NHTSA Expects Answers From Tesla by Sept. 30

Commercial Cybercab rides started in Austin on Sept. 3. NHTSA opened Audit Query AQ26002 the same day. On Sept. 10, the agency escalated: a formal Special Order with answers due Sept. 30.

So basically: this week is not about another influencer ride video. It is about whether Tesla’s sworn binder lands on time — and what AQ26002 is actually forcing the company to say under oath.

Special Order is not a polite email

An audit query is how NHTSA starts looking. A Special Order is how it demands documents with teeth. Electrek’s Sept. 15 reporting, matching the order text circulating with the AQ26002 docket, puts the deadline at Sept. 30, 2026. The response must go to NHTSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel, signed under oath by a responsible Tesla officer — an affidavit that the company searched diligently and that the answers are complete and correct.

Failing to respond fully or truthfully can trigger civil penalties. Coverage of the order cites a statutory ceiling on the order of ~$139 million for a related series of daily violations, plus the possibility of criminal exposure for false statements. Those numbers exist to get general counsel attention, not to predict a fine before anyone reads Tesla’s packet.

The order is signed by NHTSA Chief Counsel Peter Simshauser and runs to roughly 21 detailed requests. It is aimed at Tesla’s litigation and regulatory counsel, not at marketing.

What AQ26002 is asking

The OVSC resume for AQ26002 is short. Estimated population: 1,000 Cybercab vehicles. Problem: examine the process and technical data Tesla relied on when certifying them. The cars lack permanently attached conventional controls — no brake pedal, gas pedal, steering wheel, or mirrors.

The Special Order digs into that gap. Among the sharpest points in public summaries of the document:

• How Tesla certified compliance with all applicable FMVSS for a vehicle that physically cannot meet standards written around a human driver.
• Whether Tesla’s case rests on deciding certain standards are inapplicable — and whether a manufacturer can check that box for itself before the rules are rewritten.
• FMVSS No. 135 on service brakes: the standard says the service brakes shall be activated by a foot control. Cybercab has none. NHTSA has said publicly that a manufacturer of a vehicle without a foot-activated service brake could not certify to that standard — then asks Tesla how it did.
• Whether temporary human controls were part of certification, and how removing them squares with the Safety Act’s “make inoperative” prohibition.
• A walk through related standards that assume a driver: controls and telltales (101), shift display (102), turn-signal cancel tied to steering-wheel rotation (108), mirrors / rearview images (111), stability-control telltales (126).
• Whether Tesla holds a Part 555 temporary exemption. Public reporting says it does not. Competitor Zoox took the exemption route for a no-controls robotaxi; Tesla self-certified and started charging fares.

Administrator-level messaging around the AQ opening stressed that existing standards remain in force until modernization rulemakings finish. A June proposal to amend the foot-brake rule for automated vehicles is not the same as a final rule. Until it is final, NHTSA is treating the foot-control requirement as live.

Why the calendar matters this week

From Monday, Sept. 21 to Wednesday, Sept. 30 is nine days on a sworn federal deadline. The commercial service in Austin can keep running while the packet is being built — or the company can choose to narrow operations. The order does not automatically park every Cybercab on Sept. 30. It forces a legal narrative: show the work behind the certification, under oath.

That is a different story than the Sept. 3–4 cycle about “NHTSA opened an audit the day rides began.” The audit is the docket. The Special Order is the clock.

What “good” looks like on Sept. 30

Watch for:

• Timely filing (or a public fight over scope / extensions).
• Whether Tesla argues inapplicability, temporary controls, both, or something else.
• How it treats FMVSS 135 without a foot pedal and without a Part 555 exemption.
• Whether NHTSA’s next move is more document demands, an apparent noncompliance finding, or a longer enforcement path.

Do not confuse a complete affidavit with a clean bill of health. Completeness is the first hurdle. Substance is the second.

The filter

Self-certification is how U.S. vehicle rules work. It assumes the manufacturer’s certificate is not false or misleading when made with reasonable care. AQ26002 is the agency saying: for a car with no wheel and no pedals, prove that sentence.

The Sept. 30 packet is the product to watch this week. The rides were the press cycle. The binder is the precedent.