Ul Solutions Inc. · NYSE:ULS
Ul Solutions — Investor Presentation (June 2004)
14 slides from Ul Solutions's investor presentation, Jun 8, 2004
Slide 1: Reclassification Working Group
Reclassification Working Group PFDMA 6/8/2004
Slide 2: Participants
Participants Ruth Wood, BoatU.S., Chair Sam Wehr, USCG Mike Cunningham, UL Dan Ryan, UL Ralph Steger, Stearns Paul Donheffner, NASBLA Bob Askew, Mustang Survival Chuck Hawley, West Marine PFDMA 2004
Slide 3: Vision Statement
Vision Statement A classification system that enhances drowning prevention. PFDMA 2004
Slide 4: A New PFD Standards Environment?
A New PFD Standards Environment ? We are at a convergence of issues that might present a unique opportunity to make us closer and more relevant to our constituents.
Slide 5: The Converging Issues are:
The Converging Issues are: A stronger connection to the User perspective through the STP process. (Ref. previous panel) Risk based standards and approval maturation. New perspective for product classification and marking. Identification of potential for standards consolidation. (Inc. CFR, UL, SOLAS,
Slide 6: How "deep" should we go?
How "deep" should we go? Change labels; leave everything else the same? Make current Types more user-identifiable? Throw out all current designations and start over based on activity or CEN/ISO? PFDMA 2004
Slide 7: Working Group Recommendations
Working Group Recommendations 1. Keep the terminology of Types I, II, and III 2. Modify definition of Type I, II, and III within UL STP process 3. Reclassify Type Vs to Type I, II, and III with restrictions thus creating Types IR, IIR, IIIR PFDMA 2004
Slide 8: Working Group Recommendations
Working Group Recommendations 4. Move towards activity-oriented designs, labels and Think Safe pamphlets, along with other collateral materials 5. Add Intended Environment to label 6. Create groupings of devices (and labels) by activity and environment PFDMA 2004
Slide 9: Working Group Recommendations
Working Group Recommendations 7. Define minimum characteristics or a risk- based system for balancing characteristics within each application. This assumes minimum threshold level for characteristics like: buoyancy mouth immersions dynamic strength rating freeboard PFDMA 2004
Slide 10: Straw Man of Future Type Attributes
Straw Man of Future Type Attributes Anticipated Drowning Dynamic Mouth Definition Environment Protection Buoyancy Freeboard Righting Strength Immersions Type 1 Severe Best 150 5" High 35 MPH Fewest Type 2 Moderate Better 100 3" Medium 35 MPH Moderate Type 3 Calm Good 70 1" None None Many Application
Slide 11: Working Group Recommendations
Working Group Recommendations 8. CEN/ISO harmonization desirable as a goal, but is subservient due to more pressing needs for label clarity and consistency with current Federal and State law PFDMA 2004
Slide 12: Question 1: Do you understand and support the findings of the working group?
Question 1: Do you understand and support the findings of the working group? a) Work within current Type designations to reduce time, cost, and education required to implement changes b) Application and environment based categorization c) Use of risk-based analysis to trade off performance attribute
Slide 13: Question 2: How do we obtain the resources necessary to complete the task?
Question 2: How do we obtain the resources necessary to complete the task? Possible paths: Working Group (self-funded) model Coast Guard funds UL to create new standards Vendor-supported research Penny per PFD fund PFDMA member donations Pitch NBSAC to get Coast Guard to fund PFDMA 2004
Slide 14: Question 3: What have we missed?
Question 3: What have we missed? a) More classifications? b) Does this solve the problems you perceive with the current classification system? c) Will it make it easier for consumer to select the right life jacket? PFDMA 2004