China Moves Toward Nationwide Autonomous Vehicle Regulation

The Chinese government recently took a significant step toward establishing nationwide standards for autonomous vehicles.  On April 13, the public comment period closed on the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s new proposal for mandatory safety standards.  Titled Safety Requirements for Autonomous Driving Systems of Intelligent Connected Vehicles, the 62-page proposal, if finalized, would further the country’s ambitions to be the world leader in autonomous vehicles (AVs).

Autonomous Vehicles in China

Few, if any, countries have pushed autonomous vehicles as aggressively as China.  By one estimate, 500,000 robotaxis will be on Chinese roads by 2030, rising to 1.9 million by 2035.  Yet regulation remains fragmented, opaque, and often dictated at the municipal level.  Chinese authorities have even allegedly censored reports of deadly crashes involving autonomous vehicles, though some high-profile incidents have still attracted wide attention.

China currently has no nationwide mandatory safety regulation for autonomous vehicles, and some municipalities—including Beijing’s—have pulled back from allowing unfettered autonomous operations.  In 2024, the national government issued non-binding General Technical Requirements for Automated Driving Systems of Intelligent Connected Vehicles.  And last year, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology announced a ban on certain autonomous operations, including unregulated public testing.

What the Proposed Standards Do

The proposed standards would cover passenger and goods-carrying vehicles equipped with SAE Level 3 and 4 systems (excluding automated parking systems). The standards include technical requirements, safety assurance requirements, related inspection requirements, and testing and validation methods. The proposal refers to, and in certain aspects relies heavily on, the pending UN Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems (ADS), as well as UN Regulation No. 157 on automated lane-keeping systems.

• With respect to technical requirements, the proposed standards include several general expectations, including that “the safety performance of the ADS shall be at least equivalent to that of a competent and attentive human driver,” and that the ADS “shall not impose unreasonable safety risks to users or other road users.”
• In normal driving scenarios, the proposed standards would require that “ADS driving behavior shall not result in a collision,” the ADS must interact safely with other road users, and must “comply with traffic laws and regulations.” The ADS would be required to minimize overall risk, mitigate the severity of any collision, and come to a stop after a collision.  The standards set requirements for minimal risk maneuvers and for human-machine interactions.  They also would allow the driver or designated fallback user in the driver’s seat to take control of the dynamic driving task.  In situations where the user is unable to complete takeover of driving functions, the ADS must have the capability to execute a lane change and minimize safety risks to other road users, as well as move the vehicle to a location where it can come to a stop without obstructing traffic.
• The proposed standards would require manufacturers to implement a comprehensive safety management system encompassing a formal safety policy, risk management and assurance processes, and protocols for continuous safety improvement, design and development, production, and post-deployment oversight. Manufacturers would also be subject to inspection of both their assurance processes and their safety cases.  In addition, the standards would mandate the establishment of an automated driving data storage system (DSSAD).
• The standards include requirements for validation testing that encompass failure scenarios, complex traffic environments, and interactions with vulnerable road users. They contemplate a range of validation methods, including both real-world road testing and simulation, with the latter subject to additional, specified requirements.
• The proposal has an appendix specifically focused on Level 3 systems operating on highways and urban expressways. It imposes such requirements as “maintain[ing] the vehicle within the lane,” “avoid[ing] unnecessary lane boundary crossing,” and addressing user takeover requests.  It also has requirements for the ADS’s perception system, including lateral detection capability.  Level 3 systems are also required to monitor whether the driver is able to take over the driving task and respond appropriately before allowing intervention or assistance.
• The proposal also has an appendix focusing on Level 4 ADS that includes general requirements for path planning, the dynamic driving task, and detection capabilities. For Level 4 systems, the standard would further limit the role of remote human assistance in performing the dynamic driving task.  The regulations allow remote assistance in situations the system cannot handle, such as collisions, malfunctions, or responses to passenger requests.  They also impose requirements for monitoring communications and managing information exchanges with remote assistants.
• A final appendix—the longest component of the proposed standards—would set requirements for the content of the ADS safety case. The safety case would have to include a functional description of the ADS, the system’s architecture, a safety concept, documentation requirements, hazard identification, verification and validation requirements, and requirements for claims, arguments, and evidence.  It would also include various hazard scenarios, which it categorizes according to Automative Safety Integrity Level .

What the Proposed Standards Don’t Do

The Chinese proposed standards—though detailed—are by and large qualitative and open to interpretation.  They are replete with words like “appropriate,” “reasonable,” “unreasonable,” and “sufficient,” without specifying exactly what those terms mean in this context.  With very limited exceptions, they are not objective and specific in the way that U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are legally required to be.

Unlike the United States, which relies on manufacturer self-certification, China is a “type approval” regime—that is, designated authorities must affirmatively review and approve a new vehicle model before it is allowed on the road.  Specifically, a manufacturer must obtain a so-called China Compulsory Certificate (CCC) Mark before selling or importing a vehicle into the country.  Regulatory requirements that are comprehensive and yet non-objective may leave considerable discretion in the hands of approving authorities.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the proposal sets forth far more detailed, extensive, and specific operational requirements for Level 3 systems than for the more advanced Level 4 systems, which do not require a human behind the wheel.  The Level 3 provisions include speed limits tied to the vehicle’s perception and deceleration capabilities, as well as lane-keeping requirements derived from UN Regulation No. 157.  Indeed, the proposal’s limited quantitative performance criteria apply largely to Level 3 vehicles.  By contrast, the requirements for Level 4 vehicles are a much briefer and more high-level affair.

What the Chinese Proposal Tells Us

• A national mandatory standard in China would establish a baseline for operation on the country’s more than 3 million miles of roads. Such a standard could ensure uniform operability standards throughout the country, facilitate the expansion of operational design domains for Chinese AVs, and provide assurance that the vehicles will achieve a minimum level of safety.
• Much of the Chinese proposal has comparable counterparts in regulations established by the UN and the EU. What none of these sets of regulations have in significant part, however, is specific and objective performance requirements similar to the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
• The United States, for its part, has yet to adopt national substantive safety standards for AVs—though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has spent considerable rulemaking energy in recent years adjusting decades-old FMVSS to account for driverless vehicles. NHTSA’s Administrator recently said that the agency is working toward establishing “truly objective performance requirements” for AVs.
• The proposed Chinese standard, insofar as it harmonizes with other international standards, may also facilitate the exportation of Chinese AVs. And that facilitation may, in turn, lead to pressure on regulators and lawmakers in other countries—including, and especially, the United States—to establish their own national standards to ensure their AV manufacturers and operators are not left behind.
• Along those lines, international harmonization of standards will facilitate worldwide innovation in AV technology. Developing and coordinating such standards in the United States and elsewhere would promote the continued innovation and scaling of AVs.

[1] This discussion of the proposed standard is based on an AI-generated translation of the proposal.

Jennifer J. Kuo contributed to the drafting of this piece.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.