Cybercab Certification Questions in NHTSA AQ26002
Published
Open agency inquiry; no findings. Law checked through October 18, 2026.
The Roman census did not take a citizen's word for the value of his estate; the censor asked how the figure was reached. Federal vehicle law begins from the opposite premise. A manufacturer certifies its own vehicles as compliant with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and NHTSA intervenes afterward. On September 3, 2026, the day Tesla began commercial service with its two-seat Cybercab in Austin, the agency asked how Tesla had reached its figure.
NHTSA opened Audit Query AQ26002 and, on September 10, issued a Special Order requiring sworn answers. The questions go to the method of self-certification for a vehicle without conventional manual controls: which standards Tesla considered applicable, how it determined compliance, whether temporarily installed driver controls formed part of the basis for certification and what happened when they were removed, the vehicle's operational design domain and planned scale, and whether it complies without an exemption under 49 C.F.R. Part 555. The order cites the prohibition on selling noncompliant vehicles and on false or misleading certification in 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112 and 30115, and the civil and criminal penalty provisions that back a Special Order.
The inquiry matters well beyond one company. Several developers are building vehicles with no steering wheel or pedals, and NHTSA's pending proposals to adapt FMVSS Nos. 102, 103, 104, 110, and 135 address that design. Until those rules are final, a manufacturer that self-certifies such a vehicle carries the burden of showing how existing standards apply.
Limits
An audit query is a request for information. It is not a defect finding, a determination of noncompliance, or a recall.
Sources
- NHTSA Special Order AQ26002 (Sept. 10, 2026)
- 49 U.S.C. § 30112
- 49 U.S.C. § 30115
- 49 U.S.C. § 30166(g)
- 49 C.F.R. Part 555