>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Good afternoon to all
of you and welcome to this public meeting
in the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
We have one item in our agenda today,
our CPSC staff will brief the commission
on the proposed rule; "Safety standard
addressing blade contact injuries
on table saws".
The CPSC staff members briefing us today are Ms.
Carolyn Paul [phonetic], the mechanical engineer
from the office of Hazard
Identification and Reduction.
Dr. Joel Reckt [phonetic], Assistant
Deputy Director for Engineering Sciences
and Ms. Hyun Kim, from the
Office of General Council.
I want to sincerely thank all of you for being
here today and these three people and staff,
represent a whole team of people who
have worked on this issue and so we want
to thank all of them for being here as well.
At the conclusion of today's
briefing our staff will turn --
excuse me, we will turn over the hearing
to the commissioners to ask the questions.
We have agreed to do three rounds of
10 minute questions per commissioner,
and then at that point we'll assess
because if the commissioners have additional
questions then we will consider extending
the briefing.
So, with that, we're now going
to start the staff briefing,
thank you again for being
here and please go ahead.
>> Hyun Kim: Good afternoon, my name is Hyun
Kim, I'm a [inaudible] from the general council.
I'm here today with Carolyn Paul and
Joel Reckt from engineering scientist.
We'll be discussing the notice
of proposed rulemaking
to address blade-contact injuries on table saws.
I'll be giving a brief overview of the
statutory framework forged [phonetic]
in the standard under the CPSC.
Joel will discuss the staff
briefing package and basis
for the preliminary findings and proposed rule.
Section seven and section nine of the CPSC
established the requirements for the commission
to assure consumer products safety standard.
Section seven authorizes the commission to
issue consumer product safety requirements
for a consumer product or to set forth
requirements that a product be marked
or a company by clear or article
one warnings or instructions.
Any requirements must be
reasonable and necessary to prevent
or reduce some unreasonable risk of
injury associated with the product.
Section nine of the CPSC specifies the procedure
that the commission must follow and findings
that the commission must make to assure consumer
product safety standard under section seven.
The commission has the option of beginning a
rulemaking with the noticed of proposed rule
or an advanced notice of proposed rule.
For table saws the commission began
with an advanced notice of proposed rule
which was published on October 11th, 2011.
The commission received more
than 1,600 comments.
Several hundred commenters supported the rule,
other commenters who opposed the
rule raised a number of issues.
The primary issues included whether a
proposed standard would mandate a monopoly
or that the standard would limit
consumer choice in selecting table saws
or that the government should require
individuals to use safer table saws
and questions were also raised about the
efficacy of the voluntary standard and the use
of the module of playcard [phonetic].
Joel will adjust these issues
further in this presentation.
Under section nine of the CPSC,
before the commission can issue a
consumer product safety standard,
the commission must publish under Federal
Registry the text of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule must identify
the product and risk of injury,
must describe regulatory alternatives
that the commission considered
and must conduct a preliminary
regulatory analysis,
each of them [inaudible] and reviewed comments.
The commission must also provide an opportunity
for the oral presentation of data of use
or arguments in addition to written comments
under commission [inaudible]
consumer product safety standard.
Prior to issuing a standard,
the commission has to consider
and make the proper findings
to be included in the rule.
These findings include the degree and nature
of risk intended to be addressed by the rule,
the approximate number of products subject to
the rule, the need for the public in defect
of the rule and the utility cost and
availability of the product and any other means
of achieving the objective of the rule while
minimizing adverse effects on competition.
There are additional findings.
These includes whether [inaudible] reasonable
necessary to reduce some unreasonable risk
of injure, whether the rule is in the public's
interest, whether the expected benefits
of the rule [inaudible] reasonable
relationship to the cost
and whether the rule imposes the least
burdensome requirement that prevents
or adequately reduces the injury.
In addition of the voluntary standard
adjusting the risk of injury has been adopted
and implemented, the commission must find
either that the voluntary standards not likely
to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk
of injury or that substantial compliance
with the voluntary standards is unlikely.
Joel will now give an overview of
the briefing package and the basis
for the preliminary findings
in the proposed rule.
>> Joel Recht: Thank you Hynn, good
afternoon [inaudible] commissioners.
Carolyn Paul is our staff expert and
the project manager for table saws,
however Carolyn has just returned
from an extended trip overseas
and is still adjusting to our time zone.
So, I will be presenting this on her behalf.
I'm going to discuss the product description,
the incident data and hazard patterns,
recommendations to mitigate the
hazards, regulatory analysis,
adequacy of the voluntary standards,
findings and the staff recommendation.
So, what is a table saw?
We have a few of them in front of you to show.
But a table saw is a common power
tool used in many woodshops.
Its purpose is to make straight accurate
cuts in wood and other materials.
There are three major types of table
saws and these include bench saws,
all of the ones in front of you are bench
saws, contractor saws and cabinet saws.
Bench saws retail for about $130 to $1,500 each.
They can be placed on a bench or
a wheel cart and they're portable,
including these heavier jobsite
saws to the commission's left.
Contractor saws are heavier and more
accurate and less easily transportable
and retail from about $500 to $2,000.
The cabinet saws are the
heaviest, most accurate,
high stand table saws that
consumers generally use.
And they retail from about $200 to $5,000.
Some of the important parts of a table
saw include a miter gauge and rip fence
that are used to help guide the work piece.
Also, there are important safety
devices, including the blade guard,
splitter or spreader and anti-kickback device.
I'll talk about this more.
Wood workers rely on table saws straight
accurate cuts which can either be
through the wood dividing it into two pieces
or into the wood but not all the way through.
Through cuts, both rip and cross cuts,
can be done with the blade guard attached.
However, non-through cuts which go into the
piece but do not go all the way through,
like the "dado cut" and "rabbet cut" shown on
the slide require removal of the blade guard.
In 1971 table saws listed by UL were
protected by this type of device.
It consists of a single piece
blade guard, this part,
together with a splitter
and anti-kickback pulse.
The splitter prevents the cut
wood from crossing on the blade
and this anti-kickback pulse are barbs
[phonetic] that allow the work piece to pass
in the correct direction which dig
in if the piece reverses direction.
This whole system is removed
from the table saw as a unit.
So, when the blade guard is removed;
for instance, for a non-through cut,
the whole safety device with all of these
parts of the safety device are removed.
The UL standard was updated in 2007
with an effective date of January 2010
and now current saws, like the ones in front
of you use a modular blade
guard and a riving knife.
The modular blade guard was designed to
provide a better view of the work piece
and to be easy to remove and reinstall.
Importantly, the riving knife -- and you can
see this in the picture moves up and down
with the blade and can remain in place
when the modular blade guard is removed
and that provides some protection
against kickback as well
as some blade contact protection from the rear.
UL 987 has been the voluntary standard and
it's currently transitioning to UL 62841-3-1
and this is being done for an
international harmonization.
Both UL 987 and 62841-3-1 require the
riving knife and modular blade guard.
Neither of them require AIM
technology, which I will discuss shortly.
Currently manufacturers can list to the either
of these standards until August of 2019,
when 72841-3-1 becomes effective.
We analyzed emergency department
treated injury incidents
from the national electronic injury
surveillance system or NEISS.
In 2015, there were an estimate of 33,400
table saw related emergency department
treated injuries.
Of those 92% or 30,800 injuries were
related to table saw blade contact.
As you can see that include 18,100
lacerations, 5,900 fractures,
4,700 amputations and 2,000 avulsions.
Compared to all other consumer
products in menace,
table saw blade contact accounts
for 18.6% of all amputations.
And compared to other workshop products which
includes circular saws, bend saws, drills,
manual tools, etcetera -- table
saw blade contact counts for 52.4%
of all amputations related to workshop products.
Also, older consumers are injured by
blade contact and an estimated of mean age
of table saw blade contact victims is 55.6
years old, which is about 13 years older
than the estimated mean age for victims involved
in all other workshop product
injuries, which is 42.7 years.
Epidemiology staff analyzed incidents from
2004 to 2015 and found no dishonorable change
in either the number of table saw
blade contact injuries or the risk
of table saw blade contact
injuries from 2004 to 2015.
This includes the years before and after
the modular blade guard was required
in the voluntary standard.
In addition to our national estimates,
staff analyzed incident reports
in our consumer product safety
risk management system or CPSRMS.
These 53 reports are at total and cannot
be used to make national estimates.
However, they do provide
more detailed information.
In 45 of the incidents we know what type of
blade guard was manufactured with the saw.
And 11 of those were modular blade guards.
With both, modular and traditional blade guards,
we saw the same types of accident scenarios,
operator behavior and severe
life changing injuries.
We considered the human factors
associated with blade contact.
Blade guards are removed from non-through cuts
and also for preference to see the cut better.
Blade contact can also occur
with the guard in place.
Sudden [inaudible] movement can be
unexpected and can cause a loss of control
and the hand can contact the blade.
Hands can also be close to the blades for small
cuts, especially if the push stick is not used.
Fatigue -- [inaudible], this
is how push stick looks like.
Fatigue and inattention can
also cause blade contact.
Also, older adults with age-related
deficits may be more susceptible,
however we cannot quantify how much.
These injuries can be reduced through
various types of active injury mitigation.
Active injury mitigation or
AIM supplements the blade guard
and driving knife and consist of two parts.
First, there must be some system to detect the
contact between the human body and the blade.
And this detection could be based on electrical,
thermal, optical or other properties.
Secondly, once the system has detected the
blade contact it needs to have some mechanism
to react and mitigate the injury.
One example of detection system is to use an
electrical signal and monitoring [inaudible].
There are two AIMs equipped
saws in front of you and each
of them uses an electrical detection signal,
also -- switching back and forward --
on the slide, in the rather complicated
diagram is meant to illustrate
that there's a characteristic
electrical signal coupled to the sawblade
and that's monitored by the saw's computer.
Contact to the blade by the human body changes
the signal in a way which can be detected
and differentiated from wood and that
can be used to trigger a response.
One example of reaction mechanism is to retract
the sawblade beneath the surface of the table.
Again, both of the AIM systems in front of
you retract the blade saws after triggering.
Although they do saw in different
ways, with different mechanisms.
The one on -- let's see, the right --
well, your left, my right, sorry is --
accomplishes this by applying a spring
loaded aluminum block into the sawblade
to rapidly stop the blade and use
the angular momentum from that
to drive the blade under the table.
The one on your right, my left, from
another manufacturer accomplishes this
by activating a cartridge which
combusts a pyrotechnic material,
much like an airbag activation.
And with that fires a piston which causes
the blade to retract below the table.
Staff recommends a performance standard
for active injury mitigation which requires
that the maximum depth to a test probe,
representing the human body or finger,
be three and a half millimeters, when that probe
is introduced radially to the rotating sawblade
at a rate of one meter per second.
Staff believes that three and a half
millimeters' depth of cut is sufficient
to avoid microsurgery on nerves or arteries
based on the anatomy of the human fingers.
Staff believes that at one meter per
second approach velocity is appropriate
for a performance test for the radial
component of the hands approach velocity.
And it's also notable that this is twice
as fast as the calculated rate in more
than 1,000 activations which
were recorded by saw stop.
Importantly, staff found that this
performance standard is feasible.
Testing of the two AIM technologies currently
available show that they could limit the depth
of cut to the test probe to
less than three millimeters
when approached by one meter per second.
Staff conducted a preliminary
regulatory analysis
and considered the societal costs
associated with table saw blade contact.
Based on estimates from NEISS and the CPSC's
injury cause model, there were an estimated
of 54,800 medically treated
blade contact injuries in 2015,
including 30,800 initially treated in hospital
emergency departments and another 24,000
which were treated elsewhere,
such as physicians' offices,
clinics and ambulatory surgery sites.
Societal costs of these injuries are
amounted to about $4 billion in 2015.
About 30% of those societal costs were
economic losses, medical costs and work loss
and about 70% represented the intangible
costs associated with pain and suffering.
Amputations accounted for about 13.7%
of all medical treated injuries.
Almost two thirds of the injury costs.
Staff analyzed the expected
benefits of the draft proposed rule.
It will reduce blade contact injuries
bye an estimate of 70% to 90% annually.
This will result in an expected
gross benefit range of about $2,300
to $4,300 per table saw over
its expected product life.
Or an aggregate of about
$970 million to $2.5 billion
over the product life of one year of sales.
Staff also looked at the expected
costs of the draft proposed rule.
This will range from about $230 to $540 per
bench saw, $375 to $925 per contractor saw
and $400 to $950 per cabinet saw.
The aggregate annual cost could range from
about $168 million to $345 million per year.
Staff believes that the higher
retail prices associated
with meeting a draft proposed rule would
reduce market sales by as much as 14 to 38%,
which is 9,000 to 50,000 saws per year.
This will result in a loss consumer surplus for
consumers who choose not to purchase a new saw
because of the higher prices which could amount
from $10 million to $70 million per year.
Staff also considered royalty
and licensing issues.
Manufacturers will likely license
the existent patented AIM technology.
The royalty rates and other terms of
potential licensing agreements are uncertain.
Assuming a royalty fee of 8% of the whole
sale price, royalties could average about $37
to $57 per table saw, $99 to $139 per contractor
saw and $187 to $223 per cabinet saws.
In total, given the expected table
saw sales and an 8% royalty fee,
aggregate royalty fees could amount to
$30 million to $35 million per year.
Based on staff's benefit and
cost estimates, net benefits,
which are the benefits minus the costs; for
the market, as a whole was estimate to be
about $1,500 to $4,000 per saw and these
aggregate net benefits would amount
to about $725 million to $2.3 billion over the
product life of one year of table saw sales.
A breakeven analysis adjusted that the benefit
would exceed the cost for each major type
of table saw; bench, contractor and cabinet.
For most possible injury patterns.
Staff conducted an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis.
Small manufacturers of table saws, mostly
manufactured the contractor and cabinet saws.
Table saw manufacturers would be
required to license or developed
in technology to remain in the market.
And some firms are likely to reduce or
eliminate the table saws they currently offer
or leave the market.
Therefore, the draft proposed rule
will likely have a significant impact
on small manufacturers.
One small manufacturer, SawStop, could
significantly benefit from the proposed rule.
The preliminary regulatory analysis
and the regulatory flexibility
analysis identified several alternatives
to the draft proposed rule, including, pursue
voluntary standard table saw activities,
extend the effective dates of a possible
rule, exempt certain categories of table saws
from the draft proposed rule,
limit the applicability
of the performance requirements
to some but not all table saws.
Will pursue an information and education
campaign to better inform the public
of the hazards of blade contact and
the benefits of the AIM technology.
UL 987 and 72841-3-1 will not adequately
reduce the risk of blade contact injuries,
because the riving knife and modular blade
guard do not adequately reduce the risk
of contact blade injury.
No change was seen in injury
or risk of injury before
and after the introduction
of the modular blade guard.
There were at least a 11
reported blade-contact incidents
on table saws equipped with
modular blade guards.
We saw similar injuries occur
on table saws that were sold
with modular and traditional blade guards.
The blade guards are not always
used and blade contact can occur
when the blade guards are in place.
Also UL 987 and 72841-3-1
do not require AIM systems.
In making preliminary findings, the commission
can consider frequency and severity of injuries,
there were an estimated 30,800 emergency
department treated blade contact injuries
in 2015, involving approximately
18,100 lacerations, 5,900 fractures,
4,700 amputations and 2,000 avulsions.
The adequacy of the voluntary
standard, modular blade guard
and riving knives do not adequately
reduce the risk of blade contact injury.
The amenability of hazard to injury reduction
AIM can reduce severity of blade contact injury
from amputation to simple laceration.
Cost and benefit of CPSC action, the
estimated net benefits average $1,500
to $4,000 per table saw or $625
million to $2.3 million per year.
And alternatives, less burdensome alternatives
would not adequately reduce blade contact
injuries on table saws.
Therefore, staff recommends that the
commission publish an MPR as drafted
by the also general council to address
blade contact injuries on table saws.
Staff recommends an effective date of 36
months after publication of a final rule
for manufacturers to comply
with the requirements.
Thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very much, Joel
and thank you all again for being here today.
So, I will begin -- that ends our briefing
and I will begin the round of questioning,
as I mentioned, each commissioner
will have 10 minutes per round.
So, I want to talk a little bit about
the SawStop [phonetic] and the complaints
that they filed against [inaudible],
there was an ITC decision.
Can you brief us on the status of that matter?
>> Hyun Kim: Sure.
So, on January 27th of 2017, the ITC
determined that there was an infringement
of SawStop's patents by Bosch [phonetic],
there were two patents that were involved.
The ITC determined that the appropriate
remedy is unlimited exclusion order,
prohibiting the entry of table saws that
incorporate the AIM system and an order
that the Bosch company to cease
and desist from importing,
selling AIM components that
infringe in such patents.
The last day for the president through the USTR
representative, to review the ITC determination
in 60 days from January 27th, so in this
case that period ends on March 28th, 2017.
The order will go into effect
on March 29th, 2017.
We note that the commission orders
can be appealed at the US court
of appeals from the federal circuit.
So, that is the current status
of that ITC proceeding.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Dr. Reck, could you show us the two AIM
technologies -- the two types of AIM technology,
you talked about the spring loaded.
So, one is a mitigation and
one is a detection technology?
>> Joel Recht: So, the AIM systems include two
parts, one part of any AIM system is detection,
to notice that it's a finger
not a piece of wood.
And the second part of any AIM
system is some reaction to it.
Then, there could be different
types of detection systems,
there could be different types of reactions.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Right.
Thank you.
And of the two parts that you talked
just about, who owns the technology?
Is there anyone else besides [inaudible]
capability based on this ITC decision?
>> Joel Recht: So, we're not aware of other
technologies besides these on the market place.
As far as the portions of
that that were [inaudible] --
>> Hyun Kim: So, you're asking if there's any
other manufacturer who has the same technology
that SawStop is using for detection.
In the ITC proceeding, the
commission found that Bosch was
in violation of two of the SawStop patents.
And those two patterns are
related to the retraction method,
rather than the electrical detection method.
So, I don't think that -- that case
definitively shows that there are other methods.
So, even electrical detection signals, that
a manufacturer could develop in the future.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
How would the ITC decision affect
the rule making, if at all?
>> Hyun Kim: Currently we are waiting to
see what happens with that proceeding,
but for the purposes of the proposed
rule, and moving forward, we --
I think that it would not have a
significant impact on us in terms
of changing the scope of the current rule.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
The MPR talks and actually states that
SawStop has filed more than a hundred patents,
and it mentions that some will
expire over a period of time,
do we have now [inaudible] information of all
of those patents, and when they will expire?
>> Hyun Kim: So, the whole web
of patents that have been filled
by SawStop is extremely extensive.
I can't say that we've looked
at more than the current ones,
that were before the ITC commission, but we
know that this -- in order to determine --
determination dates, of any patents, is an
extremely laborious and extensive process
that a late [phonetic] person would not
be able to accomplish, it's so burdensome
that the ITC asked SawStop to tell
it, when their patents would expire.
So, we do not know when the majority
of the SawStop patents will expire,
and to evaluate any one of those expiration
dates would take a huge amount of time
and expertise, that we currently
in our commission don't have.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Have we asked
SOASTAP to provide this information
to us that they are providing to ITC?
>> Hyun Kim: They provided
that information to ITC.
So, we know that for the two in French compound
patents, they expire on 2020, and 2022.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And is SOASTAP going
to provide the same information to us?
>> Hyun Kim: We haven't asked.
We have knowledge of the expiration through
the ITC commission, ALJ [phonetic] order.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK, thank you.
The NPR distinguishes and talks
quite a bit about simple aspirations,
those involving damage only from the skin
surface to depth of above two millimeters
to four millimeters, I'm not sure which one of
you is going to answer the medical questions.
And then, distinguishes between the complex
and the simple lacerations; complex being cuts
that are deeper than four millimeters.
In 2015 Dr. [inaudible] mentioned that there
were 18,100 lacerations from table saws,
do we know how many of these were simple
and complex, was there a distinction made
in the course of collecting that data?
>> Caroline Paul: [Inaudible]
come up, and answer that question.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
>> Hi. So, the -- so, for the
18,100 and ish, that was based off
of the information from the NYESS.
So, we just have the diagnosis code for
laceration, and that although occasionally
and I sneered at it, the comments in the NYESS
gives further details, they have limited space.
So, it's very rare that we would know
any details about the type of laceration.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Would we know that there
were stitches involved, that there was --
>> No, we don't have.
So, within the NYESS, we
don't have what treatments --
we don't have any kind of treatment codes, for
what -- how any of the injuries were treated,
just the one -- just the diagnosis code.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
Thank you very much.
Doctor, you mentioned this, as
well as the NPR that in some cases,
it was the blade guard was removed, and you've
mentioned the non-through cuts, the dado,
and the rabbet cuts -- are we confident
that those numbers are correct?
In terms of when the occasion -- the
NPR says some saws users, occasionally
or even always remove the blade,
now you mentioned two specific
situations the two non-through cuts.
>> Joel Recht: So, we know that it's necessary
to remove the blade for non-through cuts --
the blade guard, pardon me,
for non-through cuts.
That we did a modular blade guards survey,
which was a survey of 200 table saw users,
who either owned the table
saw, manufactured after 2009
or later, or were very familiar with them.
That indicated that there were -- blade guards
are removed -- it looked at different ways.
So, some people -- there was questions
about, for -- do you ever removed them?
There were questions about
non-through cuts, and so,
it shows that there are cases
where they are removed.
As far as providing a definitive
answer of how often they are removed,
it's not a generalisable study, it was
not a statistical survey in that way.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So, do we
have that information from any --
I mean, we gleaned that information anywhere
else that could be statistical valued,
that we could say, "In this many cases
we know that the saw guard was removed",
because I think that is important
information if we're looking
at the scope of injuries with the table saw.
If they took off the table guard, then how
-- I'll leave it there, I'll let you answer.
>> Joel Recht: We haven't -- so, again.
In the modular blade guard survey,
one of the questions was about how
after you removed the blade guard for a non
through cut -- I believe was the question,
when you put it back on, and the answer to that
was a range also, and I guess some people put it
on right after they finished
the non through cut,
and other people the next time they
used the saw, and other people,
it was later at a convenient time.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very much,
my time is expired, Commissioner Adler.
>> Robert S. Adler: Thank you
very much, Madam Chairman.
I just want to make a very quick,
short comment before again, begin.
First of all, thank you to the staff, for
all the years you've spent giving me advice,
feedback, and information about
this particularly, Caroline ,
and thank you all for doing a very
exhaustive and, I think excellent package.
I know that Doctor Gassini's [phonetic]
colleagues petitioned us in April,
2003 to adopt the performance standard for saws;
it would incorporate what we now call
Aim Technology, that's 14 years ago.
In that time, you can do a rough
estimate, but somewhere on the order
of 70,000 plus thousand injuries, and
50,000 plus amputations have occurred.
Even as we're sitting here
today, during this day,
across the land on average 11 consumers
are going to suffer an amputation,
another 11 will suffer a fracture, and
another eight will suffer serious lacerations,
and that's just to put it in
the context that we're talking
about real human beings, and real injuries.
So, now to my mundane questions, the first one
is; I noticed in making the injury estimates,
you used non NYESS data, as well as NYESS data,
where did you get the non NYESS data from,
and is that what you would consider
to be equally reliable data,
as the injury information we get from NYESS?
>> All right.
So, are you referring to the CPS-RMS?
>> Robert S. Adler: I am -- no, not.
No, I'm referring to the injury cost model.
>> Ah, I will let you [inaudible]
take my advice.
>> Robert S. Adler:
>> Oh, off the hook.
>> Non NYESS medically treated injuries are
calculated based on relationships gleaned
from two HHS nationally sponsored data
sources, for the less severe injuries,
the ones treated in doctor offices and
clinics, these are based on analysis from data
on medical expenditure panel survey, from the
Agency of Health Care Research and Quality,
and for the admitted injuries that
bypass the emergency room it's estimated
from the National -- this is a mouthful,
you'll have to excuse me, the Health Care Cost
and Utilization Project, and
the National Patient Sample.
So, in both these cases a classification
tree, or decision tree technique is used
to analyzing injuries, which creates
these -- guess these relationships.
In the first case we have to --
>> Robert S. Adler: Maybe I can
cut to the chase, on metaphor,
but how reliable are these data;
are these data in your mind is
as reliable as the data we get from NYESS?
>> We haven't -- I think they are
reliable, but we don't have the co-variants,
we don't have the same confidence in all the
information, other than we have from the NYESS.
But, yes, I think they are reliable.
>> Robert S. Adler: And this -- the injury cost
model is something we've been using for years,
and we're using it with respect
to the development
of other standards, is that accurate?
>> For many years now, yes.
>> Robert S. Adler: OK.
We did two special studies, both of which turned
out to be unsuccessful special studies to try
to ascertain the type of model of saw
that was associated with injuries,
and I understand that the field, and
epidemiology are conducting a new study designed
to fix the problems of the previous special
studies, can you explain what we're doing
with the new study and what we're doing
to try to avoid the problems that arose
with the previous special studies?
>> Because the two studies had
inconsistencies on the saw classification
and they were conducted by the telephone, and
we determined that, again it wasn't reliable
on the self-declared type, regardless
of the definitions we supplied.
So, to counter that aspect, the study that's
ongoing now, the field staff are actually trying
to go to the injured individuals
home, and take a picture of the saw
which was associated with the injury.
So, we don't have to rely on the respondent
discriminating between one type or the other,
and we have started that, again, they're based
on the NYESS cases, starting in January 17th,
and they're also be the field, in
essence is conducted in IDI [phonetic].
We did, again have a field protocol developed,
and AP [phonetic] did train the
field inspectors, as a group,
as to what types of saws, what to
look for, the questions to ask.
And so, we think of those aspects, are indeed by
design going to counter the issues that we had
over the telephone non visual
type of discussion.
>> Robert S. Adler: So, when this new study
is completed, do you think it's fair to say
that we will be able to make
a proper determination
of the types of saws involved in injuries?
>> That's the objective of this new approach.
>> Robert S. Adler: I want to ask
Caroline a question, is it OK,
even though you're suffering from jet lag?
I keep hearing hints and snips about the
injuries in bench saws versus cabinet saws,
there's this suggestion that
cabinet saws might account
for more injuries per saw, than bench saws.
Now, if there's anybody who's
looked at the bench saw design
and the cabinet saw design, it is Caroline Paul.
So, I guess my question is, just with respect
to the engineering design, the design only,
not the use patterns, just with
respect to the engineering design,
is there anything in the basic
design of the bench saw that is safer
that the engineering design of the cabinet saw?
>> Caroleen Paul: Well, it's part engineering
design, and who you are as a wood worker.
So, that there are -- in terms of engineering
design, something can be perfectly parallel
to something else, or perpendicular, and in
that instance, in term of the cabinet saw,
you have a product that is highly
engineered, that has a flat surface,
ribbons that are parallel,
and all of these are things
that a woodworker would tell
you that can prefer back.
A bench saw by design has a smaller table top,
and while it have ribbons that is plus quality.
>> Robert S. Adler: So, here's the hypothetical,
if all cabinet saw users switched to bench saw,
you have any reason to believe that
they would then suffer fewer injuries
because they're using bench
saws, and not using cabinet saws?
>> Caroleen Paul: That's a hypothetical.
>> Robert S. Adler: That's a hypothetical, yes.
>> Caroleen Paul: I can only --
>> Robert S. Adler: Based on your
knowledge of engineers, and engineering --
I mean of engineering design of table saws.
>> Caroleen Paul: Based on physics of the
engineering design, you have something
that is more true, and you have a piece
of wood that is going through a blade,
is less likely to come out, it's true,
and it's less likely to have a kick back.
>> Robert S. Adler: On which one?
>> Caroleen Paul: Whichever one
is more true, and more accurate.
>> Robert S. Adler: I see, and
which one is based on your knowledge
of bench saws, and cabinet saws, which one --
>> Caroleen Paul: I guess most wood
workers would tell you the cabinet saw.
>> Robert S. Adler: All right, we got it.
Then, I'm not going to be able to
have time to ask this next question,
I guess just a general question; the
variety of injury scenarios that occur
when someone is using a table saw -- this is
not necessarily a question for Miss Paul --
as I review the scenarios, I have
trouble seeing how any of them result
from significant consumer miss use, but we
do have this whole issue of blade guards,
and the removal of blade guards, and
Joe when I look at the briefing package,
that study that you said is not
statistically representative, said that the --
something in the order of the 60% of
people surveyed, do remove the blade guard,
and it's saiys sometimes 28% often 17%
always -- 14%, and yet you explained,
and I'm going to ask quickly
to explain again, no I'm not,
I've just ran out of time,
but I'll come back to you.
Thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank
you, Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Thank you,
and I really want to thank the staff,
and I see so many back there who were
involved in putting this package together,
and thank you very much for the
meeting with me, and for your attempts
to give me very honest answers, and I really
want to thank you also, for the candor,
and both the package, and your
responses in the meeting with respect
to the deficiencies we know we have on
our data, and the effects on the analysis
that we asked you to perform,
and I think that's very helpful
on us making decisions, and
how we should proceed.
One quick question, there was - there were
alternative actions contemplated in the NPR,
that excluded cabinet, and contrary --
contractor saws from the mandatory standards,
but I didn't see anything that
considered the alternative of excluded --
excluding bench saws, can somebody tell me why?
I knew you were back there,
I just couldn't see you.
>> The reason bench saws weren't
included in that category,
was because most bench saws are probably
most used by consumers; contractor saws,
and cabinet saws are more likely
to be used by professional users,
consequently the commission
wanted to limit the standard to --
you know, some specific types of saws,
if you're going to exclude some of them,
probably would be most reasonable
to exclude the saws
that are most likely to be
used by professionals.
>> Marietta S. Robinson:
That makes sense, thank you.
And, there is an estimate in the package,
and then Doctor, you mentioned it as well,
that the effectiveness of the AIM technology,
specifically SawStop and the bash reacts of 70
to 90%, can you tell me what
data did you based that on?
>> Yes. We tried to -- well, it's difficult
to know precisely how many injuries are going
to be prevented, but in this case,
we tried to think of the ways
in which injuries would not be
prevented, and we came up with --
a list, for example; in some
cases the hand made --
for some reason, may be flying at the saw
so quickly, that the saw would cost a lot
of damage, even though it has the AIM technology
on it, that's a possibility in some cases.
Sometimes the AIM is deactivated, if you're
cutting wet wood, or wood that maybe --
or if you're cutting something
that's conductive, like aluminum.
So, sometimes people are going
to be turning the AIM system off.
The use of the AIM system may in fact
result in other changes in safety behavior,
in the form of reducing safety efforts
for other potential problems, for example;
if you think that the saw is going
to protect you from blade contact,
for some reason you might not think it's
so important to have a riving knife,
which you know -- can affect kickback,
or you might not wear goggles,
and things might fly into your eyes.
So, there's a possibility that people
could reduce their safety efforts,
we don't really have any evidence of that
at this point, but that's a possibility,
and actually there were some
comments that we've got for the ANPR
that suggested that, that might be the case.
And there's also a risk associated with
substitute products, if for example;
you stopped -- if you didn't buy a table saw
with AIM technology because it was so expensive,
you might use something else like
a hand saw, and that might have --
that might lead to more risky
behavior in some circumstances.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
>> And then of course engineers
indicate over and over again,
this doesn't actually prevent
injuries, it just mitigates them,
mitigates them substantially,
but there will be some injury.
So, the 90% -- we assume that, the remainder
-- that might not be preventable is about 10%
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
That's very helpful, thank you.
I know that the big Q told that we have in
our data right now, is the type of table saw
that is actually involved in causing injuries.
And I know we've tried on 07' and 08', and form
data in 14' and 15' surveys to find this out.
And I know that they both
been deemed unreliable,
and all of the information
from them was disregarded.
So, in the absence of information
identifying which saws cause injuries,
I know that you pursued the break, even
analysis, and again thank you for your candor
on what the problems are with this.
You set up four hypothetical's, one was
injuries are proportional to the saws
and use in every table saws has an equal
likelihood of injury, you have the second one;
the risk of all are equal over their lives,
the third one; is risk is proportional
to their retail sales price, the fourth one
is; blade contact injuries by table saw type,
are proportional to the medium retail prices,
and I appreciate you did the best you could,
but without information on saw type,
we may -- we know that very well --
maybe, that none of those
assumptions are right, is that right?
>> Correct.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
So, in order to become -- to complete
a more fulsome cost benefit analysis,
is to my understanding from our discussion the
other day, is that the other that what you need
to know to do a more fulsome cost
benefit analysis, is first of all,
if there was blade contact, I'll just
comment that I'm satisfied from the package
and from Mrs. [inaudible] comments, that are
nice people -- but are peppy people, rather,
have been very careful and
conservative and selecting NYESS data
in where there has been blade contact, the
second thing is severity of injury; so,
we know that we can get that
from the NYESS data, and so,
the third thing that you're missing is the
type of saw, and you need that in order
to correlate it with one and
two, is that what you're saying?
>> Yes, I want to say the first one, you said
exactly correctly, we'd have a more definite --
>> Marietta S. Robinson:
Did I get only one of three?
>> Well, 90% let's say.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK [laughter].
>> But, the second item is, we don't really
know what the distribution of injuries is,
in other words what percentage
of injuries occur on tables --
bench saws, what proportion happens
in cabinet saws and so forth.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right.
>> The third is the severity issue.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right.
>> If we had the NYESS estimates
by table saw type --
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right.
>> We'd be able to figure out what types of
injuries were occurring on each table saw --
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right.
>> And that get us the severity.
The breakeven analysis, kind
of deals with item number two.
And I think that the breakeven
analysis shows that regardless
of what the injury distribution it is, it looks
like probably the benefits will be greater
than the costs, for all of
the different saw types.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: I understand that.
And though with that -- I
understand the premises that you use,
because you did a great job of
explaining that, and I appreciate it.
Let me say that, we know
that excepting contractor
and cabinet saws would lessen the
impact on small manufacturers,
and it would reduce possible
-- also jurisdiction overlap.
But we have no information
on how many contractor
and cabinet saws are involved
in consumer injuries.
We know that.
Page two and three -- pages two and
three of tab C, sums up our problems
with not having this survey data, and the
cost outweigh benefits in some saw types.
So, to do our analysis, you told us that with no
data on this, you made assumptions on the number
of injuries that could be prevented, the
hypothetical distribution of injuries
across saw types, and the expected
post regulatory sales, right?
>> Right.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
As you know, my office just found out that
there was this flaw, that has been known
to at least a couple of commissioners by
many months, but we just found out about it,
and since then we have been spending an enormous
amount of energy circling, how we might be able
to correct what seems like
a really basic data element,
and that is the kind of saw that's used.
Now, I guess I have a couple of questions
with respect to these previous surveys,
and let me focus first, and this may be
something -- probably something for EP,
but the -- in 2007 and 2008, the flaw
as they were described in the package,
were because the interviewers
were asking confusing questions,
so the people responses were such that you
could end up with a conflict with respect
to the saw types, but I just learned
yesterday, that a number of the reports;
the 821 sample injuries, from the 07', 08'
had the manufacturer name, and I just --
I guess I knew that, but what I didn't know,
is that a number of these
manufacturers only made one type of saw.
So, I guess my question is, I understand that
we need to exclude the subjective information,
because of the questions asked and
the answers given, but is anyone gone
through these 821 reports that we have, to
see if we have any objective information
with respect to saw types, whether
is manufactured, whether is a photo,
whatever it is, I just wonder if
anybody have just try to do that?
>> All right, we have looked at that, and
we're in the process of getting that answer --
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
>> In a way that we can get it
probably tomorrow or the next day.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Terrific.
And then, I guess I have -- really the same
questions -- well, if we were able to have --
I guess I have to ask the follow up to that,
except that we have three more
seconds, I'll wait until the next round.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you,
Commissioner Robinson; Commissioner Kaye.
>> Elliot F. Kaye: Thanks Madame
Chairman, I don't have any questions,
I just want to thank the
staff for a phenomenal job.
I thought it was a very strong package,
certainly as Commissioner Adler mentioned,
time continues to tick, and consumers
deserve some type of response
to this going injury pattern, whether this
particular rule making or some other one.
But I have no questions this time, thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank
you, Commissioner Mohorovic.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Thank you Madame
Chairman, and thank you staff also
for the amount of time you've spent
addressing some very specific questions,
that I've offered over a couple of
weeks those answers have been shared
with my colleagues and the commission.
And it's an area of interest
for me, in doing a deeper dive,
looking at it from a comparative contrast
point of view, that ANPR, and the NPR,
and I think some of those
elements would be worth going
into in a little bit greater detail here,
as I think I'm not the only one looking
at how different the net benefits, the benefits
as they were identified between
the ANPR, and the NPR.
So, in terms of looking at some of the
leading indicators to drive the benefits part
of our cost benefit analysis,
I first one I want to look
at the table saw blade contact injury trend
analysis, and that really gets to a look I think
at what was intended to be a study of the
effectiveness of the modular blade guard,
that went in a voluntary standard, and
I apologize if you've mentioned this
in the briefing, but do you know
what year that went into federal --
when we would imagine that
probably the better number,
when products in the market placed were
likely to have the modular blade guard?
>> Joel Recht: So, the voluntary
standard with the modular blade guard,
became effective January 2010, around in
2009 they started appearing in the market --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: In
advance, of course, right -- yes
>> Joel Recht: And then obviously it takes
some time, for them to penetrate the market,
but we went all the way through to
2015, and by which time there were many,
you know, of these sponsors in the market.
>> Caroleen Paul: There are some overlaps,
but by 2010 everyone was providing --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: We would've expected
to be penetration for new products sales,
to include the modular blade guard.
>> Caroleen Paul: Correct.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Great,
thank you, Miss Paul.
And -- yeah, and we yield that we looked
at the blade contact injury trend,
per 10,000 saws in the market place, and maybe
to our disappointment, the quote that I want
to reference, and that was in the presentation
from earlier today, "No discernable change
in the risk of injury associated
with the table saw blade contact".
So, that leads us to believe that the changes
made in that latest version of the UL standard,
didn't have the impact that we were
hoping in terms of addressing the risk.
Is that correct?
>> Caroleen Paul: Correct.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK.
So, the rates of injuries have been the
same, if there was a discernable trend,
I know the package mentions that
we don't see a discernable trend.
It there were one, what would be the kind of
reduction that we might be able to look and say,
"Well, you know, perhaps the modular
guard is another effort as education,
or anything else is having an impact" is
there a percentage that we might suggest,
that leads us to believe that it is
having a beneficial safety impact?
>> Caroleen Paul: I would have Sarah [phonetic]
speak about trend analysis, because it's --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: If that's
too difficult to answer to you,
I would accept that it's too
hard to come down with a number
>> Oh, I don't necessarily
have an exact number --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Right.
>> But as the time progresses away from, when
the voluntary standard went into effect we,
as you would expect to have a larger percentage
in each year of saws than what used to be there,
and that, I want to quote an equal
number, but I don't know if they'll --
if they are OK with me, is
it OK if I say it here?
>> Yes, sure.
[Laughter].
>> OK. By 2015, they estimated
about a third of the saws in use,
should have been -- should be compliant.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Oh, thank you.
OK, well, that's a helpful
transition, because I did want to talk
about the numbers of saws in population.
So, I discovered we have a
CPSC product population model,
can you briefly describe for us what that is?
Or maybe how long it's been -- how long
we've had the benefit of that model?
>> Caroleen Paul: The awkward number is PPM.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: PPM?
>> That's all I can tell you.
>> Since the 80s we've had the model.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Since the 80s?
>> Since the 80s, yes.
And it basically, it uses estimates of expected
life, and there's certain things that are going
to the parameters, for the distribution or
several distributions that are available,
we tend to use a gamma, but not to get
down on the weeds, anyway; to simplify,
what it does is it projects the life of the
product, occurring to -- as I said, shipments --
annual shipments, which we've gotten from --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Product life, etc.
>> And then --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Failure
rates I think it's rated.
>> Exactly, failure rates.
So, that we can make a projection of the
population of saws in the use for each year.
So, that's to --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK, terrific.
And I noticed that from the NAPR; the PPM
yielded a result of 10,000,000 products
in the use; table saws in scope to the rule,
and then in 2015, that number was reduced 18%
to 8.2 million saws, according to the PPM.
And that's on page 15 of tab C. So, the third
element of a leading element that I want
to address, is the blade contact injuries.
Now, from the staff briefing
package, both from our NYESS data,
of addressable blade contact injuries, we've
got 30,800 from NYESS plus another 24,000
as Commissioner Adler got to our non NYESS
data for a total of 54,800, and the ANPR,
we had a total of I think 67,300, that is 33,000
and a half from NYESS, 33.8 from non NYESS.
So, between the ANPR, and the NPR, the
addressable blade contact injuries went
down 20% between the ANPR and the NPR.
So, I don't think I can ask this question
without some help from the visual aid,
and Doctor Reckt I think that there
are some slides that will help us get
to the big question that
I want you to answer here.
That -- first, with the total population
of saws in use down almost 20%.
So, those are the saws from the PPM gone down
19%, excuse me, and then next slide if you will,
Doctor Reckt, the blade contact injuries
were down 20% between the ANPR and the NPR,
and finally next slide please, the rate
of table saw injury remaining the same,
and then the third saw -- third
slide, yet after all these decreases,
an stable rate of injury were finding the
achievable benefits have surprisingly gone
up 72% from the ANPR, to the NPR and I
know you've given me a 10 page document
to describe that, but for a lot of other
interesting players, playing along at home,
given those other leading indicators all going
down, by significant numbers or staying flat,
one would expect that the achievable
benefits, were measurably gone down
or remained flat, yet they went up 72%.
Can you provide for, I guess the record, how
that -- how those benefits increased 72%?
>> Well, there are several things going on
with the injury cost model, since the ANPR;
first of all, the ANPR used 2008 as the price
level, the current estimate uses 2014 dollars,
it turns out that about 45%
of the increase from --
of the ANPR to the NPR is related
to price level adjustments,
plus updates to the injury cost model, that
we've incorporated over the last several years.
I think we've incorporated about four updates,
over the timed period, it's kind of like --
you take a car, get it worked on,
and they fix the wheels one time,
and the generator the next time, we kind
of add things to the injury cost models,
as we can get better information.
So, about 44% was related to the increase
in price levels from 2008 to 2014,
and updates in the injury cost model.
About 55% was related to the increase
in hospitalizations, relatively --
in the ANPR about 4.2% of the -- about
4.2% of the injuries were hospitalizations,
that went up to 19.2% -- 9.2% in the
NPR, so a little bit more than doubled,
plus there was an increase in amputations
for some reason that we are not clear on.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: I'm sure
on time, and I appreciate that,
that's why I want to get this out;
the quotes that we just saw before is,
"There is no discernable change in the number
of injuries, or the type of injuries related
to table saw blade contact from 2004 to
2015" yet you just said, the type of injuries
and amputations have gone up
significantly, as well as hospitalization.
So, how do we align that quote
with what you just mentioned?
>> I don't know the full
answer to that question,
part of it is epidemiology just looks the
numbers of injuries, we are looking at the cost
of those injuries, and there was a substantial
increase in the number of hospitalizations
over that time period, and there was an increase
in amputations, though significant it was
about a 2% increase in amputations,
but since amputations account for --
well, since they only amount about
13.7% of injuries, and almost two thirds
of the injury cost, a small increase
in amputations can increase
the injury cost quite a bit.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: In this case 430 million
dollars, we consider that no discernable?
>> Now, what?
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Not
discernable, no discernable changes --
I'm sorry, we're over time Chairman.
>> Well, it's a discernable to ask, but we're
not looking at it in a statistical approach.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: I'm
sorry, I'm out of time.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you very
much, I want to go back to what we --
I was talking about a little bit ago, in terms
of the lacerations, because I'm concerned --
it were not really getting to the
root of the severity of the injury,
and I did hear from Mister Rogers
-- Doctor Rogers, that we --
the type of saw would get us the severity
information, and I wanted to kind of explore
that a little bit, the question
from Commissioner Robinson,
you mentioned that the type of saw
would get us the severity information,
but when we talked earlier with Doctor Reckt,
it was a question if in the NYESS code,
we just talked about lacerations,
we couldn't discern
which was a severe or less severe laceration.
So, I'd like you if you just
comment, and explain that type of --
>> Well, when I say severity, kind of what I was
really talking about was the cost of the injury,
and I'm using cost as kind
of a proxy for severity.
So, if you have more amputations that would make
a more severe injury, and I'm thinking of it
because the injury costs go way up.
We don't have, you know, technical
severity measure, but looking at --
you know, the proportion of hospitalizations,
and the proportion of amputations,
both of those going up to some extent, that
would indicate an increase in severity to me;
but what we don't know, is if the different
saws are affected differently by that change.
I mean, it could be -- this is just
hypothetical, it could be that amputation tend
to be treated -- I mean, tend to occur with
bench saws primarily, because people --
the people that use them, maybe in offices, they
don't use it very often, whereas the cabinet
and contractor saws, tend to be
used by more proficient users.
But we don't know, I mean, it could be -- I mean
that's one possibility, another possibility is
that cabinet saws are used so much, that they
may account for the great majority of injuries,
or more injuries on a proportional basis.
If we had -- if we had the information from
NYESS as to what, you know, what type --
what the injury pattern was for each of
these saws, it might turn out that --
and again, this is purely hypothetical, I don't
have any idea of whether that would happen
or not, but it could be that the cost --
the average cost we came up with
is about $74,000 per injury;
it could be that the injury cost might
have averaged a 100,000 per bench saw,
but 90 -- 60,000 per cabinet saw.
But we don't have that information,
but that kind of information would affect
our cost benefit analysis, potentially.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank
you, thank you very much.
I wanted to just go back to
Commissioner Mohorovic's --
because his line of question had the
no discernable change in the number
of blade contact injuries from
2004 to 2015, even if the number
of lacerations hasn't changed, is there any
way to know, and this goes back to my question,
is it possible that could have been a reduction
in the more complex lacerations, rather than --
so, we say that there's no discernable
change, but there could have been
that there was a decrease
in the complex lacerations,
and an increase in the more simple lacerations?
Is that possible?
>> It's possible, but we have no way to quantify
any of that, we don't have a way to know how --
what it was before, or after, even in
the current state, we don't have any way
to measure the complexity
of what the laceration was.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK.
And even if those two NYESS
special studies, had not --
we wouldn't had difficulties with the
subjectivity, and the asking of questions,
we still wouldn't know that
answer, is that fair to say?
>> From those two special studies, yes.
The current special study is attempting --
the current study being conducted by the
field investigator is requesting pictures,
and other medical information
from the respondent's,
to attempt to collect that type of information.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK.
Thank you.
I want to just talk a little bit about
-- if a table saw user, uses a glove,
how does that impact the AIM technology?
>> Joel Recht: On the current AIM's systems
that are available don't begin to react
until the conductive part of the human
body touches, so, it would depend somewhat
on the glove, but typically gloves are not
conductive and they're not going to react
until finger contact occurs,
using that current system.
And the standard, that's what it says.
So, after blade contact, it must stop before
three and a half millimeters of cutting
into the finger, or the test probe, actually.
But we specify cutting fingers.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
And you alluded to this, someone
did, I'm not sure about --
about in the empiric talk about as well.
The situations when the AIM technology
is going to be disabled voluntarily,
because you're cutting through a conductive
material, or wet wood or something,
and so can you -- how common
is that going to happen?
Is that something that you
should factor into this?
>> In -- Greg mentioned that we did
factor that into the effectiveness.
We know that some, you know, metal
is cut on table saws, so that is,
you know, we don't know exactly how much.
One thing that these systems do have though,
as opposed to when one removes a modular blade
guard, or remains removed until they replace it,
but when they saw the power is
cycled, it goes back into the --
activating the AIM system automatically.
So, there's -- it doesn't require
a user input on the next use
of the saw, to return it to AIMs.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
So, you could disable it, and
then it would be ready to go,
the next time -- the next time that you use it?
Is that -- from my understanding --
>> When you turn off the saw, and then turn
it back on, it would automatically goes back
to having the AIM system activated.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK.
>> Caroleen Paul: You'll
have to keep disabling it.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Yes, OK.
But if you left it on, it would be disabled
until you turned it off, or you -- OK.
The mention of OSHA [inaudible] was made
by Commissioner Robinson, I believe,
and I'm just wondering, does
OSHA have the jurisdiction
and the ability to regulate table saws?
>> Hyun Kim: OSHA has some regulations
currently, that ensure safer work environment
for table saw users, and some
of these regulations involve the
use of garbs, or push sticks.
So, those regulations are primarily there
to promote safe practices in the work place,
rather than in the home environment, and
they allow for training and outreach,
which the homeowner would not have access to.
So, I think that the standards
that OSHA requires would not really
meet the safeguards available
for consumers in the home environment.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
But I think what we're considering here
today, is an overlap on some level.
Because we're talking about
commercial saws, we're talking about --
so, is there an overlap of the standard,
or excuse me, of the rule developing?
>> Hyun Kim: Yes, there could be an
overlap between OSHA and CPSC regulations,
but we have under CPSA, under
section 31 the statutes say,
if a risk of injury can be
sufficiently addressed by OSHA,
then the CPSC also has authority
to regulate such a risk of injury.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
A very high proportion and I think, this is from
Mister Director Rogers, and if you want to step
to the table, it seems that we keep calling you
up there, and I know you probably don't want to,
but we'd love to have you at the table.
A very high proportion of the cost
benefit, and the benefit estimates related
to pay and suffering [phonetic] --
>> Yes.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I'm wondering if going
back to my original question; do those --
does that pay and suffering in the estimation,
is that related to obviously the lacerations,
but it does -- does it distinguish, again,
between that simple versus
the complex laceration?
>> To the -- the pay and suffering is based
in regression analysis of injury awards,
and one of the important --
one of the factors that went
into the estimates is the type
of injury that was involved.
So, I can't remember precisely how
lacerations fit into the model,
but there might be a variable that picks up
laceration injuries, we wouldn't distinguish
between severe and non-severe
lacerations, except to the extent
that the model also includes
an estimate of economic losses,
I mean that's one of the important
factors of pay and suffering.
And so, presumably if you
had a more severe laceration,
that's going to increase
medical costs and lost wages.
So, that would implicitly -- so, would
implicitly impact on the pay and suffering
in that way, if that answer yours question.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I'm out of time and I'll pick up where
we left off and I'll come back again.
Thank you.
Yes, Commissioner Adler?
>> Robert S. Adler: I just wanted to pick up
in a point that Chairman Berkley was raising;
when we're talking about lacerations, in a
minimum these are lacerations that result
in medically attended care, are you
going to an emergency department,
or you're going to some kind
of medical facility.
So, we're not really talking about things like
paper cuts here, am I correct in stating that?
Either you're going to an emergency department,
or you're going to some kind
of medical facility.
So, we're not really talking about things like
paper-cuts here, am I correct in stating that?
>> Probably, yes.
>> Robert S. Adler: Although, I hate paper-cuts,
[crosstalk] that's real pain and suffering.
>> I mean, whenever people
would go to a doctor to see.
>> Robert S. Adler: Yes, I just assume
most people don't go for paper-cuts.
And, I'm not going to comment just now on the
pain and suffering, that's something, I think,
Commissioner Robinson knows well, and knows what
the calculations are from jury/verdicts service.
But, I did want to go back
to the breakeven analysis,
because in the breakeven analysis,
you listed four hypotheticals.
And, my understanding is you listed a scenario
in which bench saws produce more
injuries, because there are more of them.
To scenarios in which cabinet saws have a higher
rate of injury because people use them more.
But, you did state in the
briefing package on Tab C, page 58,
that you tried to pick the most
plausible injury distributions.
So, I guess my question is, are you
satisfied that you picked the most plausible?
And, are there other plausible
hypotheticals that you didn't analyze?
>> Well, I mean, you could
continue thinking about plausible --
>> Robert S. Adler: Well,
that's what I'm saying.
I'm limited [phonetic] to the term you use,
plausible, you can think of some bizarre --
>> What we tried to do is come up
with an array of distributions,
that kind of cover the gamut of possibilities.
I mean, we tried to come up with some in
which the risk on a bench saw was greatest,
and some were the risk on
the cabinet saw was greatest,
because given that we don't
know what type of saw was used,
and we don't know what the
injury distribution is,
we wanted to see how robust
our findings were with respect
to these alternative injury scenarios.
And, so we tried to come up with -- we came
up with four that we thought were plausible,
and they kind of have a wide range of
different risks for different saws.
So, I felt we were kind of comfortable
with this kind of [phonetic] --
>> Robert S. Adler: Yes, and actually, it looks
to me like you covered the field of, what again,
what we call plausible injury scenarios.
You did want, and by the
way, and almost all of those,
the net benefits exceeded costs
usually by a large amount.
The one instance where the net
benefits slightly exceeded, excuse me,
net costs slightly exceeded benefits, this was
one, I think, was hypothetical for where you had
to make an assumption that cabinet saws
presented roughly 40 times the risk
of a bench saw.
Even if cabinet saws present greater
risks, it seems to me 40 times the risk
of a bench saw is a pReckty extreme one.
So, to me that feels like
you've covered the field,
and I just thought I'd make that observation.
But, my question is, assuming that
the special study that's underway
that we've heard described
provides the missing information,
is there any additional data you would need
in order to do your cross-benefit analysis?
>> No.
>> Robert S. Adler: OK.
And, in fact, you've sort of done the
cross-benefit analysis, you're just waiting
to see which one of those
the special study confirms.
>> Plus, also, the costs on
these specific type of saws.
>> Robert S. Adler: OK.
And now, I want to go back to
the removal of blade-guards.
And again, the staff said that
removal of blade-guards is
"necessary and proper", on occasion.
And again, can you explain when
and why this is just finding that.
The reason I ask that, is you
said, "Necessary and proper",
meaning sometimes you just
have to do that, am I correct?
>> Caroleen Paul: Correct, if you
take a woodwork in class [phonetic],
and learn how to make a non-through cut,
they go through the process of how to do so,
and you use the top portion of the
blade to cut partially into the wood,
and you have to push the
wood all the way across,
and therefore you can't have the obstruction
that's presented by the blade-guard there.
>> Robert S. Adler: And, even when you
don't have to remove the blade-guard,
my understanding as a complete
novice is, blade-guards can interfere
with a consumer's ability to make very precise
cuts, am I misstating that or is that accurate?
>> Caroleen Paul: It can be somewhat subjective,
and if you're making very narrow cuts,
it can get in the way, and for some
people, it's a disability issue.
>> Robert S. Adler: And, I heard the same thing
about safety goggles, that they can interfere
with a consumer's ability to make a precise cut,
and that probably varies
from eyesight to eyesight.
And, I did notice that you said
elderly seem to have more accidents,
that obviously resonates
with these old bones up here.
I did also want to ask, just in the question
of any information you have
with respect to consumer misuse.
Do you see a significant number of instances
in which consumers are operating table saws
under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
>> Joel Recht: No, we did not.
>> Robert S. Adler: And, did you see
a significant number of instances
in which you saw thrill-seeking behavior?
Or reckless behavior in the
part of table saw users?
There are other products where we've seen
that as our colleague Commissioner
Mohorovic is reminded as.
But, on these, with these --
>> There's probably multiple
definitions of reckless, but in general,
most of these incidents are, we don't have many
details on them from the [inaudible] of course.
But, it -- my overall impression of them,
as I've read through thousands and thousands
of cases, is that almost
all of them are typical,
what you would expect of a
typical use of a table saw.
>> Robert S. Adler: And again, with respect to
the obviousness of a hazard, the staff does say
that you got a rotating blade saw, it's
pReckty obvious that it can cut you.
But, that doesn't really answer the
question about the obviousness of the hazard,
and one that consumers actually can recognize.
And, I want to quote from the briefing
package, "Even consumers who are fully aware
of the hazards and how to avoid them, may
suffer from slips or lapses that could lead
to blade contact and injury, despite
the consumer's best intentions
to use the product safely".
And, you say, "Human error's inevitable,
even among expert woodworkers".
So, do we see that even expert
woodworkers are suffering injuries?
>> Caroleen Paul: The experience
of all the woodworkers [inaudible],
so that would be something from our report data,
and I don't believe we have
that level of detail.
>> Robert S. Adler: Back to the
adequacy of the voluntary standard,
you've pointed out that you -- how they've tried
to get AIMS technology incorporated
into a voluntary standard.
And, all times, the industry has
strongly rejected this technology.
Do you see any likelihood of AIMS technology
being adopted on a voluntary standard
in the near, or frankly, the far future?
>> Caroleen Paul: Not based on the
past two votes, but we can always hope.
>> Robert S. Adler: Just out of, this is a
side question, you said there are alternatives
to detecting human contact with the saw, such
as electrical thermal visual electromagnetic
and ultrasound, boy, that sounds
very technical and perhaps geeky.
Does anybody to your knowledge,
looking at these technologies?
Just out of curiosity?
>> Joel Recht: Look, those technologies are
used for sensing in other product types,
but we're not aware of a product
using those for table saws.
>> Robert S. Adler: And, I was curious,
because AIMS technology is being talked
about on table saws, but could this be used on
other products that cut and slice radio saws,
band saws, chainsaws, hedge-trimmers,
lawnmowers?
>> Joel Recht: It could be, but we're
not aware of any that are available.
>> Robert S. Adler: OK.
The staff estimates that the number of
table saws sold annually could decrease
by about 90,000 to 250,000 units annually.
Could you, again, explain how
you came up with those estimates?
>> I mean, basically we figured out what the
increase in the price of the saws would be.
We used the concept of elasticity, which is a
technical term that means the percentage change
in quantity, given a percentage change in price.
And, from a source we used, an elasticity
estimate for home products of some sort
that included power-saws among other things.
And so, we -- I mean, so simply, we multiplied
the percentage change in price times elasticity,
that gives us the percentage change
in quantity that would be demanded.
And, that's, I mean, I think that answers
your question, maybe that isn't --
>> Robert S. Adler: No, it does answer my
question, and I've got a longer question
which I'll have to withhold
on, thank you very much.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you,
Commissioner Adler, Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Miss Garland,
I have a couple quick questions for you.
Am I correct that when you, in my understanding
from your answer you gave me yesterday,
because I asked you how we
excluded work-related injuries?
Why don't you just tell us?
>> So, from the NICE RCPSRS
[phonetic], from the NICE --
so, NICE, for the part that CPSE staff uses,
is by definition, non-occupational injuries.
There's -- if an occupational injury
came through and was coated in NICE,
it would in turn receive a
weight of zero and be excluded.
That is so we have -- so, there, they
are what's represented of it is supposed
to be only non-occupational injuries, there
is a small proportion of unknowns there.
And, for table saws it's about 6% [crosstalk].
>> Marietta S. Robinson: As in
everything in live, but that --
we exclude them as a general rule.
>> Yes.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
The other question, I just want to make
sure I understand, of the two surveys,
the 821 number in the 275, those universes, you
pull the NICE reports enough to have information
about -- some information, in a minimum,
about severity of the injuries, right?
Whether it's amputation --
>> Right, we have diagnoses and body part.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Excellent, OK.
So, it's back to you, Doug [phonetic] -- Reckt,
because you answered the question I was asking
about the 2007-2008 survey, and you said
you were going back and looking at it,
can you just tell me what you're doing?
>> Joel Recht: Well, staff
analyzed that previously in 2014,
I think it published not
about not using it and why.
And in that, it included an evaluation of
what we could and couldn't clean from that,
in terms of looking at a different way
of looking at what the consumer said
about the drive, what the
consumer said about the saw type,
what they said about the
making [phonetic] model.
>> Marietta S. Robinson:
Right, I looked at that report.
>> Joel Recht: And, you know, so
we're looking at that again to see --
it seems to indicate that it's not
usable really to get at any of that.
But, we're, you know, we just
talked to you yesterday about it,
we're looking back at that and --
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right.
So, what I had in thought
of yesterday, as the --
because when I spoke with you,
because I didn't realize that.
In an awful lot of cases, if you just know
the manufacturer, you know the saw type,
I didn't know that until yesterday.
So, I guess my question specifically, I
understand the report we put out in 2014,
and I understand why we said we couldn't
rely on it, and I understand that it's
because of the subjectivity
that became part of that survey.
But again, I'm going back to my question, if we
can find objective evidence of saw type in any
of these cases, is that something
that we're looking at?
Miss Garland's coming up, so
maybe she's the one doing it.
>> So, the 2014 said that the
report that's being referenced here.
So, that was part of the analysis when
we did the staff re-classification,
that subject matter experts
look through each one,
consider anyone that had
manufacturer model information,
horsepower, all of that, and yes, it would.
So, when we were doing that, we also accounted
for whether a manufacturer only
made a certain type of saw.
So, that's reflected in that 2000 [crosstalk].
>> Marietta S. Robinson: 14 reports.
So, what I don't know is what
percentage of those were able
to tell the saw type from
that objective information.
Do you -- and I apologize [crosstalk].
>> So, on page seven, sorry, on page seven,
in the staff reclassification that --
so, basically after all was said and done,
and after look considering the manufacturer
and everything, that we said that
81.1% was a known type of saw.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
And, did you do the same thing
with respect to the 2014-2015 data?
>> No --
>> Marietta S. Robinson:
[Crosstalk] objective evidence?
>> That, no, for the 2014-15 study, we
ran into a different type of problem.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right,
I understand it was [crosstalk].
>> [Crosstalk] So, we did not look at it,
we didn't because of the over-arching issue
with that study, we did not
do the same type of analysis.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK,
but do we have information?
I understand the interviewer effect,
and I understand the problem with that.
But again, that's an interviewer
asking questions and coming
up with the judgment of what type of saw it was.
Do we have objective evidence of what saw type?
>> That we asked what -- we did have questions
in there that included manufacturing model.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: And, did you --
>> I don't have the result in front of
me, so I do not know what [crosstalk].
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK, but is
that something we could take a look at?
To see if we have objective
evidence from that survey?
>> I think that [inaudible].
OK, just wanted to make sure.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: I'm trying to come up
with any answer in the world so we can get type
of saw, because it's just such
critically important information.
>> So, for the 2014-15 study, the
staff's recommendation is still stands,
that we just don't rely on that data.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: I understand
that, that's not my question.
My question is whether we have objective
evidence of model number or manufacturer,
that we could use to make any
sort of conclusion that is --
has a foundation from objective evidence, not
from the interview, about the type of saw.
>> From the NICE record?
>> Marietta S. Robinson: No, of
course not from the NICE record.
>> So, from my perspective, sorry.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: No, I understand
you're excluding that, I'm asking you just
for a moment, put on another hat of
problem-solver, because I'm trying to figure
out if there's any way to resolve this.
In the 2014-2015, 275 cases, do we know --
have we looked at whether we have any objective
evidence of saw type in any of those cases.
>> Caroleen Paul: It's going to be the same as
the 2007 studies, there are going to be some
that have the manufacturer
information, some that don't.
So, we have to go back to look
at that to answer your question.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
Obviously for 2007-2008, we already done that.
But, I'm just asking if we
can do that about the 14-15.
>> Caroleen Paul: Right.
It was a question that was
asked, was not always answered.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Sorry?
>> Caroleen Paul: It was a question
that was asked, it wasn't [crosstalk].
>> Marietta S. Robinson: I understand that.
But, that's not my question, my question
is, we've obviously gone back and looked
for objective evidence in the 2007-2008
data, I'm asking if we could go
and do that same thing with
respect to the 14-15.
>> Joel Recht: We'll have to get back to
you on whether or not that's possible,
we're looking at the data, and we'll --
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK,
but the possible I'm asking,
I'm obviously not asking my question very well.
>> Joel Recht: But, part
of the question is whether
or not we can rely on even what the answer was.
So, is it objective information or not that
we have, and how much of that do we have?
And, is it enough of it to count?
So, I can't answer that.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Let
me ask it in a different way.
Could we go back and look at those 275
cases and see if we have manufacturer
or model number for the saws or pictures?
>> Caroleen Paul: Yes, we can
[inaudible] go back and look at those.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: With the 2017
in-depth investigation that you're doing.
Miss Stralka, you have explained about
what you're doing with respective saw type,
are there other data that we're trying to
get from that 2017, more thorough analysis
with the field investigators coming up
other than definitive proof of saw type?
Or purposes of this packet?
>> Kathleen Stralka: Yes, we're trying to
collect, also through the IDI [phonetic],
information about the hazard
scenario, about the injury,
and about what safety mechanisms
were in use at the time.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK,
so we're getting information
with respect whether it meets
a voluntary standard.
No, there was one that was a modular
blade-guard, and whether it was being used.
>> Kathleen Stralka: That's our objective, yes.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: And, is that
information that, I guess I'll ask the group,
because somebody can answer, is that
information that we think is important in terms
of our analysis of how well the
voluntary standard's working?
Because, we -- essentially, as I understand
it, we only have one person who's told us
that they had the guard in place,
and still suffered an injury.
>> Joel Recht: Well, we think it's useful
information, and that it will help inform
if the commission directs us to go forward
into a final rule, that it will help us,
and foremost, with that information
that it's important information.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
Can you tell me, sorry Miss
Stralka, I'm not done.
Could you tell me why it is, and
maybe it was not you who chose this,
but why it is you chose a 12 month period?
And, what I'm getting at with this so you can
answer whichever of these questions you want,
is whether we could get enough information that
ECON [phonetic] would be comfortable relying on,
for purposes of looking at types
of saws involved in injuries,
and the severity to those injuries, in order
to do a better class-benefit
analysis than the break even.
I'm just wondering if we could use a
smaller sample size, in terms of --
are we looking at 12 months
because of numbers we need?
Or because it's neat?
Or that I'm sure there's an
epidemiological reason for it.
>> Kathleen Stralka: Yes there is, indeed.
To have enough responses, basically
IDIs that can project nationally.
We know the distribution of table saw types
differ, some of them are less, obviously.
And so, in order to be able to pick up
enough incidents to project that nationally,
we think yes, a year is designed
in to hopefully project.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Yes,
OK, I'm out of time, thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Commissioner Kay [phonetic]?
>> Kay: Thank you, Madam Chair, I
have no more questions at this time,
but I understand Commissioner
Mohorovic could use some extra time,
so I'm going to yield to him.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Thank you,
Commissioner Kay, I appreciate that very much.
And, Dr. Rogers, if you wouldn't mind
joining us, because -- No, he's back.
Because, I spent my first round of questioning
getting into that difference in the AMPR
and the MPR, specifically the
increase in benefits of $1.7 billion,
and you did a fantastic job
of providing that to me,
and I wanted to take a little bit
of time here to summarize that.
You started with the first exclamation for
that difference between the AMPR and MPR,
as an increase in health costs, which
amounted to 790 million of that 1.7 billion.
>> Right, the price level
increase plus changes and all that.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: The injury cost model.
And, I went back and looked at that period,
and determined a compound aggregate growth-rate
with health-care in the news everyday,
found a five percent compounded growth-rate
for costs seemed to make
sense, and for me at least,
back of the napkin certainly
legitimized that amount.
And then, you also mentioned that that
1.7 is made up of 480 million increase,
in the increase in amputations,
that you saw from AMPR to MPR.
Now, I'll still leave it out there as
a criticism, I don't know how we lead
on page one with, "There's no discernible change
in the type of injuries related to table saw",
I would think that would be clearly amputations,
but you don't have to comment on that.
The last part we didn't -- time didn't allow
for you to have the opportunity to describe,
is the final contributor to
that $1.7 billion increase.
Was the increase in the hospitalization
rate, and how that's such a big driver.
I wanted to give you the opportunity, and
a minute of yourself, to describe that
and why we're seeing such an increase
between the formulation of the AMPR
and the MPR in hospitalization rates.
I think we would understand how that's a big
driver of costs, but maybe if you can get
to why we're seeing increase
hospitalization rates.
>> OK, OK.
To what we were talking about earlier today.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Yes, sir.
>> There are two reasons why --
Well, as I mentioned earlier,
the proportion of hospitalizations
increase from about 4.1%
in the AMPR to about 9.2% of in the MPR.
And, I'm talking about the injury
cost estimate, the injury at cost more
or less, it's not necessarily NICE.
But, that's made up of two components.
One, there was an increase in the
NICE estimates of hospitalizations.
And, on top of that, since the AMPR,
one of our contract task orders,
was used to better estimate the
proportion of direct hospitalizations,
as opposed to going through NICE first.
I mean, we have -- most of the hospitalizations,
you go to the emergency room, and you get,
then you go into the hospital at that
point, or the doctor sent you there.
But, in some cases, and it's not as many, but
in some cases, you might be directly admitted,
say you see a physician, and they say you
need to go into the hospital immediately.
That is -- So, not only did the NICE
estimate of hospitalizations go up,
but our contract work showed us that in the
2011 analysis, we were probably using too small
of a direct proportion of hospitalizations.
So, it was a combination of those two factors.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Excellent, thank you,
I just wanted to give you the
opportunity to wrap that up.
Because, I found that we spent a lot of time
together on it, as soon as just a couple
of hours ago, and I wanted to give
you the opportunity to mention
that third important factor, and
thank you very much for explaining
that for those playing along at home.
I wanted to get to a different subject,
I want to talk about the comments.
So, the comments were identified
in the overview briefing.
I recognize that we had 1,600
comments on this rule.
The -- also, the briefing package was
very forthright in indicating that 1,466
of those comments were against the rule,
while only 134 were in support of the rule.
So, to me, I'll use the word overwhelming,
that to me is an overwhelming amount of 92%
of the public being against this rule.
And, this to me is a point
about self-governance,
it's a point about political legitimacy,
it's a point about the constitution,
beginning with the words, "We the
people", of which we're sworn to uphold.
And, also the fact that for those of us, all of
us, serving the public, should listen closely
to those who we are privileged to serve.
At what point and time with the sample size
of 1,600 comments, would staff ever relinquish
and just say, "Look, in the end, we're serving
the people, and the people just don't want this.
As much as we think it's helpful, as much we
wish through this AIMS technology on everything,
is there a percentage, is that
ever crossed the mind of the team?
And, this is a question for you, Miss Paula,
at what point in time would you ever step back
and say, "This is so overwhelmingly rejected by
the American public, we ought to rethink this
and pause before going forward
with rule-making [phonetic]".
And, I ask you, as the project leader, and
as one who might be able to capture some
of the thoughts of the team,
and was this something
that was ever considered by the team too?
That maybe we ought to at least pump the
brakes, if not recommend terminating based
on the overwhelming will of the people.
And, I don't mean nine out of 10
comments, 92% of 1,600 comments coming in.
>> Caroleen Paul: But, as a
project manager, that's --
I can't say that's one of
the thought processes I go
through when I'm putting together a package.
And, in terms of comments to, you
know, a federal register notice,
I'm looking for substantial comments.
And so, I look past the opinions and
all the comments that are being made
that aren't necessarily substantial.
When I'm specifically looking for
what do we need to respond to?
So --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Are the comments just
looked as barriers, and obstacles to overcome?
As opposed to informing our government
on what our government should be.
Should be directed towards --
>> Caroleen Paul: I see them as
really valuable sources of information
to inform us, I don't see them as barriers.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: So, is there any
indication of, at what percent of a large sample
that staff might consider
withdrawing from a rule?
If it's not 92%?
We'll go through another round of comments.
And, some -- and, the public might want to
hit a certain number if there's one out there.
>> Caroleen Paul: I don't
believe that's part of the --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: I think
Dr. Reckt wants to jump in.
>> Joel Recht: I just wanted to say, I mean,
we did address, you know, all of the comments,
and not individually, but in
groups within the package.
So, we certainly were informed by the
comments, and we're seeking additional comments
with this package, if the
commission moves forward.
But, it's the substance of the comments that
we're interested in, and not the quantity.
And, we certainly welcome them all.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK.
I just say that as one who has also
put forward and work with my colleagues
to support an interpretive regulation and
having overwhelming feedback from the public.
Negative to that, I went scurrying back
to the corner with my tail between my legs
and figured it's time to reset, as opposed
to pushing forward, relating
of course to fireworks.
I want to talk about unintended consequences.
I mean, I noticed that we had a
recall associated with the table saw,
recently with a metal foldable
stand was collapsing,
there was nine injuries including
fractures, lacerations, and amputations.
And, I think these are the kind of
hazards and performance measures
that are addressed in the voluntary standard.
Also, in the epidemiology memo and appendix
speed, the staff acknowledges the use
of "homemade table saw", and that staff
expressively removed the incidents
where there was an indication that
the product was a homemade table saw,
and nothing like what was
described when we knew definitively
that an incident was a result
of an occupational injury.
If in fact we double the price point
for a bench-top table saw at retail,
how many consumers do we expect to push
into the DIY homemade table saw option?
>> Joel Recht: We don't know the answer
to that, but that was as Greg mentioned,
part of the reasoning behind,
less than 100% effectiveness.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: No, and I appreciate
that, it's difficult to ask retain,
but as much as we did an excellent job in
understanding the loss of consumer surplus,
perhaps by the elasticity and decision
points for consumers to know longer,
is that kind of a risk/risk analysis?
Something that we can come
up with to understand then.
Measuredly [phonetic], if we push the opening
price point of a saw to a certain point
that folks will, and I've Googled it
myself, I won't do it with the phone,
convert my circular saw to a table saw, you'll
immediately see an eight-point list that comes
up into one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, eight,
how you can make your own table
saw out of a circular saw.
And, I'm concerned if we push that price
point up, and I think that's the kind
of risk/risk analysis that should be considered.
Is that something that, and I do recognize
also we're soliciting comments on that,
is that something that we're considering here?
>> Well, I mentioned earlier,
that part of the reason, we think,
that the effectiveness will be less than
100%, is because people might use substitutes,
and those substitutes might have
the risks, have additional risks.
But, we can't really quantify
what you're talking about.
I mean, it's likely to happen, I suspect, but
we don't know how frequently it would happen.
I mean, if -- I mean, with our highest
cost estimates, we reduced bench saw sales
by a substantial amount, I don't remember
exactly what it was, but I would imagine some
of those people would use substitutes.
Or actually, one thing they might --
a common response would be to keep an older
table saw longer, they wouldn't get rid of it.
But, if they didn't have the table saw,
and they couldn't afford a new one,
then they might use some substitute,
like hand saw as opposed to a table saw.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I noticed I've
gone over the expected time, then.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I believe that Kim --
Chairman, excuse me, the Commissioner
Kay yielded his 10 minutes too,
did you take 20 minutes?
I don't think you did.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Not yet, but
I promise to respect that extra minute
and a half I've gone over in my 10 minutes,
if that's OK with you Madam Chairman.
OK, resetting the clock.
But, thank you very much, mister.
I didn't realize that that was part of what
the consideration is in the 90% effectiveness,
the alternatives which might
include homemade table saws.
So, thank you for that answer, I
didn't pick that up in the package.
The last question that I have has to do with
the small business impact that was projected.
And, I'm curious why there
wasn't analysis of the impact
that this proposed rule might have
specifically on the construction industry.
And, I realized that we've taken
out the workplace related incidents,
but I think we all know that
contractors buy these saws.
I mean, after all, one of the defined
categories are "contractor saws", are they not?
. So, in the original -- in the initial
Redflex [phonetic] analysis from page one,
defining the general purpose of
the Redflex analysis as quoted
"A description of/and were feasible.
An estimate of the number of small entities,
to which the proposed rule will apply".
And, there is no estimate or indication of
the impact to the construction industry,
specifically the small construction industry.
I appreciate the work that was done to evaluate
the impact of small manufacturers of table saws,
but why not consider the impact -- I would think
the relative impact on the construction industry
for significantly raising the increase in the
price of these saws, would dwarf the impact
on small manufacturers of the saws themselves.
>> Is this on?
Yes, the direct impact of the rule will
be on the manufacturers, and not the --
So, in the construction industry,
it is an indirect impact.
However, if you look at the cost of the
saw, even if they have to buy, you know,
a saw a year, then it's going to be a
fairly small percent of their total revenue.
They're -- it's raising the
price of the saw they buy,
but chances are that saw itself is going to be
-- they're going to have a lot more revenue.
We generally considered something
of significant impact,
or potentially significant if it's more than 1%.
So, if a table saw goes in a price by to
use a higher estimates, you know, $1,000.
To be 1%, the construction company's
revenue would have to be more
than 100, less than 100,000 a year.
And, that's assuming they're buying
the newest table saw each year.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK, I understood.
>> So, that is --
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: But,
let me ask you this,
if we were considering what is a significant
rule, that's a rule with an impact, how much?
A hundred million.
>> Maybe that's greater than a hundred million.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: A hundred million.
And, our costs identified here are how much?
Over a billion?
>> They're more than 100 million.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: So, if the
significant rule is one that has a cost impact
of $100 million or more, and we're identifying
costs here of over a billion dollars,
do we not expect that there at
least be $100 million in cost
that are born to the construction industry?
Which would trigger a whole level of reporting
requirements in the federal government
so that everybody is well aware
of this small business impact,
of what would [inaudible] of itself.
If it was only applying to the
construction industry would be a significant
or major rules to find.
And, I think EO12866 [phonetic].
>> Now, is that under the congressional review?
I mean, I was looking at the regulatory
flexibility act, which is significant
to likely be seen against [phonetic] the
substantial number of small businesses.
I think this other thing you're talking
about outside the congressional review,
[inaudible] you are looking at the
major rule being more than 100 million.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: True, but
I'm just wondering why we didn't look
at the impact to the construction industry.
If the total cost of the rule are -- what is it?
Over one billion?
It's thanks to Dr. Reckt, I honestly don't know.
One --
>> Most [phonetic] were about
170 to 350 million per year.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: OK.
All right, that's not the billion
dollar number I was just sighting.
So, 100-170, OK.
Well, I hope that's taken into consideration.
To me, it seems that the small businesses
and especially in the construction industry,
would be disproportionately impacted
by the rule and I hope we might be able
to do some analysis just to know for
sure what that impact would be on them.
>> OK.
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Thank you very much,
that concludes my questions, Madam Chairman.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I want to give the staff the opportunity,
we won't have one more round of questions,
but if a staff would like to take a break for 10
minutes, we can do that, and then just reset --
we'll recess for 10 minutes and then.
Or if you just want to slide through this?
Keep going?
OK. All right, thank you.
So, I want to just piggyback briefly on one
of Commissioner Mohorovic's questions of you.
There are saws out in the marketplace right
now with the AIMS technology, is that correct?
>> Joel Recht: Yes.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And so, consumers can
choose to buy them or not buy them, correct?
>> Joel Recht: Correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And so, some may
not buy one because they're expensive?
Because they don't think that additional
expense is worth it, and so they don't buy it.
>> Joel Recht: That is correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: So, my concern
is similar to Commissioner Mohorovic's
in that, are we imposing our will?
Rather than letting the market work.
The technology is available, the saws are
available, and if the consumer chooses
to buy a saw or not, it really
is something that we, you know,
we probably shouldn't interfere with, and that's
really more of a statement than a question.
I do want to get back to some of the data
issues that we've all raised here today,
because I'm thinking primarily of a recent court
decision that called a question or liability
of our data, so I think that that's a lesson
learned, that we all need to be cognize in all
of -- as we go forward as an
agency, I don't think we want
to find ourselves in that situation.
So, I went through the package, and I want
to make sure that I understand the studies
and our sources of data, because, and I hope
you'll add to this and help me understand
that in addition to this, what we're doing
in the '17 with the '17 data is going
to provide us the robust data we need.
So, the first think I have was we reviewed
all the incident data estimates from NICE,
for table bench saws in 2015, right?
But, we've agreed that NICE is pReckty broad
information, it can't tell us the degree,
or the severity, of the laceration.
And so, we know that there was contact with a
blade, but we don't know much more beyond that.
Is that accurate?
>> Joel Recht: We also know -- some
of the severity [inaudible] we know
if there was a fracture, or an amputation, you
know, so there's different levels [crosstalk].
So, we have those different
outcomes, or what was it called?
Diagnoses.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: My concern is that is
part of your table, the lacerations do account
for the majority of the injuries.
But, so beyond that, then we did a --
we compared the distribution of
table saw injury characteristics
against all other workshop products
for related injuries for 2015.
Is that information incorporated
and used in MPR?
>> Caroleen Paul: You mean in terms of cost?
Or --
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: In terms of the
data giving us confidence that the data
that we're preceding and
justifying this rule-making --
>> Joel Recht: It's in the MPR, yes.
I mean, that information
is in the briefing package,
and it provides some context
to the injury patterns.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
And then, we talked about the CPSRM
information, but that's anecdotal, that isn't --
I think that in the briefing, the
reports that were submitted through that,
that was anecdotal, that's
really non-statistical.
>> Caroleen Paul: Correct.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: And now, we've talked
about the two NICE special studies
that we had difficulty with.
And so, they're not, we can't use
those questions and all that followed
from that are too subjective, and now
we're going to take this different path.
We talked about the modular blade-guard
survey, that's not statistical.
So, my concern as an agency is
the data that we're relying on.
I mean, I think we all agree that there are some
gaps here and some voids, how are we going to,
if it's possible, between now and an MPR
and a final rule remedy that situation,
so that our data is robust, and there is
the package could provide justification
for rule-making.
>> Joel Recht: We think the
package provides justification
for an MPR, currently as it stands.
That's why we recommend it.
We are seeking additional information
in the 2017 study that we discussed,
and we think that would help
inform us moving forward.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK, well, I'll just
leave it as that because I am concern,
and it's not a secret to anyone, I am
concerned about the integrity of the data.
I wanted to talk a little bit.
I had meetings, and I think
many of my colleagues did,
with PTI, the Power Tool Industry.
And, they shared some injury statistics
with us on the new modular guard
versus the older traditional guards.
And, the increasing trend in safety with
regards to most recent UL, the seventh edition
of the UL standard, has our staff
considered the data that PTI has provided?
And, have we considered that in this
-- in our analysis of this rule-making?
>> Is it -- so, I don't have the actual data,
I have the summary that was provided by PTI.
And so, the -- I had several
questions concerning the methodology
and what's actually being compared here, and
the fact that it's on anecdotal reporting,
something similar to our CPSR mess, which as a
statistician, I would say the same thing I said
in the package that's for this CPSR
mess, that conducting trend analysis
on the anecdotal data isn't invalided for --
isn't validated to be anecdotal
entry line [phonetic] on the NICE,
for any trend analysis and statistical changes.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Have
we met with the industry?
The PTI? Have we met with them?
Have we had a tech to tech meeting?
Have we kind of followed DROV [phonetic]
model where we actually engaged and share data
and information so that we're
understanding each others approach to this?
>> Caroleen Paul: We have
through work in groups through UL.
PTI hasn't participated in those working groups.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: But, we have intended
with a tech to tech meeting such as we did early
on with what we'll both window-covering
[phonetic] as well as DROVs.
>> Caroleen Paul: We have met with PIT
in the past, but we have not recently.
I believed they asked for a meeting,
but we haven't finalized that meeting.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK.
I would be interested, and we
can talk further about this,
how we reconcile the data they provided to us in
our data, [inaudible] we just make sure we're,
like you say, Miss Garland, that
we're looking at the same information,
that it's not anecdotal, and to see where
they're coming from with that information.
I want to talk just briefly,
my time is running out here,
with regards to the technology that's
being used and we've been talking about.
So, the briefing package suggests, and we've
talked about, that directory did a fine job
of going through the technology that's being
used here, and that's the electromagnetic.
But, there's alternative technologies.
Have we looked at, do we
understand what's out there?
Have we checked to see if there's patents?
If this is being -- right now, if
there's, you know, patents out there,
and if this is being looked at as potential?
>> Joel Recht: Well, so we're
not aware of any product
on the market using these other
technologies for table saws.
I mean, there's certainly the sensing
technologies, a variety are used
in other products, my car does all kinds
of sensing, and other things do too.
But, how it would apply to a table saw,
in terms of patents, I don't think --
>> Hyun Kim: So, we talked earlier about SawStop
and their patents, and it's very possible
that some of their patents cover
some of these detection methods.
Just in a review of the patents they submitted
to the ITC, one of their patents did talk
about variations and modifications to various
sensing systems, including motion-detector,
electromagnetic fields, and optical sensors.
However, as I mentioned before,
that was not one of the patents
that the ITC found, and then infringed upon.
So, it is very possible that their
patented technology is not just by SawStop,
but by other manufacturers out there.
And, existing patents, we just
don't know how they would be viewed
if there was a patent allegation [phonetic]
in a review in court, or by the ITC.
So, it is possible.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
I wanted to just ask, Miss Garland,
would you come back up just for a second?
I have one other question
and my time is running out.
With regards to the data, and you mentioned
PTI's data may be too anecdotal to use,
we've acknowledged some of ours as anecdotal,
how about SawStop's data to the agency,
we would use that in this package?
And, if we relied on that in any way?
>> I have not reviewed that data myself.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: OK,
has anyone in the agency?
Has that been incorporated into the briefing?
Into the MPR?
>> Caroleen Paul: It was submitted as
comments, but we didn't use it in any
of our economic analysis,
or epidemial analytics.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Good, thank you very much.
Commissioner Adler?
>> Robert S. Adler: Thank you
very much, Madam Chairman.
And, it's always a delight to be upon the
same table with Commissioner Mohorovic,
because he raises incredibly important
and interesting policy questions.
So, I guess one questions I would have going
back to the number of comments that were filed,
that were negative with respect to the
AMPR, when we published that, did we say,
"This is a plebiscite, would you please
tell us how you want the commission to act?"
You don't have to answer that.
And, I guess I do have a more serious question.
And, that is, typically, when we publish an MPR,
do we not tend to get responses from the people
in the business community, the manufacturing
community, would be directly affected by that,
and do we not typically have
more of them saying,
"We don't like this", than
those saying, "We like it".
I take that head-shake as an affirmative --
>> Caroleen Paul: I thought
I didn't have to answer that.
>> Robert S. Adler: No, but you did well.
And, I'll just make another observation
that there are a number of things that we
as a society have mandated that
people don't necessarily like.
I think if we were to do a plebiscite,
and whether kids should be able to drive
under the age of 16, we might get an interesting
array of responses, or the ability of teenagers
to drink under the age of 21, I think
we might get some skewed numbers.
But, that doesn't mean that we as a society
necessarily support that simply as a plebiscite.
And, the one that also I think is one of
those I think society's had the most trouble,
but has also produced one of the greatest
benefits, is mandatory seat-belt laws.
But, setting that aside, I did want
to ask just a couple of questions.
One is, with respect to higher prices resulting
from a safety standard, you make, what I think,
is the valid point, that safety standards tend
re-mitigated [phonetic] in the longer run.
And, that's an important point to me,
because to the best of my knowledge,
and those of you have sort
of historical perspective,
I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Virtually every safety standard that the
CPSC has promulgated, and other agencies
like Greg said, they've had prices
dropped once the industry begins producing
complying products.
For two reasons, economies have scaled,
and increased expertise in production.
Is anybody aware of any standard
that we mandated, where of course,
prices go up in the short-run, but where
the prices have increased over the long-run,
as opposed to dropping over the long-run?
OK. Thank you Dr. Rogers.
>> Just to address your question
in the regulatory analysis,
we did point out that it was possible
the prices would drop in the future,
although we didn't know how much that would
occur, But, we pointed out that over 10 years,
if we assume that the prices that we used in the
analysis were correct for the first five years,
then after five years, prices went down.
If after five years, they went down by about a
third, then the 10-year average cost would be
about 140 to 290 million,
relative to the 170 to 340 million.
And, if prices dropped by two thirds,
that the 10-year annualized average
would be about 120 to 240 million a year.
So, we can't quantify what's
going to happen, but yes, we --
it's not completely unexpected the
prices might drop in the future.
>> Robert S. Adler: Well, the closest
analogy I can think of would be lawnmowers.
Because, I mean, these are rough numbers,
because I don't remember them well,
but something on the order of 30% price
increase on some models of lawnmowers
after the commission mandated
a lawnmower standard.
Today, you can buy a lawnmower for pReckty
much the same price that they were selling,
even with inflation, that for the cost that they
required when we did the mandatory standard,
but the differences, there
were 50% fewer injuries.
So, there is -- that's why I say it's
useful even with cost-benefit to look
to the long-run, not just to the short-run.
And so, now back to one of my major
concerns, and that is seniors.
You said seniors suffer injuries at
a greater rates than younger ones.
And, the estimated menage [phonetic]
for table saw blade contact injury
in victims is 55.6 years, whereas all other
workshop product related injury victims have an
estimated menage of 42.7%.
Any idea why there's such a
discrepancy with respect to table saws,
as compared to other home products?
>> Joel Recht: No, we don't
know the reason for that.
If it's usage patterns or
other factors, we don't know.
>> Robert S. Adler: OK.
>> Caroleen Paul: Just to add, we
didn't say "rated", it's just --
those were the numbers we had for 2015.
>> Robert S. Adler: No, those,
yes, did I say rated?
I didn't mean to say rated.
And, I guess the other question I would have,
with respect to the special study
that's underway now, the 2017 study.
Unless I'm mistaken, we are hoping
to get a statistically representative
picture from that study?
>> Joel Recht: Yes, it is tied
to the NICE data, so if we get --
it's intended to provide something that
can be extended to national estimates.
>> Robert S. Adler: And, I
guess just a final comment,
I appreciate Chairman Buerkle's
raising the issue of tech
to tech meetings with the industry.
Where I find there is a huge difference between
this situation and DROV, is in this situation,
we've just had this technology voted
down decisively twice in
recent years by the industry.
I think there's precious little
hope that the industry is going
to show much interest in AIM technology.
So, at least tell me that's
a significant difference.
Thank you, I have no further questions.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Sorry,
Commissioner Robinson.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Yes.
Dr. Reckt, you said that what we have in this
package, in your opinion, is enough for an MPR.
I think Chairman Buerkle has raised what is
really the elephant in the room for everyone,
in terms of the recent court
decision which makes all
of us very very careful, more careful than ever.
Although, I think in my four years in the --
on the commission, we've been very careful,
but more than ever, that we make sure that our
basis for our mandatory rule are really strong.
And, throughout this package, I think
each of the directorates has made comments
about the plausibility [phonetic] of the
data, and the problems with the speculation
that has had to be used because of not knowing,
and the most essential piece, as we know,
is we don't know what types of saws
are involved in blade related injuries.
And, while I understand from the 2017 data,
we hope to get more information about the use
of the modular guards on
saws that meet the standard.
I think you saying that would be useful, is
about as strong as, certainly in my opinion,
at this point that information would be.
But, I think the type of saws involved in
these injuries is absolutely essential.
So, I guess one of the things I would
like someone on the team to address is,
with respect to this -- I think, at
moment, and let me make sure this is true,
that the only plan for enhancing our
data to make it stronger between now
and when we might consider a final rule,
is this 2017 survey, is that right?
>> Joel Recht: We also invite
comments on a variety of matters.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right, but in
terms of what we're going to do internally,
so that we have statistical data that we
can rely upon to do cost-benefit analyses,
we don't get that comments, typically.
So, we get that internally, right?
>> Joel Recht: Well, I think we do have
some questions that relate to that,
and depending on what comments we
receive, we may seek to do additional work.
I mean, that happens with
other rule-makings that we did.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK,
so in terms of what we're going
to do internally is that
2017 survey, is that right?
At this point?
Is that our plan?
>> Caroleen Paul: At this point, yes.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
And, what -- can you tell me what aspects you
as a team think we're going to be addressing
in the final rule that you would expect to get
from this 2017 survey that would be essential?
>> Joel Recht: I think it will help
to address the cost-benefit analysis.
We're looking to get information on
usage patterns on blade-guard use, right?
It's some of the things that
help inform your decisions.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Most
essential information, I take it,
is the type of saw that's involved in
blade related injuries, is that right?
>> Joel Recht: Yes.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
I know we've tried this, this has now been
about a 10-year effort in trying to do this.
We've had two surveys, we both
know that both of them have
to be -- the results had to be discarded.
So, can somebody tell me what we're
going to be doing in terms of checking?
I'd be interested in how we
came up with the methodology
to make sure this time we get it right.
And also, what we're going to be doing in the
process of the next now nine months to make sure
that at the end of this time, we
actually had data that we can rely upon.
>> Kathleen Stralka: We've found in both of
these special studies, that it was difficult
for the participants to distinguish their saw,
if it was a table saw, from a contractor saw,
and contractor saw saying, "Oh well,
I'm a contractor, that's my saw".
And, we found it difficult
to do through the telephone.
So, to remove that uncertainty, we collaborated
with compliance and its field staff.
To be able to go out and get
pictures to actually have evidence
that subject matter experts here can look at.
And, we also built into that, our protocol
for the field to tell them and train them
as to what type of table saw was there.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
I know we only talked about this a couple
of days ago, and I didn't have the sense
that anyone had really thought about it,
but we do have a 12-month of data from 2016,
of NICE data that we talked about.
We could plug in 0841 [phonetic] and
we can start the process of getting
that data, so that we could contact people.
And, if the essential piece of
information that we're missing, which I --
for everything in the package, this
is certainly the conclusion I come to,
as the essential pieces were missing, the type
of saw involved in the blade related injuries.
If we took that one year and we contacted
people, and I'm sure in these great brains
in this room, we can come up with
some creative, really simple ways,
in which we could be absolutely
certain of what kind of saw was used.
Whether it's a -- we don't need a field
investigator to go out and take a picture,
it's 2017, probably everyone in this room
has texted a picture in the last week.
I mean, we could have them text them to us.
I mean, what -- there are so many
creative ways that we could get a picture
of the saw that's involved
in the incidents for 2016.
And, I only say that because of this
question, is somebody considering this as a way
that we could more quickly get
this absolutely essential data?
>> Kathleen Stralka: The staff [inaudible]
have indeed considered that option.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK,
and are they considering it?
Or, they considered and rejected it?
>> Kathleen Stralka: We have considered it,
and based on sample sizes, selection bias,
then it's requiring somebody to take the
picture, and send it in, and other aspects,
we strongly recommend that we cannot
statistically defend that approach.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: So, if we were
able to come up with contact information
for every blade related saw injury for the
year of 2016, and we contacted those people,
and we had what I think you told me,
there were a thousand in the 18 months,
and we got 275 of those who'd respond to us.
And, if we had roughly the same sample size,
maybe it's 12 months instead of 18 months,
but if we got two or three hundred of those
people to respond, and say that they --
And, I'm not saying text a
picture, it's the only answer,
it just is one creative approach of, if we
can get a picture of the saw involved in each
of those injuries, that's not
information you think we could rely on?
>> Kathleen Stralka: I can't answer that
question, I don't have the information.
Historically from us ever doing
that, and there is bias-induced
in the way a particular survey is administered.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: And, what is the
bias that you think would be introduced
by us contacting people and asking, and I'm --
as I say, I'm not saying that's the only means,
but asking people if we could get a picture
of the saw that was involved in their injury,
what's the bias that's introduced?
>> Kathleen Stralka: We cannot quantify
that bias, it's a self-selecting bias.
If the individuals don't
have the means to do that,
plus it's also involved in can we even do that?
In our paperwork reduction act.
It's a different type of
response that we're soliciting.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: What if we
sent our field engineers to the house,
and took a picture, and do it the
old-fashioned way, and mail it back by mail
of the saws involved in the 2016 incidents.
>> Kathleen Stralka: I think that's a
different approach, but the thing is,
that would just give you
'16 and '17, as to saw type,
and just '17 with the particular
specifics regarding entering [phonetic].
>> Marietta S. Robinson: I
wasn't suggesting including '17,
and I wasn't suggesting stopping
your work on the '17 survey,
I'm talking about 2016 getting the saw
type matched up with the type of injury,
so that we could do a class-benefit.
>> Kathleen Stralka: And, as we discussed
on Tuesday, that is basically going
to be available one to two months
before the '17 is complete.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: So, to get pictures
of the saws involved in the 2016 incidents,
you're telling me it would take as much
time as it's going to take us to do all
of these thorough in-person
surveys for the next year?
And, use the information to the analyses?
Is that it?
>> Kathleen Stralka: I'm telling you that there
are other issues that need to be addressed
in order to implement what you're suggesting.
And, that will take time.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: I'm out of
time, I do have further questions.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Commissioner Kay?
>> Kay: No question [inaudible].
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Commissioner Mohorovic?
>> Joseph P. Mohorovic: Questions.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: I do, yes, just a few.
I have one or two additional questions,
and Commissioner Robinson does,
and we'll see if anyone else does and then
we'll wrap up, so if you'll bear with us.
I wanted to go back to something that
Commissioner Adler raised with Dr. Rogers.
And, that is generally when we promulgate
a rule, or in the case of lawnmowers,
or some others, the price goes down.
But, I like your comment, this is a
unique situation, we don't have the market
at work here, we only have
one technology available.
And so, we're not sure the situation in
my understanding is, I thought was --
it was alluded to in our briefing
that there may be some agreement
that we will license the technology.
And, you know, he would only get 8% royalty.
But, if one person is controlling the market,
wouldn't that affect the cost of products?
And, whether or not how quickly they would
come down, whether they would come down at all?
I'm talking about the price of the product.
>> Yes, well, I mean, in our analysis,
we assumed a royalty of about 8%
because that's what Dr. Gast [phonetic] has
said he would want to license his technology.
And, of course, that's what he says, and
we don't know exactly what will happen
at that point, because there's
no legal, he's not bound to that.
But, if royalty fee of 8% were required, in
the analysis, we indicated that we thought,
for example, that would add about I think
$37 to $57 to the price of a bench saw.
And, that's based on the 8% of royalty, would
be based on the wholesale value of the saw.
And so, what we did was we calculated
basically the current average price of the saw,
what the additional cost would be to use
the AIM technology, and then we figured
out what the wholesale price
would be from that number.
And, that's what turned out to be
about $37 to $57 for bench saw,
and it was higher for the more expensive saws.
But yes, that would factor into the price
that people have to pay, and if you --
yesterday, Dr. Gast talked
about his $400 saw, I mean,
actually I'm not sure should
I be mentioning this.
No. That was a bad pasture.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Out of the barn.
>> But, even for the lower-priced saws,
once they have to pay the royalty,
then that would be a factor that would be --
that they'll have take into
account when they price the product.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: It's peculiar
situation we find ourselves in.
Because, we have a situation where we don't
have an agreement, or anything in writing
from Dr. Gast, to whether or not
he would license his product.
We don't [inaudible] his technology,
whether or not it would be 8%.
We've got a situation where
ITC has said to Bosch,
"You cannot use a technology,
that's a patent infringement".
We have no clue as to how many patents are
out there, by whomever, and specifically by --
with Dr. Gast, how that would affect the market.
So, there just seems to be a lot of
probability, a lot of speculation,
when it comes to rule-making, I
just say that concerns me greatly.
That's all I have, and I will ask Commissioner
Adler, I'm imagining now he has a question.
>> Robert S. Adler: What?
No, actually just a quick comment,
because I think the concern you
raise is a very serious one.
And, I'll simply point out that when
he filed his petition 14 years ago,
he said he would charge an 8% licensing
fee wholesale, and he's never changed that,
and he's stayed with that
number through the years.
And so, even if you were to raise it a
little bit from what Dr. Rogers was saying,
it wouldn't really necessarily drive the
cost of table saws up that dramatically.
And, I would also point out that cost of
a table saw, the price of a table saw,
isn't just depended on the licensing fee
you pay for a patent, it's also dependent
on your ability to make products cheaper, and
your ability to achieve economies of scale,
and those would kick in your
respective of the patent.
And, the last point I would make
is patents don't last forever.
Even Dr. Gast, and so in some
point, his patents will expire.
So, that was just a comment, thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Thank you.
Commissioner Robinson?
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Thank you.
Another area that we have a problem
in this package, in my opinion,
is with respect to the information we have
about how effective the voluntary standard is.
We know that the UL987 became effective
in 2010, and my understanding is
that we believe the addition
of the modular blade-guard
and riving knife made table saws
much safer, at least according
to the package, that's what was said.
In order to issue a final rule in this case,
we really need to know how effective UL987 is.
And, as I looked at the package, what
we're basing our comment or our opinion
that it is not effective, is our trend
analysis, the 53 anecdotal cases that came
in through CPS are a mess, although only 11
of those involved saws with modular blades,
and only one of those cases do we
know of that the blade-guard was
in place when the injury was suffered.
And, the 2015 Eureka fact survey
[phonetic] that basically says
that sometimes people remove their guards.
Have I sort of summarized the basis for
our opinion on the voluntary standard?
>> Joel Recht: Well, we've also, you know,
what we said was that there were 30,800
emergency department treated blade contact
injuries in 2015.
And, that approximately a third of the market in
2015 would have been meeting the new standard.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right, but we
don't know many of those were involved
in the injuries that were incurred, right?
>> Caroleen Paul: Right.
Just to add to what I was trying to convey
in the package, is that in the AMPR,
we did have analysis of the modular
blade-guard and our conclusion was
that it was an improvement over the current
technology, but had the same weaknesses.
So, our -- what we predicted came true,
that even with the modular blade-guard,
there are still incidents occurring.
And, the same weaknesses in terms of
removing the blade-guard, and needing to make
for proper use of the table
saw to make non-through cuts.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
The packaged notes that are more complete trend
analysis would include analyses of injuries
by population of table saw users,
number of table saws in use,
or the number of hours table saws are
in used in non-occupational setting.
Obviously, we only include -- we only had access
to the estimated number of
table saws in use each year.
Would there be any plan to
get any additional information
that you say would be a more
complete trend analysis?
Before a final rule.
>> Can I respond a little bit?
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Sure.
>> To get that kind of information, I
think we'd have to do an exposure survey.
I think we talked about an exposure
survey for this project a year
or two ago, although I could be wrong.
But, that's the kind of place that
we get information on, you know,
if we did an exposure survey, we could find
out how frequently people actually use these
devices, you know, when they take them off,
and that sort of information that would
really be useful in an overall analysis.
But, I don't think we're going to have any sort
of that information, without an exposure survey.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: And so, when
I looked at the trend analysis, I mean,
given the life of saws, and I, you know, only
have my own anecdotal, but I had a chainsaw
for 25 years, and I'd still have it if
I hadn't sold the place where I used it.
But, people just seem to
keep these saws forever,
and I know we have an analysis
of what the life is.
But, when we look at the life of saws,
and the fact that we're basically looking
at the five years after the voluntary
standard one went into effect,
and our CPSR mass of data says that 38 of
the 53 cases involved had the old guards.
I'm just wondering, first of all, is
there any plan for enhancing our data
on the effectiveness of the voluntary standard?
And, if not, do you think
that we have enough data
to determine whether the current
voluntary standard is effective
in reducing the risk of injury?
And, do you have any ideas on what
additional information we might need
to make this more a solid basis for saying
that the voluntary standard doesn't work.
>> Caroleen Paul: That would be the
additional information from the 2017 study.
But, again, emphasize that the CPR of those
11 are anecdotal, but it speaks to the fact
that it's the same usage pattern, and everything
that we predicted in terms of the weaknesses
of the line on it, any type of guard, is there.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Because, as I
understand, that basically people take them off.
That's bottom line.
>> Caroleen Paul: Correct, and you can also
still get cut, you know, with the guard on.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Sorry?
>> Caroleen Paul: And, you can also have
blade contact injury with the blade-guard on.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: Right, but
we only got one reported on that.
I'm just thinking about making sure
our data is solid as we can make it.
>> Caroleen Paul: I agree.
>> Marietta S. Robinson: OK.
That's it.
Thank you.
>> Ann Marie Buerkle: Commissioner Kay?
Commissioner Mohorovic?
There are no more questions, and
because there are no more questions,
I will now adjourn this meeting.
I want to just thank staff again, all
of you for being here, and those online,
for taking the time and being as patient
as you were answering all of our questions.
Thank you all very much, this meeting
of Consumer Product Safety
Commission is now adjourned.