News
Tesla safety tech takes giant step with FCC approval for wave sensor
Tesla’s request for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to approve a millimeter-wave sensor for child protection and anti-theft measures has been granted. Along with five other companies, Tesla received “a grant of waivers” on April 14, 2021, that would allow the installation of radar sensors in the 57-64 GHz frequency band in passenger motor vehicles. The system is now likely to contribute to the imminent release of a driver monitoring system, which would keep drivers attentive during the use of the company’s Full Self-Driving suite.
The document also granted Vayyar Imaging Ltd., Valeo North America, Infineon Technologies America Corp, IEE Sensing Inc., and Brose North America to use millimeter-wave sensors. Tesla and IEE were approved for 60-64 GHz, while the other companies can utilize 57-64 GHz.
Millimeter-Wave Sensor
In August 2020, Teslarati reported that Tesla had requested the FCC to approve a short-range motion sensor that would save kids from being left in hot cars. The sensor would also boost the company’s theft-prevention system as it would be active “approximately 6 feet” outside of the vehicle “to provide vehicle security benefits such as detecting a broken window or a vehicle intrusion.” Tesla originally filed for a request for a waiver on July 31, 2020.
After a few months of research and deliberation, the FCC is waiving requirements that would prohibit the approval of these systems. The government agency says that “We find that grant of these waivers…will bring immediate relief to the industry and the public in this area. Specifically, our action will bring forth substantial public benefits by improving vehicular safety for children and providing opportunities for additional vehicular automation and theft prevention applications without increasing the potential for harmful interference to authorized users in the band.”
The Sensor’s use for Driver Monitoring for Full Self-Driving
New FCC documents obtained by Teslarati indicate that Tesla’s device “will use 4 transmit and 3 receive antennas driven by a highly configurable radar front-end unit and in-vehicle radar modulation will consist of consecutive frames, including an acquisition sequence comprised by a repetition of frequency chirps or stepped chirps, a listening period, then a period for signal processing.” However, there may be more uses for the sensor, which aligns with the company’s current plans to monitor driver behavior and attentiveness during the use of Autopilot or Full Self-Driving.
The documents state:
“Tesla identifies some potential use cases—child detection, cabin intrusion, and exterior detection—for which sensing would occur only while the vehicle is stationary; and other use cases—occupant detection and classification—for which the device would sense both while the vehicle is stationary and while in motion; and one use case—driver’s vital signs monitoring—for which the device would sense only while the vehicle is in motion.”
The device, along with the vehicle’s interior cabin camera, will monitor facial features and vital signs to ensure that a driver is paying attention. Tesla recently revoked access to its FSD Beta program to some owners as they did not remain sufficiently attentive while utilizing the FSD Suite.
Tesla officially expands FSD Beta test field while revoking access to the irresponsible
In early April, Tesla hacker green released footage of the Driver Monitoring system, showing how the interior cabin camera would constantly look at the driver’s facial features. This would ensure that a driver using the FSD or Autopilot systems is still paying attention to the road. Because Tesla’s FSD isn’t operating with Level 5 autonomy, it still requires the driver to pay attention to the road and the vehicle’s surroundings.
By popular demand, night footage with Tesla DMS detections.
It’s not perfect but workable with street lights and whatnot (as suspected)
Full 23.5 minutes footage on youtube: https://t.co/AZSpN3ZoFi
No idea why Dark/blinded top out at 50% only.
reworked display.@rice_fry pic.twitter.com/FiF6i33XGZ— green (@greentheonly) April 8, 2021
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety believe that the inclusion of the sensor could be highly advantageous for autonomous vehicles. “The ability of a vehicle to detect and classify all occupants will likely be critical as autonomous vehicles (AVs) are deployed onto our roads in the future… because…AVs will need to know the number of occupants and whether they are properly restrained before beginning to move,” safety advocates said.
Child Safety and Anti-Theft Devices
The device was originally going to be used to detect children left in a hot car. The system “provides depth perception and can ‘see’ through soft materials, such as a blanket covering a child in a child restraint,” according to Tesla’s original filing. The device “can differentiate between a child and an object left on the seat, reducing the likelihood of false alarms,” Tesla said. It can also detect “micromovements like breathing patterns and heart rates, neither of which can be captured by cameras or in-seat sensors alone.” Google was granted the use of a device “under the same technical parameters” by the FCC in 2018.
The device would also be able to detect intrusions of theft attempts, which could be coupled with the highly effective Tesla Sentry Mode. Sentry Mode records events that occur near the vehicle and has helped police crack several vandalism and robbery cases in the past.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that 105 kids were killed in 2018 and 2019 because of being left in a hot car. The death occurred 54% of the time because someone forgot their child was in the car. The approval of the millimeter-wave sensor could decrease that number significantly if it receives widespread approval after Tesla’s usage.
The use of the sensor is immediately effective. “Accordingly, pursuant to authority in Sections 0.31, 0.241, and 1.3 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.21, 0.241, and 1.3, and Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 302, 303(e), and 303(r), IT IS ORDERED that the Request for Waiver filed by Tesla Inc. IS GRANTED, consistent with the terms of this Order. This action is effective upon release of this Order.”
The FCC’s grant documentation is available below.
DA-21-407A1 (1) by Joey Klender on Scribd
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
