I think every crash, where an investigation could prevent another crash in the future, should be investigated.
Shouldn't Tesla "celebrate their mistakes" (yes, morbid, sorry) and see this as an opportunity to improve their product?
(1) Will they take relative risk into account? If the car sometimes crashes but less often than humans, will that be sufficient, or considered a flaw because it's not perfect and regulators hate looking bad?
(2) Will they take progress into account? If the car drives worse than humans but its accident rate drops 10% per year, then after some number of years we'll accumulate fewer total accidents than if we hadn't allowed progress to continue. That's important because progress won't continue without lots of cars on the road using Autopilot and FSD betas.
IMO, they are wrong and this will likely lead to guidance for all automakers, including Tesla. I doubt anything that comes out of this will be a problem for Tesla, if anything it might end up being harder for the others.
NHTSA is pretty reasonable most of the time.
Go read about what "whataboutism" is and where it came from. It is a rhetorical technique where you deflect criticism by asserting that the group you are being criticized by is hypocritical because they do the same thing they are accusing you of doing.
There is no implication of hypocrisy here, nor could there be since the NHTSA doesn't make cars...
Instead this is a comment asking a legitimate question about the basis for the investigation given the overall rates of occurence for the incident in question. Other repliers attempted to answer this question, you decided to try to shut down discussion by mis-applying a rhetorical label.