Notice2026-06023
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 30, 2026
Issuing agencies
Transportation DepartmentNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Abstract
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a defect petition submitted by Costas Lakafossis ("Petitioner") to NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) requesting that the Agency recall all Tesla vehicle models produced from 2013 to the present due to what the Petitioner considers to be the increased likelihood of pedal misapplication. According to Petitioner, the differences in the operator controls between the subject Tesla vehicles and internal combustion engine (ICE) powered vehicles promote driver pedal misapplication, leading to sudden unintended acceleration (SUA) incidents. Having reviewed the information submitted by Petitioner and Tesla, as well as data within its own files, NHTSA has denied the petition because the conditions described therein do not indicate the presence of a safety defect in the subject vehicles.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 60 (Monday, March 30, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15690-15692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-06023]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA-2026-0562]
Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Defect petition DP23001 has been denied.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a defect
petition submitted by Costas Lakafossis (``Petitioner'') to NHTSA's
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) requesting that the Agency recall
all Tesla vehicle models produced from 2013 to the present due to what
the Petitioner considers to be the increased likelihood of pedal
misapplication. According to Petitioner, the differences in the
operator controls between the subject Tesla vehicles and internal
combustion engine (ICE) powered vehicles promote driver pedal
misapplication, leading to sudden unintended acceleration (SUA)
incidents. Having reviewed the information submitted by Petitioner and
Tesla, as well as data within its own files, NHTSA has denied the
petition because the conditions described therein do not indicate the
presence of a safety defect in the subject vehicles.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Martens, Vehicle Defects
Division--D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f525e4b4b575a4811525e4d4b5a514c7f5b504b11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4a272b3e3e222f3d64272b383e2f24390a2e253e642d253c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.0 Introduction
Interested persons may petition NHTSA requesting that the Agency
initiate an investigation to determine whether a motor vehicle or an
item of replacement equipment does not comply with an applicable motor
vehicle safety standard or contains a defect that relates to motor
vehicle safety. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR part 552. Upon receipt of
a properly-filed petition, the Agency conducts a technical review of
the petition. 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49 CFR 552.6. The technical review
may consist solely of a review of information already in the possession
of the Agency or it may include the collection of information from the
motor vehicle manufacturer and other sources. After conducting the
technical review and considering appropriate factors, which may
include, but are not limited to, the nature of the complaint,
allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of
uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect
and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation,
the Agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2);
49 CFR 552.8.
2.0 Background Information
The Petition, dated March 21, 2023, requests the recall of all
Tesla vehicles produced from 2013 to the present because of a
``missing'' interlock that requires a brake pedal application by the
driver in order to shift from Drive to Reverse. Attached to the
Petition is a technical paper authored by Petitioner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Petition and supporting paper, ``Self-driving cars and
SUA accidents: a very clear understanding of the factors that
increase the likelihood of serious accidents in technologically
advanced cars,'' are designated ODI ID 11515119 and can be found at
<a href="https://static.nhtsa.gov/complaints/11515119/11515119-0003.pdf">https://static.nhtsa.gov/complaints/11515119/11515119-0003.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA's technical review included assessments of the Petition and
supporting technical paper, Tesla's response to ODI's Information
Request (IR), and additional data available to NHTSA.
3.0 DP23001 Petition
The Petition requests a safety recall of all Tesla vehicle models
produced from 2013 to the present, ``due to a missing critical
interlock feature and specific Autopilot features that contribute to
increased likelihood of driver errors in the form of Pedal
Misapplication.'' According to Petitioner, drivers habituated to
driving ICE vehicles adapt to ``one-pedal'' driving afforded by the
subject vehicles' regenerative braking but may mistakenly apply the
accelerator pedal in emergency situations when they intend to apply the
brakes, leading to increased unintended acceleration incident rates.
The Petition further proposes a remedy: the ``add[ition of] a software
interlock to [relevant vehicles'] control system, requiring the driver
to press the brake pedal before allowing the car to fully stop and
reverse gear to engage.''
In support of his petition, Petitioner describes a collision in
Greece that he investigated in which the driver
[[Page 15691]]
admitted to parking without the use of the brake pedal, and has
submitted a technical paper that he authored.
Petitioner describes the ``mechanism behind'' the alleged pedal
misapplication or SUA events supposedly caused by the alleged defect as
follows:
<bullet> The subject vehicles' regenerative braking capabilities
permit a driver to decelerate the vehicle by substituting reduced
accelerator pedal application for a brake pedal application when the
driver wishes to decelerate with ``one-pedal'' driving.
<bullet> In certain circumstances, a driver may mistake the vehicle
deceleration and (accelerator) pedal contact for a brake pedal
application.
<bullet> At times, a driver may recognize a need for greater
deceleration and inadvertently revert to prior muscle memory
established while driving ICE vehicles without one-pedal driving
capabilities and press harder on the accelerator pedal, mistaking it
for the brake pedal, leading to an SUA incident.
According to the Petitioner, the subject vehicles should,
therefore, be equipped with measures that require: (i) occasional
removal of the driver's foot from the pedals; and (ii) application of
the brake pedal before fully stopping the vehicle. Petitioner likens
these measures to the application of BTSI to automatic transmission-
equipped vehicles, which, Petitioner states, eliminated pedal
misapplication at vehicle startup and trained drivers to index their
foot positions.
The Petition hypothesizes that the application of an interlock
requiring driver brake application when shifting from Drive to Reverse
may reduce the pedal misapplication at issue.
4.0 ODI's IR and Tesla's Assessment
On May 13, 2023, ODI sent an IR to Tesla requesting relevant field
incident reporting, information about its regenerative braking options,
copies of internal assessments of one-pedal driving, pedal
misapplication mitigation strategies, and its assessment of the alleged
defect as proposed by the Petition. In its response, Tesla maintained
that the relevant vehicles appropriately responded to driver inputs
and, therefore, that there were not any SUA events responsive to ODI's
inquiries. In support of this conclusion, Tesla explained the operation
of the subject vehicles' regenerative braking systems, the creep/hold
functions, and the formerly called ``Pedal Misapplication Mitigation
(PMM)'' strategy, now referred to as ``Obstacle-Aware Acceleration
(OAA),'' \2\ and Tesla's overall assessment of the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ According to the Tesla Owner's Manual, Obstacle-Aware
Acceleration is designed to reduce the impact of a collision by
reducing motor torque and in some cases applying the brakes, if
Model 3 detects an object in its driving path. The touchscreen
displays a visual warning and sounds a chime when the brakes are
automatically applied. For example, Model 3, while parked in front
of a closed garage door with Drive engaged, detects that you have
pressed hard on the accelerator pedal. Although Model 3 still
accelerates and hits the garage door, the reduced torque may result
in less damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.0 ODI Analysis
ODI's analysis included assessments of the Petition and supporting
technical paper, Tesla's response to ODI's Information Request (IR),
and additional data available to NHTSA.
5.1 Scoping and Assumptions
Based on the Petition's emphasis on the human-machine interface
with regenerative braking systems and conditions existing at the
transition between Drive and Reverse at the end of a drive cycle, ODI
restricted its analysis to manually-driven circumstances and the
performance of regenerative braking in subject vehicles shifting from
Drive to Reverse.
5.2 Regenerative Braking and One-Pedal Driving Across the Industry
As is relevant here, regenerative braking is the primary vehicle-
based differentiator between ICE models and the subject Battery
Electric Vehicle (BEV) models. Regenerative braking converts excess
kinetic energy from a moving BEV into electric current, which recharges
its battery and slows the vehicle. Depending on the particular vehicle
model and user settings, regenerative braking may be set strongly
enough to enable ``one-pedal'' driving where the driver primarily uses
the accelerator during the drive cycle and may decelerate the vehicle
with a reduced level of accelerator application (instead of a brake
application). One-pedal driving furnishes substantially higher levels
of deceleration than coasting deceleration in ICE-powered vehicles.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Vigil, C., Kaayal, O., and Szepelak, A., ``Quantifying the
Deceleration of Various Electric Vehicles Utilizing Regenerative
Braking,'' SAE Technical Paper 2023-01-0623, 2023, <a href="https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0623">https://doi.org/10.4271/2023-01-0623</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-pedal driving capability is not limited to the subject
vehicles. ODI conducted a review of the usage of one-pedal driving
across the light vehicle industry. The ability to use regenerative
braking through the accelerator pedal exists across 21 light vehicle
manufacturers and 64 models, from 2008 through 2023 (the date of the
petition), with several models capable of generating deceleration rates
comparable to those of the subject vehicle and capable of bringing the
vehicle to a complete stop without the application of the brake pedal.
5.3 Evaluation of Pedal Misapplication-Involved Collisions
ODI used vehicle data that Tesla submitted in response to ODI's
information requests pertinent to DP23001 and additional Tesla pedal
misapplication incidents falling outside the particular scenario
posited by the Petitioner. Through this search, ODI was able to
identify only a handful of collisions potentially within the scope of
the alleged defect. Moreover, corresponding vehicle data demonstrated
that the subject vehicles responded appropriately to control inputs by
their drivers. Additionally, ODI is unaware of any evidence to suggest
that Petitioner's proposed interlock \4\ would have prevented either
the particular collisions furnished in Tesla's IR response or in pedal
misapplication collisions more generally known to the Agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ It is also worth noting that the vehicle manufacturer
determines the remedy for any safety defect; NHTSA does not
prescribe a specific remedy. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.0 Conclusion
Having reviewed all relevant and available information, ODI has not
found evidence of a safety defect in Tesla vehicles as described in the
Petition. The use of regenerative braking controlled by the accelerator
pedal, or one-pedal driving, is common across most light vehicle
manufacturers of electric vehicles and Tesla vehicles are not unique in
this respect. ODI has not identified evidence that would support
opening a defect investigation into pedal misapplication on the subject
vehicles based on an analysis of vehicle behavior or incidents known to
the agency. Accordingly, the Agency is denying the petition. As with
all potential motor vehicle safety risks, NHTSA will continue to review
any new information or incidents as they are submitted to the Agency.
[[Page 15692]]
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) and 49 CFR part 552; delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a).) \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The authority to determine whether to approve or deny defect
petitions under 49 U.S.C. 30162(d) and 49 CFR part 552 has been
further delegated to the Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
Eileen Sullivan,
Associate Administrator, Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2026-06023 Filed 3-27-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 30, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.