China's first mandatory national standard for L3/L4 automated driving.
Test Systems
GtestWorks Automated Testing Platform
VectWorks 3.0 Electrical Performance Test Software
GB 44721-2026 is China's first mandatory national standard for L3 (conditional automated driving) and L4 (high automated driving) systems. It was organized and formulated by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, approved and issued on July 30, 2026, and takes effect on July 1, 2027. Upgraded from the recommended national standard GB/T 44721-2024, it changes from "recommended adoption" to "mandatory strict implementation," building a complete closed-loop system of "technical requirements — assurance requirements — inspection methods — type determination," and establishing a unified safety baseline for automated driving product access.
This page systematically organizes the development history, scope of application, standard structure, core terminology, ADS technical requirements, enterprise safety assurance requirements, inspection and testing system, appendix-specific requirements, international coordination, and industry impact of GB 44721-2026. It is suitable for search engine indexing and helps engineering and compliance teams quickly locate key points.
China's first mandatory national standard for L3/L4 automated driving.
Closed loop of technical requirements — assurance requirements — inspection methods — type determination.
12 abbreviations, building a unified conceptual system.
Officially effective, with a transition period of about 11 months.
In recent years, China's automated driving technology has accelerated its iterative breakthroughs, and road test demonstrations for intelligent connected vehicles have advanced in an orderly manner. In 2025, two L3 (conditional automated driving) models obtained conditional access permits, and L4 automated driving in multiple scenarios such as ports, mining areas, industrial parks, trunk logistics, and urban Robotaxi entered normalized pilot operations, with more than 100 cities nationwide opening automated driving road test qualifications[1].
However, for a long time the industry has relied only on recommended standards and local pilot management measures to constrain enterprises, resulting in three prominent pain points:
| Pain Point | Specific Manifestation |
|---|---|
| Level marketing chaos | A large number of automakers package L2 driver assistance as "quasi-L3" or "fully automated driving," deliberately blurring the SAE level definitions |
| No basis for responsibility allocation | Accidents occur frequently in L3 scenarios when the system exceeds its operational boundary or the driver fails to take over in time, with no national standard defining the responsibility boundary |
| Inconsistent pilot rules | Requirements for automated driving on roads, safety officer configuration, and test mileage vary greatly across regions, resulting in high cross-regional operating costs for enterprises |
*Source: Compiled from Tencent News*
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
| 2024 | GB/T 44721-2024 "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — General Technical Requirements for Automated Driving Systems" was first issued as a recommended national standard |
| November 12, 2025 | The National Public Service Platform for Standards Information publicized the national standard project "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems" |
| From 2025 | MIIT organized the National Technical Committee of Auto Standardization to launch the formulation of the mandatory national standard |
| February 12, 2026 | The First Equipment Industry Department of MIIT publicly solicited opinions, with a deadline of April 13, 2026 |
| June 3, 2026 | The approval draft was completed |
| June 17-24, 2026 | The approval draft was publicized to solicit opinions from all sectors of society |
| July 30, 2026 | Approved and issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation and the Standardization Administration of China |
| August 4, 2026 | Officially publicly released by MIIT |
| July 1, 2027 | Scheduled to officially take effect |
*Source: MIIT Official Announcement | Baike | EEWorld*
The predecessor of GB 44721-2026 is the recommended national standard GB/T 44721-2024 issued in 2024. The most fundamental difference between the two lies in legal effect:
| Comparison Dimension | GB/T 44721-2024 (Old) | GB 44721-2026 (New) |
|---|---|---|
| Standard nature | Recommended national standard (GB/T) | Mandatory national standard (GB) |
| Standard name | General Technical Requirements for Automated Driving Systems | Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems |
| Legal effect | Encouraged adoption, not mandatory | Mandatory strict implementation |
| Access constraint | Limited compliance pressure | Cannot pass access approval if not satisfied |
| Coverage | L3/L4 general technical requirements | L3/L4 safety requirements + assurance requirements + inspection methods |
This document applies to category M and category N vehicles equipped with L3 and/or L4 automated driving systems (excluding automated parking systems).
| Vehicle Category | Description | Typical Scenarios |
|---|---|---|
| Category M | Passenger-carrying vehicles (passenger cars, buses, vans) | L3 passenger cars, L4 Robotaxi/Robobus |
| Category N | Goods-carrying vehicles (trucks, lorries) | L4 trunk logistics, unmanned mining transport |
This standard establishes a unified safety access baseline for automated driving products, with significance in four aspects:
*Source: Xinhua Net | MIIT*
The standard consists of 11 chapters + 4 appendices, forming a complete closed-loop system of "technical requirements — assurance requirements — inspection methods — type determination":
| Chapter | Title | Core Content |
|---|---|---|
| Chapter 1 | Scope | Applies to category M/N vehicles with L3/L4 ADS |
| Chapter 2 | Normative References | 6 referenced standards |
| Chapter 3 | Terms and Definitions | 18 term definitions |
| Chapter 4 | Abbreviations | 12 abbreviations |
| Chapter 5 | ADS Technical Requirements | DDT execution, HMI, user notification |
| Chapter 6 | Assurance Requirements | Safety assurance requirements (SMS), test conditions |
| Chapter 7 | Assurance Requirement Inspection | SMS inspection, test condition inspection |
| Chapter 8 | Safety Case Inspection | Content inspection, test activity inspection |
| Chapter 9 | Confirmatory Testing | Simulation testing, proving ground testing, road testing |
| Chapter 10 | Same-Type Determination | Directly deemed conditions, conditions deemed after inspection and verification |
| Chapter 11 | Standard Implementation | Transition period and implementation requirements |
| Appendix A | Takeover Capability Monitoring Technical Requirements | Seat belt, presence, DDT capability monitoring |
| Appendix B | Special Requirements for L3 ADS on Expressways | DDT execution, HMI, perception system |
| Appendix C | Special Requirements for L4 ADS Functions | DDT execution, remote assistance, HMI |
| Appendix D | Safety Case | System description, safety concept, claims/arguments/evidence |
*Source: Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft | Baike*
| Change Type | Specific Content |
|---|---|
| Changed standard name | From "General Technical Requirements" to "Safety Requirements," focusing on safety |
| Changed standard scope | Clarified the L3/L4 scope of application (Chapter 1) |
| Changed normative references | Updated the list of referenced standards (Chapter 2) |
| Changed terms and definitions | Revised and improved the terminology system (Chapter 3) |
| Added abbreviations | Added the abbreviations section in Chapter 4 |
| Changed DDT requirements | Revised dynamic driving task requirements (5.1) |
| Changed HMI requirements | Revised HMI requirements (5.2) |
| Changed user notification requirements | Revised user notification (5.3) |
| Changed assurance requirements | Revised into a complete SMS system (Chapter 6) |
| Added assurance requirement inspection | Added Chapter 7 |
| Added safety case inspection | Added Chapter 8 |
| Changed confirmatory testing | Revised into a complete testing system (Chapter 9) |
| Added same-type determination | Added Chapter 10 |
| Added standard implementation | Added Chapter 11 |
| Changed takeover capability monitoring | Revised the technical requirements in Appendix A |
| Added expressway L3 special requirements | Added Appendix B |
| Added L4 special requirements | Added Appendix C |
| Changed safety case | Revised the content structure of Appendix D |
*Source: Standard Foreword*
| Term | English | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Automated Driving System (ADS) | Automated Driving System | A system composed of vehicle hardware and software with the capability to continuously perform the entire dynamic driving task |
| Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) | Dynamic Driving Task | The real-time capability to perceive the vehicle environment, plan, decide, and execute control, including control of vehicle visibility and vehicle motion |
| ADS feature | ADS feature | The capability of the ADS to perform the entire DDT under specific operational design conditions |
| Level 3 ADS feature | Level 3 ADS feature | An ADS feature that requires takeover (referring to Level 3 as defined in GB/T 40429-2021) |
| Level 4 ADS feature | Level 4 ADS feature | An ADS feature with ODD restrictions that does not require takeover (referring to Level 4 as defined in GB/T 40429-2021) |
| Active state | Active state | The operating state in which the ADS performs the DDT to control the vehicle |
| Available state | Available state | The state in which the operational design conditions of the ADS feature are met but the ADS has not yet performed control |
| Operational Design Domain (ODD) | Operational Design Domain | The external environmental conditions (road, traffic, weather, lighting, etc.) determined at design time that are applicable to the operation of the driving automation system |
| Operational Design Condition (ODC) | Operational Design Condition | The collective term including ODD, vehicle state, occupant state, and other necessary conditions |
| Planned Takeover Event | Planned Takeover Event | An event that the ADS knows in advance and for which it needs to issue an intervention request |
| Fallback User | Fallback User | For an L3 ADS feature, the in-vehicle user designated to perform takeover while it is in the active state |
| Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM) | Minimal Risk Maneuver | The strategy by which the system transfers the vehicle to a minimal risk condition when it cannot continue to perform the DDT |
| Minimal Risk Condition (MRC) | Minimal Risk Condition | The vehicle is in a safe stationary state that does not obstruct traffic |
| Abbreviation | Chinese Meaning | Full English Name |
|---|---|---|
| ADS | Automated Driving System | Automated Driving System |
| DDT | Dynamic Driving Task | Dynamic Driving Task |
| DSSAD | Automated Driving Data Recording System | Data Storage System for Automated Driving |
| ECU | Electronic Control Unit | Electronic Control Unit |
| FIT | Failure Rate | Failures in Time |
| FMEA | Failure Mode and Effect Analysis | Failure Mode and Effect Analysis |
| FTA | Fault Tree Analysis | Fault Tree Analysis |
| HAZOP | Hazard and Operability Analysis | HAZard and Operability analysis |
| MRC | Minimal Risk Condition | Minimal Risk Condition |
| MRM | Minimal Risk Maneuver | Minimal Risk Maneuver |
| SOTIF | Safety of the Intended Functionality | Safety Of The Intended Functionality |
| STPA | System Theoretic Process Analysis | System Theoretic Process Analysis |
The standard requires that the safety level of the automated driving system should at least reach the level of a competent and attentive human driver who is performing the dynamic driving task, and must not create unreasonable safety risks for users and other road users. The system should have the ability to anticipate risks in its driving environment.
This requirement references the classic safety reference framework under the ISO 26262 functional safety and ISO 21448 (SOTIF) safety of the intended functionality frameworks, but the national standard transforms it into a mandatory access condition, meaning that enterprises cannot prove safety solely through simulation data or closed-course testing — they must provide verifiable real-world road test evidence.
| Requirement Dimension | Specific Content |
|---|---|
| ODD Boundary Management | The system should execute the DDT within the operational design condition (ODC); determine in real time whether it is within the legal ODD; when exceeding the boundary it must trigger a graded warning or a takeover request |
| Perception and Decision-Making | The system should have the ability to perceive the vehicle environment in real time, plan, decide, and execute control |
| Behavioral Safety | Must not create unreasonable safety risks for users and other road users (ORU) |
| Compliance with Traffic Rules | The system should comply with applicable traffic regulations |
The MRM is the core safety fallback clause of the standard, setting up a graded handling process for three major risk scenarios:
| Trigger Scenario | MRM Execution Requirement |
|---|---|
| System fault/failure | The ADS should execute the MRM to bring the vehicle to an MRC |
| Exceeding the ODD boundary | The ADS should issue an intervention request and execute the MRM |
| Fallback user fails to respond to takeover | The ADS should execute the MRM to bring the vehicle to an MRC |
| Stage | Operation Content |
|---|---|
| Warning and Degradation Stage | Limit the maximum driving speed, prohibit automatic lane changes and overtaking, and continuously provide audible and visual prompts of system degradation |
| Emergency Handling Stage | Smooth linear deceleration, turn on hazard warning flashers, and gradually pull over to the emergency lane/roadside |
| Stop and Lock Stage | After the vehicle comes to a complete stop, lock the ADS function; the driver must restart the power system before it can be activated again |
The MRM strictly prohibits operations that are prone to causing secondary accidents, such as violent hard braking and emergency lane changes.
*Source: Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft | Tencent News*
| Clause No. | Requirement Content |
|---|---|
| 5.2.1.1 | The ADS should ensure that the ADS function is safely activated and deactivated |
| 5.2.1.2 | After each power system start (except for automatic engine start-stop), the ADS should not be in an activated state |
| 5.2.1.3 | ADS safety-related information and signals should: a) be noticeable to the target in-vehicle user in all ADS operating states; b) be easy to understand and unambiguous; c) use multiple modes (optical, acoustic, haptic) when necessary |
| 5.2.1.4 | When executing the ADS fallback response, the ADS should continuously issue prompt signals to the in-vehicle user |
| 5.2.1.5 | If the ADS controls door operation, in an emergency the in-vehicle user's operation of the door takes priority over the ADS |
| 5.2.1.6 | When a collision is detected while the ADS is activated, the ADS should issue a prompt |
| Requirement Dimension | Specific Content |
|---|---|
| Anti-Misuse Design | The ADS design should be able to prevent reasonably foreseeable misuse by the in-vehicle user |
| Dedicated Control Method | The ADS should be equipped with a dedicated control method for the in-vehicle user to activate and deactivate the ADS, clearly marked and easy to distinguish |
| Activatable Indication | The ADS should indicate whether the ADS function can be activated |
| Control Suppression Strategy | Controls related to the manual execution of the DDT should be reasonably controlled to prevent unsafe interference; when in-vehicle user intervention exceeds the suppression threshold, the ADS should execute the exit strategy |
| Exit Strategy | Exceeding the suppression threshold should not be the primary way to trigger exit, and the threshold should be stated in the safety case |
| Comparison Dimension | L3-Level ADS | L4-Level ADS |
|---|---|---|
| Fallback Driver | Required; the fallback user must be ready to take over at any time | Not required; in-vehicle passengers have no legal takeover obligation |
| Takeover Capability Monitoring | Mandatory, multi-dimensional DMS | Not mandatory (may be exempted in closed scenarios) |
| Steering Wheel | Must be equipped | May not be equipped (compliant for Robobus/driverless vehicles) |
| Remote Assistance | Not involved | Remote assistance may be supported, but it must not rely on remote human intervention to handle sudden road risks |
| Responsible Entity | The system is responsible within the ODD; after a takeover request, the fallback user is responsible | The system is fully responsible within the operational design domain |
*Source: Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft | Weibo*
The standard requires vehicle manufacturers to clearly inform users of key information through multiple channels:
| Notification Channel | Specific Method |
|---|---|
| Product Owner's Manual | Must be included |
| Official Website | Optional supplementary channel |
| In-Vehicle Display Terminal | Optional supplementary channel |
| Notification Content | Description |
|---|---|
| Driving Automation Level | Clearly state L3 or L4 |
| Capability Scope | What the system can do |
| Limitations | What the system cannot do |
| Control Strategy | Activation/exit/MRM logic |
| User Role Transition | Takeover rights and responsibilities and switching logic |
The standard explicitly prohibits vague marketing, requiring users to be guided to correctly understand and use the system, and preventing the risk of misuse and abuse.
*Source: Official Announcement of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology*
The standard requires vehicle manufacturers to establish and implement safety assurance requirements (SMS) from four dimensions, covering the entire process of product design and development, manufacturing, and post-deployment.
| Dimension | English | Core Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| Safety Policy | Safety Policy | Goals established to achieve the intended safety outcomes |
| Risk Management | Risk Management | A management process used to identify, assess, and mitigate organizational, personnel, and technical risks |
| Safety Assurance | Safety Assurance | Evidence from regular independent internal inspections and external inspections |
| Safety Improvement | Safety Improvement | A process of continuous improvement |
| Lifecycle Stage | Assurance Requirement |
|---|---|
| Design and Development Management | Deploy the safety policy and document the design and development processes and activities |
| Production Management | Establish and document production processes and activities |
| Post-Deployment Safety Management | Have the capability for safety monitoring and management, including OTA upgrade safety control, cyber and data security, and accident traceability mechanisms |
The standard requires vehicle manufacturers to organize corresponding simulation, proving ground, and road tests during the ADS R&D and validation process, ensuring that test resources and conditions meet the R&D and validation requirements.
| Test Type | Condition Requirement | Basis Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation Test | A simulation toolchain suitable for simulation testing | GB/T 47025 |
| Proving Ground Test | Facilities, environment, and capabilities matching the intended use of the proving ground test | GB/T 41798 |
| Road Test | Roads, facilities, environment, and capabilities matching the intended use of the road test | GB/T 44719 |
The standard pioneeringly introduces the internationally accepted Safety Case system; all vehicle models applying for L3/L4 qualification must submit a complete, structured safety case.
| Safety Case Content | Description |
|---|---|
| System Description | ADS system architecture, functional description, ODC definition |
| Safety Concept | Risk analysis report, HARA, FMEA/FTA/STPA analysis |
| Claims, Arguments, and Evidence | Perception and decision-making hardware reliability validation data, simulation and real-vehicle test records |
| HMI Logic Design | Activation/exit/takeover process design |
| Fault Emergency Plan | Fault degradation and MRM execution plan |
| OTA Upgrade Control Process | Safety validation and reporting for major algorithm version updates |
Testing institutions verify the safety case item by item; vehicle models with missing safety cases or incomplete data are directly rejected for market launch applications. The data storage system (DSSAD) data retention period is no less than three years, for accident traceability and regulatory verification.
*Source: Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft | Tencent News*
The standard builds a multi-in-one inspection and testing system of "enterprise assurance capability inspection + safety case inspection + confirmatory testing", forming a three-layer closed loop.
Inspectors examine the vehicle manufacturer's assurance requirements, including:
Inspectors examine the safety case provided by the vehicle manufacturer in accordance with Appendix D, including:
Third-party testing institutions conduct confirmatory testing based on three recommended national standards, comprehensively using simulation, proving ground, and road test methods.
| Test Method | Basis Standard | Core Verification Content |
|---|---|---|
| Simulation Test | GB/T 47025 "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Simulation Test Methods and Requirements for Automated Driving Functions" | Standardized scenario library verification, edge case testing |
| Proving Ground Test | GB/T 41798 "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Proving Ground Test Methods and Requirements for Automated Driving Functions" | Verification of typical operating conditions within a closed proving ground |
| Road Test | GB/T 44719 "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Road Test Methods and Requirements for Automated Driving Functions" | Verification of actual operating capability on public roads |
| Innovation Point | Description |
|---|---|
| Upfront Enterprise Capability Audit | Traditional access only inspects the product; this standard brings enterprise safety production capability into the inspection scope (process compliance + product compliance) |
| Safety Case System | Introduces the Safety Case concept, drawing on the ISO 26262 functional safety management system |
| Unified Standardized Test Scenarios | Innovatively builds a unified standardized test scenario system, ensuring that inspections are repeatable and comparable |
| Three-Pillar Method | Simulation + proving ground + road as a trinity, comprehensively covering system capability verification |
Applicable to L3-level ADS functions, assessing whether the fallback user has the capability to take over.
| Monitoring Dimension | Specific Requirement |
|---|---|
| Seat Belt Monitoring | Detect whether the fallback user is wearing a seat belt |
| Presence Monitoring | Detect whether the fallback user is in the driver's seat (driver leaving the seat for >1 second triggers an intervention request) |
| DDT Execution Capability Monitoring | Use at least two effective indicators to determine driver state (e.g., eye gaze, head posture, body posture, HMI actions) |
Key Technical Requirement: Judging whether hands are off the wheel solely by "steering wheel torque" (a common L2 method) does not meet L3 requirements; multi-modal data fusion is mandatory. When the driver leaves the seat, is distracted, closes their eyes, or is not wearing a seat belt, a first-level audible and visual warning is immediately triggered; if an effective takeover state is not restored within 10 seconds, the warning escalates to multi-level reminders such as seat belt pretensioning and seat vibration.
*Source: CSDN | Tencent News*
Additional technical requirements are set for L3-level ADS functions applied on highways and expressways.
| Requirement Dimension | Specific Content |
|---|---|
| DDT Execution Specific | Perception, decision-making, and control requirements in highway scenarios |
| HMI Specific | Takeover request time window and notification methods in highway scenarios |
| Perception System Specific | Quantitative indicators such as minimum forward perception detection distance and lateral perception coverage |
Specific technical requirements are set for L4-level ADS functions.
| Requirement Dimension | Specific Content |
|---|---|
| DDT Execution Specific | Complete DDT execution capability without the need for human takeover |
| Remote Assistance | Remote monitoring may be supported for back-office post-hoc assistance, but it must not rely on remote human intervention to handle sudden road risks |
| HMI Specific | Interaction solutions for models without a steering wheel, and passenger notification requirements |
| Safety Case Module | Content |
|---|---|
| System Description | ADS system architecture, functional description, ODC definition, hardware and software configuration |
| Safety Concept | Risk analysis methods (HARA/FMEA/FTA/STPA), safety goals, ASIL level allocation |
| Claims, Arguments, and Evidence | Design verification, test records, simulation data, real-vehicle test data |
| Safety Case Review Requirements | Internal review and external inspection requirements for the vehicle manufacturer's safety case |
*Source: Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft | Baike*
| No. | Standard No. | Standard Name | Standard Type | Reference Role in GB 44721 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GB 21670 | Technical Requirements and Test Methods for Passenger Car Braking Systems | Mandatory | Technical baseline for braking systems |
| 2 | GB/T 41798 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Proving Ground Test Methods and Requirements for Automated Driving Functions | Recommended | Confirmatory testing — proving ground test basis |
| 3 | GB 44497 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Automated Driving Data Recording System | Mandatory | DSSAD data recording requirements |
| 4 | GB/T 44719 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Road Test Methods and Requirements for Automated Driving Functions | Recommended | Confirmatory testing — road test basis |
| 5 | GB/T 45312 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Operational Design Conditions for Automated Driving Systems | Recommended | ODC/ODD definition basis |
| 6 | GB/T 47025 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Simulation Test Methods and Requirements for Automated Driving Functions | Recommended | Confirmatory testing — simulation test basis |
| Standard No. | Standard Name | Type | Effective Date | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB/T 40429—2021 | Taxonomy of Driving Automation for Vehicles | Recommended | 2022-03-01 | Basis for L0-L5 level definitions |
| GB 47955—2026 | Safety Requirements for Combined Driving Assistance Systems of Vehicles | Mandatory | 2027-01-01 | L2-level mandatory standard, connecting with GB 44721 |
| GB 44497 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Automated Driving Data Recording System | Mandatory | — | DSSAD data recording support |
| GB/T 1.1—2020 | Guidelines for Standardization Work — Part 1 | Recommended | — | Basis for standard drafting specifications |
*Source: Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft | Weibo*
The United Nations Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems (ADS GTR), led by China, was officially approved and issued in June 2026. The technical content of GB 44721—2026 is highly coordinated with the UN ADS GTR on the premise of being reasonable and feasible, while being independently revised in light of the current state of Chinese products.
| Comparison Dimension | UN ADS GTR | GB 44721—2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of Technical Requirement Detail | General framework | More detailed, with differentiated technical requirements for L3/L4 |
| Safety Boundary | Basic framework | Further clarified safety boundaries for products at different levels |
| User Notification | Basic requirements | More complete, adding user usage notification and operation training requirements |
| Test Scenario System | Defined independently by each country | Innovatively builds a unified standardized test scenario system |
| Road Environment Adaptation | General scenarios | Better suited to China's road traffic environment (complex mixed pedestrian-vehicle traffic, urban-rural differences) |
| Implementation Feasibility | Framework guidance | More feasible for implementation |
| International Regulation/Standard | Description |
|---|---|
| ADS GTR | UN Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems (led by China) |
| UN R157 | Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKS) regulation |
| ISO 26262 | Road vehicles — Functional safety |
| ISO 21448 (SOTIF) | Safety of the intended functionality |
| SAE J3016 | Taxonomy of driving automation (corresponding to GB/T 40429) |
*Source: Official Announcement of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology | Baike*
| Policy Document | Issuing Authority | Core Content |
|---|---|---|
| "Notice on Carrying Out the Pilot Work for Intelligent Connected Vehicle Access and Road Operation" | MIIT / Ministry of Public Security, etc. | L3/L4 models must first obtain product access, then obtain road qualification in pilot cities |
| "Guidelines for the Access Management of Intelligent Connected Vehicle Manufacturers and Products (Trial)" | MIIT | Enterprise access capability requirements, software, OTA, cybersecurity, domestic data storage, etc. |
| "Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Intelligent Connected Vehicle Product Access, Recall, and Software Online Upgrades" | MIIT, etc. | Access, recall, and OTA upgrade management |
| Standard No. | Standard Name | Covered Level | Issue Date | Effective Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GB 47955—2026 | Safety Requirements for Combined Driving Assistance Systems of Vehicles | L2 | 2026-06-27 | 2027-01-01 |
| GB 44721—2026 | Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems | L3/L4 | 2026-07-30 | 2027-07-01 |
L2 lands first by half a year, with L3 and L4 following, forming a complete mandatory regulatory system for intelligent driving.
The state continues to build a four-layer governance framework of "top-level planning — local pilots — mandatory national standards — supporting regulations":
*Source: Tencent News | Weibo | The State Council of the PRC*
| Dimension | Before the Change | After the Change |
|---|---|---|
| Responsible Entity | Full responsibility of the driver | Enterprises must prove safety across the full lifecycle |
| Certification Method | Single inspection | Continuous evidence collection |
| Regulatory Model | Ex-ante approval only | Continuous monitoring + evidence retention |
| Testing Requirements | Recommended standards | Mandatory multi-dimensional testing |
Li Jun, academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, pointed out: to sell high-level automated driving vehicles in the future, automakers will be required to continuously prove safety, monitor road vehicles in real time, and bear safety responsibility across the full lifecycle of the vehicle.
*Source: GzMato*
| Impact Dimension | Specific Manifestation |
|---|---|
| Higher Access Threshold | Requirements such as in-house algorithm development, massive real-world scenario data, full-process simulation testing, and safety cases exceed the capabilities of third-party solution integrators |
| Higher Hardware Baseline | L3 compliance requires at least 200 TOPS of computing power; L4 requires 1000+ TOPS; multi-sensor fusion (LiDAR + millimeter-wave radar + camera) |
| Shift in Competition Paradigm | From performance competition to safety compliance competition; non-compliant enterprises will be eliminated |
| Supply Chain Consolidation | Small and medium-sized automakers relying on third-party solutions face higher adaptation costs, and the supply chain will undergo a new round of consolidation |
| DMS Market Expansion | Mandatory takeover capability monitoring for L3 drives camera + radar fusion solutions, increasing per-vehicle cost by about 2,000-5,000 yuan |
The four core challenges proposed by Li Jun, academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering:
*Source: GzMato*
| Time | Event |
|---|---|
| August 4, 2026 | Standard publicly released |
| August 2026 - June 2027 | Transition period (about 11 months), enterprises complete compliance conversion |
| January 1, 2027 | GB 47955—2026 (L2 level) takes effect |
| July 1, 2027 | GB 44721—2026 (L3/L4 level) officially takes effect |
| After July 1, 2027 | Newly announced L3/L4 models must meet all mandatory clauses; existing approved models are given a transition period to complete rectification and adaptation |
The standard is a safety baseline, which does not mean directly opening up unrestricted nationwide road operation. L3/L4 road operation still requires local pilots + supporting management by public security traffic authorities.
A: GB 44721-2026 "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems" is China's first mandatory national standard for L3-level (conditional automated driving) and L4-level (high automated driving) systems. It was organized and formulated by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, approved and issued on July 30, 2026, and officially effective from July 1, 2027. It is upgraded from the recommended national standard GB/T 44721-2024, changing from "recommended for adoption" to "strictly mandatory enforcement", and is the unified safety baseline for automated driving product access.
A: It applies to M-category (passenger vehicles) and N-category (goods vehicles) equipped with L3-level and/or L4-level automated driving systems (excluding automated parking systems). M-category includes passenger cars, buses, and vans; N-category includes trucks and lorries. It does not apply to automated parking systems and L0-L2-level driving assistance systems.
A: The most fundamental difference is legal effect: GB/T 44721-2024 is a recommended standard (encouraged but not mandatory), while GB 44721-2026 is a mandatory standard (strictly enforced). In addition, the new standard's name changed from "General Technical Requirements" to "Safety Requirements", and it adds assurance requirement inspection (Chapter 7), safety case inspection (Chapter 8), same-type determination (Chapter 10), standard implementation (Chapter 11), specific requirements for L3 on highways and expressways (Appendix B), and specific requirements for L4 (Appendix C).
A: ① Full lifecycle safety assurance mechanism (four dimensions: safety policy, risk management, safety assurance, safety improvement); ② Dynamic driving task execution capability (safety level at least reaching that of a competent and attentive driver); ③ HMI and user notification requirements (L3 must have driver takeover capability monitoring); ④ Multi-dimensional inspection and testing methods (enterprise assurance capability inspection + safety case inspection + confirmatory testing).
A: L3 requires a fallback user ready to take over at any time, mandatorily equipped with a multi-dimensional driver monitoring system (DMS), and must have takeover capability monitoring; L4 does not require a human driver to take over, in-vehicle passengers have no legal takeover obligation, may not be equipped with a steering wheel, and supports remote assistance but must not rely on remote human intervention to handle sudden road risks. In terms of MRM requirements, L4 must also have the ability to execute a lane-change process.
A: The MRM (Minimal Risk Maneuver) is the core safety fallback clause of the standard. When the ADS cannot continue to execute the DDT due to system faults, exceeding the ODD boundary, or the fallback user failing to respond to a takeover, the system automatically executes a graded handling strategy, including three stages: warning and degradation, emergency handling, and stop and lock. It aims to safely move the vehicle to a stop in a place that does not obstruct traffic, reaching the minimal risk condition (MRC). The MRM strictly prohibits operations prone to causing secondary accidents, such as violent hard braking and emergency lane changes.
A: After July 1, 2027, newly announced L3/L4 models must meet all mandatory clauses of GB 44721-2026. Enterprises need to: ① Establish a safety management system (SMS) covering the full lifecycle; ② Complete three-level validation of simulation-proving ground-road; ③ Prepare a complete safety case; ④ Equip a DSSAD data recording system; ⑤ L3 systems must be equipped with takeover capability monitoring; ⑥ OTA upgrades must complete full-scenario safety validation and be reported to regulatory authorities. Existing approved models are given a transition period to complete rectification and adaptation.
A: The United Nations Global Technical Regulation on Automated Driving Systems (ADS GTR), led by China, was officially approved and issued in June 2026. GB 44721-2026 maintains coordination and consistency with the core technical requirements of the ADS GTR, while proposing more detailed technical requirements for L3/L4, improving user notification and operation training requirements, innovatively building a unified standardized test scenario system, and better fitting China's road traffic environment and the actual needs of industry management.
A: The standard builds a trinity inspection and testing system of "enterprise assurance capability inspection + safety case inspection + confirmatory testing". Enterprise assurance capability inspection audits the four dimensions of the SMS and test conditions; safety case inspection verifies the completeness and robustness of the case; confirmatory testing is comprehensively carried out by third-party testing institutions based on GB/T 41798 (proving ground test), GB/T 44719 (road test), and GB/T 47025 (simulation test). This system innovatively brings enterprise safety production capability into the inspection scope (process compliance + product compliance).
A: The two standards connect with each other, forming a complete mandatory regulatory system for intelligent driving. GB 47955-2026 "Safety Requirements for Combined Driving Assistance Systems of Vehicles" targets L2-level combined driving assistance, issued on June 27, 2026 and effective on January 1, 2027; GB 44721-2026 targets L3/L4-level automated driving, effective on July 1, 2027. L2 lands first by half a year, with L3 and L4 following.
| No. | Source Name | Link |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Official Announcement of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology: Mandatory National Standard "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems" Officially Released | View |
| 2 | MIIT Standard Solicitation Draft PDF (Full Text of the GB 44721 Draft for Approval) | View |
| 3 | Full Text of the Standard Solicitation Draft (National Standard Full-Text Public System) | View |
| 4 | Xinhua Net: Mandatory National Standard "Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems" Released | View |
| 5 | The Paper: Concerning Automated Driving System Safety, Mandatory National Standard Released | View |
| 6 | Economic Information Daily / Guangming Net: Concerning Automated Driving System Safety, Mandatory National Standard Officially Released | View |
| 7 | Toutiao: First Mandatory National Standard for Automated Driving Released, L3 and L4 Safety Thresholds Broken Down | View |
| 8 | Tencent News: Piercing the Industry Chaos, the Curtain Rises on Automated Driving Compliance | View |
| 9 | CSDN: MIIT Releases the First Mandatory National Standard for L3/L4 Automated Driving System Safety Requirements | View |
| 10 | CSDN: Interpreting GB/T 44721-2024, Looking at the Compliance Path of L3 Automated Driving | View |
| 11 | Baike: Intelligent Connected Vehicles — Safety Requirements for Automated Driving Systems | View |
| 12 | EEWorld: The First Mandatory National Standard for L3 and L4 Intelligent Driving | View |
| 13 | Weibo (Daoge Kanche): L3/L4 Automated Driving Mandatory National Standard GB 44721-2026 | View |
| 14 | GzMato: China's First Mandatory L3/L4 Autonomous Driving Standard | View |
| 15 | The State Council of the PRC: Interpretation of the "Notice on Further Strengthening the Management of Intelligent Connected Vehicle Product Access, Recall, and Software Online Upgrades" | View |
| 16 | Xinhua Net App: Automated Driving Now Has a Safety Access Baseline — Understanding the New National Standard from These Aspects | View |
Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on public information and is intended to help readers understand the core content of the GB 44721-2026 standard. The specific technical requirements of the standard are subject to the official text published in the National Standard Full-Text Public System. This article does not constitute legal advice or compliance consulting opinions.
*This content is generated by Coze AI. Please use and disseminate it in accordance with relevant laws and regulations and the "Measures for Labeling AI-Generated Synthetic Content".*
