1. Title: How to Make Integrated safety Standards In Korea Presenter’s Name: Seongkyun Cho Economy: Republic of KOREA

2. - 2 - Contents 1. History 2. Comparison among nations 3. How to make integrated standards

3. - 3 - 1. History The first automotive MOU between Korea and U.S. in 1995 - “US-Korea Automotive Memorandum of Understanding to increase the market access for foreign passenger vehicles in the republic of Korea” - 28 US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards(FMVSS) deemed to be equivalents to the corresponding Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS) The agreement for trades between Korea and EU in 1996 - “Framework agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the Republic of Korea, on the one hand, and the European Community, on the other hand” - 26 UNECE regulations introduced as equivalent to the corresponding Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (KMVSS)

4. - 4 - 1. History - When an imported vehicle complies with 28 FMVSSs at the same time or with 26 UNECE at the same time, it is regarded as complying with the set of corresponding KMVSSs - Assumption: only small amount of motor vehicles imported The second Automotive MOU with US in 1998 - Total 33 FMVSSs and 6 UNECE introduced as equivalents to the corresponding KMVSSs - Threshold to be exempted from compliance test increased from 1,000 to 2,000 per a model Assumption: only small amount of motor vehicles imported - Introduction of self certification in 2003 Equivalent table in Korean regulation in 1997

5. - 5 - 1. History Free Trade Agreement between Korea and EU in 2011 - Equivalency was enlarged from 26 UNECE to 32 UNECE for EU originating vehicles Free Trade Agreement between Korea and US in 2012 - When a US originating vehicles complies with the whole set of FMVSS, it is regarded as complying with whole set of KMVSS until 25,000 vehicles per a manufacturer → As for identical items, KMVSS, FMVSS, UNECE exist at the same time in the same territory

6. - 6 - 2. Comparison among nations One of the biggest difference-> Passive safety - Collision and impacts UNECEKMVSSFMVSS Passenger Car’s protection of passengers 1.Offset collision (40%) with 56km/h 2.HIC(Head Injury Criteria): 1,000(36ms) - Neck injury: axis 3.3kN, shear 3.1kN, Bending Moment 57NM - Chest: deformation 50mm, deformation velocity 1m/s - Thigh: 9.07kN - Knee deformation: 15mm 3. Using 50% male dummy 4. All tests with belt 1. Frontal collision with 48.3km/h 2. HIC: 1,000(36MS) - Chest: deformation 76.2mm, acceleration 60g - Thigh: 1,020kg 3. Using 50% male dummy 4. All tests with belt 1. 11 collisions - Fontal, left/right inclinations with 32km/h/40km/h and with 50% male dummy and without belt -Frontal with 56km/h with 50% male dummy with belt - Frontal with 32km/h with 5% female dummy without belt - Frontal with 40km/h with 5% female dummy without belt - Offset (40%) with 5% female with belt - Frontal with 56km/h with 5% female with belt 2. Static Airbag expansion 7 tests …..Wawoo

7. - 7 - 2. Comparison among nations # of traffic accidents per 10,000 vehicles - (Average) EU : 49.7, Korea: 139, US: 83.9 - (T-test) considering equivalency of variance or pair wise, 1996-2010 (Korea-US) significant difference, p=9.27 E-06, 9.95 E-09(pair) (Korea-EU) significant difference, p=1.84E-08, 1.52 E-09(pair) (US-EU) significant difference, p=8.31E-07, 2.96 E-10(pair) # of traffic accidents per a billion kms (more accurate) - (Average) EU: 565.2, Korea: 830.5, US: 424.1 - (T-test) considering equivalency of variance or pair wise, 1996-2010 (Korea-US) significant difference, p=1.4 E-04, 2.18 E-05(pair) (Korea-EU) significant?, p=0.0081, 0.13(pair) (US-EU) significant ?, p=0.033, 0.067(pair) i.e) 2 cars per a family v.s. 1 cars per a family…a family usually uses 1 car..

8. - 8 - 2. Comparison among nations # Comparison of passive safety - (Average) EU : 2.02, Korea: 0.644, US: 1.1 - (T-test) considering equivalency of variance or pair wise, 2002-2010 (Korea-US) significant difference, p=1.9 E-05, 9.95 E-09(pair) (Korea-EU) significant difference, p=1.84E-08, 1.52 E-09(pair) (US-EU) significant difference, p=1.9 E-05, 0.0005(pair) - UNECE in passive safety needs to be reviewed - KMVSS has some advantages in passive safety? Anyway, we have more items in performance testing criteria - Needs for more investigation!! How to measure: the death toll in the vehicles per unit number of accidents → Lessons from Here!!!

9. - 9 - 3. How to make integrated safety standard Principle 1: Not create new standards… - (Range) performance test criteria for passenger car - (Assembly) Select most appropriate parts from UNECE, FMVSS or KMVSS in a item in order to make an integrated standard for the item - (Reason) too expensive to make new standards…and UNECE/FMVSS are also regarded as global standards… - What kinds of accidents caused what kinds of damage? - What kinds of standards protected passengers from what kinds of accidents - Have the standards prevented the relevant damage? - (How) Random sampling from the insurance companies records Answers to what should have been enforced in the current KMVSS to have relieved the injured damage… Principle 2: Based on the traffic accidents analysis

10. - 10 - Detailed methodology - (Multiple regression analysis) Y=degree of damage (dependent variable), Xi=i th standard’s relevant influence(independent variable) - (Relevant influence) Likert type scale in 5 steps, from ‘Very Strong need to be enforced’ to ‘nothing to do with’ (Very Strong need to be enforced) the standard should be stronger than the strongest among UNECE/FMVSS/KMVSS in the item (Strong need to be enforced) stronger than the middle level’s one among UNECE/FMVSS/KMVSS (Need to be enforced) stronger than the lowest level among (Related but not sure if enforcement is needed) (Never related)  We can see the pattern of Korean accidents with relative significance of each safety standard!! 3. How to make integrated safety standard

11. - 11 - Injury of the driver 3. How to make integrated safety standard - Fracture of Foot Joint - Sprain of Lumbar spine - Bruise of right knee - Sprain of Cervical spine - Total 6 weeks displaced!  Protection of passenger from the frontal /side collision needs to be enforced than KMVSS because the mechanism of collision is beyond the KMVSS’s test model. In addition, it needs to be enforced than FMVSS because FMVSS does not deal with the foot injury ----  5 in one of frontal or side collision test criteria

12. - 12 - Thank you very much ! !