The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) opened a preliminary file to determine whether it will conduct a formal investigation into claims involving Tesla Robotaxis operating with the automated driving system (ADS). A new defect petition accuses the vehicles of exceeding the speed limit while traveling through active school zones.
The file is numbered DP26010 and was opened by the Office of Defects Investigation on October 9, 2026, after the agency received the petition on September 23. The petition targets 2026 model-year Robotaxis when Tesla’s automated driving system is activated. NHTSA estimates the affected fleet at approximately 1,000 vehicles, including the Model Y and Cybercab, while emphasizing that the figure is an estimate.
A Preliminary File Does Not Yet Mean an Investigation Has Been Opened
Opening the file does not constitute an announcement of a formal investigation or proof that a defect exists. Under federal rules, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 552, the agency has 120 days from the date it receives a petition to decide whether to grant or deny it, placing the expected decision date around January 21, 2027. If granted, the file could become a formal defect investigation that may ultimately lead to a recall.
The materials currently available are based on three videos posted on social media, in addition to four incidents in the NHTSA records. The material did not indicate that any crashes, injuries, or fatalities had occurred in connection with these claims.
The Fleet Figure Adds Important Operational Information
NHTSA’s estimate of the fleet size is reportedly the first publicly disclosed federal figure concerning the number of Tesla Robotaxis. The company had not disclosed the fleet’s size, while community tracking in June indicated that only a few dozen active vehicles were operating in Austin, Dallas, and Houston. Tesla began operating the Cybercab commercially in Austin on September 3.
The material indicates that the agency’s estimate may be based on the number of vehicles Tesla officially added to the fleet through the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, which does not necessarily mean that all of them are actively operating in the service.
What Changes in Practice?
The issue of speed takes on additional importance because an autonomous vehicle does not have an owner behind the wheel who can be directly held responsible for the decision. In the case of FSD (Supervised), the driver selects the system settings and remains responsible for the vehicle, whereas the ADS system in a Robotaxi makes the speed decision while passing near a school.
This is not the first time concerns have been raised about the speed of Tesla’s software. Videos from the Robotaxi launch in Austin in June 2025 showed vehicles exceeding the posted limit, and NHTSA said at the time that it was in contact with Tesla. The agency also opened an investigation in October 2025 into traffic violations associated with Full Self-Driving, such as running red lights and entering the wrong lane.
The new file comes after two other federal actions over approximately five weeks involving Tesla’s autonomous fleet: an audit inquiry and a special order concerning how the Cybercab is certified, a vehicle designed without pedals or a steering wheel. Tesla’s responses to the special order have not yet been published.
The Broader Regulatory Context
Waymo is also facing an issue involving school zones. Austin ISD reported late last year that the company’s vehicles illegally passed stopped school buses approximately 20 times. Waymo responded by filing a voluntary software recall with NHTSA in December 2025.
The current action against Tesla remains an evaluation stage, so it cannot be concluded that a recall will be issued or that the claims will be substantiated. The open question is whether the limited evidence available will persuade NHTSA to convert the petition into a formal investigation, and how the agency will assess the company’s responsibility when the speed decision results from an automated driving system rather than a human driver.