 I'm pleased to open this hearing to receive comments on the commission supplement on those proposed rulemaking regarding a safety standard to address blade contact injuries from table saws. For the record, let me just confirm that all the commissioners are present. Um, and commissioner Boyle is attending virtually. Can you confirm that you can hear us? Good morning. I can hear you and we can hear you. Thank you. Uh, the issue of table saw safety is 1 that the commission has been working on for over 20 years at this point. And the hazard from table saw blades is severe last rations. Fractures and amputations are far too commonplace according to nice estimates table saw accidents resulted in. An average of over 4,000 finger amputations each year. During the common period was the SNPR we've received nearly 180 comments today. We're going to hear from witnesses. Some of whom have previously submitted written comments who will provide a range of perspectives. I appreciate the diverse range of input from stakeholders that will help develop a rule that is long coming to that end. I look forward to hearing from everybody's testimony. Each panelist will have 10 minutes in their presentations and I'll call my colleagues to ask questions, but in order seniority again with 10 minutes around. I will introduce today's panel. We have with us Sally Greenberg, who is chief executive officer of the national consumer league. George or lays, who is vice president of standards development at UL standards and engagement. Remotely, we have Susan who is executive manager of the power tools Institute. And also virtually Alex. I'm going to get this wrong and you're going to correct me. Money money. Hopefully that's correct is the director of the tax policy at the national association and manufacturers. He's good. As I said, he's going to be virtual as well. And Matt Howard, who is presenting on half a saw stop. And with him also available, David Fanning, who's available to address any patent questions that may come up. So thank you all for being here that Miss Greenberg. Please begin. Good morning, Chairman home, Sarah, Commissioner Trump, Commissioner Boyle and Commissioner Feldman. Thank you so much for this opportunity to be before you this morning. I'm Sally Greenberg, CEO of the National Consumers League and I so appreciate your leadership in proposing a safety standard for table saws and the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the views of the National Consumers League on this very important regulatory matter. This issue is of great moment. According to the 2017 special study that the commission conducted the annual estimate is 26,501 blade contact injuries initially treated in hospital emergency rooms and an additional 22,675 blade contact injuries treated in other treatment settings. Thus, they're an estimated annual total of about 49,000 medically treated blade contact injuries every year. This rule has the potential to prevent the majority of these incidents. My involvement in the table saw safety issue is a long winding road. Indeed, it goes back 20 years. In December of 2004, I heard a story in NPR about an inventor named Stephen Gas who developed a new technology that could stop a table saw blade before it hits human flesh. At the time I heard this story, I was serving as Senior Product Safety Council in the Washington office for Consumers Union. My job was focused primarily on auto safety and I had plenty on my plate. Unstable SUVs were rolling over and killing occupants and toddlers were being backed over by their parents who couldn't see them behind the SUV's gigantic blind zones. I had the good fortune to be working with Dr. David Pittle at Consumer Reports who was himself a CPSC commissioner for nine years and taught me pretty much everything I know about product safety. And we also worked very closely with Bob Adler who had worked at the commission under David and later served as acting chair of the CPSC. Coincidentally, I had also taken a woodworking course operating a table saw and I became keenly aware of the power and the enormous danger of that spinning blade. Naively, once I heard that story in 2004, I thought the CPSC would immediately require the industry to make all table saws adopt this new pioneering safety technology. I did note that in the interview industry leaders told NPR they couldn't adopt the technology because, quote, it wasn't proven and secondly, it would be too expensive. To my disappointment over those next two years, the CPSC didn't act. So two and a half years later in May of 2006, I heard the same story again on NPR, same reporter interviewing Steve Gass this time demonstrating the hot dog test at a convention. The reporter noted that the industry rebuffed this safety innovation. I realized then that no one had done anything to move this issue forward besides the sawstop folks and to help prevent the vast majority of table saw injuries except for the inventor who had had to start his own company because the power tool industry refused to license his technology. And yes, industry continued to claim that technology was unproven, too expensive, and they said little about safety, sadly. The next thing that happened is in 2007, I joined the National Consumer's League as the executive director. I consulted with David Pittle and Pam Gilbert, who's the former executive director of the CPSC and drafted a letter to the agency. It also occurred to me that I ought to reach out to Steve Gass, the guy I heard interviewed on NPR, whom I'd never met, but I wanted to see if he was still interested in working on this issue with NCL. And he now had his own company, I wasn't sure, but happily he said he was. Here we are, 20 years later, many studies behind us, hundreds of hours of CPSC staff and commissioners' time spent on reports, analysis, and finally a majority recommendation that a proven safety technology be implemented. Little did I know how many obstacles we would face in what seems like a no-brainer issue to prevent 49,000 injuries every year. So we pressed forth in our advocacy, and in 2011, we brought woodworkers to D.C. to meet with CPSC commissioners and members of Congress to tell their gruesome stories. One, Gerald Wheeler owned a wood shop in Arkansas. He was a tea party organizer in his town, and when one of his workers was gravely injured, he reached out to SawStop to replace all of his saws with safe models. He supported a mandatory federal safety standard. As did another victim, Adam and his wife from Minnesota. They owned a carpentry business. Adam was pulling a piece of wood back when his elbow caught the top of the blade. The blade completely cut through the ulnar bone and the ulnar nerve in his right forearm and caused extensive damage to muscles, tendons, and ligaments. He lost his business. He was forced to go on food stamps and had to rely on charities to support his family. Another victim, Curtis Harper, joined us in D.C. A Mormon minister, he suffered a grave injury to his hand and thumb on a table saw, and Chris, also from Arkansas, was remodeling his porch. And he had his push stick in his right hand pushing a board forward. It shot back at him. The blade caught the push stick, pushed it in, and Chris's hand into the blade. At the hospital they had to take his ring finger off to the first knuckle. Chris told the commission that he still feels pain in the end of his finger that doesn't exist, like someone digging under a fingernail with a nail file. But no fingernail is there. Chris also lost range of motion in his thumb. He could barely, he testified he could barely tie his shoes, zip up his pants, button his shirt, comb his hair, or turn on his vehicle. He didn't have health insurance at the time of this accident and was out of pocket many thousands of dollars. All four men told us they supported a mandatory safety standard for table saws. Six years later in 2017, Josh Ward from Sisters Oregon came to D.C. to testify at the CPSC. Josh severed four fingers on a table saw at age 17 in shop class. After suffering over 20 operations and excruciating treatments to reattach his fingers, he lost his dream of being a firefighter with a hand that could no longer hold a hose. We noted at the time that in 2015 table saws accounted for more than 4,000 amputations, 11 or so a day, and at least 33,400 emergency room visits, and that a standard would virtually eliminate all of those table saw industries. The Power Tool Institute's opposition to this safety technology has remained pretty much the same since I first started working on this and hearing the NPR story in 2004. It's too expensive, sawstop has a monopoly, there are patent issues, which we're going to hear more about a little later, and they argue that consumers who want safety can pay for it by buying a sawstop model. And lastly, my favorite from PTI statement of January 2024 on their website, they say, quote, voluntary standards are working to enhance table saw safety. CPSC is required by law to rely on voluntary standards when the voluntary standard adequately addresses the product hazard and is likely to have substantial compliance, which it does, end quote. But that is wrong. Nice data, trends indicate that the rate of table saw blade contact injuries has not declined in more than a decade, even after the introduction of the modular blade guard requirement. The CPSC package notes, the commission concludes that there has been no discernible change in the pattern of blade contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact. Despite the transition of the market to modular blade guards and ribing knives since 2010, and the phasing out of traditional blade guards since 2015. And the CPSC package also says a performance requirement limiting the depth of the cut to a test probe that contacts a saw blade three to five millimeters will significantly reduce the number of severe injuries associated with operator blade contact incidents. As to the claim that consumers who want safety should pay for it, we reject entirely the notion that safety is only for the affluent and so does society. Today, every consumer, no matter how wealthy or low income has access to safer car seats, baby cribs, seat belts, airbags, backup cameras, safe water, safe food and safe air. So, let us imagine a world in which table saws no longer inflict the 49,000 injuries where consumers will no longer need to worry that their lives will be unalterably changed because of a grave accident that happens in a millisecond that can amputate fingers and or thumbs. Two decades after my saga began, I'm starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel. The life of a consumer advocate is like, well, the life of Job, trial after trial and seemingly endless number of challenges. I'm hoping this is the last great obstacle and to torture the biblical metaphor a little more. I hope I won't be like Moses unable to get to the promised land. I'm hoping that we can finally achieve table saw safety for users of this very important but currently dangerous product. Thank you Chairman Honesaric and commissioners Boyle and Trumka and Feldman. Thank you for those of you who are supporting the safety standard for table saws. Again, if this takes effect 49,000 people a year and $2.3 billion will be saved, more than any other, more money and more reduction in injuries than any other CPSC rule in the agency's history. That would be a huge milestone and a great legacy for each of you and this little but mighty federal safety agency can do it. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Borlase, please begin. Good morning Chairman Honesaric, Commissioner Feldman, Commissioner Trumka and Commissioner Boyle. I'm Dr. George Borlase, Vice President of Standards Development for UL Standards and Engagement. Our mission is to work for a safer world and as a non-profit standards development organization, we put safety science into action by developing consensus based safety standards that play an essential role in preventing injuries and saving lives across the globe. Since our first standard in 1903 on 10 clad fire doors 120 years ago now, we've published nearly 1700 standards and guidance documents that help guide the safety, performance and sustainability of new and evolving products, technologies and services. I and my team of talented standards professionals, leader technical committees, consisting of volunteer experts to initiate, develop and publish new and updated safety standards and ensure that our organization standards activities actively include other stakeholders. I want to thank the Commission for providing the opportunity to hear oral comments on the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking and I personally appreciate the opportunity to be back in the CPSC hearing room discussing this important safety issue with you all today. ULSE, formerly part of Underwriters Laboratories Inc., first published a voluntary consensus safety standard for table saws in January 1971, and the technical committee has continually maintained and updated the standard through no less than eight additions. These subsequent additions incorporated safety improvements to reduce wood kickback and blade contact injuries, including the much discussed modular blade guards and the riving knives. CPSC technical staff, specifically Ms. Caroline Paul have been a member of our technical committee for a number of years, and our active participation and contributions representing CPSC have been invaluable. And I do want to take a minute to specifically thank Ms. Paul and the rest of the CPSC technical staff for their work on our technical committee over the years. I'd also like to take a second to highlight other technical committee members who volunteer their expert opinion and their time on our technical committee, including Mr. David Pittle, who's in the audience today. During the standards development process, ULSE balloted a proposal to add an active injury mitigation system technology requirement to the new binational IEC adopted standard UL62841-3-1 as a national difference. The technical committee was unable to reach consensus on the proposal despite support from SawStop, some standards development professionals, and members of the product testing community. CPSC technical staff since then have been active participants in the technical committee, and they do continue to provide technical expertise to us and the valuable injury data that was outlined in their correspondence to ULSE the past few years. After CPSC published in the Federal Register the notice of proposed rulemaking for table saws in 2017, ULSE published ULRP3002, which is our recommended practice for determining the depth of cut on the test probe contacting the spinning blade of a table saw. This recommended practice is not a voluntary consensus standard, but instead a best practice for measuring the depth of cut, regardless of the technology used to stop the saw blade. I want to highlight that this recommended practice is publicly available for previewing on our website so that anybody can view that, and the same is true for our standard. The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System data reveals that the rate of injury due to table saws has remained relatively consistent since 2021. And as the risk of injury based on the nice information has not changed as provided by the CPSC staff, UL standards and engagement supports CPSC's efforts to establish a performance standard under CPSC in parallel with UL standards and engagements continued efforts to maintain and improve the consensus voluntary safety standard. We believe that an updated binational consensus voluntary safety standard that is adopted by the table saw industry is the best way to address the blade contact injuries. The technical committee for the UL62841-3-1 standard continues to maintain the technical standard with the latest updates approved in 2022. I will note that none of the proposals we have received to revise the voluntary consensus safety standard since the proposal in 2016 have included the addition of AEMS technology, even as blade contact detection technology appears to have moved beyond one table saw manufacturer. We at UL standards and engagement remain committed to convening our technical committee members and stakeholders to continually improve the voluntary standard and address the risks associated with table saws. As a recent example, we have distributed to our technical committee members the letters from CPSC and also will be distributing to our technical committee, not only the proposed changes that were listed in the supplemental notice proposed rulemaking, but also the comments received and the info from today's meeting to our technical committee so they can evaluate the addition of automatic injury mitigation technology and the special considerations for industrial saws in a future revision to the voluntary standard. As a non-profit standards development organization, we are conveners and we also firmly believe in the power of bringing together a broad spectrum of stakeholders to address critical safety issues. Therefore, we've already begun the planning to convening meetings outside of the technical committee with additional stakeholders starting with table saw manufacturers to better understand the challenges to include the automatic injury mitigation technologies into our voluntary consensus standard. UL standards and engagement thanks CPSC staff for their extensive work to promote the development of voluntary consensus standards, not just on table saws, but other products as well. Thank you again to the commission for the opportunity to discuss with you today, improve voluntary consensus safety standards for table saws to create that safety future that we're all going for. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Barles. Ms. Ranga, you can begin. Good morning. Thank you for your time to present our concerns regarding the commission's SNPR and table saws. I'm Susan Ranga. I serve as the executive manager of the power tool Institute. We are the leading trade organization in the United States whose members design engineer and manufacture consumer and professional electric and or battery operated power tools. Six of our member companies manufacture table saws and we have been directly involved with the commission for the past 20 years on this rulemaking. And for most, I want to emphasize that PTI takes powerful safety very seriously as demonstrated by our decades of work leading the development of rigorous product safety standards. In addition to the development of our extensive safety education campaigns as we previously commented during the NPR and most recently within our written comments on the SNPR. PTI contends that the commission should decline to adopt a mandatory rule for table saws, withdraw the SNPR and terminate the rulemaking. Rather, the commission should rely upon the voluntary standard and see UL 62841-3-1 electric motor operated handheld tools, transportable tools and long garden machinery safety part 3-1 particular requirements for transportable table saws or UL 62841-3-1 reference forward. The reasons for this include the following. Number 1, if the commission were to adopt a mandatory rule set forth in the SNPR due to the saw stop patent issues, the commission would be mandating a design requirement which is not within the commission's statutory authority. Number 2, the voluntary standard UL 62841-3-1 is working to enhance table saw safety and all table saws in the market adhere to it. And 3, the cost benefit analysis in the SNPR is flawed and the cost consumers and manufacturers of a mandatory rule would far outweigh any benefits that may be realized. The commission itself is acknowledged that under the proposed rule requiring active injury mitigation or aim on all table saws that costs of table saws would more than double. Small manufacturers may exit the table saw market, small manufacturers may go out of business, sales of table saws will decrease resulting in unemployment and the government could be creating a monopoly or at least extensive market power for one company that owns patents related to aim technology. Our comments today focus on the three issues with the proposed rule that are amongst the most concerning to PTI members. Details on these points can be found within our written comments. First, there are unresolved patent issues. The commission has not conducted a thorough patent study to understand the patent issues. The mandatory rule would create a monopolistic advantage for saw stop LLC or saw stop in the marketplace. And the commission would in effect be opposing a design standard rather than a performance standard, which is not within the commission's authority. The commission did note patents, two patents have expired, but there are multiple others which extend into the late 2020s and into the 2030s. One example of the patent issues is saw stops US patent 9724840, which covers any saw with a contact detection system and a reaction system that quote causes the blade to stop cutting the person within 10 milliseconds after being triggered. If the person moves into contact with the teeth of the blade at a rate of one foot per second or less end quote. In August of 2017, the 840 patent was extended and does not expire until 2033. The use of this patent would be essential to meet the test requirements of the SNPR. As noted in a non PTI member written comments to the SNPR as recently as August of 2023 saw stop told him that manufacturer that licensing the saw stop technology is not quote a strategy will pursue at this time end quote. With the proposed rule the government could be creating a monopoly or at least extensive market power for one company that owns patents related to aim technology such that the company could be in the position of either charging unreasonable licensing fees or refusing to license. Effectively preventing other manufacturers from being able to comply with the mandatory requirements and leaving only one company with the ability to make compliant table saws. The SNPR mentioned two other aim technology quit saws, but neither are for consumer use. Second, the commission does not have the statutory authority. All consumer table saws in the market comply with UL 62841-3-1 table saws that comply with the standard are required to be equipped with the modular blade guard system consisting of an adjustable arriving knife, a blade guard assembly and anti kickback calls. Important to note is the commission's own 2017 special study analysis of accident rates associated with table saws equipped with the modular blade guard system. Compared to table saws equipped with the traditional spreader mounted three and one blade guarding system concluded that table saws equipped with the modular blade guard system are approximately seven times less likely to be associated with injuries. PTI has conducted its own studies as well that support the conclusion that the modular blade guards show demonstrative reduction in the likelihood of operator blade guard contact injuries compared to traditional spreader mounted guarding systems. The commission is required by law to rely on voluntary safety standards when the voluntary standard adequately addresses the product hazard and is likely to have substantial compliance, which UL 62841-3-1 clearly does for both. The SNPR states that since the introduction of modular blade guards, nice table saw blade contact injury estimates did not decline between 2010 and 2021. This is due to the commission's analysis, which inappropriately combines cabinet, contractor and benchtop table saws. Cabinet and contractor type table saws, which are not for consumer use, have much longer life spans and higher injury rates than consumer benchtop saws. These points combined match the actual decrease in modular guard accident rates and benchtop table saws in the commission's analysis. Both the commission's survey of accidents and PTI's own table saw accident surveys show that the cabinet and contractor saws combined make up the vast majority of accidents. When applying a hazard exposure risk assessment and analytical approach to table saw use, the results show that 72% of accidents are attributed to cabinet saws, 19% to cabinet contractor saws, and only 8% to benchtop type table saws. This field data and analytical data prove that incidents are occurring on contractor and cabinet saws, which are not within the commission's statutory authority. And third, there are significant data issues. As stated by commissioner Feldman, quote, under WCMA versus CPSC, this rulemaking requires disclosure of the injury incident data on which the commission relies. CPSC has not yet published this data, end quote. The injury cost model, economic justification, and other data utilized by the commission to justify moving forward with the SNPR are flawed and do not support a mandatory rule. The accident data the commission relies upon inappropriately includes incidents that occurred with cabinet saws and contractor saws in commercial and professional settings, which are not under the commission's jurisdiction. Many benchtop saws are also used by professionals and not consumers. The commission has never provided any data on the number of table saws and used by category of saw over time, either historically or projected into the future, which is necessary to establish a meaningful baseline for the regulatory impact analysis. Removing incidents reports pertaining to professional use would remove a majority of the incidents upon which the CPSC relies to justify the proposed rulemaking. As stated previously, the commission's analysis ignores some substantive differences in the hazard exposure and injury estimates for different type of table saws, which does not allow for establishment of a credible baseline showing the evolution of the consumers risk of saw blade contact injuries over time by type of table saws or how the risk could be expected to evolve in the future under the with rule and without rule scenarios. The commission's benefit estimates societal costs presented in the SNPR are significantly overstated for each type of table saw and the costs estimated have been understated. The overall results of PTI's third party expert assessment included within our written comments show that the cost of the proposed rule exceed the benefits of society by a wide margin. Costs are underestimated by 147 to 375%. Corrections to the commission's flawed estimates of benefits and costs result in significant net negative benefits of negative $388 million per year. The significant increase in price for table saws due to the commission rulemaking could cause users to revert back to the unsafe practice of utilizing homemade table saws made from handheld circular saws for cutting operation. The very practice the benchtop table saw was developed to stop. The commission should consider whether a significant cost increase to consumers, a possible withdrawal of manufacturers from the market, a return to unsafe cutting practices and a possible monopolistic position of one manufacturer are supportive of a mandatory requirement by the government and in the best interest of consumer. If the proposed rule is adopted by the commission, it could eliminate from the marketplace portable consumer benchtop table saws. However, the SNPR does not address any analysis of whether this proposed rule meets the legal requirements for a product ban. In conclusion, the commission should decline to adopt a mandatory standard for table saws, withdraw the SNPR and terminate the rulemaking. Rather, the commission should rely upon the voluntary standard and CUL 62841-3-1. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Ms. Ranga. Mr. Monnier. I'll let you, I'm going to let you off the hook. Monnier, sir. Thank you. Monnier, thank you. Good morning. The chair, the other commissioners and my fellow witnesses. My name is Alex Monnier and I'm the senior director of tax policy here at the National Association of manufacturers. I also currently lead the consumer product safety coalition, an industry group focused on CPSC issues that the name convenes. I want to thank the chair for speaking to our group in the past. And I hope the other commissioners will consider speaking to the group in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the impact of the commission's proposal regarding blade contact injuries on table saws today. The NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 states. Nearly 13 million people earn their living in manufacturing in America and the industry generates $2.85 trillion in economic activity annually. Manufacturers strongly support the CPSC's mission to protect the public's health, implement effective and common sense regulations and conduct oversight against bad actors. However, manufacturers have serious concerns with the proposal up for discussion today. First, to issue a mandatory role. The agency must find that compliance with the voluntary standard in place is not adequate in reducing the risk of injury or that there's not substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. The agency has previously stated that it does not have adequate data to determine if the current voluntary standard is functioning as intended. The most recent data available from a special report commissioned by the agency did not find the current voluntary standard to be inadequate. In short, the CPSC has not appropriately justified the need for a new mandatory standard. Second, upon issuing a proposed rule, the Consumer Product Safety Act requires the agency to conduct analysis with respect to the potential cost and benefits of said rule. The CPSC has failed to adequately conduct cost benefit analysis on this proposal. Outside analysis have reported that the rule would impose significant costs on manufacturers and consumers. We encourage the agency to reconsider the metrics on which they conducted their analysis to reflect the real world costs and effects more accurately. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy's submission on this proposed rule, small and medium manufacturers will be burdened with the majority of the cost of this rule and potentially be forced to exit the market. The SBA estimated the cost of developing the technology necessary to comply with the proposal will range from several hundred thousand dollars to perhaps several million dollars per company. These are funds small manufacturers could use to grow their business, hire additional employees, or use to invest in new research and development. This proposal will only add to the significant regulatory burden already facing manufacturers. According to an analysis produced for the NAM in October 2023, the total cost of federal regulations in 2022 is an estimated $3.079 trillion adjusted to $2023. This is an amount equal to 12% of the US GDP. The regulatory burden on the manufacturing sector is roughly $350 billion per year. That's a number that is larger than the economies of 29 individual American states. The average manufacturer in the US pays the government over $29,000 per employee per year to comply with current federal regulations. This number nearly doubles for small manufacturers who pay over $50,000 per employee per year to comply with federal regulations. That means a small manufacturer with just 20 employees pays over $1 million per year just to comply with current federal regulations. Finally, manufacturers have significant concerns that the proposal would have the effect of instantiating an unintended monopoly in the space as the proposed role seeks to impose a standard that can only be reasonably achieved through the use of one claim patented technology. This rulemaking runs the risk of creating a market environment where there is no fair licensing agreement in place or available technology for compliance. According to the SBA to date, the main patent holder of this technology has been unwilling to enter into cost effective licensing agreements. Without the ability to license the patent to comply with the proposed rule, manufacturers will have a simple choice, develop their own proprietary technology or shut down production. Analysis performed by the SBA found that the cost of small manufacturers attempting to redesign and retool the current products could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and take up to three years. The burden is not justifiable for small manufacturers. The animes committed to consumer product safety and working in cooperation with the CPSC and pursuing our shared goals of risk reduction and hazard avoidance. We encourage the CPSC to withdraw this rule and to rely upon the current voluntary standard as required by the CPSC PSA. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. René. Mr. Howard. Good morning. Thank you to the commissioners for the opportunity to speak. My name is Matt Howard. I'm the CEO of TTS North America Tool Technique Systems LP. I started at Sawstop in 2010 and was in a marketing role at that company under the previous ownership. After Tool Technique Systems, a family owned company based in Wendling in Germany, purchased Sawstop. I later took on the role of CEO. During my time in Sawstop marketing, I was not involved in the company's CPSC strategies or engagements and generally viewed the likelihood of a rule adoption with skepticism. Since Tool Technique Systems acquired Sawstop, this topic has been quiet and Sawstop has focused instead on protecting as many woodworkers as possible with safer table saws. I was surprised by the reemergence of this topic in mid-2023. From a TTS perspective, we had not yet seriously considered our preferred rulemaking outcomes and scenarios. So over the past months, both within our Sawstop leadership and with our team in Germany, we have deliberated this topic. Our assessment is this. We are a private family owned company. We are committed to being responsible citizens of the world and of the countries where we conduct business. In the course of Sawstop business, daily we are exposed to the life-changing trauma, pain and suffering woodworkers endure due to dangerous table saws. We also witness the life-changing benefit of our injury mitigation technology. Given the scale of the problem and the readiness of the solution path, surely protecting more woodworkers would be a very good thing. At the same time, we're a company. We invest heavily in our technology. Sawstop AIM is not a static product that was invented in a barn in 1999 and remained the same ever since. Instead, we invest in current and future products every day for the benefit of our customers and for our company's profit and growth. We built these assets ourselves through our hard work and ingenuity. These assets have immense value and we expect a return. Most, if not all, companies who have responded to the current proposed rulemaking and its amendments are in opposition. By far the most popular objections center on Sawstop's 840 patent. We disagree with the characterizations of this patent as an insurmountable obstacle for manufacturers to design and build injury mitigating table saws. This patent, much like other patents in our portfolios within TTS, is a manifestation of the value of our work. It is very valuable to us. That said, if the CPSC is prepared to adopt this rule, we will not allow our 840 patent to stand in the way. When the proposed rule is adopted and effective, Sawstop Holding will dedicate the 840 patent to the public. In this commitment, I have the support of TTS global leadership and our ownership family. We will not make this commitment absent the rule. I am not convinced that companies will act to protect woodworkers without it. And then our dedication of this valuable patent would be for naught. To our fellow woodworking companies, I say this, our technologies developed by Sawstop are not the only path to protecting your customers. Many of your companies are much larger than TTS with abundant resources, not to mention patent portfolios, far more active and expansive than our own. I invite you to get in the game. But beyond this 840 patent, we will not give for free our operational know-how that we continue to build. If you were in my seat, you would say the same. If a rule is adopted, Sawstop is prepared to work with other manufacturers to facilitate incorporation of AIM technology in their products. For those who wish it, we would work to find mutually beneficial ways to cooperate with other manufacturers to leverage our unique know-how and design experience. We look forward to those discussions. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your concerns and questions. I yield the rest of my time. Thank you, Mr. Howard. At this point in time, we're going to turn to questions from the commission. Ten minute rounds. I'm going to start with myself. Again, thank you to all the witnesses for testifying today and providing this information into the record. I want to start out with Screenberg. A number of the people testifying today indicated that we should rely on the current voluntary standard and that the current voluntary standard was implicitly effective. Do you find the current voluntary standard effective protecting consumers? No, we do not. And that's based on CPSC data that comes out of the supplemental proposed package. I think I read directly from CPSCs from your report indicating that there have been no measurable changes in the number of injuries for the last 10 to 15 years. Despite the industry claiming on their website that the voluntary standard is effective. So with no discernible changes in the injury, the pattern of injury and the number of injuries, I think as the agency said in your proposal there, that's where the need for a mandatory standard comes in. Thank you. Dr. Borlase, you discussed the voluntary standards process, which CPSC works with on many levels. Do you believe that the voluntary standard process right now would result in the next, say, year in a standard that would prevent the 4,000 amputations that was noted in the package? Good morning. Thank you for the question. So I'll take a minute first and talk about for UL standards and engagement standards development process. Specifically for this by national standard because it is the whole process is accredited by both ANSI, the American National Standards Institute and the Standards Council of Canada. So there's actually two accreditations for it, but for UL standards and engagement as we do our standards development process, a couple of maybe key differences with how we approach standards development than other SDOs that I want to highlight. First, the chair of the technical committee is not an external chair, often from producers, etc., as it may be with other. For UL standards engagement, our technical committees are chaired by UL standards and engagement permanent staff and the executive secretary position, which we call project managers, is also a UL standards and engagement staff member. The reason we do that is because we believe having that UL standards and engagement person as the chair and the executive secretary then prevents a perception of bias or prevents a perception that there may be putting their thumb on the scale, if you will, of trying to direct the standard development in one way or the other. Other than that, though, our standards development process is similar to what you're maybe familiar with other SDOs, especially those that are accredited by ANSI and SEC. To the specific question about the changes, we don't, part of UL standards and engagement is that we don't weigh in on the specific adequacy of the standard ourselves as a, you know, matter. We do make sure that we bring that to the technical committee and it is that consensus of the technical committee that determines the adequacy of any standard. As we've looked at the technical committee and bringing this new information forward to the technical committee, we do feel it's really important for a couple reasons. And one, the technical committee makeup is different than it was back in 2016. There's additional members on the technical committee than there were back in 2016. We have some of the broader consumer representation, representation also from people in Canada now. So it's a different makeup than we had in 2016. So does that result in a new standard any year with your current process as a likely results that will prevent the 4000 amputations that we've identified? I learned a long time ago that I cannot predict exactly what the technical committee is going to vote, but we are committed to bringing all of that information to the technical committee. And pushing the process such that they make the, they can make the consensus decision on whether to adopt the changes and what changes to adopt. That's not a decision I make. That's not a decision my team makes. What we do though is make sure that we get that information in front of the technical committee in a timely fashion so that they can make that decision. Thank you, Dr. Barles. Mr. Howard. Turning to your testimony when obviously you were a subject of other people's testimony as well. First, one of the things that you've talked about is, well, I asked you this question. Do you think that that TTS is technology is the only way to achieve the standard that's being proposed by the CPSC or other companies able to innovate and to meet the standard that is currently being proposed? To your first question. No, we do not believe that it is the only path. With regards to the 40 patent, we've expressly said that we also don't believe that's an obstacle, but. In my impression that companies have chosen that a 40 patent as a convenient. Excuse to not participate in this space. So we've removed it even so. Appreciate that. You said that the 840 patent, if the CPSC completes rule and goes to effect, you dedicated to the public. Can you expand upon what that means? What does that mean for you? What is the commitment that you're talking about? Well, dedicated to the public is the actual term that I get from my, my attorneys as far as what, what, as far as exactly what it means is that when the rule is effective. And when it's voted on, when it's effective, then that patent will be dedicated to public and we will no longer. How could you explain it better, David? Please, David Fanning. David Fanning. Yes, I can try. There's a statute. I believe it. If I remember correctly is 35 USC 253, which allows a patent owner to dedicate a patent to the public or to disclaim a, the terminal part of a patent term. So once a patent is dedicated to the public, the patent owner can no longer enforce that patent against others. It is public information free to use. And as far as the, the patents go one other, one other point, a sawstop filed a number of patents applications in the early 2000s. Those patents are expired. So other manufacturers can adopt that technology. It's public now. So whether the sawstop technology is the only way to do it or not, it's public technology now. So, but if I, if you have any other questions about the disclaimer or the dedication of the public, I'd be happy to try and answer them. I appreciate it. I know I'm a patent attorney, so I appreciate the input. You just said that you didn't believe that 840 was necessarily a an obstacle, but you're willing to dedicate to the public. Is there any other patents that TTS has that you believe would be a burden to or obstacle to achieving this? None have been demonstrated. No, I don't believe so. Thank you. I'm going to turn to my colleagues now for their questions. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning. I'm pleased to see all of our presenters here for today's hearing on table saws. I want to thank you all for sharing your perspectives and your testimony as the commission continues to work through this rulemaking to withstand legal challenge. Any mandatory consumer product safety standard must be consistent with our statutory mandate. Part of that mandate as I believe is understanding what any rulemaking will do to the competitive landscape of this marketplace at the very least. We need to understand and quantify the competition costs in our cost benefit analysis. And we haven't done that yet. In the SNPR briefing package, staff explained that the competitive effects of this rule would be mitigated by the availability of other technologies not owned by SawStop, which could be used to meet the proposed standard. I sent a letter to the Felder group, the firm that staff cited to learn more. But in its response to me, the Felder group made clear that its technology was not only prohibitively expensive to the tune of adding a cost of more than $8,000 per unit, but also impossible for other firms to integrate the PCS, the preventive contact system technology for use with consumer table saws citing technical reasons. The non SawStop alternatives that staff relied on simply don't appear to be available. There's only one known option to meet the proposed standard. And it's been settled American policy for more than a century that our government is skeptical of concentrated market power. It's something to be avoided because it harms consumers and it harms markets. The fundamental idea that too much market power exists remains uncontroversial. So with that background, I do have some questions for Mr Howard and Mr Fanning. Mr Howard, when the commission issued its SNPR, I wrote to your company last October. Mr Howard responded to my letter via an email dated November 14th and I have included my letter and the response with all of its attachments in the record. Thank you for that, by the way. I encourage my colleagues and stakeholders to review these items, particularly with regard to the issue of the SawStop patents, which your company has litigated quite vigorously. Let me stress, I don't have any issue with SawStop's protection of its intellectual property rights. I do have an issue with rent seeking behavior. In my letter, I wrote that TTS and SawStop have failed to provide licensing on fair reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and Fran licensing as we all know has been a cornerstone of technical standards development in implementation. I referenced what TTS's CEO said at the time that the company wouldn't license its patents or craft, quote, even a workable licensing structure until such time as it appears that there would not be a feudal exercise. Further, the CEO wrote that TTS would be happy to give a more in depth discussion about trying to formulate a license strategy that would facilitate a more widespread adoption of the aim technology will not unduly harming SawStop's interests. And I found this suggestion to suggest that the firm would attempt to exploit monopoly power at the expense of consumers and competitors should CPSC promulgate the proposed standard. Said that SawStop's unwillingness to license was troubling. Mr. Howard, your response took issue with my characterization that I unfairly took the Cloughler statements out of context, but that's also in the records. I won't take time today to rehash that, but I do find it noteworthy that at the same time SawStop was complaining about my implication that it wouldn't license its IP. SawStop was actively refusing to license its IP to a potential competitor. I'm sure you're aware of Grizzly Industrial Inc. company that's headquartered in Bellingham, Washington. In its written comments about this rulemaking dated January 29th, 2024, the company's chief operating officer included a series of email exchanges between himself and Mr. Howard. In an email dated August 29th of last year, Mr. Howard stated, quote, I appreciate you inquiring regarding licensing SawStop technology for incorporation into Grizzly table saws. This is not a strategy we will pursue at this time. There are many reasons for it with roots in our company mission, in the complexity of our technologies and its implementation and our long-term brand and go-to-market strategies. He went on to repeat, quote, I don't see a licensing agreement in our near future. Again, I encourage all interested parties to read the correspondence in the record between SawStop and Grizzly, a company that's tried unsuccessfully for the last 13 years to license this technology. Mr. Howard, I don't know how to view this type of response as anything other than a refusal to license your technology on any terms, let alone fran terms. But just to make sure I'm allowing a full opportunity to provide the appropriate context, my question is this. Is SawStop and TTS willing to engage with CPSC technical staff and stakeholders to develop a license on fran terms before the final adoption of a rule in this matter in order to allow the commission to fully understand the effects and costs as accurately as possible? Thank you for the question. Question and the structure of it is simplified by my testimony here today. Almost all of these engagements, in regards to the context of the technology and whether fran licensing was necessary, related specifically to the 840 patent. Any other examples that I've been aware of that come to mind right now have to do with patents that would expire within the three-year frame of implementation that we've suggested. So I reject out of hand within the context of our testimony today any requirement to go through SawStop to achieve aim implementation. We are not a gatekeeper. We are expressly working to not be a gatekeeper. You've made no commitments beyond the 840 patent and with respect to the expiring IP, your company's taken a fairly active litigation approach to extend those patents. Again, but there's no rigor that I've seen that holds up to any scrutiny with regards to any specific patent example that upholds this statement within that three-year frame. Sometimes people bring up this Bosch example where we sued Bosch when they violated our active IP. Those patents will be expired within this three-year frame. Not to mention that as is already on record, Bosch has actually been able to sell that product in the United States since 2018. So another example of where we are not an obstacle specific to your examples with regards to Grizzly. And I think there was one other example where I had an exchange with a. That kid from JPW if I could reference reference my initial testimony. I said that we had not really considered this topic from a TTS point of view. I was surprised. And this came up in 2023. So I made sure in my responses to each of those individuals that I said at this time, at this time with regards to pattern of behavior. I'd like to remind the commissioners that I represent tool technique systems. I was not involved in any strategy setting or decision making on CPSC topics prior to the acquisition by tool technique systems. And so patterns of behavior. Before that I can't speak to. But I'm hearing no licensing commitments or otherwise with respect to anything beyond. I'm not sure what would you like me to license. You provided a quite a lengthy list of other patents that were related to your technology and. Just like every other company has patents always is nurturing our patent portfolio inventing new things. I will have new patents next year. And so should they. I don't I don't understand why these are gatekeeping patents. I have a way of doing things. They can do things a different way, but also. And what's new today and was part of my initial testimony was that I'm excited about having those conversations. But these conversations aren't complex are complex. They are complex. They can't be captured in a soundbite that's convenient for this venue. But again, no commitment to share any sort of licensing information before so that we can have the benefit of incorporating that quantitatively into our cost benefit analysis as we're required today. The topic is moved. Again, I find saw stops on willingness to develop and share any of these commitments at this point deeply troubling your response is consistent with the decades long refusal to license. I'm not sure how today's testimony changes anything. I understand that you're running a business and rather than seeking to compete fairly. I see what you're doing is engaging in rent seeking behavior. Pure and simple. Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions. I have no further questions. Commissioner Trump. Clearly, Mr. Howard, the import of what you just announced today has not sunk in for everyone in this room. It has sunk in for me. And so my first two words to your thank you. You just made an incredible gift to the public. And I want to make sure we acknowledge that and in making your saw safety technology free to anyone who wants to use it. You have taken away any barrier for any other companies perceived a real to match your safety. As you were saying, and I started thinking, you know, Ben Franklin was famous for not patenting some of his technology. And when he talked about why it was something to the effect of, you know, as I benefit from the inventions of others, so too should they benefit from my inventions and I should make it freely and generously available. And you did that today. You know, he thought that two centuries ago, you're living it today and I am grateful for that. So, so I'll ask a simple question. Mr. Howard, now that you allow other manufacturers to freely use, you know, to make these patents freely available. Is there any good reason for your competitors not to make safer sauce? Let me clarify that it is the 840 patent. Thank you for your kind words. It is the 840 patent we're speaking to. This technology, I don't suggest that it is easy. It takes work and there are many alternate paths that we've considered that we have also not patented. And so we know they exist and we've chosen a specific path. They can go on their own spend some of their immense resources to do so. They can call us and we can explore opportunities to possibly work together. I don't see the obstacles. You know, there were companies out there that didn't want this rule. Some have said they couldn't develop the technology and now they don't really have to. Some didn't want to pay to license it. Now they don't have to. And you've completely limited any logical reason I can see to oppose this rule. Here's the kicker. It's also going to allow this final rule to go into effect much faster. In the NPR staff proposed giving companies three years just in case they had to develop their own technology or had trouble licensing. And now that both of those concerns are off the table, we should be able to implement this on regular timelines. And that can mean additional years of avoided amputations and averted ER trips. Miss Aranga, you're here representing a large swath of the power tool industry. We're talking about a rule designed to prevent amputations and prevent 50,000 ER trips every year. You said that saw stops patent was the reason you opposed the rule. It was the 1st thing you listed today. Now that saw stops made the patent available to you and your members for free. Will you support this rule? Thanks, Commissioner Trump. This is the 1st for hearing of this. So I would have to go back and speak to our members, but this is not the only patent that there is an issue. The other example I could give right off the bat is 8, 6, 1, 2, 4, 5. You said you didn't have the technology to compete. Now you do. You said it would take time and money to create it. Now it won't. You should say yes. I was expecting a yes from you. And the fact that you have to take it back to your board gives me some concerns. You're here a few months ago. And I asked for some simple data that a group that a group you were representing had and you committed to taking that question. Whether to share that information with us back to your board. And I assumed you'd vote to provide it. But here's what I got instead. I got a letter from you saying quote PGMA offers officers considered your request and voted not to provide individual member sales data due to its long standing commitment to maintain the confidentiality of that data. You refused my request. But here's what I'll ask you tonight your board. I assume listens to your advice. Will you at least commit to advising them to drop their opposition to this rule now that the technology to comply is freely available. Well I was trying to finish my statement which was that's not the only issue with the rule. The other issue with the rule is the fact that there already is a voluntary standard in place that is complied. I'm asking a specific question. Will you advise them to drop their opposition to this rule now with this new information. I will not advise them that I would like to finish my statement which is that other issues with a lot of ground to cover. So I'm going to finish my statement instead. And as you think about it and as you think about what to take back to your board. I'm going to ask you to keep this in mind. Do you know who this is. So I can't see the picture. Well it's it's Josh Ward. Do you know the name. I do. This green board talked about him earlier. And he dreamed of following in his father's footsteps as Miss Greenberg alluded to as a firefighter. And you know why he couldn't correct. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the reason he couldn't is because he doesn't have a dexterity that would be required for that job because he lost multiple fingers to a table saw and wood shop. And had seven surgeries and multiple infections. So a table saw killed his lifelong dream. Do you have anything to say to him Miss Ranga. I do not. I'm here today to speak about the CSPA CSP sees Adam full table saw. I do not. Okay. Well after a table saw completely cut through his forearm and ulnar nerve. He had to shut down his woodworking business because the work is now too painful and slow for him to carry on and make a profit. Can you imagine how tough that is on his young family Miss Ranga. Again I'm here to speak to the concerns that beat the eyes with the. SMPR table saws and the accident. You don't know Curtis Harper either. He was a firefighter and small business owner and his hand his hand came across the full length of the blade. The cut started to his wrist went between his little finger and ring finger and severed all the ligaments tendons and nerves to little finger. He lost his finger along with all the grip strength in his hand. Why do you want this to keep happening to people Miss Ranga. Again I'm here to talk about the concerns we have with the SMPR as written. And the challenges that we see and the accident data that has been presented has not been analyzed in a correct fashion. And that the most of the accidents are not happening on bench top table saws. You know maybe we should consider the role you come before us today. So you're here today as executive manager of the power tool Institute correct. Yes. You are also here several months again but then you identified yourself as executive director of a different trade association the portable generators manufacturers association correct. That is correct. And do you hold both of those titles at the same time. I do. The company you actually work for is called Thomas Associates Inc. Right. That is correct. I'm actually a part owner of that company. Okay how nice Thomas Associates had a business model. It has a business model that I think virtually no one's ever heard of that that I find kind of interesting. It's a for-profit firm that gets hired by nonprofit shell trade associations to run them. And I say shell trade associations because they have no employees. Their work is carried out by Thomas Associates employees and your clients are 23 different trade associations. So it's not surprising when we see you use the same playbook for multiple clients when you come here. With generators you came and testified in opposition to a proposed rule that was projected to save 77 carbon oxide poisoning deaths each year. And today with table saws you testify in opposition to a proposed rule they could prevent 50,000 ER trips every year. With generators you put the lobbying firm Bracewell Giuliani formally formally Bracewell Giuliani now Bracewell on a hefty annual retainer. Here with table saws you also have that lobbying firm Bracewell on a similarly hefty annual contract correct. Correct. Yeah you're paying Grace well between 120,000 $146,000 every year on record to lobby for your client. So the playbooks well worn. You're hired to do a job part of that job is to oppose safety rules. Why should we trust you. Well first of all your characterization of association management companies is incorrect. There's hundreds of them across the country that manage trade associations and handle multiple things including standards development. Government relations safety programs and many other things to help the industries that they support. We focus traditionally on manufacturing trade associations and I'm proud of the work that we do on behalf of the industry. Second. Miss regular the power to institute and its member companies created a joint venture to create your own safety technology for table saws in 2003 correct. Correct. So you form that joint venture over 20 years ago in that time how much money has been invested in. I can't speak to that. You can't or do you not know or you're not allowed to I can't speak to that. So it's a private joint venture made up of the members of PTI certain members of PTI. So you're not allowed to answer that question. You've seen the letters that I sent to your member companies about the joint venture. I wanted to know if they have access to technology that would allow them to comply with the proposed rule. Now if they didn't have that technology I would expect a chorus of knows coming back to me. But that would because I would back up the notion that you've been trying to push that this rule might create some sort of monopoly power. But that's not what they got back. This somewhat I got back. They pointed to the confidentiality agreement. I think what you were just alluding to and said that they couldn't answer. And I found that very odd. My time is expiring. I'm going to ask you about it in the second round. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you to all of the participants receiving such stakeholder feedback as an important part of the regulatory process. I thank you all for coming today. I intend to review your submissions and consider them carefully as I make decision regulatory process. I don't know. I'm sorry. Can you speak a little bit louder please? Sure. That sounds great. Thank you. Okay. I wish just wanted to thank all the participants. I do think such stakeholder input is a really important part of the regulatory process. And I intend to review the submissions and take them into consideration as I review this rule. I don't have specific questions, but I do want to thank all of the participants for coming. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. It seems from what commissioner. Trump was saying that there was quest for a second round of questions. Point of time. I'm going to actually go to commissioner Feldman. Did you have additional questions? I do. For Mr. Howard, can we get the specifics of what you're committing to today in writing for the record? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Trump. So Mr. Ringo, when I asked your company members about whether they had this technology, they said, we can't answer you. We have this confidentiality agreement. And I was saying, I found that odd. And I wanted to think about what that means. Who are the parties to the confidentiality agreement, Mr. Ringo? They are the members of the power to institute who are part of that joint venture. Yeah. All right. So it's a handful of power tool manufacturers would be subject to this regulation. And they shall trade association that they set up for themselves. So your companies are stopping themselves from answering our question. Here's why I have a problem with that in this specific instance. On the one hand, you argued that you propose that you oppose the rule because you don't have access to the technology. Today saw stop. So they give you the technology to comply. And you still don't commit to supporting the rule. Further, when I ask your members if they already had the technology. They say, sorry, can't tell you, we've all agreed to block ourselves from answering with NDAs. And it begs the question of what you're blocking. These companies already had the technology that would allow them to comply with the proposed rule true or false, Mr. Ringo. False. I believe that the technology within the JVs. Could meet this SNPR as stated with the sauce up. Patent issues. I understand that half hour ago, we were told that some of those patent issues may be resolved, but not all of them. So you, you answered false. So release them from their confidentiality agreements. Let them answer my letters so that you could give us the evidence we need to evaluate that claim. Licensing agreements for anyone who would like to license our patents. So I think if there is a manufacturer that is interested in licensing the patents, they are free to contact us and we can provide them with that licensing agreement. Well, the patents aren't what I'm talking about because that doesn't tell the full story and that's it's an interesting twist you tried to do there. But each of your companies, they also refused to answer my question, but the rest of what they told me conveyed more than they may have realized. First, they talked about it will actually first it's confirmed that one of your joint venture members Bosch already has a license to use the sauce top technology. Let's put that over to one side. And second, we do know that the joint venture holds patents and we know that the joint venture members pay a fee to maintain those patents every year. But third and what I found most interesting is we now have confirmation that the joint venture has developed other proprietary non patented technologies. In other words, you have technology that you haven't made public and we learned that from the Stanley response in the Bosch response. When you make arguments that imply you don't have access to technology that would allow you to comply with the proposed rule and then you shield all efforts to determine whether you do or you don't. I have no idea how we could possibly give weight to your argument. Certainly not when you've developed a proprietary technology that you won't tell us about. Let's for a moment indulge the other possible reality the one you're trying to suggest could could exist where you've been on notice for 20 years and you haven't been able to fund a solution. I've also got trouble believing that one. You're certainly not sure on money you could have used either license technology or develop your own. I'll just look at one company as an example here in May of 2022 Stanley black and Decker announced $2 billion in stock buybacks. Their CEO said the buybacks demonstrate the company's commitment to deliver shareholder value through disciplined capital allocation. Do you know what discipline capital allocation means miss Ranga. I do not. As far as I understand it, it means they took money that could have been used for product safety and they gave it to their wealthy investors. And in the first half of 2023 they did that again they paid out another 240 million dividends to those investors and spend 5.6 million on buybacks. How much does the CEO of Stanley black and Decker make each year miss Ranga. I do not know and I can't answer on behalf of a member company would have to ask those questions directly to Stanley black and Decker. It's public it's over $8 million. But you represent the power to industry so maybe you know this one how much is the power tool industry how much is it worth miss Ranga. Now this is the industry worth. Yeah. Not sure the relevance of that question and I can I ask you a question. You know it's somewhere over $43 billion as of 2022 and it's set to reach $66 billion in 2027 so we're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry many times over your member companies the power tool manufacturers are making money. And I'm not seeing the evidence that they're investing it in making these tools safer. Mr money what about you will your organization drop your opposition to this rule now that songstop has announced that it will make the patent freely available to you and all your members. Now as previously stated in the October hearing I think there's over 140 patents in this specific technology I think this is a great gesture that we're hearing today but is new information and one we're going to have to thoroughly review. Mr money you're here to represent the National Association of Manufacturers and you're the senior director of tax policy right. Correct. Tax policy so you're a money man and it tells me a lot when an organization sends a money person instead of a safety person to something like this. You know you make three arguments against the proposed rule in your written testimony and what you delivered here today. I think you should probably always lead with your strongest argument. Your strongest or your first argument is an easily disprovable one though. You say quote the agency has admitted that it does not have adequate data to determine if the current voluntary standard is functioning as intended. Our staff has said exactly the opposite Mr money on page OS 95 of the SNPR quote existing safety devices such as the blade yard and riving knife do not adequately reduce the number or severity of blade contact injuries on table saws table saws have been equipped with these passive safety devices since 2010 and there is no evidence that the safety devices have adequately reduced or mitigated blade contact injuries and did you not think we were going to check you on that Mr money. No, I'm glad that the staff did their due diligence. I'm glad that we're all having a conversation today. I think there's a long history here and then manufacturers have complied with the voluntary standard. As well as the global standard on table saws and have gone above and beyond in some cases. Thank you. Miss Greenberg. You are here as a consumer safety professional. I'm sorry it took me so long to get to you. But but as we talk about timelines it seems like you're used to waiting and I'm sorry about that too. Because you've been working on this issue for two decades. I don't think anybody should have to be working on a safety issue for that amount of time and not have a solution from this agency. So I'm glad we're having this conversation today. But one benefit is that you've seen this landscape for a long time and we can make observations over a long period of time to see what's worked and what hasn't. In 2003 the technology that could virtually eliminate table saw injuries became available in 2004. We still saw over 30,000 injuries from table saws 2005 over 30,000 injuries 2006 seven eight nine 10 over 30,000 injuries in each of those years. So from 2003 to 2010 we've got no safety rule from CPSC we don't yet have a voluntary standard. What was industry doing in that time period to address those consistently high numbers. Well, we've asked industry that on a number of occasions and you notice there's no real mention of safety and concern for the victims of table saw injuries. I'm also looking at the table from your package which shows no discernible change in the number of injuries from 2010 to 2021. So it's been a source of great frustration. We pushed and pushed and brought the victims here to Washington you quoted and showed the gruesome result of injuries. But industry has been really recalcitrant. Unwilling to move off there. What we regard as stale arguments and now we see the patent argument will should go away, as you've pointed out. But I'm sure we'll hear more evening to different economic arguments about why this can happen and why this is going to drive them out of business. I will say in the context of product safety work. Commissioner Trump could that this is how it goes. And we have the better arguments but you know industry has over the years as a matter of its backup cameras roll over. The portable generator issue an opportunity to just end the injuries and it doesn't stop them from continuing to push for resistance to federal regulation. But we're tough, we're resilient, we're strong and persistent and like I said I'm hoping that we will get over the finish line. Thank you so much for your line of questions as well. Well thank you and people can push wherever they want but but at least for right here the better argument is the one that matters to me. So thank you for bringing it and you alluded to this but but in 2010 we've got this industry voluntary standard. You talked about the data afterwards how effective was it and preventing injuries. As far as I can tell totally ineffective and preventing injuries they have remained the same. And if we use the nice data that's in the package. They have remained exactly the same of the 11 year period there's no discernible changes at all so the voluntary standard is not is not working. Yeah, 2011 30,000 injuries 2012 1314 1516 30,000 years 2017 18 actually 31,300 so so we're here. It's two decades later industry hasn't solved this problem. They're still telling us that they can't does that make any sense miss greenberg should we buy that. No and I think the, the, the commissions mandate is to look at if whether voluntary standard works. And clearly in this case we see that it is not working it is it is failed. And that is the impetus for this supplemental proposed rulemaking and I think you've got a lot of evidence. I thought the package was excellent the economic analysis was excellent. The, you know, the technical work that was done was, you know, top notch. And I want to join Mr Boiles and thanking the staff for the for the great job that they did we said that in our written comments but it's all here. Yeah, well thank you and thank you all so much. Mr Boil, did you have any questions. Thank you, Mr chair. So, thank you again to all the witnesses, but present and with us virtually for testifying on this rulemaking the testimony has been instructive and is and I'm sure it's going to be helpful as staff develops the final rulemaking package and the commission to deliberate on this matter. And with that this hearing is adjourned.