News
Tesla Model Y from Giga Texas is just one EPA approval away from first deliveries
Hundreds of Tesla Model Y all-electric crossovers have been spotted in the lots of Gigafactory Texas in the past few weeks, with some being spotted on haulers to be driven to destinations not known. However, haulers will likely be back soon for another logistics mission: to pick up the “Austin-made” Model Ys and take them to customers for delivery.
Tesla will be able to begin delivering units of its Austin-made Model Y all-electric crossover from Gigafactory Texas following the EPA approval of the vehicle, the agency told Teslarati. Currently, the Model Y from Gigafactory Texas is being produced with Tesla’s newest 4680 battery cells and new structural battery pack, has not gained its Certificate of Conformity, a document needed for a vehicle to be introduced into commerce.
Certificates of Conformity are effectively approval by the EPA that a vehicle can enter the stream of commerce. If it is introduced into commerce, the vehicle must have a Certificate of Conformity. The certifications are valid for a single model year, and new model year vehicles make their way to the EPA’s testing facility in Ann Arbor, Michigan every year to confirm they align with the EPA’s emissions standards.
“Prior to offering a vehicle for sale, all carlines in the Light-duty sector must be certified and Fuel Economy test data representing each model type must be submitted to EPA,” the EPA said to Teslarati in a statement. “EPA can confirm that Tesla has received a Certificate of Conformity for the 2022 Model Y Long Range AWD, Model Y Performance AWD (Test Group NTSLV00.0L2Y) and a Certificate for the Model Y RWD (Test Group NTSLV00.0L1Y).” These test groups were certified by the EPA last year, with the 2022 Model Y Long Range AWD and Performance variants gaining their Certificate of Conformity on November 1, 2021. It does not expire until December 31, 2022. The 2022 Model Y RWD, which is the variant that Tesla ultimately did not sell, gained its Certificate of Conformity from the EPA on September 28.
(Credit: Jeff Roberts)
Tesla’s Model Y made in Austin will also be a 2022 Model Y, which would mean it would technically align with the EPA’s Certificates of Conformity, especially as the geographic location of manufacture does not determine whether a vehicle conforms to the EPA’s standards or not. “EPA does not use the build location as a descriptor for a new test group or Certificate of Conformity,” the agency said. Instead, updates in the vehicle’s battery pack can prompt the EPA to consider certifying a vehicle again, even if the changes occur to a car in the same model year. However, the changes made to the vehicle prompted the EPA to certify the Austin-made Model Y separately.
In its 2017 document titled, “EPA Test Procedures for Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids,” the agency says that Confirmatory Testing for vehicles with the same model year is determined on a case-by-case basis, and the EPA can make a choice to certify a vehicle based on the changes:
“Currently, EPA performs confirmatory testing on all new light-duty electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles at EPA’s emission testing laboratory in Ann Arbor Michigan. If the manufacturer makes changes to an EV or PHEV that was previously tested at EPA, EPA will decide on a case-by-case basis whether additional EPA confirmatory testing is needed.”
What were the changes Tesla made exactly? The EPA confirmed to us that it could not comment on the status “of preproduction vehicles that are pending new emissions certification until manufacturers introduce them into commerce,” which means the Model Y’s changes are confidential until the car earns its Certificate of Conformity. Tesla did not respond to our inquiries to clarify why the vehicle needed to go through the EPA’s conformity procedure once again. However, Tesla’s most recent Earnings Call provided plenty of color to what the changes that prompted a new certification process likely are, and it has to do with Tesla’s 4680 battery cell.
The Battery Pack likely required the EPA to certify the Model Y once again
During the Q4 2021 Earnings Call, Tesla said that “after final certification of Austin-made Model Y, we plan to start deliveries to customers.” Additionally, during the Earnings Call CEO Elon Musk stated that Tesla was “building the Model Ys with the structural battery pack and the 4680 cells, and we’ll start delivering after final certification of the vehicle, which should be fairly soon.” Read More.
Previous builds of the Model Y, even 2022 model year vehicles, which were built at the Fremont Factory, have not yet used Tesla’s 4680 battery pack or the structural battery pack. Instead, Model Ys built at Fremont in the United States have used the automaker’s previous cell chemistry, the 2170 cell. When the EPA certified Tesla’s 2022 model year vehicles in August 2021, the certifications were for the previous battery pack. Read More.
Tesla Model Y from Giga Texas will equip Structural Battery Pack, 4680 cells
The 4680 batteries differ significantly from the 2170 cell in power, range, and efficiency. Therefore, the Model Y from Texas will have ratings that are substantially different from previous builds from Fremont. The Model Y from Austin needs eMPG ratings for FuelEconomy.gov and Monroney stickers.
Once Tesla is granted a Certificate of Conformity for Model Ys that are set to be produced at Gigafactory Texas, the automaker will be able to deliver the vehicles to customers.
Documents obtained by Teslarati show Tesla’s application to have the Model Y’s AWD and Performance variants certified together, while the RWD build of the car was certified separately. The documents state that each variant of the car conformed with California Air and Resource Board (CARB) standards, as well as Federal Emissions Standards that States which do not align with the CARB standards utilize. Texas withdrew its intentions to adopt CARB standards in 2007, State documents revealed.
States that have adopted CARB standards are New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and most recently, Colorado, which adopted the standards this year.
How long until the Tesla Model Y from Gigafactory Texas is approved by the EPA?
The EPA cannot predict the timing of the certification process, and it varies from vehicle to vehicle. Rough timeframes are available by determining when Tesla submitted an application for a vehicle and when the vehicle gained its Certificate of Conformity.
Tesla’s application for the 2022 Model Y Long Range AWD and Performance variants is dated for October 21, while the Certificate of Conformity is dated November 1. However, this vehicle had a previous model year and utilized the same battery pack. The timeframe may be quicker as the 4680 pack has not been previously tested by the EPA for a passenger vehicle.
When Tesla submitted its application for the 2021 Model Y, it was the first certification process for the vehicle. Tesla submitted the application on December 13, 2019, with the Model Y gaining its Certificate of Conformity about a month later on January 8.
If Tesla submitted its application for the new Model Y on January 26 when it announced it was awaiting certification, deliveries could be approved within the coming days.
4680 Battery Cell
In September 2020, Tesla held “Battery Day” to unveil a new cell and manufacturing design that would increase vehicle safety and structural integrity. Musk unveiled the 4680 cell, a new electric vehicle battery capable of more range, power, and performance while offering a longer life cycle. Tesla has been producing the cell in volume at a facility known as Kato Road near the company’s Fremont factory in Northern California. Until now, no customer has driven a Tesla vehicle equipping the 4680 cell. The Model Y built at the Texas factory will be the first Tesla vehicle to utilize the new 4680 battery pack. Read More.
The vehicle will also utilize Tesla’s structural battery pack, the automaker confirmed. The structural battery pack uses engineering similar to an aircraft wing to use negative mass to increase structural integrity and density. The packs will also use a structural adhesive and flame retardant, attaching cells to the floor and ceiling of the pack, increasing stiffness and preventing major deformation in the event of a crash. Read More.
I’d love to hear from you! If you have any comments, concerns, or questions, please email me at joey@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @KlenderJoey, or if you have news tips, you can email us at tips@teslarati.com.
Tesla has launched a direct campaign targeting its customers in New Jersey, sending emails that warn of pending legislation that could effectively block true driverless technology in the state.
The email focuses on Senate Bill S.1677 and Assembly Bill A.3968, measures intended to create a three-year autonomous vehicle pilot program but laden with requirements that Tesla argues make unsupervised Robotaxis impossible.
Tesla is sending out this email to New Jersey Tesla owners, warning them that NJ could block autonomous vehicles, and to take action.
“Proposed legislation moving through Trenton right now would impose restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.… pic.twitter.com/2bmY646AUL
— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) June 16, 2026
According to the email, the bills impose “restrictions so severe that true driverless deployment would remain illegal.” Specific hurdles include mandates for human safety drivers during operations, multimillion-dollar insurance minimums, reportedly $5 million, and thresholds like 100,000 miles of demonstrated safe autonomous driving before any driverless approval.
Tesla contends these are arbitrary barriers that ignore real-world performance data and favor entrenched competitors over innovative technologies like its Full Self-Driving (FSD) system.
The push comes as Tesla has started expanding Robotaxi operations in states like Texas, where unsupervised vehicles are already providing rides in several cities. New Jersey, by contrast, risks falling behind. The company highlights in the email communication that more than 94 percent of serious crashes result from human error, meaning impairment, distraction, or fatigue. These are all problems that Robotaxis eliminate entirely.
In 2025, New Jersey recorded 582 traffic deaths, underscoring the human cost of delayed adoption.
Tesla’s outreach stresses the transformative potential of robotaxis. For families, they could offer safer school runs without drowsy or distracted drivers. For seniors and people with disabilities, robotaxis promise independence and reliable mobility.
In areas with limited public transit, they could deliver affordable, on-demand transportation, reducing congestion, emissions, and overall transportation costs. Economically, the company warns that restrictive rules could cost New Jersey jobs, innovation investment, and billions in potential growth as autonomous ride-hailing scales elsewhere.
Supporters of the legislation, including Sen. Andrew Zwicker, describe the pilot as a cautious framework with strong safety oversight, including incident reporting, expert task forces, and restrictions in sensitive zones like school areas. They view it as balancing innovation with public protection.
Tesla and pro-AV advocates counter that the bill lacks technology neutrality, creates insurmountable entry barriers for commercial deployment, and prioritizes process over outcomes — effectively functioning as a de facto ban on services like Robotaxi.
This latest clash echoes Tesla’s past battles in New Jersey over direct vehicle sales. The email directs owners to Tesla’s advocacy platform, where they can send customized messages to legislators calling for amendments: outcome-based safety standards, open competition, and clear pathways for fully driverless commercial operations.
As hearings approach, Tesla’s campaign frames the issue as a choice between protecting the status quo and embracing life-saving progress. With robotaxi technology already proving itself in permissive states, New Jersey owners are being asked to ensure their state doesn’t lock out the future of transportation.
Turn-by-turn navigation is not new technology.
For over two decades, drivers have relied on Garmin, TomTom, and later smartphone apps like Google Maps and Waze to receive precise, reliable directions. These systems have guided millions safely through unfamiliar cities, highways, and backroads with remarkable effectiveness. They handle real-time traffic, construction detours, and complex intersections with minimal fuss.
Yet Tesla, the company that promised revolutionary Full Self-Driving (FSD), continues to struggle with this foundational capability. As FSD (Supervised) v14.3.4 has started rolling out to cars this week, navigation remains its glaring Achilles’ heel, undermining the entire autonomous vision.
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Tesla’s FSD excels in many driving behaviors—smooth acceleration, confident lane changes in ideal conditions, and responsive handling of visible obstacles. However, when it comes to following a route accurately, the system falters repeatedly.
Owners report wrong turns, missed exits, inefficient routing through local roads instead of highways, phantom speed limit errors, and even directing vehicles to building rear entrances. Interventions for navigation issues often outnumber those for core driving maneuvers. Tesla has begun surveying owners specifically about these errors, acknowledging the problem after years of complaints.
Navigation is perhaps my biggest complaint when it comes to FSD, because sometimes, we do know better. Some of us have been living in our areas for our entire lives, but even those who have not have years or even decades of experience driving on local roads. We might know a little better about routing.
But the navigation mistakes are more than just FSD potentially taking a slightly different route that may or may not save you a few minutes. Sometimes, they’re genuinely mind-boggling.
This isn’t just annoying; it cascades into broader failures. A flawed route plan confuses the AI’s decision-making, leading to hesitant behavior, unnecessary disengagements, or dangerous maneuvers like attempting impossible U-turns or ignoring clear ramps. In a system meant to operate with minimal supervision, unreliable navigation erodes trust.
More often than not, false or plain incorrect navigation is what causes me to interrupt FSD operation. Unfortunately, I believe the latest FSD version is the worst example of it, and it leads me to believe that Tesla might be making some changes; they’ve just made them in the wrong direction.
It makes you wonder: Why is a company that has done so much with the progress of FSD and autonomy struggling so much with navigation, something that is not new and has been around a long time?
Multiple Data Sources
First, Tesla’s navigation relies on a fragile patchwork of multiple data sources—Google Maps, TomTom, OpenStreetMap, Valhalla, and its own fleet-derived data—stitched together rather than a single authoritative map. When these conflict on lane geometry, road status, or turn details, the system hesitates or chooses incorrectly.
Traditional GPS providers maintain centralized, regularly validated databases with professional curation and rapid updates. Tesla’s hybrid approach, while innovative in crowdsourcing, introduces inconsistencies that a purely vision-based or end-to-end AI approach may not easily reconcile in real time.
Persistent Learning
FSD seems to struggle with persistent learning from driver interventions.
Unlike consumer apps that quickly adapt to repeated corrections or user preferences (e.g., avoiding certain routes or remembering habitual detours), Tesla’s FSD often fails to internalize fixes on the same trip or across similar scenarios. Owners note making the same manual override multiple times without the routing engine updating its behavior meaningfully.
This stems from the neural architecture prioritizing real-time perception and control over long-term route memory and personalization, making navigation feel rigid and “opinionated” compared to the adaptive logic in Waze or Google Maps.
I noticed that when I asked Grok to try and get me home a certain way (a way that FSD routinely took in the past because it was the most efficient), it had to place a waypoint between my location at the time and my house. When I went to edit the waypoint out, as Grok had placed it for a way to get FSD to get off the highway at the right exit, it was stumped again, rerouted, and took a longer way home.
The next thing I’ve noticed, and this might be controversial, is that Nav has gotten even worse.
I think that might actually be a good thing; Tesla seems to be adjusting it. They just need to adjust it the opposite way.
The car is taking extremely strange routes to very… https://t.co/UHg3tVfNA2
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
Reasoning, Scaling, and Intuition
Third, scaling navigation for unsupervised or robotaxi ambitions requires not just accuracy but adaptability and user-like reasoning. Current FSD often defaults to single routes that ignore driver preferences or real-world nuances like time-of-day traffic patterns. It fails to match the intuitive, context-aware planning that traditional systems have refined over the years.
Resolving navigation is critical for several reasons. Practically, it is the backbone of any autonomous journey: without trustworthy routing, the car cannot reliably reach destinations, rendering FSD useless for robotaxis or hands-free commutes. Safety depends on it—mismatched plans create hesitation in merges or intersections, increasing accident risk.
Economically, Tesla’s valuation and future hinge on FSD delivering unsupervised driving; persistent navigation flaws delay regulatory approval and erode consumer confidence. For owners who paid premiums for FSD, these issues represent unfulfilled promises. While it is unlikely Tesla will lose too many customers due to bad navigation, some will be frustrated with the constant need for human input.
Tesla has achieved miracles in electric vehicles and battery tech. Mastering turn-by-turn—technology Garmin nailed in the early 2000s—should not be this hard. By investing in tighter data integration, faster learning loops from interventions, and more intuitive routing algorithms, Tesla could close this gap.
Until then, FSD’s navigation struggles highlight a humbling truth: even the most ambitious innovator must sometimes master the basics before conquering the future.
A Tesla Cybertruck driver in the United Kingdom had their all-electric pickup seized by local police in the Greater Manchester area after the department cited “legitimate concerns.”
Last Thursday, police saw the pickup on the roads and decided to pull the driver over. Greater Manchester Police said:
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a collision with the Cybertruck.”
🚨 A Tesla Cybertruck, which is illegal to drive in the UK due to safety concerns, has been seized by police in Greater Manchester
“Whilst this may seem trivial to some, legitimate concerns exist around the safety of other road users or pedestrians if they were involved in a… pic.twitter.com/cqhdPok3DM
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 16, 2026
The Cybertruck in question was, according to the BBC, registered and insured abroad and was confiscated. The driver, who is a UK resident, was reported.
The Greater Manchester Police Department then added:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is not road-legal in the UK and does not hold a certificate of conformity.”
The Cybertruck cannot be legally driven in the UK because it has no UK Type Approval for operation in the country. This is due to some safety concerns, which are related to its angular shape and design. The stainless steel exoskeleton has sharp edges and projections that violate UK/EU rules on pedestrian protection.
Tesla has considered creating what it referred to as an “international version” that would be approved for operation in Europe. However, there has been no real movement on that front by the company, as it has been focused on the Robotaxi rollout primarily.
Tesla urges New Jersey owners to oppose new bill that could block Robotaxi
Tesla’s Navigation Nightmare: Why the easiest part of FSD might be the hardest
