NHTSA Demands Tesla Justify Cybercab's Legality Under Oath
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has escalated its scrutiny of Tesla's Cybercab, issuing a formal Special Order demanding sworn testimony on how the autonomous vehicle complies with existing federal safety regulations. This directive comes after Tesla commenced commercial Cybercab operations in Austin, raising questions about the vehicle's unique design, which lacks traditional controls such as a steering wheel, pedals, and mirrors. The agency's action underscores a significant challenge to Tesla's self-certification approach, setting a deadline of September 30 for the automaker to provide a detailed and truthful response, under penalty of substantial fines.
On September 10, the NHTSA issued a Special Order, a legal demand that carries serious implications, including potential penalties of up to $139 million for non-compliance or falsification of information. This move follows an earlier Audit Query initiated shortly after Tesla's Cybercab service began in Austin on September 3. The Special Order, signed by NHTSA Chief Counsel Peter Simshauser, consists of 21 specific requests and is directed at Tesla's head of litigation and associate general counsel for regulatory affairs, emphasizing the gravity of the situation.
A core issue at hand is the self-certification process for vehicle designs in the United States. Automakers are typically responsible for certifying that their vehicles meet all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), with NHTSA conducting checks post-certification. Tesla had certified the Cybercab as compliant with all relevant FMVSS. However, many of these standards were drafted with the assumption of a human driver. NHTSA's order explicitly challenges Tesla to defend its certification, particularly citing the provision that prohibits certification if there's reason to believe it's false or misleading. Tesla's potential defense centers on the argument that rules designed for human-operated vehicles are not applicable to fully autonomous robotaxis. Yet, NHTSA's stance is firm: current rules remain in effect until formally revised.
One of the most pointed inquiries in the Special Order, Request 19, addresses FMVSS No. 135, which mandates that service brakes be activated by a foot control. The Cybercab, by design, lacks any foot controls. NHTSA had previously stated that a vehicle without a foot-activated service brake could not meet this standard, and it is now demanding Tesla explain how it certified the Cybercab as compliant. Although NHTSA has proposed an amendment to FMVSS 135 for automated vehicles, this proposal is not yet law, and the agency is actively enforcing the existing foot-control requirement against Tesla.
Further requests probe Tesla's potential use of temporary manual controls during certification and the implications of their subsequent removal. The Safety Act prohibits certifying a vehicle with required safety equipment and then removing it before delivery. NHTSA is scrutinizing whether Tesla's Cybercabs, defined as vehicles without permanently attached conventional manual controls, violate this "make inoperative" prohibition. The order also questions compliance with various other FMVSS standards, such as those related to controls, telltales, shift-position displays, turn signals, mirrors, rearview images, and stability-control telltales, all of which typically assume the presence of a human driver and associated equipment.
Perhaps the most critical request concerns the absence of a Part 555 exemption. NHTSA's own 2022 rule indicated that significant FMVSS changes would likely be necessary for vehicles operated solely by automated driving systems to be manufactured for sale, unless the automaker obtained such an exemption. Tesla does not possess a Part 555 exemption, leading NHTSA to question the legal basis for selling the Cybercab. This contrasts sharply with Amazon's Zoox, which secured a temporary Part 555 exemption for its own purpose-built robotaxi, covering several federal standards including the foot-brake and mirror rules. Zoox followed a structured process of application, safety case presentation, and waiting for approval, receiving both a demonstration and a commercial exemption. Tesla, however, opted for self-certification and immediate commercial deployment, bypassing the exemption process altogether. The NHTSA's order highlights this divergence, implying a recognized legal pathway that Tesla chose not to follow.
This situation underscores a broader tension between rapid technological advancement and the pace of regulatory adaptation. While NHTSA has expressed openness to modernizing standards for autonomous vehicles, its current actions firmly assert that existing rules must be adhered to until formal changes are enacted. Tesla's approach, which some interpret as operating ahead of regulatory compliance, now faces a direct challenge from federal authorities, with significant legal and financial consequences at stake. The outcome of this order will likely set an important precedent for the future of autonomous vehicle development and deployment.