}{{citation |first=Guy |last=Dorleans |title=SAE Technical Paper Series |chapter=World Harmonization and Procedures for Lighting and Signaling Products |publisher=Society of Automotive Engineers - Technical Papers |year=1997 |volume=1 |doi=10.4271/970913 |chapter-url= https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/970913/ |access-date=March 31, 2022}} More recent{{when|date=December 2023}} NHTSA-sponsored research has demonstrated that amber rear turn signals provide significantly better crash avoidance than red ones,{{cite web |url= http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2008/811050.pdf |title= The Influence of Rear Turn Signal Characteristics on Crash Risk |access-date= October 17, 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090511053347/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2008/811050.pdf |archive-date= May 11, 2009 |url-status= dead }} {{small|(527 KB)}}{{cite web|last=Allen |first=Kirk |title=The Effectiveness of Amber Rear Turn Signals for Reducing Rear Impacts, DOT HS 811 115 |publisher = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |year=2009 |url= http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811115.PDF }} and NHTSA has found there is no significant cost penalty to amber signals versus red ones, yet the agency has not moved to require amber—instead proposing in 2015 to award extra NCAP points to passenger vehicles with amber rear turn signals.{{Cite web|url=https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2015-0119-0001|title=Regulations.gov|website=www.regulations.gov}} As of September 2022, however, the agency has not put this proposal into effect.

NHTSA administers the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), which is intended to incentivize the production of fuel-efficient vehicles by dint of fuel economy requirements measured against the sales-weighted harmonic average of each manufacturer's range of vehicles. Many governments outside North America promote fuel economy by heavily taxing motor fuel and/or by including a vehicle's weight, engine size, or fuel economy in calculating vehicle registration taxes (road tax).

File:NCAPLabel.jpg

{{Stack|File:NHTSA Crash Test of the 2006 Honda Ridgeline.ogv at {{convert|35|mph|kph|0|abbr=on}} and {{convert|38.5|mph|kph|0|abbr=on}}, respectively]]}}

In 1979, NHTSA created the/a New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, to encourage manufacturers to build safer vehicles and consumers to buy them. Since that time, the agency has improved the program by adding rating programs, facilitating access to test results, and revising the format of the information to make it easier for consumers to understand.{{cite web |title=The New Car Assessment Program Suggested Approaches for Future Program Enhancements |publisher=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration |date=January 2007 |url= http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/DOT/safercar/pdf/810698.pdf |access-date = November 24, 2008 }} NHTSA asserts the program has influenced manufacturers to build vehicles that consistently achieve high ratings.

The United States was the first country/region to have an NCAP program, which was then copied by other NCAP programs.{{Cn|date=November 2024}}

The first standardized {{convert|35|mph|kph|0|abbr=on}} front crash test was on May 21, 1979, and the first results were released on October 15 that year.

The agency established a frontal impact test protocol based on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 ("Occupant Crash Protection"), except that the frontal 4 NCAP test is conducted at {{convert|35|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}}, rather than {{convert|30|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}} as required by FMVSS No. 208.

To improve the dissemination of NCAP ratings, and as a result of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU), the agency has issued a Final Rule requiring manufacturers to place NCAP star ratings on the Monroney sticker (automobile price sticker). The rule had a September 1, 2007 compliance date.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nhtsa.gov/campaign/safercargov|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070925184625/http://www.safercar.gov/NewCarAssessmentEnhancements-2007.pdf|url-status=dead|title=safercar.gov | NHTSA|archivedate=September 25, 2007|website=www.nhtsa.gov}}

• Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
• Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute (ITS)
• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

{{reflist}}

• McDonald, Kevin M. "Shifting Out of Park: Moving Auto Safety from Recalls to Reason" (Lawyers & Judges Publishing, 2006). {{ISBN|978-1933264165}}.
• {{cite book | last = Evans | first = Leonard | title = Traffic Safety | publisher = Science Serving Society | year= 2004 | isbn = 978-0-9754871-0-5 }}
• The Century Council's [https://web.archive.org/web/20110817033028/http://www.centurycouncil.org/files/TCC-ARTF_2006_1.pdf Report on Alcohol-Related Traffic Fatalities in the United States (2006)]
• Peltzman, Sam. "The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation." The Journal of Political Economy 83, no. 4 (August 1975): 677–725. {{JSTOR|1830396}}
• {{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/autos-fuel-court/update-2-us-appeals-court-orders-new-fuel-economy-standards-idUKN1532769520071116?edition-redirect=in|title=U.S. Appeals Court Orders New Fuel Economy Standards|work=Reuters|date=November 16, 2007}}

• {{official website|http://www.nhtsa.gov/}}
• [https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/chapter-V 49 CFR Chapter V] (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)
• [https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/national-highway-traffic-safety-administration National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] in the Federal Register
• {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/19961112103647/http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ |date=November 12, 1996 |title=National Highway Traffic Safety Administration }}
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20101029072838/http://dotlibrary.dot.gov/Historian/service.htm DOT's list of operating administrators of the NHTSA]

{{Include-USGov-DOT}}

{{DOT agencies}}

{{Automotive industry in the United States}}

{{NCAP}}

{{Presidency of Richard Nixon}}

{{authority control}}

Category:1970 establishments in the United States

Category:Road safety organizations

Category:Automotive safety

Category:New Car Assessment Programs

Category:United States Department of Transportation agencies

Category:Government agencies established in 1970

Highway Traffic Safety