A New Global Milestone for Autonomous Vehicles: What the UN Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems Means for Autonomy in the U.S. and Around the World
In late January, a United Nations regulatory body, the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party on Automated/Autonomous and Connected Vehicles (GRVA), approved a Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems (ADS). The draft Global Technical Regulation (GTR), which took roughly 10 years to finalize, offers a framework for signatories on how to regulate and validate autonomous vehicles, emphasizing the “safety case” approach—a structured, evidence-based argument justifying the vehicle is sufficiently safe for market introduction. Rather than prescribing a single, bright-line performance metric, the framework leaves room for jurisdictions to be somewhat flexible in how they apply the guidance to their own, country-specific legal regimes.
Procedural Background:
In 1998, several governments adopted a Global Agreement to create a process for developing UN GTRs on vehicles, equipment, and parts. The United States is a contracting party to the 1998 Agreement and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), at the request of the Department of State, serves as the U.S. head of delegation and technical lead in the UN vehicle harmonization system.
The body that develops those GTRs is UNECE’s World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). WP.29 is a working group in which government representatives from several dozen countries, including all EU Member States, the U.K., Japan, China, South Korea, and the United States, meet to coordinate and synthesize rules and regulations on motor vehicles and equipment. WP.29 can be thought of as a global hub that promotes international trade and regulatory harmonization in the automotive sector; it provides a venue where countries come together to discuss and agree on key safety and technical approaches so that vehicles, and increasingly, automated driving technologies, can be consistently regulated around the globe.
GRVA is one of several subsidiaries of WP.29. It was established in 2018 to focus on the safety and regulation of automated vehicle technologies. The group is made up of accredited experts appointed by WP.29 contracting parties who are typically government regulators or technical specialists from national transport ministries, vehicle approval authorities, and auto industry-related organizations. GRVA meetings also often include observers and technical contributors from industry associations, research organizations, and NGOs who submit research papers and provide technical input in early stages of drafting.
Over the past several years, GRVA has coordinated a substantial drafting effort with the goal of “identifying key principles for the safety and security of automated/autonomous vehicles.” The work reached a key milestone when GRVA adopted the draft GTR. The draft is now advancing toward formal endorsement and a final vote later this summer. Specifically, the next step is for the 1998 Global Agreement’s Executive Committee (known as AC.3) to adopt the draft GTR. Once it does so, the GTR will be formally established at the UN level, and subsequent implementation would then occur through each contracting party’s domestic regulatory process. The next WP.29 meeting session, at which the AC.3 approval could take place, is scheduled for June 23–26, 2026.
Key Aspects of the Global Technical Regulation:
The draft GTR takes a “safety assurance” approach to autonomous vehicle operations rather than relying on explicitly stated performance metrics. The GTR would require manufacturers of vehicles equipped with ADS to operate a safety management system (SMS) that governs safety across the vehicle’s entire life cycle, spanning development, production, deployment, and post-deployment, including periodic independent internal and external audits.
The draft GTR also puts significant weight on testing safety credibility. ADS safety validation is framed as a multi-pillar effort, including through track testing, real-world testing, and simulations. The proposal emphasizes that simulation toolchains must be credible and understood so that simulation results and limitations can be accurately relied upon. Regulatory authorities would evaluate the suitability of test environments and evidence―including simulation―and may require demonstrations, audits, or additional testing to substantiate safety claims.
Substantively, the draft GTR’s “center of gravity” is the safety case: a structured set of claims, arguments, and evidence intended to demonstrate that the ADS is free from unreasonable risk and that any residual risk is below an “unreasonable risk” threshold. The safety case is the organizing mechanism for how the manufacturer demonstrates that the system’s safety objectives are defined, hazards are identified and mitigated, and that the ADS has been sufficiently validated for its intended scope. The safety case is also closely linked to in-service monitoring and reporting (ISMR), another key aspect of the draft GTR. The ISMR requirement provides that manufacturers must have processes to monitor ADS operations, investigate and report safety-relevant occurrences to authorities, and use those learnings to refine hazards.
Additionally, the draft GTR emphasizes defining an ADS’s operational design domain (ODD). The ODD consists of the specific conditions under which the system is intended to operate. Manufacturers must describe the ODD, including its geographic limits, roadway characteristics (i.e., road type, conditions, and speed limits), environmental conditions, including weather and lighting, and key dynamic elements such as other road users and traffic context.
The GTR also includes general qualitative requirements for the performance for an ADS. For example, it provides that “the driving behaviour of the ADS shall not cause a collision”; “the ADS shall detect and respond to objects and events relevant to its performance of the [dynamic driving task]”; and “when a collision cannot be avoided, the ADS shall aim to mitigate its severity.” It also provides that “the ADS shall provide immediate feedback to indicate success or failure when the ADS user attempts to activate an ADS feature.” But the GTR does not set objective and quantitative performance requirements, nor does it mandate the use of any specific technology.
Finally, the draft GTR includes a data storage system for automated driving (DSSAD) capability to record and store safety-related ADS performance data, with protections against unauthorized access or manipulation and requirements around accessibility and format. The DSSAD requirement is intended to support safety evaluation and event occurrence analysis. The draft GTR also requires practical retrievability of data through an electronic interface and that DSSAD outputs be provided in standard formats and supported by manufacturer-provided interpretive information.
Why the GTR Matters:
The GTR would be the most advanced effort yet toward a globally coordinated regulatory “baseline” for ADS safety. It aims to apply across countries that do not all share the same vehicle approval regulatory regimes. For example, EU member states employ a “type approval” regime where regulatory authorities must test and pre-approve a vehicle before it may be sold, while manufacturers in the United States self-certify their vehicles as compliant with applicable regulations.
AV regulation, up until now, has been fragmented and inconsistent. The EU recently adopted an extensive ADS regulation, while there is not yet any such regulation at the federal level in the United States. Jurisdictions are moving at different speeds and with different philosophies, which creates challenges for manufacturers. The UNECE frames the draft GTR as a way to avoid divergent approaches and support safe and reliable mass production. The “safety case” approach is particularly significant because it signals that regulators are uniting on the question of how to prove an ADS is safe. But, at the same time, the draft GTR allows companies to design compliance programs that fit the jurisdictions in which they operate.
How the UN Regulation Differs from U.S. Standards:
The UN GTR differs from U.S. vehicle safety standards in both content and form. It does not operate like the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). FMVSS are binding U.S. regulations, issued by NHTSA, that manufacturers must meet to sell vehicles to the U.S. market. The draft GTR, despite its length, is less prescriptive than the typical FMVSS, which federal law requires to be specific and objective. Instead of imposing explicit performance requirements and test-based thresholds, the draft GTR adopts the more flexible “safety case” approach, allowing manufacturers to justify how their ADS is free from “unreasonable risk.”
What the UN Regulation Means for U.S. Law and ADS Companies:
The draft GTR would not automatically change U.S. law, even if adopted by the UN with the support of U.S. representatives. Under the 1998 Agreement, once WP.29 adopts a GTR, each contracting party is expected to go through its own domestic process to decide if and how to incorporate parts or all of the GTR into its national regulatory regime. The 1998 Agreement also expressly recognizes that governments retain the right to adopt and maintain more stringent regulations than those set at the global level, so the GTR generally operates as an international baseline rather than a ceiling.
NHTSA sought comment on the draft GTR to inform the U.S. government’s position because that position “could relate to any future domestic actions” regarding ADS safety and performance. However, even if the United States does not transpose the UN text into U.S. regulations—which it almost certainly will not—the GTR may still affect the American autonomous landscape in multiple ways. In particular, it may influence the thinking of U.S. regulators on what credible ADS safety assurance looks like, create a globally recognized benchmark that manufacturers may adopt for consistency across markets, and increase pressure for U.S. rules or guidance to harmonize with international standards.
Simultaneously, a parallel U.S. effort is underway to regulate autonomous vehicles. In addition to substantial activity at NHTSA relating to ADS, action is also happening in Congress. In February, Rep. Bob Latta introduced H.R. 7390, the “SELF DRIVE Act,” which would clarify and expand NHTSA’s authority over vehicles with ADS and aim to replace today’s state-by-state rules with a clearer federal framework.
The Department of Transportation has framed NHTSA’s recent actions on ADS as part of “a race with China to out-innovate.” China—which like the United States is deploying autonomous vehicles at a growing pace—has been heavily involved in GRVA’s leadership and in the meetings that developed the GTR. Promulgation of an internationally approved regulation could facilitate the efforts of autonomous manufacturers in each country to enter other markets.
Taken together, the UN and U.S. initiatives on ADS signal a clear message: Autonomous vehicle regulation is coalescing around common goals for documented safety assurance, credible validation, and ongoing accountability, making now the time for manufacturers and stakeholders to tune in and get ahead of the emerging global baseline.
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.
