[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74909-74939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23898]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1264
[CPSC Docket No. 2011-0074]
Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of
opportunity for oral presentation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable
risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. To address
this hazard, the Commission proposes a rule under the Consumer Product
Safety Act (CPSA) that would establish a performance standard that
requires table saws to limit the depth of cut to no more than 3.5
millimeters when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human finger
or other body part, approaches the spinning blade at a rate of 1 meter
per second (m/s). The Commission is providing an opportunity for
interested parties to present comments on this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNPR).
DATES:
Deadline for Written Comments: Written comments must be received by
January 2, 2024.
Deadline for Request to Present Oral Comments: Any person
interested in making an oral presentation must send an email indicating
this intent to the Office of the Secretary at [email protected] by
December 1, 2023.
ADDRESSES:
Written Comments: You may submit written comments in response to
the proposed rule, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074, by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit through this
website: confidential business information, trade secret information,
or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be
available to the public. The Commission typically does not accept
comments submitted by email, except as described below.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/Written Submissions: CPSC encourages you
to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
You may, however, submit comments by mail/hand delivery/courier to:
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this document. CPSC may post all comments without
change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or
other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. If
you wish to submit confidential business information, trade secret
information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do
not want to be available to the public, you may submit such comments by
mail, hand delivery, or courier, or you may email them to [email protected].
Docket SNPR: For access to the docket to read background documents
or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, insert docket
number CPSC-2011-0074 into the ``Search'' box, and follow the prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroleene Paul, Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer
[[Page 74910]]
Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850;
telephone (301) 987-2225; fax (301) 869-0294; email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 18, 2023, the Commission voted 3-1 to publish
this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. Commissioners
Feldman and Trumka issued statements in connection with their votes
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Comm-Mtg-Min-TableSaws-SupplementalNPR-Decisional.pdf?VersionId=JizUyNt5p7KDR_svKn2O6ql9VkHIR2E8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,
et al. (petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries associated with
contact with the blade of a table saw. The petitioners were associated
with SawStop, LLC, and its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively,
SawStop). On October 11, 2011, the Commission published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to consider whether there may be
an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table
saws. 76 FR 62678. The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the
CPSA. The Commission received approximately 1,600 public comments.
On May 12, 2017, the Commission published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) to address blade-contact injuries associated with
table saws. 82 FR 22190. The proposed rule stated that it would limit
the depth of cut of a table saw to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe,
acting as surrogate for a human finger or other body part, contacts the
spinning blade at an approach rate of 1 m/s. CPSC staff estimated that
the proposed rule would prevent or mitigate the severity of 54,800
medically treated blade-contact injuries annually, and that the
proposed rule's aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range
from about $625 million to about $2.3 billion.\2\ The Commission
received written comments and oral presentations concerning the
proposed rule. The written comments are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC-2011-0074-1154/comment, and a video
of the public hearing is available on the Commission's YouTube channel
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgPmKkGIILc. Section VIII of this
preamble contains a summary of the significant issues raised by the
comments submitted, and the Commission's assessment of those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Commission Briefing Package: Proposed Rule: Safety
Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws, available
at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Commission-Briefing-Package-Proposed-Rule-Safety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of the NPR, CPSC staff completed a Special
Study of table saw injuries that occurred in 2017.\3\ On December 4,
2018, the Commission announced the availability of and sought comment
on the study. 83 FR 62561. The Commission received written comments on
the study results from the public, which are available at
regulations.gov, under docket number CPSC-2011-0074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Special Study Report,
available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Draft%20Notice%20of%20Availability%20Table%20Saw%20Blade%20Contact%20Injuries%20Special%20Study%20Report%20-%202017%20-%20November%2014%202018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2019, CPSC staff submitted a Table Saw Update to the
Commission with staff's analysis of NEISS data through 2018, including
a discussion of the 2017 Special Study.\4\ The results of the 2017
Special Study indicated that there might be a lower risk of injury on
table saws equipped with a modular blade guard system that met the
latest voluntary standards, compared to older table saws equipped with
a traditional blade guard system. However, a 15-year trend analysis
(from 2004 to 2018) of table saw injuries reported in the September
2019 update showed no reduction in table saw injuries from 2010 to
2018, despite the fact that a voluntary standard that became effective
in 2010 required new table saws to be equipped with modular blade guard
systems.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Table%20Saw%20Update%202019.pdf.
\5\ Id. at 27-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SNPR analyzes updated incident data through 2021. The data
confirm the 2019 analysis and suggest no reduction in table saw
injuries despite the fact that the relevant voluntary standard has
required table saws to include modular blade guards since 2010.
Also since publication of the NPR in 2017, staff is aware of
several changes to the table saw market that include:
introduction of a compact table saw with active injury
mitigation (AIM) capabilities;
introduction of a Preventative Contact System (PCS) on a
commercial sliding table panel saw;
introduction of cordless, battery-powered bench saws by at
least two manufacturers;
change in ownership of patents related to SawStop AIM
technology, with the acquisition of SawStop, LLC, by TTS Tooltechnic
Systems Holding AG (TTS); and
expiration of two patents related to SawStop AIM
technology.
The Commission is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking based on staff's analysis of newly available incident data,
evaluation of newly available products, and other market information
that did not exist at the time of the 2017 NPR. As discussed in greater
detail in section VII of this preamble, the revised proposed rule is
generally consistent with the rule proposed in the 2017 NPR, but
includes an updated definition of the term ``table saw,'' a more
precise description of the proposed performance requirement, and a
revised anti-stockpiling provision.
The Commission now expects that the proposed rule would prevent or
mitigate the severity of an estimated 49,176 injuries treated in
hospital emergency departments or other medical settings per year. The
Commission further estimates that net benefits would range from
approximately $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion per year.
II. Statutory Authority
This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is authorized by
the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the
Commission to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard
that sets forth performance or labeling requirements for a consumer
product if such requirements are reasonably necessary to prevent or
reduce an unreasonable risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 2056(a). Section 9 of
the CPSA specifies the procedure that the Commission must follow to
issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7.
Pursuant to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a
consumer product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make
appropriate findings to be included in the rule, on the following
issues:
The degree and nature of the risk of injury that the rule
is designed to eliminate or reduce;
The approximate number of consumer products subject to the
rule;
The need of the public for the products subject to the
rule and the probable effect the rule will have on the utility, cost,
or availability of such products; and
The means to achieve the objective of the rule while
minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and
commercial practices.
15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1).
Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to issue a final rule, the
Commission must find that the rule is ``reasonably necessary to
eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated
[[Page 74911]]
with such product'' and that issuing the rule is in the public
interest. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). Additionally, if a voluntary
standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted and
implemented, the Commission must find that the voluntary standard is
not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury, or
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely. The
Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs, and that the rule imposes the
least burdensome requirements that prevent or adequately reduce the
risk of injury for which the rule is being promulgated. 15 U.S.C.
2058(f)(3)(D)-(F).
III. The Product
A. Types of Table Saws
Table saws are stationary power tools used for the straight sawing
of wood and other materials. The basic design of a table saw consists
of a motor-driven saw blade that protrudes through a flat table
surface. To make a cut, the operator places the workpiece on the table
and, using a rip fence or miter gauge as a guide, pushes the workpiece
into the blade (see Figure 1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.037
Table saws generally fall into three product types: bench saws,
contractor saws, and cabinet saws. Although there are no exact
distinctions among these types of saws, the categories are generally
based on size, weight, portability, power transmission, and price. Some
industry participants use additional specialized descriptions, such as
``jobsite saws,'' ``hybrid saws,'' and ``sliding saws.''
Bench saws are intended to be transportable, so they tend to be
small, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. In recent years, bench
saw designs have evolved to include saws with larger and heavier-duty
table surfaces, with some attached to a folding stand with wheels to
maintain mobility. These larger portable saws on wheeled stands are
commonly called ``jobsite saws'' because they are capable of heavier-
duty work but still portable enough to move to work sites. Bench saws
are generally powered using standard house voltage (110-120 volts), use
universal motors,\6\ drive the saw blade through gears, and range in
weight from 34 pounds to 133 pounds. The universal motor and gear drive
produce the high decibel noise and vibration that are distinctive
characteristics of bench saws. Prices for bench saws range from $129 to
as much as $1,499 for a high-end model. Based on available information,
bench saws account for approximately 79 percent of the table saw market
by volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A universal motor runs on AC or DC power and uses current
and electromagnets to rotate a shaft. Universal motors are
lightweight, compact, and cheaper to produce than induction motors.
An induction motor runs on AC power, which is used to create a
rotating magnetic field to induce torque on the output shaft.
Induction motors are quieter and last longer, but are also more
expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the 2017 NPR was published, cordless battery-powered bench
saws have been introduced widely to the table saw market. The first
cordless table saw came to market in 2016, and at least three other
brands have been introduced in the last few years. Cordless table saws
typically run on lithium-ion batteries that range from 18 volts to 60
volts and are equipped with 8.25-inch blades with thinner kerfs to
reduce friction while cutting. Prices for battery-powered bench saws
range from $299 to $599 for the tool only, and the accompanying battery
prices range from $50 to $150.
Contractor saws are larger and more powerful than bench saws, and
range in weight from approximately 200 to 400 pounds. Although most
contractor saws are stationary, a mobile base can be added to the
frame. Contractor saws are often used in home workshops as a less
expensive alternative to stationary cabinet saws. Contractor saws
generally use a 10-inch blade, are powered using standard house
voltage, use induction motors, and are belt driven. Compared to a bench
saw, the induction motor and belt drive result in a table saw that
produces less vibration and is quieter, more accurate, able to cut
thicker pieces of wood, and more durable. Prices for contractor saws
range from around $599 to $2,000, and contractor saws account for
approximately 15 percent of the table saw market by volume of units
sold.
[[Page 74912]]
Cabinet saws--also referred to as stationary saws--are the largest,
heaviest, and most powerful of the three table saw types, and are
typically the highest grade saw found in home woodworking shops.
Cabinet saws generally use a 10-inch blade, are powered using 220-240
volts, use a 1.75-5 horsepower or stronger motor enclosed in a cabinet,
are belt driven, and weigh from around 300 pounds to 1,000 pounds.
Components in cabinet saws are designed for heavy use and durability,
and the greater weight further reduces vibration so that cuts are
smoother and more accurate. Cabinet saws have an average product life
of more than 20 years, and prices range from approximately $1,399 to
$5,000. Based on available information, cabinet saws account for
approximately 6 percent of the table saw market by unit volume.
B. Standard Safety Devices
In the 2017 NPR, the Commission described common safety devices on
table saws that are designed to reduce contact between the saw blade
and the operator. 82 FR at 22192. As described in the NPR, these
devices generally fall into two categories: (1) blade guards, and (2)
kickback-prevention devices including splitters, riving knives, and
anti-kickback pawls.
The riving knife and modular blade guard represent the latest
safety measures that have been incorporated into the voluntary
standards for table saws. Blade guards surround the exposed blade and
function as a physical barrier between the blade and the operator.
Riving knives are curved metal plates that physically prevent the two
halves of a cut workpiece from moving back towards each other and
punching the splitting blade, which could cause the operator to lose
control of the workpiece. The Power Tool Institute (PTI), the industry
trade group that represents manufacturers of consumer-grade table saws,
has estimated that in 2017, 80 percent of bench saws, 33 percent of
contractor saws, and 25 percent of cabinet table saws sold were
equipped with modular blade guards and riving knives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ PTI comment (CPSC-2011-0074-1343) in response to
notification of availability of 2017 Special Study. Retrieved from:
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Active Injury Mitigation (AIM) Technology
The 2017 NPR described an AIM system that detects imminent or
actual human contact with the table saw blade and then performs an
action to prevent or mitigate the severity of the injury. The NPR
described two AIM systems available at the time: the SawStop system and
the Bosch REAXX system. See 82 FR at 22193-94. On July 16, 2015,
SawStop filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) a
complaint against Bosch for patent infringement, and requested that the
ITC order U.S. Customs to exclude Bosch REAXX saws from entering the
U.S. market. On January 27, 2017, the ITC issued an order prohibiting
Bosch from importing and selling Bosch REAXX saws, based on a
determination that Bosch had infringed on two SawStop patents. See 82
FR 9075.
Since the 2017 NPR was published, CPSC staff has become aware of
another AIM technology called the preventative contact system (PCS),
developed by the Felder Group. The PCS detects motion by using a
capacitive field around the blade, which can detect movement before a
body part contacts the blade. Marketing of the system indicates that
its detection system works for fast and slow body part movement and
reacts to impending blade contact by retracting the blade below the
table surface in milliseconds. Retraction of the blade is achieved by
reversing the polarity of two strong electro-magnets that hold the
blade arbor in place. Two magnets with the same magnetic poles will
repel each other, and this action moves the saw blade below the
tabletop fast enough to prevent injury to a body part that would
otherwise contact the rotating saw blade. The PCS system is available
as an option on Felder's most expensive sliding table saw.
IV. Risk of Injury
A. Description of Hazard
In 2017, CPSC staff conducted a Special Study of emergency
department-treated table saw blade-contact injuries, in order to
collect data on saw types, incident details, and injury characteristics
that are otherwise not available in the standard National Electronic
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data collections. The 2017 Study
provided detailed information based on a snapshot of incidents that
occurred in a single year. In 2017, there were an estimated 26,500
table saw blade-contact, emergency department-treated injuries. Of
these, an estimated 25,600 injuries (96.4 percent) involved the finger.
The estimated number of injuries for each of the most common diagnoses
in blade-contact injuries were: 16,100 lacerations (60.9 percent),
5,500 fractures (20.6 percent), and 2,800 amputations (10.7 percent).
B. NEISS Trend Analysis
In the 2017 NPR briefing package, CPSC staff assessed trends for
table saw blade-contact injuries reported through NEISS and concluded
that there was no discernible change in the number or types of blade-
contact injuries associated with table saws annually from 2004 to 2015.
No statistically significant trend was detected in any of the analyses
for the number of blade-contact injuries, amputations,
hospitalizations, and finger/hand injuries. Staff also conducted a
trend analysis to include the rate of injury per 10,000 table saws in
use for each year in the analysis. The analysis again showed that there
was no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with blade
contact related to table saws from 2004 to 2015. See Staff NPR Briefing
Package at 25-29.
In the 2019 Status Update briefing package, CPSC staff updated the
NEISS trend analyses. Staff assessed trends for table saw blade-contact
injuries, amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand injuries, and
concluded once more that there was no discernible change in the number
of blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw
blade contact, this time for the period 2004 to 2018.\8\ Trend analysis
for the rate of injury per 10,000 table saws in use also showed that
there was no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with
blade contact related to table saws from 2004 to 2018, despite the
increasing percentage of saws sold with modular blade guards and riving
knives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Table Saw Update 2019. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Table%20Saw%20Update%202019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this supplemental NPR, staff performed trend analyses for
blade-contact injuries, amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand
injuries up to 2021. The voluntary standards in place have required
modular blade guards since the publishing of UL 987, 7th edition, which
had an effective date of January 2010. The date ranges for the trend
analyses cover a timespan when an increasing proportion of table saws
in use were equipped with modular blade guards (2010 to 2021), as well
as the approximate period during which table saws equipped with
traditional blade guards were no longer being produced (2015 to 2021).
Table 1 provides the estimated number of emergency department-treated
injuries associated
[[Page 74913]]
with table saw blade contact from 2010 through 2021.
Table 1--NEISS Estimates for Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2010-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table saw blade contact injury estimates
------------------------------------------------
Year 95% Confidence
N Estimate CV interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021........................................................... 655 30,000 0.10 24,100-35,900
2020........................................................... 689 34,600 0.10 27,800-41,300
2019........................................................... 627 30,300 0.09 24,900-35,700
2018........................................................... 649 31,300 0.09 25,500-37,100
2017........................................................... 654 31,300 0.09 25,800-36,700
2016........................................................... 646 30,000 0.09 25,000-35,000
2015........................................................... 642 30,800 0.09 25,100-36,500
2014........................................................... 631 30,300 0.08 25,300-35,300
2013........................................................... 662 29,500 0.09 24,500-34,500
2012........................................................... 648 29,500 0.09 24,100-34,900
2011........................................................... 362 29,600 0.09 24,300-35,000
2010........................................................... 657 30,100 0.10 24,000-36,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. CPSC: NEISS.
Figure 2 provides the estimated blade-contact injuries associated
with table saws and the fitted trend line with a 95 percent confidence
band for the fitted line from 2010 through 2021. The p-value associated
with the slope of the fitted line is 0.44, which indicates that there
is not a statistically significant trend in blade-contact injuries
associated with table saws over this timeframe.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.038
Figure 3 provides the estimated blade-contact injuries associated
with table saws and the fitted trend line with a 95 percent confidence
band for the fitted line from 2015 through 2021. The p-value associated
with the slope of the fitted line is 0.79, which indicates that there
is not a statistically significant trend in blade-contact injuries
associated with table saws over this timeframe, despite the market
shift during this time to table saws with modular blade guards and
riving knives.
[[Page 74914]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.039
To assess any changes over time in the severity of table saw blade-
contact injuries, CPSC staff performed trend analyses for blade-contact
amputations, hospitalizations (including patients who were treated and
admitted to the same hospital, as well as treated and transferred to a
different hospital), and finger/hand injuries from 2010-2021 and 2015-
2021. No statistically significant trend was detected in any of these
analyses. Table 2 provides the total estimated number of blade-contact
injuries from 2010 through 2021 for amputations, hospitalizations, and
finger/hand injuries from blade contact, and expresses those numbers as
a percentage of all estimated blade-contact injuries.
[[Page 74915]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.040
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
Table 3 provides an estimate of blade-contact injuries per 10,000
table saws in use for each year in the analysis. Figure 4 provides the
trend analysis results for that data. The p-value associated with the
slope of the fitted line is 0.86, which indicates that there is not a
statistically significant trend. When limiting the trend analysis to
the years 2015-2021, the p-value associated with the slope of the
fitted line becomes 0.17, which also indicates the nonexistence of a
statistically significant trend. Possible changes in usage patterns of
table saws were not considered in these analyses.
[[Page 74916]]
Table 3--Estimated Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries per 10,000 Table Saws in Use, 2010-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table saw blade contact injury Estimated number of Estimates ** of table saw blade
estimates table saws in use (in contact injury per 10,000 table saws
---------------------------------- 10,000s) * in use
Year --------------------------------------------------------------
Blade contact 95% Confidence Table saws in use 95% Confidence
injury estimate interval estimate Estimate interval
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021................................................... 30,000 24,100-35,900 1003.9 29.9 24.0-35.7
2020................................................... 34,600 27,800-41,300 883.6 39.1 31.5-46.8
2019................................................... 30,300 24,900-35,700 849.8 35.6 29.3-42.0
2018................................................... 31,300 25,500-37,100 828.6 37.8 30.8-44.8
2017................................................... 31,300 25,800-36,700 820.3 38.1 31.5-44.7
2016................................................... 30,000 25,000-35,000 822.2 36.5 30.4-42.6
2015................................................... 30,800 25,100-36,500 827.4 37.2 30.3-44.1
2014................................................... 30,300 25,300-35,300 831.3 36.4 30.4-42.5
2013................................................... 29,500 24,500-34,500 838.2 35.2 29.3-41.1
2012................................................... 29,500 24,100-34,900 847.4 34.8 28.4-41.1
2011................................................... 29,600 24,300-35,000 855.6 34.7 28.4-40.9
2010................................................... 30,100 24,000-36,200 866.5 34.7 27.7-41.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CPSC's Directorate for Economics provided the estimated numbers of table saws in use for this analysis.
** Estimates are calculated from the exact number of injuries point estimate, not the rounded estimate.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.041
Based on the foregoing analyses by CPSC staff, the Commission
concludes that there has been no discernible change in the pattern of
blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade
contact, despite the transition of the market to modular blade guards
and riving knives since 2010 and the phasing out of traditional blade
guards since 2015.
V. Relevant Existing Standards
A. UL 987 and UL 62841-3-1
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) published the first edition of
UL 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools in 1971. The UL 987 standard
includes voluntary requirements for cord-connected and permanently
connected stationary and light industrial electric tools. UL revised
the standard several times, with the 6th edition in 2005 and the 7th
edition in 2007 introducing significant changes to the requirements
covering blade guard design. The latest 8th edition was published in
2011, with revisions that clarified the requirements for table saws and
defined terms specific to table saws.
In 2016, as part of UL's international harmonization goal to adopt
international standards, UL published the first edition of UL 62841-3-
1, Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and
Lawn and Garden Machinery Part 3-1: Particular Requirements for
Transportable Table Saws. In 2019, UL removed section 43 (Table Saws)
from UL 987, leaving UL 62841-3-1 as the
[[Page 74917]]
current voluntary standard for table saws. UL 62841-3-1 is recognized
as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard and
contains essentially the same blade guard requirements as UL 987.
Section 19.101 of UL 62841-3-1 specifies that a table saw shall
provide ``either a saw blade guard mounted to an extended riving knife
complying with 19.101.2 or an over-arm saw blade guard complying with
19.101.3.'' Section 19.101.2 specifies that the guard may consist of
independent side and top barriers and must have openings that provide
visibility of the blade's cutting edge. This modular guard attaches to
the riving knife and shall provide coverage over the saw blade as
determined by a probe test. Section 19.103 specifies that a table saw
shall be equipped with a riving knife that is located behind the blade
at a height below the saw blade that allows the riving knife to pass
freely through the cutting groove of the piece being cut. Section
21.106.3 specifies that an antikickback device attached to the riving
knife shall be easily removable and function independently from the
blade guard.
B. Active Injury Mitigation
Since 2004, table saws have been available in the U.S. market with
AIM capabilities that mitigate injuries when a hand or finger makes
contact with a rotating saw blade. In February 2015, UL defined an
``active injury mitigation'' system as an active system that serves to
mitigate or prevent injury from exposure to a rotating saw blade. At a
basic level, an AIM system for table saws must perform two functions:
detect contact or imminent contact between the rotating saw blade and a
human body part, and react to mitigate injury. Detection can be
achieved by sensing electrical or thermal properties of the human body,
or visually sensing and tracking the human body.
In 2015 and 2016, UL balloted proposals to add AIM system
requirements for table saws to UL 987 and UL 62841-3-1, respectively.
The ballots proposed performance requirements that limited the depth of
cut to a probe simulating a human finger to 4 mm or less when
introduced to an operating saw blade at an approach rate of 1 m/s. UL
has identified a 4 mm cut from the surface of the skin as the
quantitative threshold separating simple and complex lacerations in a
human finger.\9\ Simple lacerations can be managed at emergency
departments with little expertise or by simple home care because these
cuts generally heal without complications, while complex lacerations
require more significant medical attention. Although CPSC staff
expressed support for both ballots,10 11 both ballots
failed, and AIM requirements were not adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade
Contact, UL Research Report, Jan. 2014. Available at: http://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WhitePapers_Tablesaw_V11.pdf.
\10\ Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL,
dated March 24, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMSproposalwenclosures.pdf.
\11\ Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL,
dated March 11, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2017, UL announced the availability of its Recommended
Practice for Determining the Depth of Cut on a Test Probe Contacting
the Spinning Blade of a Table Saw, UL RP 3002. The Recommended Practice
is available as a test procedure for manufacturers or independent third
parties to evaluate AIM performance. UL stated in its comment to the
2017 NPR that it chose to publish this Recommended Practice because it
believes the addition of active technology on table saws will further
reduce the incidence of blade-contact injuries and represent a marked
increase in the safety of these devices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Comment from Sarah Owen on behalf of UL in response to 2017
NPR. Retrieved from: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Adequacy of Voluntary Standard in Addressing Injuries
In January 2010, the voluntary standard's modular blade guard
requirement took effect. Under this requirement, all table saws sold in
the United States shall be equipped with a system consisting of a
modular guard and antikickback device attached to a riving knife. In
the NPR, the Commission noted staff's conclusion that, while the
modular blade guard system was an improvement over the traditional
blade guard system, a guard is only effective if used, and incident
data and survey data indicate users remove modular blade guards for
similar reasons (such as improved visibility or to make certain types
of cuts) that they had removed traditional blade guards.
In its comments on the 2017 NPR,\13\ PTI reported that its analysis
of 299 table saw accidents from 2007 to 2015 indicated that 35 percent
of the incidents involved table saws equipped with modular blade
guards, and over 50 percent of those users had removed the blade guard
prior to being injured. Similarly, staff conducted a Special Study of
NEISS table saw incidents that occurred from January to December 2017.
A summary of this 2017 Study was provided to the Commission in the
Table Saw Update package in 2019. The 2017 Study confirmed that the
majority of injuries occur on table saws without a blade guard
installed, and that injured users of table saws equipped with modular
blade guards removed the blade guard anecdotally at the same rate as
injured users of table saws equipped with traditional blade guards.
Further, as discussed in section IV of this preamble, CPSC staff
assessed trends for table saw blade-contact injuries, amputations,
hospitalizations, and finger or hand injuries since 2010, and concluded
that there had been no statistically significant change over that time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ PTI comment (CPSC-2011-0074-1288) in response to 2017 NPR.
Retrieved from: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. CPSC Staff Testing of AIM Since the 2017 NPR
CPSC staff has conducted tests on table saws equipped with AIM
technology, using the test probe and test method described in Appendix
A of Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing package.\14\ Staff used a computer-
controlled electromechanical linear actuator to move a probe into the
spinning blade of a table saw equipped with AIM technology. Staff
conducted tests at varying blade heights and approach rates, tests with
the ground of the power plug disconnected; and proof-of-concept
evaluations of adding AIM technology to a battery-operated bench saw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Commission-Briefing-Package-Proposed-Rule-Safety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section V of this preamble, UL identified the
threshold between simple and severe lacerations to the finger as 4 mm
from the surface of the skin. Because the test probe represents human
flesh beneath the epidermis, staff subtracted the 0.5 mm thickness of
the epidermal layer of skin from that 4 mm threshold value to arrive at
a maximum allowable depth of cut to the test probe of 3.5 mm.
A. Prior Testing
In Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing package, CPSC staff presented
results of tests in which the test probe was introduced to an operating
saw blade on a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite table saw and a Bosch REAXX
jobsite table saw. Both saws were equipped with 10-inch blades and some
type of AIM technology. As shown in table 4, the depth of cut for the
SawStop table saw tests ranged from 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm,
[[Page 74918]]
and the depth of cut for the Bosch REAXX table saw tests ranged from
1.8 mm to 2.5 mm.
Table 4--Depth of Cut Values for SawStop and Bosch Table Saws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human body Depth of cut (mm)
network (HBN) -------------------------
Test run capacitance
(pF) SawStop Bosch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ 50............. 2.3 2.2
2............................ 100............ 2.8 2.1
3............................ 150............ 2.5 1.9
4............................ 200............ 2.5 2.2
5............................ 250............ 2.7 2.1
6............................ 300............ 2.1 1.8
7............................ 350............ 1.5 2.4
8............................ 400............ 2.1 2.5
9............................ 450............ 2.7 2.5
10........................... 500............ 2.6 2.5
11........................... Short circuit.. 2.6 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Additional Tests at Varying Blade Heights
Staff conducted tests at different blade heights on a SawStop JSS-
MCA jobsite saw. As shown in Figure 5, test results indicate a linear
relationship between depth of cut to the test probe and blade height.
Staff determined the greatest depth of cut occurred when the table saw
blade was set at its highest setting. For this reason, the rule
proposed in this SNPR specifies that performance must be measured with
the saw blade set at its highest setting, with no bevel angle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.042
C. Additional Tests at Varying Approach Speeds
The approach rate of the test probe to the saw blade represents the
speed at which a human finger moves toward the saw blade during a
blade-contact incident. Staff conducted tests at different approach
rates of the probe to the blade on a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite saw. As
shown in Figure 6, test results indicate a linear relationship between
depth of cut to the test probe and approach speed. This linear
relationship renders testing at multiple approach rates redundant, and
the proposed rule in this SNPR thus requires that table saw performance
be measured at an approach rate of 1 m/s.
[[Page 74919]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.043
D. Additional Tests With Ground Disconnected
CPSC staff conducted tests with the ground plug of the power cord
on a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite saw disconnected. Test results showed no
effect on AIM functionality.
E. Additional Tests of SawStop Compact Table Saw
Comments to the ANPR and the 2017 NPR questioned whether AIM
technology can be applied to small bench saws. Staff conducted tests
with an approach rate of 1 m/s on a SawStop CTS compact table saw, with
an HBN capacitance of 50 pF.\15\ This saw weighs 68 pounds, is equipped
with a 10-inch blade, and is the smallest, most portable saw SawStop
offers. Upon testing, the compact table saw equipped with AIM
technology limited the depth of cut to a test probe, when approaching
the blade at 1 m/s, to less than 3.5 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 50 pF represents the body's minimum self-capacitance, and
represents a worst-case scenario in which the table saw operator is
located in such a way that the effective capacitance is the body's
minimum self-capacitance. See Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Additional Tests Demonstrating AIM on Cordless Battery-Powered Bench
Saws
Since the 2017 NPR was published, cordless battery-powered table
saws have been introduced to the table saw market. Cordless table saws
typically are powered by lithium-ion batteries that range from 18 volts
to 60 volts and are equipped with 8.25-inch blades with thinner kerfs
compared to typical 10-inch blades for corded electric table saws. To
evaluate the feasibility of applying AIM technology on a battery-
powered bench saw, staff modified a 33-pound battery-powered bench saw
equipped with an 8.25-inch blade by adding lightweight aluminum
framing. This modification allowed staff to position a standard SawStop
10-inch brake cartridge at a distance that would stop the bench saw's
blade if the brake cartridge was activated. The proof-of-concept
testing was designed to evaluate the ability of a lightweight battery-
powered bench saw to withstand the energy of an AIM system activating,
so the testing did not retract the blade; instead, all of the energy
required for stopping the blade was absorbed by the brake cartridge and
the bench saw's structure. With the table saw on and the blade spinning
at full speed, staff remotely activated the brake cartridge and the
bench saw's blade came to a complete stop. The bench saw moved
approximately 1 inch vertically, but there was no damage to the saw or
its table surface. Based on this testing, CPSC staff concluded that a
battery-powered bench saw can withstand the reaction energy of an AIM
system.
In addition, applying a signal to the saw blade can be achieved by
using the bench saw's battery and a voltage reducer to reduce the
battery voltage to the voltage required to induce a detection signal on
the saw blade. CPSC staff has noted that battery-powered bench saws
already use a voltage regulator to maintain voltage within acceptable
limits for the table saw to function; therefore, if there is enough
voltage to operate the bench saw, there will also be enough voltage to
induce a signal on the saw blade.
VII. Proposed Requirement and Changes From 2017 NPR
Based on staff's evaluations of NEISS incident data, testing
conducted prior to and subsequent to the publication of the 2017 NPR,
and the comments received in response to the NPR and the Special Study
as discussed in section VIII of this preamble, the Commission proposes
the following revisions to the rule proposed in the 2017 NPR:
Specifically reference jobsite saws, hybrid saws, sliding
saws, and battery-powered saws in the definition of ``table saw,'' to
better clarify the scope of the proposed rule and account for terms
used by some industry participants;
Remove the reference to ``radial approach rate'' from the
rule's description of how the test probe must be introduced to the saw
blade, and add descriptive language clarifying that movement of the
test probe shall be parallel to the saw's table surface, with the
center axis of the probe at a height of 15 2 mm above the
saw's table surface, as discussed in Response 1 in section VIII of this
preamble;
Require that testing be conducted while the spinning saw
blade is at its
[[Page 74920]]
maximum height setting, as discussed in section VI of this preamble.
Revise the rule's anti-stockpiling provision to prohibit
the manufacture or importation of noncompliant table saws at a rate
greater than 115 percent of the rate at which table saws were
manufactured or imported during the 12-month period prior to
promulgation of the final rule, rather than 120 percent of the rate at
which saws were manufactured during any 12-month period in the five
years preceding promulgation, to more closely match the growth rate of
the table saw market over the last three years.
This SNPR also proposes to change the CFR part number to 1264.
While the proposed rule establishes performance requirements
intended to mitigate the risk of injury associated with contacting
table saw blades, it does not dictate how table saw manufacturers must
meet those requirements. There already are different methods to limit
the depth of cut to a test probe or finger. SawStop stops the blade and
allows angular momentum to retract it. The Bosch REAXX retracts the
blade with an explosive discharge. Since the 2017 NPR was published, a
system based on reverse polarity of electromagnets to retract the blade
has also been introduced to the market. Furthermore, manufacturers need
not use the particular test procedure described in this preamble and in
Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing package, so long as the test method they
use effectively assesses compliance with the standard. Other test
probes and test methods using a different detection system may be
developed to detect human contact with the saw blade and to measure
depth of cut.
VIII. Response to Comments
The Commission published the 2017 NPR in the Federal Register on
May 12, 2017. The public comment period ended on July 26, 2017. On
August 9, 2017, the Commission held a public meeting to hear oral
presentations concerning the NPR. CPSC received 437 comments, which can
be found at regulations.gov, under docket number CPSC-2011-0074.
Approximately 66 of the 437 NPR comments supported developing
regulatory standards for table saws. The other commenters generally
opposed the rulemaking proceeding. On December 4, 2018, the Commission
published a notice of availability of the 2017 Special Study, with
comment period ending February 4, 2019. CPSC received 4 comments to the
2017 Special Study, which can also be found at regulations.gov, under
docket number CPSC-2011-0074.
In this section, we describe and respond to comments on the 2017
NPR and the 2017 Special Study. We present a summary of comments by
topic, followed by the Commission's response.
A. Performance Requirements and Testing Procedure
Comment 1: Bosch and PTI commented on the use of the term
``radial'' in section 1245.3(b) of the NPR's proposed rule text. Bosch
commented that a literal interpretation of that term would allow
manufacturers to introduce a probe toward the blade at an angle that is
likely to result in a shallower depth of cut, or no cut at all, thus
resulting in artificially positive testing results. PTI commented that
for a typical 10'' diameter blade table saw, advancing the test probe
along the tabletop at an approach velocity of 1 m/s would lead to
slightly less than 900 mm/s in the radial direction towards the center
of the blade.
Response 1: CPSC staff agrees the descriptor ``radial'' can be
misleading. For improved clarity, the rule proposed in this
supplemental NPR omits that term from its performance requirement. The
rulemaking instead describes a frontal approach to the saw blade, which
is adjusted to its highest setting, with the center axis of the test
probe parallel to the table saw top surface, 15 2 mm above
the table saw top surface, and perpendicular to the direction of
approach to the saw blade. See Appendix A to Tab A of the NPR briefing
package for an illustrated example of this configuration.
Comment 2: Bosch and PTI commented that the geometry of the test
probe specified in rule proposed in the NPR may lead to inappropriately
deep cut measurements because the contact area available for charge
transfer is less on a square probe than on a cylindrical probe. This
limited contact area may delay detection and lead to a deeper depth of
cut on the test surrogate than would be experienced by a cylindrical
probe that more closely resembles a finger.
Response 2: CPSC staff used a cuboid-shaped test probe made of
conductive silicone rubber because the probe had already been developed
by UL in its own testing of AIM technology and was readily available.
Staff's tests using the square probe resulted in cuts less than 3 mm
deep, and the commenter provided no evidence that a cylindrical probe
will detect and trigger an AIM system faster than a square probe. In
addition, body parts that may contact a saw blade, such as the
fingertip, are not always cylindrical.
However, under Sec. Sec. 1264.3 and 1264.4 of the proposed rule,
testers may use a cylindrical probe as proposed by Bosch and PTI,
rather than the square or cuboid probe used in UL's test methodology,
as long as it possesses characteristics that render it a suitable
surrogate for a human finger. The March 2015 UL Research Report
referenced in PTI's comment recommends that a surrogate finger possess
the following general characteristics:
Triggering: An ability to trigger the selected safety
mechanism upon finger contact with (or in very close proximity to) the
blade;
Clean Cut: Material properties that allow the surrogate
finger to exhibit a clean cut upon contact with the blade; and
Finger Setup Rigidity: The rigidity of the surrogate
finger setup should minimize bending during blade contact with a
minimum rigidity of 70 kN/m.
Comment 3: Bosch commented that the test probe is not an accurate
representation of the human body. Bosch stated that if a test probe
were made from pure zinc or tin and connected to Earth through a low-
resistance cable, then it would transfer charge better than a
connection made to a human being, which could lead to AIM technology
performing better in the test lab than in real-world conditions.
Response 3: The test method described in Tab A of the 2017 NPR
briefing package is based on triggering a capacitance-based AIM system
with a conductive test probe that is coupled to a human body network
(HBN), which is a circuit that mimics the human body. The HBN uses a
series of capacitors and resisters to replicate the human body's
impedance, the property that triggers a capacitance-based AIM system.
When the test probe, connected to the HBN, contacts the blade of a
table saw equipped with a capacitance-based AIM, the HBN changes the
signal on the saw blade and triggers the AIM system. Whether the probe
is made from metal (as posited by this comment) or conductive rubber
(as used in staff's testing) is not significant, because, based on CPSC
staff's testing, the material of the probe has minimal effect on
impedance compared to the series combinations of the HBN and especially
the series capacitance.
Comment 4: PTI commented that the rule proposed in the NPR is
inconsistent with the February 2015 and February 2016 UL ballot
proposals, which required testing at variable approach rates, including
rates both above and below 1 m/s. PTI suggested that testing at higher
approach rates is necessary
[[Page 74921]]
because higher approach rates result in more severe injuries.
Response 4: As discussed in section VI of this preamble, the
results of staff's testing indicate a linear relationship between
approach rate and depth of cut. In fact, the UL ballot proposals
included approach rates and maximum depth of cuts that had a linear
relationship. This linear relationship renders testing at approach
rates greater than or less than 1 m/s redundant, as it is expected that
higher or lower rates will result in correspondingly more or less
severe injuries.
In addition, the available data on approach rates during both
kickback and non-kickback-related table saw blade-contact incidents
indicate the approach rate is unlikely to exceed 0.368 m/s.\16\
Likewise, victim response information from the 2017 Special Study
indicates that in the majority of cases, approximately 57 percent,
blade contact did not involve the victim's hand being pulled into the
blade. Of those cases, 46 percent involved ``reaching to do, or for,
something,'' and in 17 percent ``the victim's hand was fed into the
blade.'' CPSC staff advises that these descriptors indicate that
movement of the operator's hand during blade contact was below an
approach rate of 1 m/s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Gass, S. (2012). Retrieved from: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2011-0074-1106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 5: PTI commented that the Commission's test protocol needs
additional specifications to ensure repeatability and reliability.
Response 5: CPSC has not received specific support for PTI's
assertion that the test protocol is not repeatable or reliable. On the
contrary, staff's testing of four different table saws equipped with
AIM technology has shown that the protocols in the test method are
sound and repeatable.
Comment 6: PTI commented that the test procedure proposed in the
NPR is incomplete because it does not specify the required distance
between the probe holder and the plane of the saw blade and does not
specify the required stiffness of the stabilizing strip supporting the
probe. PTI also commented that, due to probe flexing, results are not
repeatable.
Response 6: The test procedure intentionally does not prevent
testers from using a different probe or testing setup from the one
described in Tab A of the NPR briefing package, but instead allows
different setups that have a minimum rigidity of 70 kN/m. The tester is
at liberty to design the probe holder attachment to the linear actuator
to ensure that the probe remains secure within the holder and
approaches the saw blade in accordance with the requirements of the
rulemaking. Staff's testing has shown that results produced by the test
method are repeatable.
B. Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Comment 7: Bosch commented that AIM-equipped table saws can require
a properly grounded outlet, but properly grounded outlets may not be
available on new jobsites or while working on sites with old electrical
systems. Bosch suggests that this can affect the functioning of the AIM
system and reduce its effectiveness in mitigating the risk of injury.
Response 7: Staff conducted tests with AIM-equipped table saws, and
the results showed that the AIM system was effective without being
connected to a properly grounded outlet.
Comment 8: PTI commented that UL and CPSC staff have recognized
that there will be accidents where AIM technology cannot prevent severe
injury. PTI questions how much the assumed effectiveness of AIM
technology should be reduced in light of such accidents, and whether
the Commission has taken this into account in its economic benefit-cost
analysis.
Response 8: A performance requirement limiting the depth of cut to
a test probe that contacts a saw blade to 3.5 mm will significantly
reduce the number of severe injuries associated with operator blade-
contact incidents on table saws. Lacerations less than 3.5 mm from the
surface of the skin will not damage nerves or arteries, which would
require surgery, and will not result in fractures, amputations, or
avulsions. Consistent with the hazard patterns identified in the 2017
Special Study and data provided by SawStop demonstrating that over
7,000 activations of the SawStop AIM technology resulted in no severe
injuries, CPSC assesses that nearly all severe injuries involving
operator-blade contact from table saws can be mitigated by the proposed
performance requirements. Accordingly, this supplemental NPR's
preliminary regulatory analysis conservatively assumes AIM technology
is 90 percent effective in reducing the societal costs of blade-contact
injuries.
Comment 9: Several commenters, including Robert Witte, Rob Degagne,
and Kenny Smith, stated that most table saw injuries are caused by
kickback of the workpiece, but the SawStop system does not prevent
kickback. Others stated that riving knives eliminate kickback and
therefore can prevent or mitigate most injuries.
Response 9: The Commission's analysis of blade-contact incidents
indicates that there are many scenarios in which an operator's finger
or hand can contact a table saw blade, and there are certain cuts on
table saws that require removal of the blade guard. Sudden movement of
the workpiece from kickback can cause the operator to lose control of
the workpiece and cause the hand to fall into or be pulled into the
blade. However, contact is also possible without kickback, for instance
when the operator's hand gets too close to the blade while feeding a
small workpiece, when the operator is distracted, when the blade
catches the operator's glove and pulls the operator's hand into the
blade, when the operator reaches to regain control of a workpiece, or
when the operator brushes debris from the table while the blade is
still spinning after shutoff.
Based on incident information from the 2017 Special Study, PTI, and
SawStop's activation data, CPSC staff assesses that most blade-contact
injuries are not related to kickback, and in almost all instances AIM
systems prevented serious injury, whether or not kickback was a factor.
In addition, although riving knives can reduce the potential for
kickback, they do not eliminate table saw injuries. Information from
the 2017 Special Study indicated that when blade guards were in use, 28
percent of the incidents occurred on table saws equipped with a riving
knife. PTI's comments to the 2017 NPR indicate that only 17 percent of
accidents reported to PTI members from 2007 to 2015 involved kickback.
Finally, of the accidents reported to PTI, 49 percent of the table saws
involved were equipped with riving knives.
C. Benefits and Costs
Comment 10: Many commenters stated that the costs associated with
the proposed rule are not justified because the cost to consumers
outweighs the benefit of increased table saw safety.
Response 10: As discussed in detail in section X of this preamble,
the estimated benefits from the proposed rule far exceed the estimated
costs. Using a 3 percent discount rate, aggregate net benefits range
from approximately $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion.
Comment 11: Many commenters, including hobbyist woodworkers and
owners of small woodworking businesses, asserted that a standard
mandating the inclusion of AIM technology in table saws will increase
the price of table saws and make them unaffordable for many
individuals,
[[Page 74922]]
small businesses, and other groups of concern.
Response 11: As discussed in section X of this preamble, CPSC staff
estimates that the prices for the least expensive bench saws now
currently available will more than double to $400 or more. In general,
the retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as $285 to
$700 per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet saws
could rise by as much as $450 to $1,000 per unit. In addition,
potential adverse impacts on the utility of table saws could come in
the form of consumers who choose not to purchase table saws due to
price increases, and a loss of portability due to the increased weight
and (potentially) size of table saws to accommodate AIM technology. The
Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the SNPR's proposal,
including the effects of the expected price increases on consumers
generally, or specific groups of consumers.
Comment 12: Some commenters, including hobbyist woodworkers, small
business owners, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, expressed concern with the potential effects
of the proposed rule on small businesses, and in particular whether the
proposed rule could dissuade the creation of small businesses.
Response 12: While the proposed rule has no direct effect on
regulations or laws concerning small business creation, the rulemaking
would affect small businesses that produce table saws by prohibiting
the sale of table saws without an AIM system. This prohibition could
cause some businesses to exit the table saw market and could indirectly
act as a barrier to market entry. Should the holders of patents for AIM
technologies refuse to license the technologies, firms would either
have to develop their own technology or leave the table saw market.
This could raise the general cost to start a small business, possibly
to a significant extent. However, there appear to be multiple,
competing AIM technologies already available, and adoption of the
proposed rule could speed the development of additional AIM technology
options, leading to greater licensing opportunities for table saw
manufacturers.
Comment 13: Some commenters, including Nicholas Vanaria and Jarrett
Maxwell, expressed concern that the proposed rule might incentivize
U.S. table saw manufacturers to move their operations to other
countries, resulting in domestic job loss.
Response 13: CPSC is not aware of any specific information or data
supporting the speculative possibility that manufacturers might
relocate to other countries in response to the proposed rule. In
addition, the proposed rule would apply to all table saws imported into
the United States, regardless of their place of manufacture, and
relocating manufacturing operations to a different country would thus
not exempt them from the rule. The Commission therefore finds it
unlikely that the proposed rule would incentivize foreign relocation of
U.S. businesses to any significant extent.
Comment 14: Several commenters, including Keith Nuttle, Scott
Moore, Mark Strauch, and Christopher Fray, stated that the risk of
injury as discussed in the 2017 NPR and the Special Study should have
been expressed in terms of the number of cuts made or exposure to table
saws, rather than the number of table saws. Commenters stated that
millions of cuts are made every year without incident.
Response 14: CPSC analyzed the risk of injury using the estimated
number of table saws in use for each year because that is relevant data
to which the Commission staff has access. Commenters did not provide
sufficient data on risks per cut or exposure for staff to perform an
analysis using those metrics.
D. Consumer Choice and User Behavior
Comment 15: Numerous commenters, including hobbyists and
professional woodworkers, stated that table saw users should apply
common sense when operating a table saw and accept the risk of using
the tool. The commenters stated that the federal government should not
regulate consumer choice or behavior. While most of these commenters
stated that they want table saws equipped with AIM technology to be
available, and some even stated that they own a SawStop saw, they
supported preserving consumers' ability to evaluate costs and benefits
for themselves and choose between more expensive AIM-equipped table
saws and less expensive table saws without AIM technology. The Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration suggested an
alternative approach whereby manufacturers could continue to produce
and sell table saws without AIM technology as long as they also sell a
model equipped with AIM technology.
Response 15: There are some situations in the workshop that require
table saw operators to remove blade guards, and an operator's decision
to use a table saw without all safety devices in operation does not
necessarily reflect neglect or ignorance. There are also many
situations in which an operator's finger or hand may contact a blade
that do not result from operator irresponsibility or negligence. Sudden
movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the operator to lose
control of the workpiece and a hand to fall into or be pulled into the
blade. An operator may become distracted by events outside their
control and inadvertently contact the blade. Many scenarios leading to
blade contact become more likely if the consumer is tired or if the
consumer's view of the blade or cut is impaired in some way. In these
cases, which the proposed rule would likely address, operator neglect
or ignorance would not be the primary factor causing the injury.
As discussed in more detail in section X of this preamble, the
proposed rule is expected to reduce amputations and other serious
blade-contact injuries with a net societal benefit exceeding $1 billion
per year because it would not permit table saws on the market which are
not equipped with AIM technology. While staff anticipates that some
table saw models would be completely removed from the market as a
result of the rule, the proposed rule would also substantially reduce
the number of serious blade-contact injuries involving table saws, and
their associated societal costs. In addressing the blade-contact risk,
the CPSC considers the costs of blade-contact injuries, the utility of
tables saws, and the impacts of limiting consumer choice. Further, the
Commission has considered alternatives to the draft proposed rule that
would not require all table saws to be produced with AIM technology.
These alternatives are discussed in section X of this preamble.
Comment 16: Several commenters, including Robert Witte, Steven
Schneider, and Bret Jacobsen, stated that adding AIM technology to
table saws will give users a false sense of security and therefore
increase unsafe user behavior with table saws that will also translate
to injuries on other power tools. These commenters expressed concern
that users will not learn to respect the dangers of table saws and
power tools in general.
Response 16: While consumers who are aware that their table saws
use AIM technology may react by taking less care to protect themselves
from serious finger and hand injuries, people also tend to fear ``dread
risks,'' which can be defined as ``low-probability, high-consequence
events,'' and such risks have a substantial influence on risk
perception. Severe injuries from blade contact on a table saw that
employs an AIM system would fall under the
[[Page 74923]]
category of a ``dread risk'' because the consequences of such a system
failing could be quite severe--involving possible amputation, which
would likely evoke visceral feelings of dread or horror--even if the
probability of such a failure is low. In addition, consumers likely
would be motivated to avoid blade contact even if the consequences of
such contact are not severe, because consumers are unlikely to be
ambivalent about being cut by a spinning blade with sharp teeth, even
if the resulting injury is minor.
The Commission is not able to predict whether consumers will take
less care when using a table saw with an AIM system, relative to
current table saws--much less whether users' behavior with other power
tools might change for the worse. However, even if this does come to
pass, if the AIM system is effective then the severity of an injury
resulting from blade contact will be lessened, which would reduce the
overall number of severe injuries associated with table saws.
Comment 17: Many commenters, including Douglas Allen and Robert
Witte, suggested that, if AIM is required for all table saws, then some
users might modify their saws to bypass the safety mechanism. In
particular, commenters suggested that some users would engage in this
behavior to avoid the nuisance of false activations.
Response 17: Because AIM technology is not expected to interfere
with normal use of the table saw, most consumers would have little or
no reason to bypass the AIM system once it is already on the saw.
Comment 18: Numerous commenters stated that, in order to avoid
paying for a table saw with additional safety features, consumers will
likely employ more dangerous methods to cut wood by using other tools
such as circular saws, buying used table saws, or continuing to use
older table saws that are less safe.
Response 18: The proposed rule will increase the price of table
saws, and this increase is likely to reduce sales. Some consumers may
hire professionals instead of doing projects themselves. Others might
borrow or rent table saws, or use older table saws that they would have
preferred to replace. Some might attempt to use other tools in the
place of AIM-equipped table saws, as the commenters suggest. If the
other tools and strategies used by consumers are more dangerous than
table saws equipped with AIM technology, the effectiveness and societal
benefits of the proposed rule would be reduced. However, as discussed
in section X of this preamble, even if the proposed rule is assumed to
be only 70 percent effective at mitigating or preventing serious
injuries, the proposed rule's benefits still substantially exceed its
costs.
E. Availability of AIM Technology
Comment 19: Several commenters, including businesses, trade
associations, and individual table saw consumers, as well as the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, stated in
response to the 2017 NPR that the proposed rule would effectively
create a monopoly, because it would require table saw manufacturers to
either license the only known effective AIM system or exit the table
saw market. PTI relatedly commented that various theoretical detection
systems for AIM have not yet been invented in a practical form that can
be integrated into table saws.
Response 19: The Commission is aware of three firms that supply, or
have supplied, the U.S. market with table saws equipped with AIM
technology. These are SawStop (now owned by TTS), which equips all of
its table saw models with AIM technology; Bosch, which formerly sold
one model that was equipped with AIM technology, but does not currently
sell an AIM-equipped table saw in the United States; and the Felder
Group, which offers a single AIM-equipped model.
However, the proposed rule does not specify a particular detection
system that must be used to meet the performance requirement; it
instead allows manufacturers to use any detection system that meets
that requirement. The implementation of a performance requirement
instead of a technology requirement will encourage innovation in the
development of new technologies. Indeed, in the time since the 2017 NPR
was published, the Felder Group has developed its new technology called
the preventative contact system (PCS), which detects motion by creating
a capacitive field around the blade and reacts to impending blade
contact by retracting the blade below the table surface in
milliseconds. Retraction of the blade is achieved by reversing the
polarity of two strong electro-magnets that hold the blade arbor in
place.
While we are mindful that the current suppliers of AIM technologies
might be able to exert significant power in the U.S. table saw market
for a period of time if the proposed rule is adopted, the unusually
extended effective date proposed in this SNPR (36 months from
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register), together with the
encouragement of innovation in AIM that the rule should produce,
sufficiently address this concern. We seek comment on this analysis.
F. Voluntary Standards and Other Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Comment 20: Several commenters stated that table saw injuries are
best reduced by training and educating users on safe practices and
operation of table saws. Many commenters believed that mandatory
training in the form of certification is needed.
Response 20: Warnings are less effective at eliminating or reducing
exposure to hazards than designing the hazard out of a product or
guarding the consumer from the hazard.\17\ Warnings do not prevent
consumer exposure to the hazard; they instead rely on educating
consumers about the hazard and then persuading consumers to alter their
behavior in some way to avoid the hazard. In addition, warnings rely on
consumers behaving consistently, regardless of situational or
contextual factors such as fatigue, stress, or social influences. Thus,
warnings are most suitable to supplement, rather than replace, redesign
or guarding, unless those higher-level hazard control efforts are not
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Smith, Timothy P., 2016. Human factors assessment of blade-
contact scenarios and responses to ANPR public comments (Tab E of
NPR Staff Briefing Package). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (November 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory training for consumers who purchase or use table saws is
not a solution the Commission would be able to implement under its
current statutory authority.
Comment 21: PTI stated that the 2017 Special Study should be
understood as confirming that the voluntary standards process for table
saws is working. PTI suggests that the Study underestimated the
benefits of the modular blade guard system required by the voluntary
standard, and PTI believes that the risk of injury on a table saw
equipped with a modular blade guard system is lower than reported in
the Study. PTI states that its own estimates of table saw sales and
populations, modular blade guard market penetration, and table saw
lifespan differ from the estimates used in the Study.
Response 21: Since the 2017 Special Study was published, CPSC staff
has conducted trend analyses of NEISS injuries associated with table
saws. In every trend analysis, the latest of which spans from 2010 to
2021, there is no indication that table saw injuries have declined,
even though table saws equipped with modular blade guard systems have
come to represent the majority of the table saw population.
[[Page 74924]]
This indicates that the voluntary standard's requirement that table
saws be equipped with modular blade guards is not effective in reducing
the number or severity of table saw injuries.
Comment 22: In their comments in response to the 2017 Special
Study, Stephen Gass and David Pittle questioned whether the Study's
conclusion that the risk of a blade-contact injury is seven times
greater on a table saw equipped with a traditional blade guard system
than with a modular blade guard system is inconsistent with CPSC
staff's conclusion that there has been no statistically significant
reduction in blade-contact injuries over the time period when table
saws equipped with modular blade guards have saturated the market.
Response 22: If modular blade guard systems reduce the number or
severity of blade-contact injuries in comparison to traditional blade
guard systems, a detectable decreasing trend should exist within the
NEISS data over the period during which table saws equipped with
modular blade guards replaced in the market those equipped with
traditional blade guards. In the 2017 NPR, the Commission preliminarily
concluded that no such trend was detectable. This SNPR includes further
trend analysis with data extending through 2021, and again identifies
no statistically significant decreasing trend in the number or severity
of blade-contact injuries. As discussed in section X of this preamble,
the 2017 Special Study represents only a snapshot view of a single
year, as opposed to the multiple trend analyses that were more
comprehensive and longer-term, and there are other significant caveats
to the Special Study's finding on this point. CPSC staff has determined
that the voluntary standard has not effectively reduced the number or
severity of blade-contact injuries, notwithstanding the results of the
Special Study.
Furthermore, even taking at face value the Special Study's
conclusion that blade-contact injuries are roughly seven times more
likely on table saws equipped with traditional blade guard systems,
tens of thousands of blade-contact injuries continue to occur each
year, more than a decade after modular blade guard requirements were
incorporated into the voluntary standards. Thus, there remains an
unreasonable risk of serious injury associated with table saw use,
regardless of which type of blade guard system is used.
We seek further comments on this issue.
Comment 23: Several commenters stated that CPSC should mandate AIM
technology on table saws only in industrial or workshop settings or
schools, provide an open license for AIM technology, and/or ensure that
the price of table saws with AIM technology decreases as costs for
manufactures decrease with economies of scale.
Response 23: The CPSA does not give the Commission authority to
regulate the use of table saws in industrial settings, to license
patents, or to control the cost of products.
IX. Description of the Proposed Rule
A. Scope, Purpose, and Effective Date--Sec. 1264.1
The proposed rule would apply to all table saws that are consumer
products, as defined in the proposed rule, including bench saws,
contractor saws, and cabinet saws. The proposed rule would include a
requirement to mitigate the risk of blade-contact injuries on table
saws.
Under section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1), the
effective date for a consumer product safety standard must not exceed
180 days from the date the final rule is published, unless the
Commission finds, for good cause, that a later effective date is in the
public interest. As discussed in section XVI of this preamble, the
Commission finds that 180 days is not adequate to allow for
manufacturers to comply with the final rule, or for the rule to have
its desired effect of promoting the development and commercial
availability of additional AIM technologies. The Commission therefore
proposes an effective date of 36 months following Federal Register
publication of a final rule. The proposed rule clarifies that the rule
would apply to all table saws manufactured after the effective date.
B. Definitions--Sec. 1264.2
The proposed rule would provide that the definitions in section 3
of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In addition, the proposed rule
would define ``table saw'' as: ``a woodworking tool that has a motor-
driven circular saw blade, which protrudes through the surface of a
table.'' In order to more precisely define the scope of the rule and
account for additional classifications used by some industry
participants, the definition has been revised from the definition set
out in Sec. 1245.2 of the rule proposed in the NPR to specify that
``[t]able saws include bench saws, jobsite saws, contractor saws,
hybrid saws, cabinet saws, and sliding saws,'' and that ``[t]able saws
may be powered by alternating current from a wall outlet or direct
current from a battery.'' The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
definition of a table saw.
C. Requirements for Table Saw Blade Contact--Sec. Sec. 1264.3 and
1264.4
The proposed rule would require table saws, when powered on, to
limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when the center axis of the test
probe, acting as a surrogate for a human finger or other body part, is
moving parallel to, and is 15 2 mm above the table top at
a rate of 1 m/s and contacts the spinning blade that is set at its
maximum height setting. The rule would require that the test probe
allow for the accurate measurement of the depth of cut to assess
compliance with the proposed requirement.
The composition and form of the test probe are not defined.
However, any test probe that is used should have the appropriate
properties (such as electrical, optical, thermal, electromagnetic,
ultrasound, etc.) to indicate human body/finger contact with the saw
blade, and the appropriate physical properties to accurately measure
depth of cut. While the test probe and test method described in TAB A
of staff's 2017 briefing package are considered appropriate for the
evaluation of AIM systems using an electrical detection system, the
Commission does not propose to make this test method mandatory, because
other AIM systems may use a different detection approach. For AIM
systems using a different detection approach, the method should be
developed based on sound material science and engineering knowledge to
accurately assess compliance with the proposed requirement.
A performance requirement that limits the depth of cut to 3.5 mm at
an approach rate of 1 m/s will significantly reduce the severe
lacerations, fractures, amputations, and avulsions associated with
operator blade-contact incidents on table saws, because the probe will
have the appropriate properties to indicate human contact with the saw
blade and the equivalent injury mitigation on a real human finger will
avoid most microsurgery.
The Commission recognizes there may be some scenarios, such as
kickback, which can cause the operator's hand to be pulled into the
blade at a high rate of speed or lead the operator to reach as fast as
possible for a falling workpiece. In these and other scenarios, the
speed of the operator's hand or finger may exceed 1 m/s when it
contacts the saw blade. At approach speeds greater than 1 m/s, AIM
system performance may not be sufficient to prevent injuries that
require extensive
[[Page 74925]]
medical attention. The use of AIM technology may, however, limit
injuries where an incident otherwise would have resulted in an
amputation or involved injury to several digits or a wider area, to
permit instead microsurgical repair of nerves, blood vessels, and
tendons. Thus, the Commission concludes that nearly all operator blade-
contact injuries from table saws would be eliminated or mitigated by
the proposed performance requirement.
D. Prohibited Stockpiling--Sec. 1264.5
In accordance with section 9 of the CPSA, the proposed rule
contains a provision that would prohibit a manufacturer from
``stockpiling,'' or substantially increasing the manufacture or
importation of noncompliant table saws between the promulgation of the
final rule and its effective date. The provision would prohibit a firm
from manufacturing or importing noncompliant table saws at a rate that
is greater than 115 percent of the rate at which the firm manufactured
and/or imported table saws during the base period. The base period is
the 12-month period immediately preceding the promulgation of the final
rule. The cap on manufacture or importation has been reduced from the
120 percent cap proposed in the 2017 NPR to reflect the growth rate of
the table saw market over recent years.
The Commission seeks comments on the proposed product manufacture
or import limits and the base period with respect to the anti-
stockpiling provision.
E. Findings in the Appendix to the Rule
The findings required by section 9 of the CPSA are discussed
throughout the preamble of this proposed rule and specifically set
forth in the appendix to the rule.
X. Updated Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Commission is proposing to issue a rule under sections 7 and 9
of the CPSA. The CPSA requires that the Commission prepare a
preliminary regulatory analysis and that the preliminary regulatory
analysis be published with the text of the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C.
2058(c).
The Commission's updated preliminary regulatory analysis is
contained in TAB A of staff's briefing package,\18\ and is summarized
in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Federal-Register-Notice-Safety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws-SNPR.pdf?VersionId=Ce3FOVBmbG0_.8j.gd1h0k3VWHZZ.URw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Introduction
The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule to address the unreasonable
risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. This
rulemaking proceeding was initiated by an ANPR published in the Federal
Register on October 11, 2016. In 2015, to enhance CPSC's understanding
of the table saw market, CPSC staff entered into two contracts with
Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) to conduct market research and cost
impact analysis on table saws. One report, titled ``Revised Final Table
Saws Market Research Report'' (March 28, 2016) (referred to as IEc,
2016a), updates information relied upon in the ANPR. The report uses
publicly available information and limited outreach to potentially
affected entities. The other report, titled ``Final Table Saws Cost
Impact Analysis'' (June 9, 2016) (referred to as IEc, 2016b), estimates
the manufacturing and other costs of possible requirements intended to
mitigate table saw blade-contact injuries based on previous information
collected by the CPSC in the ANPR, public comments, limited interviews
with table saw manufacturers, additional research, and the results of
IEc, 2016a. In addition to CPSC staff's analysis of existing data,
studies, and reports, staff relied on the IEc reports for additional
data and information to support the preliminary regulatory analysis
(TAB C of the staff NPR briefing package) and initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (TAB D of the staff NPR briefing package). These
reports are available on the CPSC website at https://www.cpsc.gov/research-statistics/other-technical-reports.
B. Market Information
1. Manufacturers
The Commission has identified 23 firms that supply table saws to
the U. S. market.\19\ PTI estimates that its member companies account
for 80 percent of all table saws sold in the United States.\20\ Most of
these companies are large, diversified international corporations with
billions of dollars in sales, such as Stanley Black and Decker, Robert
Bosch, Makita, TTS, and Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. These five
large, diversified firms are currently supplying table saws to the U.S.
market, but table saws make up a relatively small part of their
revenues, probably less than one percent in each instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See TAB A of Staff Briefing Package.
\20\ PTI, 2012. Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power Tool
Institute, Inc., on ``U.S. Consumer Product Commission [Docket No.
CPSC-2011-0074] Table saw blade contact injuries: Advance notice of
proposed rulemaking,'' (March 16, 2012). (Comment CPSC-2011-0074-
1081, available at: regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For smaller, more specialized firms, table saws are generally not a
large percentage of firms' sales. One company reported that table saw
sales contribute a negligible fraction of its $15 million annual
revenue. IEc, 2016a. Another company with an annual revenue of $20 to
$40 million stated that table saws represent approximately five percent
of total sales. Id. A third business CPSC staff interviewed attributed
seven to eight percent of total revenue to table saw sales. Id.
2. Types of Table Saws Commonly Used by Consumers
As discussed in section III of this preamble, table saws are
generally grouped into three categories: bench saws, contractor saws,
and cabinet saws. Bench saws (which include saws sometimes referred to
as jobsite saws) tend to be lightweight and portable, and are the least
expensive of the three categories. Contractor saws are larger, heavier,
more powerful, and more expensive than bench saws. Cabinet saws are the
heaviest, most powerful, and most expensive of the categories. Some
manufacturers also categorize table saws as ``hybrid saws'' or
``sliding saws.'' Sliding saws are similar to cabinet saws, but
typically are equipped with an extension that allows for the cutting of
large panels, have advanced electronic features, and sometimes include
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for operation. Nearly all sliding saws
weigh more than 900 pounds and require equipment to move or relocate.
3. Retail Prices of Table Saws
The range of prices for table saws generally overlaps for three
products: bench, contractor, and hybrid saws. Bench saws are the least
expensive, ranging in price from $139 to $1,399. Prices for contractor
saws range from $599 to $1,999, and prices for hybrid saws range from
$895 to $4,279. Generally, cabinet and sliding saws are more expensive.
Prices for cabinet saws range from $1,399 to $4,999. The price range
for sliding table saws is wide, with models priced below $3,400 and
above $25,000. SawStop models containing AIM technology are
consistently priced at the upper end of the price range for each of the
three primary table saw categories (bench, contractor, and cabinet).
The least expensive saw available from SawStop is the compact table saw
priced at $900. The SawStop bench saw is the most expensive in the
bench saw category at $1,599 to $1,799, depending on the distributor.
Similarly, SawStop
[[Page 74926]]
contractor saws, ranging in price from $1,999 to $2,398, represent some
of the more expensive models in that product category. The SawStop
cabinet models range in price from $2,899 to $5,949, depending on power
and performance. The Felder Group model equipped with AIM technology is
priced at the high end of the sliding saw price range, with prices
exceeding $25,000 depending on model options/upgrades.
4. Sales and Numbers in Use
Although the design and engineering of table saws may occur in the
United States, most table saws currently are manufactured overseas.
Data from the U.S. International Trade Commission indicates that from
2014 to 2017 approximately 99 percent of imported table saw units were
built in Taiwan and China. A small volume of expensive industrial saws
was also imported from European and Canadian manufacturers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Data compiled from tariff and trade data from the U.S.
Department of Commerce and the ITC for Harmonized Tariff Schedule
classification numbers 8465910036 (Tilting arbor table saw,
woodworking) and 8465910078 (Sawing machines, woodworking, NESOI).
See https://hts.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC staff estimated the annual number of table saws in use with
the CPSC's Product Population Model (PPM), a statistical model that
projects the number of products in use given examples of annual product
sales and product failure rates. Total annual shipments of all table
saws to the U.S. market from 2002 to 2017 are estimated to have ranged
from 429,000 to 825,000, and total annual shipments from 2018 to 2020
are estimated to have ranged from 746,000 to 995,000. Estimates of
industry-wide sales value are not readily available. CPSC staff
estimated that bench saws account for about 79 percent of the units
sold, with contractor saws (including hybrids) and cabinet saws
accounting for approximately 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
Staff calculated an average product life of 10 years for bench
saws, 17 years for contractor saws, and 24 years for cabinet saws.
Using these parameters, staff projected a total of about 8.2 million
table saws in use in the United States in 2017, including about 5.35
million bench saws (about 65 percent), 1.4 million contractor saws
(about 17 percent), and 1.46 million cabinet saws (about 18 percent).
C. Benefit-Cost Analysis
This section of the analysis consists of a comparison of the
benefits and costs of the proposed rule and explains the Commission's
preliminary conclusion that the expected benefits of the proposed rule
exceeds its expected costs by a wide margin.\22\ The benefits of the
proposed rule are measured as the estimated reduction in the societal
costs of injuries resulting from the use of saws containing the AIM
technology. The costs of the proposed rule are defined as the added
costs associated with the incorporation of the AIM technology in table
saws, including the cost of the labor (at both the design and
manufacturing stages) and materials required to manufacture table saws
that comply with the rule. The rule would also have a cost to consumers
in the form of consumer surplus loss resulting from higher prices on
table saws. Staff calculated the benefits and costs of the proposed
rule on a per-product-in-use basis. Benefits and costs are presented in
2021 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See TAB A of Staff's Briefing Package for a detailed
analysis of the expected benefits and costs of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Baseline Risk and Conflicting Data
Beginning in 2010, the voluntary standards governing table saws (at
that time UL 987; currently UL 62841-3-1) have required table saws to
be equipped with modular blade guard systems, riving knives, and anti-
kickback devices. To quantify the hazards associated with blade-contact
injuries and to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary standards,
CPSC staff conducted the 2017 Special Study. Of the 26,501 blade-
contact injury cases analyzed for the Special Study, staff concluded
that 12.2 percent involved saws that were compliant with the voluntary
standard, 19.6 percent involved table saws with ``unknown'' blade guard
types, and the remainder of incidents involved non-compliant saws. The
Special Study found that the relative risk of a blade-contact injury
was 7.19 times greater for a non-compliant saw than a complaint saw.
However, there are significant caveats to this finding. First, the
Special Study is a snapshot analysis based on only one year of
incidents. Second, there is a significant proportion of injuries
associated with ``unknown'' blade guard types. Third, the study does
not account for characteristics of the study group. For example, the
study did not reveal if the consumers who purchased compliant saws were
more risk-averse or safety-conscious. If this was the case, members of
that group would be less likely to be involved in a table saw-related
injury regardless of the type of blade guard in use. Notably, as
discussed in more detail in section IV of this preamble, the NEISS data
trend indicates that the rate of table saw blade contact injuries has
not declined in more than a decade after the introduction of the
modular blade guard requirement. Given this data, CPSC assesses that
the voluntary standards have not been effective in the long run at
reducing blade contact injuries.
2. Blade-Contact Injuries
The proposed rule is intended to address table saw injuries
resulting from blade contact by requiring table saws to be equipped
with AIM technology. According to the 2017 Special Study, there were an
estimated 26,501 blade contact injuries initially treated in U.S.
hospital emergency departments in 2017. The number of table saw
injuries initially treated outside of hospital EDs is estimated with
the CPSC's Injury Cost Model (ICM), which uses empirical relationships
between the characteristics of injuries (diagnosis and body part) and
victims (age and sex) initially treated in hospital EDs and the
characteristics of those initially treated in other settings.\23\ Based
on the 2017 annual estimate of 26,501 blade contact injuries initially
treated in hospital EDs, as determined in the 2017 Special Study, the
ICM projects an additional 22,675 blade contact injuries treated in
other treatment settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Lawrence, BA, Miller, TR, Waejrer, GM, Spicer, RS, Cohen,
MA, Zamula, WW, 2018. The Consumer Product Safety Commission's
Revised Injury Cost Model. Maryland: Pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation. (February 2018). Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ICM-2018-Documentation.pdf?YWuW4Jn0eb2hExeA0z68B64cv6LIUYoE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, there was an estimated annual total of about 49,176 medically
treated blade-contact injuries. About 60.9 percent of those injuries
involved bench saws; 27.1 percent involved contractor saws; and 9.1
percent involved cabinet saws. About 3 percent involved table saws of
unknown type. Staff estimates that approximately 21,504 injuries (about
43.7 percent) were treated in doctors' offices or clinics, and 1,171
injuries (about 2.4 percent) resulted in direct hospital admission,
bypassing the ED. Overall, about 9.8 percent of the medically treated
injuries resulted in hospitalization, either directly or following
treatment in an ED.
An estimated 90.1 percent of the injuries involved fingers, with
almost all of the remainder involving the hand. About 9.1 percent of
the medically treated injuries involved amputations; 58.1 percent
involved lacerations; and 23.5 percent involved fractures. About 33.4
percent of the amputations resulted in hospital admission, compared to
about 5.9 percent of lacerations and 14.2
[[Page 74927]]
percent of fractures. Only about 28.7 percent of the amputations were
projected to be treated in doctors' offices, clinics, and other non-
hospital settings, compared with about 42.0 percent of lacerations and
49.4 percent of fractures.
The blade-contact injury rate per 100,000 saws is calculated by
dividing the number of medically-treated injuries by the estimated
number of table saws in use. Using the data from the 2017 Special
Study, there were approximately 559 bench saw-related injuries per
100,000 bench saws in use; 951 contractor saw-related injuries per
100,000 contractor saws in use; and 306 cabinet saw-related injuries
per 100,000 cabinet saws in use.
3. Injury Costs of Blade Contact Injuries
The societal costs of blade-contact injuries are quantified using
the ICM. The ICM's components for injury costs include medical costs,
work losses, and the intangible costs associated with lost quality of
life or pain and suffering.
Medical costs include three categories of expenditures: (1) medical
and hospital costs associated with treating the injured victim during
the initial recovery period and in the long run, including the costs
associated with corrective surgery, the treatment of chronic injuries,
and rehabilitation services; (2) ancillary costs, such as costs for
prescriptions, medical equipment, and ambulance transport; and (3)
costs of health insurance claims processing. Cost estimates for these
expenditure categories were derived from a number of national and state
databases, including the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the National
Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP-
NIS), the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), the National
Nursing Home Survey (NNHS), MarketScan[supreg] claims data, and a
variety of other Federal, State, and private databases.
Work loss estimates include: (1) the forgone earnings of the
victim, including lost wage work and household work; (2) the forgone
earnings of parents and visitors, including lost wage work and
household work; (3) imputed long term work losses of the victim that
would be associated with permanent impairment; and (4) employer
productivity losses, such as the costs incurred when employers spend
time rearranging schedules or training replacement workers. Estimates
are based on information from HCUP-NIS, NEDS, Detailed Claims
Information (a workers' compensation database), the National Health
Interview Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other
sources.
The intangible, or non-economic, costs of injury reflect the
physical and emotional trauma of injury as well as the mental anguish
of victims and caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult to quantify
because they do not represent products or resources traded in the
marketplace. Nevertheless, they typically represent the largest
component of injury cost and must be accounted for in any benefit-cost
analysis involving health outcomes.\24\ The ICM develops a monetary
estimate of these intangible costs from jury awards for pain and
suffering. Estimates for the ICM were derived from regression analysis
of jury awards in nonfatal product liability cases involving consumer
products compiled by Jury Verdicts Research, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Rice, Dorothy P., MacKenzie, Ellen J., and Associates,
1989. Cost of injury in the United States: A report to Congress. San
Francisco, CA: Institute for Heath & Aging, University of California
and Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins University; Haddix,
Anne C., Teutch, Steven M., Corso, Phaedra S., 2003. Prevention
effectiveness: A guide to decision and economic evaluation (2nd
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press; Cohen, Mark A., Miller, Ted
R., 2003. ``Willingness to award'' nonmonetary damages and implied
value of life from jury awards. International Journal of Law and
Economics, 23 at 165-184; Neumann, Peter J., Sanders, Gillian D.,
Russell, Louise B., Siegel, Joanna E., Ganiats, Theodore G., 2016.
Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: Second Edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This regulatory analysis discounts future benefits and costs using
a 3 percent discount rate. The 3 percent rate is intended to represent
what is sometimes called the ``social rate of time preference,'' which
is consistent with the rate at which society discounts future
consumption flows to their present value.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ OMB, 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory analysis. Washington,
DC: Office of Management and Budget. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf; Gold,
Marthe R., Siegel, Joanna E., Russell, Louise B., Einsteinin, Milton
C., 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York:
Oxford University Press; Haddix, et al., supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on ICM estimates and utilizing the 3 percent discount rate,
the present value of total injury costs associated with the estimated
49,176 medically treated table saw injuries amounted to $3.97 billion.
This suggests injury costs of about $80,650 per injury (i.e., $3.97
billion / 49,176 injuries). This high estimate is largely driven by the
costs associated with amputations. While amputations accounted for
approximately 9.1 percent of injuries, they accounted for almost 55.3
percent of total estimated costs.
The distribution of injury costs by medical treatment setting is
provided in table 5. Overall, medical costs and work losses accounted
for 31 percent of the total, while the non-economic losses associated
with pain and suffering accounted for 69 percent.
Table 5--Annual Societal Costs Associated With Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries, by Medical Treatment Setting
and Injury Cost Component
[2021 dollars; 3% discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average cost per injury, by cost component
---------------------------------------------------
Medical treatment setting Pain and
Medical Work loss suffering Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor/Clinic............................................... $705 $1,982 $21,970 $24,657
Emergency Department (ED)................................... 2,206 1,894 30,211 34,311
Hospital, Admitted via ED................................... 18,548 197,213 308,001 523,761
Direct Hospital Admission................................... 18,999 208,590 333,386 560,975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimates of the present value of these societal costs from blade-
contact injuries, per table saw in use, and by saw type, are presented
in table 6. Row (a) shows aggregate annual societal costs, by type of
saw. Annual societal costs per saw are presented in row (c) and are
calculated by dividing the aggregate annual societal costs, row (a), by
table saws in use, row (b). The present value of annual societal costs
at a 3 percent discount rate are presented
[[Page 74928]]
in row (e) and range from $3,503 per bench saw to $12,865 per cabinet
saw. These present value figures represent the maximum benefits that
could be derived from a rule addressing blade-contact injuries if such
a rule prevented 100 percent of all such injuries.
Table 6--Present Value of Societal Costs of Injuries per Table Saw in
Use, by Table Saw Type
[Based on blade contact injuries in 2017]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table saw type
--------------------------------------
Bench Contractor Cabinet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Aggregate Annual Societal $2,198. 29 $612. 49 $1,099. 81
Costs (Millions $)..............
(b) Table Saws in Use (Millions). 5. 35 1. 40 1. 45
(c) Annual Societal Costs per $411 $437 $760
Table Saw [(a) / (b)]...........
(d) Expected Useful Product Life 10 17 24
(years).........................
(e) Present Value of Societal $3,503 $5,750 $12,865
Costs, Over Expected Product
Life (3 percent discount rate)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Effectiveness and Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
The effectiveness of AIM technology in preventing blade-contact
injuries is expected to be high. However, not all injuries would be
prevented, because the AIM system activates after the hand or finger
comes into contact with an operating blade. Moreover, it will not
mitigate all severe blade-contact injuries. For example, it will not
mitigate potentially severe blade contact injuries that occur: (1) when
the saw is not running; (2) when the blade is operating but the AIM
system has been deactivated; (3) when the operator's hand is moving
into the blade so quickly that contact with the blade cannot be reduced
sufficiently to prevent serious injury; or (4) when the AIM technology
leads to complacency or reductions in safety efforts on the part of
users that result in injuries the AIM technology is unable to prevent,
which may or may not involve blade contact. An example of the fourth
category might be an operator's decision to remove other safety
equipment on the table saw, such as an anti-kickback pawl, which might
increase the likelihood of an injury involving wood thrown back at the
operator.
While there is insufficient information to quantify the impact of
these factors with precision, there is information to highlight their
impact. The 2007-2008 table saw survey found that in 5.5 percent of
table saw injuries, the motor was not running.\26\ The 2014-2015 NEISS
special study found that about 2.4 percent of the blade contact
injuries involved saw blades that were not in operation at the time of
injury or had just been turned off.\27\ Additionally, the existing AIM
technology cannot be used when cutting conductive materials, such as
non-ferrous metals (e.g., aluminum) or wood that is wet enough to
conduct sufficient electricity to activate the AIM system.
Consequently, table saws with existing AIM systems have a bypass mode
that temporarily deactivates the AIM system to prevent nuisance
tripping. Although the SawStop saws automatically reset to safety mode
whenever restarted, some consumers might deactivate the AIM system even
when it is not necessary to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Chowdhury, Sadeq R., Paul, Caroleene, 2011. Survey of
injuries involving stationary saws, table and bench saws, 2007-2008.
Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
\27\ Garland, Sarah, 2016. Table Saw blade contact injury
analysis. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
(November 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the factors discussed in this section, we assume that AIM
technology is 90 percent effective in reducing the societal costs of
blade contact injuries. Table 7 recalculates benefits with a 90 percent
effective rate to estimate the benefits from the proposed rule.
Table 7--Expected Benefits, per Table Saw, Assuming 90% Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PV of societal costs, over Benefits at 90%
Table saw type expected product life (3 effectiveness, 3 percent
percent discount rate) discount rate
(a) (b) = a x 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench............................................... $3,503 $3,153
Contractor.......................................... 5,750 5,175
Cabinet............................................. 12,865 11,579
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed previously in this section of the preamble, there is
inconsistent evidence whether table saws complying with the modular
blade guard system requirement in UL 62841-3-1 are substantially less
likely to cause severe injuries. If the voluntary standard is in fact
effective in reducing the number or severity of blade-contact injuries,
the proposed rule's expected reduction in societal costs would be
reduced, because some of the injuries that an AIM system would be
expected to prevent would already have been prevented by adherence to
the voluntary standard. For an analysis of expected benefits under an
assumption that the voluntary standard is in fact effective, see
staff's revised preliminary regulatory analysis.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ TAB A of Staff's Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Costs To Meet Performance Requirements
Table saw manufacturers are likely to incur three primary types of
costs to incorporate AIM technology into their table saws:
Costs of AIM technology. Manufacturers would have to either design
and develop their own AIM technology or license an AIM technology
developed and owned by
[[Page 74929]]
another party. As previously noted, there are currently at most three
suppliers of AIM technology. The Commission considers the development
of additional AIM technologies likely if the proposed rule is adopted,
but additional competitive entry is not certain. While most
manufacturers of table saws would likely continue production by
licensing an AIM technology, some firms, especially smaller firms,
would likely drop out of the market altogether, resulting in a loss of
consumer surplus as well as increased prices due to lessened
competition.
Redesign and retooling costs. Incorporating AIM technology into
existing models would require manufacturers to redesign each model and
retool the facilities where the saws are manufactured. For example,
table saw models not currently incorporating AIM technology likely
would require redesign to provide room for blade retraction, to allow
access for users to change the cartridge and blade, and to withstand
the force of the AIM system being triggered. PTI estimates that, on
average, the cost to redesign and retool existing table saws would
range from $2 million to $10 million per manufacturer.\29\ Dr. Gass,
however, has said that SawStop's tooling costs were approximately
$200,000 for its first contractor/cabinet table saw, and approximately
$700,000 for its first bench saw. He also emphasized some table saw
models are minor variations on one another and share the same basic
structure, which reduces costs of redesign and retooling.\30\
Furthermore, foreign manufacturers may produce saws for multiple U.S.
firms; the costs of retooling might be spread across several of their
customers if the designs are similar enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Grahan, J. 2010. Expert report of Dr. John D. Graham.
(April 27). Submitted with PTI public comments (2012) CPSC-2011-
0074-1106, available at: regulations.gov.
\30\ IEc interview with Dr. Stephen Gass, Saw Stop, LLC,
November 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material and labor costs. The combination of adding a brake
cartridge or other means of stopping or retracting the blade after
contact with flesh, and redesigning the table saw to accommodate the
additional electronic components and wiring, the required clearances,
and the weight and dimensions of the AIM technology, would result in
increased materials costs. For SawStop models in 2012, the additional
cost associated with the AIM system was approximately $58.\31\ An
estimate from another firm, also in 2012, suggested $74 (including
cartridge, electronics, and mechanical parts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Gass, Stephen F., 2012. Comments and information responsive
to ANPR for table saw blade contact injuries, by SawStop, LLC. (Mar.
16, 2012). Comment CPSC-2011-0074-1106, available at:
regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The structure of some bench saws may need to be strengthened to
improve stability and withstand the shock of blade braking and/or
retraction. This strengthening may increase the overall weight of some
of the lightest saws, reducing their portability and utility.
The commission seeks comments on the impact this proposed rule
would have on existing firms.
D. Manufacturing Cost Impact
To estimate the per-unit manufacturing cost of requiring AIM
technology for table saws, CPSC staff assume that the costs associated
with the rule are fully pushed forward to consumers, and that the
expected price increases are reflective of all costs of production and
supply. However, these cost impacts do not include royalty fees, which
are payments that manufacturers would have to make if they license the
AIM technology from other firms rather than developing their own AIM
systems. From a societal perspective, royalties represent a transfer
payment from one party or sector to another. Because royalties
essentially move money from one party to another, and are not payments
for goods or services, they are not costs for purposes of the benefit-
cost analysis.\32\ Nevertheless, the royalties will have distributional
impacts on manufacturers and consumers that are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ OMB, 2003, supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Manufacturing Costs
In 2015, SawStop predicted that retail prices for bench saws would
increase by no more than $150 per unit as result of the rule.\33\
Inflated to 2021 dollars, this results in an estimated increase of
$193. In the absence of more specific information about manufacturing
costs, CPSC staff used this figure as the basis for the low-end
estimate of manufacturing cost increases for bench saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ SawStop, LLC. 2009. Presentation to CPSC, December 8 & 9;
Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc., 659 F3d 81, 83 (1st Cir
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For contractor and cabinet saws, the low-end expected cost impacts
were based on discussions with other industry members. One manufacturer
estimated that the retail price of a single table saw model that they
produce would increase by about 30 percent as a result of the rule,
including the cost of royalties. Excluding royalties, and inflated to
2021 dollars, this estimate suggests a cost increase associated with
redesign, retooling, and materials of about $321. For this analysis, we
assume that this $321 low-end cost increase can be applied to all
contractor and cabinet saws.
For bench saws, the high-end cost increase is based on information
provided by PTI, whose members produce primarily bench saws. In 2012,
PTI estimated that the increase would be $100 to $800 per saw,
excluding royalties.\34\ Inflated to 2021 dollars, the midpoint of this
range is $651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ PTI, 2012. Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power Tool
Institute, Inc., on ``U.S. Consumer Product Commission [Docket No.
CPSC-2011-0074] Table saw blade contact injuries: Advance notice of
proposed rulemaking,'' (March 16, 2012). (Comment CPSC-2011-0074-
1081, available at: regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For contractor and cabinet saw models, we apply the high end of the
range estimated by PTI and other manufacturers. One table saw
manufacturer provided an estimate ranging from $500 to $800 for
``larger saws,'' excluding royalties. Another manufacturer estimated
that the retail price of saws would increase by 20 percent, excluding
the cost of royalties. IEc, 2016b. Applying this percentage to the
company's cabinet saw models results in added costs of about $260 to
$800. CPSC assumes the high-end incremental cost increase is $1,002,
which is the upper bound of each range suggested by PTI and these two
manufacturers, inflated to 2021 dollars. These costs are for the first
years following adoption of the proposed safety rule. In the longer
term, after about 5 years, the incremental cost should decrease as AIM
technology is better developed and deployed.
2. Replacement Parts Costs
In addition to the manufacturing costs just described, there will
also be the added costs of replacement parts related to the AIM system.
For purposes of this analysis, we base the cost of replacement parts on
the SawStop system, which requires replacement of the brake cartridge
and blade after activation of the system. Replacement part prices are
estimated to include $95 for a replacement brake cartridge, and $30 to
$90 for a replacement blade.\35\ Based on sales of replacement brake
cartridges, SawStop estimates that the AIM system may activate about
once every 9 years of use.\36\ At a replacement
[[Page 74930]]
rate of once every 9 years (and assuming $95 per replacement blade),
this results in an annual per-unit replacement part cost of
approximately $17. However, because blades deteriorate and require
periodic replacement even in the absence of an AIM activation, CPSC
assumes that the need for replacement blades due to AIM activation
costs an average of about $14 annually. The present value of this
expected annual cost of $14 over the life of a typical table saw, and
discounted at a rate of 3 percent, would amount to about $118 for bench
saws (with a 10-year expected product life), $183 for contractor saws
(with an estimated 17-year product life), and $235 for cabinet saws
(with an expected 24-year product life).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ PTI, 2016. Table saw facts at a glance. Accessed June 20,
2016. Available at: http://powertoolinstitute.com/pti-pages/it-table-saw-facts.asp.
\36\ SawStop, March 2011, Information Package for Petition CP-
03-02. As cited in CPSC (2011). Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries;
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. September 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SawStop data, however, may overstate the costs of replacement
parts. For instance, the AIM-equipped Bosch REAXX bench saw, which has
since been withdrawn from the U.S. market, utilized a $100 cartridge
that was usable for two activations. Because the blade was not
destroyed by the activation, the Bosch system had lower replacement
part costs.
The direct manufacturing and replacement costs are presented in
table 8 and rely on the low- and high-end direct manufacturing costs
and the SawStop replacement costs just described.
Table 8--Direct Manufacturing and Replacement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct manufacturing Total direct +
costs replacement costs
Table saw type -------------------------- Replacement -------------------------
Low-end High-end part cost Low-end High-end
estimates estimates estimates estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench....................................... $193 $651 $118 $311 $769
Contractor.................................. 321 1,002 183 504 1,185
Cabinet..................................... 321 1,002 235 556 1,237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Lost Consumer Surplus
The increased retail prices of table saws, as compliance costs are
passed on to consumers, would result in a reduction in table saw sales.
Consumers who decide not to purchase table saws because of the higher
prices would experience a loss in consumer surplus. The assumptions
used by Commission staff to estimate the lost consumer surplus are
explained in TAB A of staff's briefing package. Applying those
assumptions, table 9 shows the expected reduction in annual sales and
the expected lost consumer surplus as a result of adopting the proposed
rule. Reduced sales could range from about 110,800 table saws under the
low-end cost estimates (column a), to about 329,900 under the high-end
cost estimates (column d), representing a sales reduction of about 17
percent to 50 percent, respectively. The annual loss in consumer
surplus ranges from about $13.9 million under the low-end estimates
(column c), to about $120 million under the high-end estimates (column
f).
Table 9--Post-Regulatory Annual Table Saw Sales, Sales Reduction, and Lost Consumer Surplus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-end cost estimate High-end cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) (c) Aggregate (d) (f) Aggregate
Expected (b) Expected post- lost consumer Expected (e) Expected post- lost consumer
sales regulatory sales surplus sales regulatory sales surplus
reduction (millions $) reduction (millions $)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench.................................................. 97,917 419,083 $11.02 297,231 219,769 $101.50
Contractor............................................. 9,098 69,902 1.91 23,885 55,115 13.14
Cabinet................................................ 3,813 51,187 1.00 8,758 46,242 5.28
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 110,827 540,173 13.92 329,874 321,126 119.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10 presents the total costs per table saw, including the
direct manufacturing costs, replacement part costs, and lost consumer
surplus. The direct manufacturing and replacement part cost estimates,
per table saw, are from table 8. The lost consumer surplus, per table
saw, is calculated as the aggregate lost consumer surplus divided by
the post-regulatory estimate of sales. Total per-unit costs range from
roughly $388 to $1,210 per bench saw, from $531 to $1,376 per
contractor saw, and from about $576 to $1,276 per cabinet saw.
Table 10--Total Costs per Saw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-end cost estimate High-end cost estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table saw type Lost Lost
Direct + consumer Total Direct + consumer Total
replacement surplus replacement surplus
(a) (b) (c) = (a) + (b) (d) (e) (f) = (d) + (e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench.................................................. $311 $26 $338 $749 $462 $1,210
Contractor............................................. 504 27 531 1,138 238 1,376
Cabinet................................................ 556 20 576 1,161 114 1,276
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74931]]
The annual aggregate costs of the rule are estimated in columns (c)
and (f) of table 11, and range from about $208 million, based on the
low-end cost estimates, to about $400 million, based on the high-end
cost estimates. Bench saws account for about 68 percent of the total
under the low-end estimates, and about 66 percent of the total under
the high-end estimates.
Table 11--Annual Post-Regulatory Sales, Per-Unit Cost Estimates, and Aggregate Annual Costs of the Proposed Rule, by Cost Level and Table Saw Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-end cost estimates High-end cost estimates
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table saw type (a) Annual post- (d) Annual post-
regulatory table (b) Per unit rule (c) Aggregate regulatory table (e) Per unit rule (f) Aggregate
saw sales cost costs (millions $) saw sales surplus) cost costs (millions $)
(a x b)........... (d x e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench........................... 419,083........... $338.............. $141.55........... 219,769........... $1,210............ $266.01
Contractor...................... 69,902............ 531............... 37.13............. 55,115............ 1,376............. 75.84
Cabinet......................... 51,187............ 576............... 29.47............. 46,242............ 1,276............. 58.98
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 540,173........... .................. 208.15............ 321,126........... .................. 400.83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Relationship Between Benefits and Costs
Section 9(f)(3)(E) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(E), provides
that before adopting a final rule under CPSA sections 7 and 9, the
Commission must find ``that the benefits expected from the rule bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs.'' Although this SNPR does not
establish a final rule, we nevertheless address that issue here and
preliminarily conclude that the expected benefits of the proposed rule
comfortably exceed its expected costs. The expected benefits and costs
of the proposed rule by table saw type are presented in table 12. The
net benefit estimates suggest that the per-unit benefits exceed costs
by a ratio of more than 3.5 to 1 using a 3 percent discount rate. Using
a 3 percent discount rate, the estimated net benefits range from about
$503 million to $1,326 million for bench saws, $241 million to $365
million for contractor saws, and $536 million to $629 million for
cabinet saws.
Table 12--Estimated Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per saw (low Aggregate net
Table saw type Benefits est--top, hi Net benefit per Est. annual benefits
per saw est.--bottom) saw sales (millions, $)
(a) (b) (c) = (a)-(b) (d) (e) = (c) x (d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench....................... $3,503 $338 $3,165 419,083 $1,327
1,210 2,293 504
Contractor.................. 5,750 531 5,218 69,902 365
1,376 4,374 241
Cabinet..................... 12,865 576 12,289 51,187 629
1,276 11,590 536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This general relationship is not altered with variations in some of
the key parameters of the analysis, including variations in the
expected product life of table saws, table saw sales, injury rates, and
significant variations in the estimated costs of injuries. Furthermore,
even if the Commission were to assume that the voluntary standards have
been effective in reducing the number and severity of injuries, based
on the findings from the 2017 Special Study, benefits would not be
strongly negative and could be positive. The Regulatory Analysis Memo
contains a discussion of costs and benefits under this assumption.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ TAB A to Staff's Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Sensitivity Analysis
The results of the regulatory analysis demonstrate that the
benefits of AIM technology substantially exceed costs under most
plausible scenarios. This sensitivity analysis varies several of the
key parameters to show the impact on per-unit net benefits.
1. Lower AIM Effectiveness
Net benefits decline modestly if it is assumed that AIM technology
is only 70 percent effective at mitigating the societal costs of blade-
contact injuries, rather than 90 percent. Net benefits under this
assumption are $272.92 per bench saw, $145.98 per contractor saw, and
$357.45 per cabinet saw. Benefits remain substantially greater than
costs.
2. Higher Replacement Parts Costs
PTI's comments in response to the 2017 NPR stated that CPSC staff
substantially underestimated replacement part costs (i.e., replacement
of blade and brake cartridge following activation of an AIM system),
and suggested that such costs were more likely to amount to about $36
annually, as opposed to the $11 per year estimated in the NPR.\38\ The
PTI estimates would increase the cost per table saw, and would also
result in the costs of the proposed rule exceeding the benefits.
Specifically, net benefits could result in amounts as low as -$270.24
per bench saw, -$70.26 per contractor saw, and -$82.86 per cabinet saw.
Nevertheless, given that estimated gross benefits per saw range from
approximately $3,500 to nearly $13,000, even the higher replacement
parts costs suggested by PTI--which are not consistent with CPSC
staff's analysis--result in total costs that bear a reasonable
relationship to total benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power Tool Institute,
Inc., on U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Table saw blade
contact injuries: Notice of proposed rulemaking, (July 26, 2017),
available at: regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74932]]
3. Variations in the Expected Product Life of Bench Saws
PTI commented in response to the 2017 NPR that staff's estimate
that the expected product life of bench saws was 10 years was an
overestimate; PTI stated that bench saws' actual expected product life
was 7.5 years. Id. However, a shorter product life reduces the
estimated number of bench saws in use while the number and cost of
injuries remain the same, thereby increasing the per-unit annual
benefit of reduced social costs. The combined effect is a small
increase in per-saw benefits and net benefits.
H. Regulatory Alternatives
The Commission considered several alternatives to the proposed
rule. These alternatives would mitigate the proposed rule's costs and
potential disruptions in the marketplace. However, these alternatives
would also reduce the expected benefits of the proposed rule.
1. Take No Regulatory Action
The Commission could end the regulatory proceeding for table saws
if it concludes that a mandatory rule is no longer needed to address an
unreasonable risk. We cannot estimate the benefits and costs that would
be associated with this alternative, because the estimates would be
affected by factors such as the extent to which manufacturers would
introduce new AIM-equipped table saws in the absence of a requirement
that they do so, the prices of any such table saws, and the rate at
which consumers would choose to purchase such table saws. However,
because the rate at which AIM technology would be adopted in the
absence of a mandatory rule would probably be substantially lower than
the rate under a mandatory rule, both the benefits and the costs of
this alternative would be much lower than estimated for the proposed
rule.
2. Later Effective Dates
The proposed rule includes an effective date of 36 months after the
final rule is published in the Federal Register. This is a lengthy
period of time, particularly given Congress's instruction that consumer
product safety rules adopted under sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA
ordinarily should take effect within 30 to 180 days. 15 U.S.C.
2058(g)(1). Nevertheless, an effective date even later than 36 months
could help reduce the impact of the rule on manufacturers by allowing
them additional time to spread the costs of the redesign, and would
also allow additional time for new entrants into the market. A later
effective date might especially benefit manufacturers of bench saws
because of the added technical difficulties in engineering small bench
saws to incorporate AIM technology.
Although later effective dates could mitigate the impact of the
proposed rule for some manufacturers, it could also delay a market-wide
distribution of table saws with AIM technology. Given the net benefits
per unit expected from incorporating AIM technology, delaying the
effective date of the proposed rule would also delay the expected
benefits of the rule.
3. Exempt Contractor and Cabinet Saws From a Product Safety Rule
The Commission could exempt cabinet and contractor saws on the
grounds that, while widely purchased and used by consumers, they are
generally intended for professional, commercial, or industrial users.
Exempting cabinet and contractor saws could substantially reduce the
adverse impact of the rule on small manufacturers because most small
manufacturers market contractor and cabinet saws. Under this
alternative, however, the benefits and costs would be limited to those
associated with bench saws, which account for approximately 60.9
percent of medically treated blade-contact injuries. Thus, more than a
third of medically treated blade-contact injuries would remain
unaddressed under this alternative.
4. Limiting Applicability of Performance Requirements to Some, But Not
All, Table Saws
Rather than requiring all table saws of each manufacturer to meet
the requirements of the proposed standard, the Commission could require
that only a subset of table saws do so. For example, if a firm produces
bench saws and contractor saws, the Commission might require the firm
to produce at least one bench saw model and one contractor saw model
that meet the requirements of the standard. However, this option would
only address a portion of total injuries. In addition, a rule of this
sort might be somewhat more difficult to enforce than a requirement
that all table saws contain the AIM technology.
5. Information and Education Campaign
The Commission could conduct an information and education campaign
informing consumers about blade contact hazards and blade contact
injuries, and the benefits of AIM technology. The Commission could also
strongly encourage consumers to always use the passive safety devices
required under the voluntary standard, especially if they choose not to
purchase a table saw with the AIM technology. This alternative could be
implemented on its own, in the absence of other regulatory options, or
it could be implemented in combination with any of the alternative
options.
However, the effectiveness of warnings and instructions is limited,
because they depend on consumers not only receiving and understanding
the message, but also being persuaded to heed the message. Although
such a campaign could help inform consumers, the Commission
preliminarily concludes based on the severity of injuries and recurring
hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high
societal costs of these injuries, that a performance requirement is
necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries.
XI. Updated Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This section provides an analysis of the impact the proposed rule
would have on small businesses. Whenever an agency is required to
publish a proposed rule, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) requires that the agency prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact that the rule
would have on small businesses and other entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. An
IRFA is not required if the head of an agency certifies that the
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must
contain:
(1) a description of why action by the agency is being considered;
(2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
the proposed rule;
(3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
(4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record; and
(5) identification to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
An IRFA must also contain a description of any significant
alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the
applicable statutes and that would minimize any
[[Page 74933]]
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
According to the IRFA, alternatives could include: (1) differing
compliance or reporting requirements that take into account the
resources available to small businesses; (2) clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements for small entities; (3) use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or
any part of the rule thereof, for small entities. The alternatives the
Commission considered are discussed in section X of this preamble.
The IRFA prepared by CPSA staff is contained in TAB B of staff's
briefing package, and is summarized below.
A. Reason for Agency Action
The proposed rule for table saws would reduce an unreasonable risk
of injury associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws. CPSC
staff estimate that there were an average of approximately 32,000
emergency department-treated blade-contact injuries annually from 2004
to 2020. AIM technology has been shown to significantly mitigate the
severity of injuries caused by a victim's finger, hand, or other body
part contacting the blade while the table saw is in operation.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would establish a mandatory performance
requirement to address the risk of injuries associated with blade-
contact injuries on table saws.
B. Objective of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk of serious
injuries resulting from blade contact on table saws. The Commission
published an ANPR in October 2011, which initiated this proceeding to
evaluate regulatory options and potentially develop a mandatory
standard to address the risks of blade-contact injuries associated with
the use of table saws, and the Commission published an NPR in 2017. The
proposed rule would be promulgated under the authority of the CPSA.
C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
The proposed rule would apply to manufacturers, importers, and
private labelers of table saws that are sold in the United States. As
of March 2023, CPSC is aware of 23 firms that supply table saws to the
U.S. market. Of these 23 firms, seven are small according to criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). According to
the SBA criteria, a table saw manufacturer is considered small if it
has fewer than 500 employees, and a table saw importer is considered
small if it has fewer than 100 employees. Private labelers of table
saws are considered small if their annual revenue does not exceed $41.5
million in the case of home centers, $35 million in the case of
department stores, and $8 million in the case of hardware stores.
Although the design and engineering of table saws may occur in the
United States, most U.S. based suppliers contract the production of
table saws to foreign manufacturers, generally in Taiwan or China.
Shopsmith, the manufacturer of a multipurpose machine that includes a
table saw, is the only small business believed to manufacture its
product in the United States.
D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record Keeping Requirements of the
Proposed Rule
The proposed rule would require that all table saws incorporate an
AIM technology that will reduce the risk of severe injury if the
finger, hand, or other body part comes into contact with the blade
while the saw is in operation. In particular, the rulemaking would
require that a table saw cut no deeper than 3.5 mm into a test probe
that approaches a spinning saw blade at a rate of 1 m/s before
contacting the blade. The proposed rule sets out a performance
requirement rather than a design standard; it does not specify the
manner in which the table saw must meet this safety requirement. If a
final rule is issued, manufacturers must certify pursuant to section 14
of the CPSA that the product conforms to the standard, based on either
a test of each product or any reasonable method to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements of the standard. For products that
manufacturers certify, manufacturers would issue a general certificate
of conformity (GCC).
Section 14 of the CPSA sets forth the requirements for GCCs. Among
other requirements, each certificate must identify the manufacturer or
private labeler issuing the certificate and any third party conformity
assessment body on whose testing the certificate depends, the place of
manufacture, the date and place where the product was tested, each
party's name, full mailing address, telephone number, and contact
information for the individual responsible for maintaining records of
test results. The certificate must be in English. Certificates must be
furnished to each distributor or retailer of the product and to the
CPSC, if requested.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The regulations governing the content, form, and
availability of the certificates of compliance are codified at 16
CFR 1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers
To comply with the proposed rule, table saw manufacturers would
need to license or develop an AIM technology. To license a technology,
manufacturers typically pay a royalty or license fee to the owner of
the patents on the technology. At this time CPSC is not able to
estimate the royalty cost for licensing an AIM technology.
If a manufacturer wished to avoid fees, the manufacturer would have
the challenge of developing its own AIM technology that does not
infringe on an existing patent. At a minimum, such an effort would
likely cost at least several hundred thousand dollars and perhaps
several million dollars, based on the estimated costs of developing the
existing technologies.
According to several manufacturers, incorporating AIM technology
would require a redesign of each table saw model. Estimates of the
redesign and retooling costs ranged from about $100,000 to $700,000 per
model. The redesign and retooling process would be expected to take 1
to 3 years depending on the number and severity of problems encountered
in the process. The redesign and retooling costs for subsequent models
could be less than the costs associated with the first model.
In addition to the redesign and retooling costs, there would be
costs for the additional components needed to incorporate an AIM
technology. Depending upon the specific system, additional parts may
include a brake cartridge; cables, parts, or brackets to secure the
brake cartridge; electrodes and assemblies; and a power supply or motor
control. CPSC estimates that these additional components would increase
the manufacturing cost of a table saw by between $58 and $74.
2. Impacts on Small Businesses
Most small manufacturers are expected to license an AIM technology
instead of developing their own technology. The costs of developing
their own AIM technology would likely be too high for most small
manufacturers, especially given the challenge of developing a
technology that did not infringe upon an existing patent. However,
there is no certainty that small manufacturers would be able to
negotiate acceptable licensing agreements with TTS or another patent
[[Page 74934]]
holder. If small manufacturers are unable to negotiate acceptable
licensing agreements for AIM technology, it is likely they would exit
the U.S. table saw market.
If a small table saw manufacturer is able to license AIM
technology, it would have to determine whether each table saw model
would remain profitable after redesigning it with AIM technology.
Further, small table saw manufacturers that are able to license the AIM
technology from TTS or another table saw manufacturer would pay
royalties to a competitor. This could reduce their competitiveness in
the table saw market.
Most small manufacturers of table saws also supply other types of
woodworking or metal working equipment. Information provided by firms
suggests that U.S. sales of table saws account for a small percentage
of the total revenue of most small firms. One manufacturer suggested
that U.S. table saw sales accounted for about 1 percent of the firm's
total revenue. Two other firms estimated that U.S. table saw sales
accounted for between 5 and 8 percent of their total revenue. IEc,
2016a. Actions that impact a firm's revenue by more than 1 percent are
potentially significant. Given that small table saw manufacturers have
expressed they may drop one or more table saw models or leave the
market entirely if the proposed rule is adopted, the proposed rule
could have a significant impact on small manufacturers.
E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has
established standards that cover woodworking equipment used in
workplace settings, rather than by consumers. These standards are
codified at 29 CFR 1910. Generally, these requirements cover workplace
safety and the use of safety devices such as blade guards and hoods.
Currently, OSHA standards do not mandate performance requirements that
would use AIM technology on table saws that are used by consumers.
Accordingly, the Commission has not identified any Federal rules that
duplicate or conflict with the proposed rule.
F. Alternatives Considered To Reduce the Burden on Small Entities
Under section 603(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis must ``contain a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the
stated objectives of the applicable statutes and which minimize any
significant impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' CPSC
examined several alternatives to the proposed rule that could reduce
the impact on small entities. These alternatives are discussed in
section X of this preamble.
G. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA) in Response to 2017 NPR
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604, a final regulatory flexibility analysis
contained in a final rule must include the agency's response to any
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in response
to a proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rule as a response to the comments. Although there is no such
requirement for an IRFA, staff's separate regulatory flexibility
analysis memorandum \40\ includes a summary of the significant issues
raised in the Chief Counsel's comments on the 2017 NPR. None of the
comments by SBAA resulted in CPSC staff recommending changes to the
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ TAB B of Staff's Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
XII. Environmental Considerations
Generally, the Commission's regulations are considered to have
little or no potential for affecting the human environment, and
environmental assessments and impact statements are not usually
required. See 16 CFR 1021.5(a). The final rule is not expected to have
an adverse impact on the environment and is considered to fall within
the ``categorical exclusion'' for purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 1021.5(c).
XIII. Preemption
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the
CPSC states the preemptive effect of the proposed rule, as follows:
The regulation for addressing blade-contact injuries on table saws
is proposed under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. Section
26 of the CPSA provides that:
whenever a consumer product safety standard under this Act is in
effect and applies to a risk of injury associated with a consumer
product, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any
authority either to establish or to continue in effect any provision
of a safety standard or regulation which prescribes any requirements
as to the performance, composition, contents, design, finish,
construction, packaging or labeling of such product which are
designed to deal with the same risk of injury associated with such
consumer product, unless such requirements are identical to the
requirements of the Federal Standard.
15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Thus, this proposed rule would preempt non-identical
state or local requirements for table saws that are designed to protect
against the same risk of injury, i.e., injuries associated with blade
contact.
Upon application to the Commission, a state or local standard may
be excepted from this preemptive effect if the state or local standard:
(1) provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of injury or
illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) does not unduly burden
interstate commerce. In addition, the Federal Government, or a state or
local government, may establish or continue in effect a non-identical
requirement for its own use that is designed to protect against the
same risk of injury as the CPSC standard if the Federal, State, or
local requirement provides a higher degree of protection than the CPSA
requirement. 15 U.S.C. 2075(b).
XIV. Certification
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban,
standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission,
must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced
requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule addressing blade-contact
injuries on table saws would subject table saws to this certification
requirement.
XV. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains information collection requirements
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA). 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. We describe the provisions in this section
of the document with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Our
estimate includes the time for gathering certificate data and creating
General Certificates of Conformity (GCC), keeping and maintaining
records associated with the GCCs, and disclosure of GCCs to third
parties.
CPSC particularly invites comments on: (1) whether the collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be
[[Page 74935]]
collected; (4) ways to reduce the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information
technology; and (5) estimated burden hours associated with label
modification, including any alternative estimates.
Title: Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table
Saws.
Description: The proposed rule would require table saws, when
powered on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test
probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body part, contacts the
spinning blade at an approach rate of 1 meter per second.
Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import table
saws.
Staff estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows in table 13:
Table 13--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Frequency of Total annual Minutes per Total burden
Burden type respondents response responses response hours Annual cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC Creation............................................ 23 7 161 5 13.42 $921.28
Recordkeeping........................................... 23 7 161 1.25 3.35 105.36
Third Party Disclosure.................................. 23 7 161 15 40.25 1,265.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Burden........................................ 69 .............. 483 .............. 57.02 2,292.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would require that manufacturers certify that
their products conform to the rule and issue a GCC. As of March 2023,
CPSC is aware of 23 firms that supply table saws to the U.S. market.
Accordingly, we estimate there are 23 respondents that will respond to
the collection annually. On average, each respondent may gather
certificate data and create 7 certificates for complying table saws in
the market. The time required to issue a GCC is conservatively
estimated as about 5 minutes (although the actual time required is
often substantially less). Therefore, the estimated burden associated
with issuance of GCCs is 13.42 hours (161 responses x 5 minutes per
response = 805 minutes or 13.42 hours). Staff estimates the hourly
compensation for the time required to issue GCCs is $68.65 (U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,''
March 2023, table 4, Private industry management, professional and
related occupations: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry
associated with issuance of a GCC is $921.28 ($68.65 per hour x 13.42
hours = $921.283).
For purposes of this burden analysis, we assume that the records
supporting GCC creation, including testing records, would be maintained
for a five-year period. Staff estimates burden of 1.25 minutes per year
in routine recordkeeping. This adds up to approximately 3.35 hours (161
responses x 1.25 minutes per response = 201.25 minutes or 3.35 hours).
Staff estimates the hourly compensation for the time required to
maintain records is $31.45 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation,'' March 2023, table 4, Private
industry sales and office occupations: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated
annual burden cost associated with recordkeeping of GCCs is $105.36
($31.45 per hour x 3.35 hours = $105.3575).
The rule would also require that GCCs be disclosed to third party
retailers and distributors. Staff estimates another 161 third party
disclosure responses, each one of which requires 15 minutes per year.
This adds up to 2,415 minutes (161 responses x 15 minutes per response
= 2,415 minutes) or 40.25 hours. Staff uses an hourly compensation for
the time required to disclose certificates to third parties of $31.45
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,'' March 2023, table 4, Private industry sales and office
occupations: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated annual burden cost
associated with third party disclosure of GCCs is $1,265.86 ($31.45 per
hour x 40.25 hours = $1,265.8625).
Based on this analysis, CPSC estimates the annual PRA burden
associated with the rule at 57.02 hours (13.42 hours + 3.35 hours +
40.25 hours) with a total burden cost of $2,292.50 ($921.28 + $105.36 +
$1,265.86). There are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs
associated with the collection.
As required under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), CPSC has submitted
the information collection requirements of this proposed rule to the
OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments
regarding information collection by December 1, 2023, to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB as described under the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
XVI. Effective Date
Section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA provides that a rule issued under
sections 7 and 9, ``including its effective date,'' must be
``reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk
injury associated with such product.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). Section
9(g)(1) addresses effective dates in greater detail and requires that
the effective date shall not exceed 180 days from the date the rule is
promulgated, ``unless the Commission finds, for good cause shown, that
a later effective date is in the public interest and publishes its
reasons for such finding.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). Similarly, the
effective date must not be less than 30 days after promulgation
``unless the Commission for good cause shown determines that an earlier
effective date is in the public interest.''
The Commission here proposes to find good cause in the public
interest to extend the effective date of this rulemaking beyond the
statutory range of 30 to 180 days, and to make the rulemaking effective
36 months from the date of publication of the final rule. The rule
would apply to all table saws manufactured after the effective date. 15
U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). This effective date is being proposed in light of
the unusual market conditions presented here, where the proposed safety
rule requires use of advanced technologies that are capable of being
supplied competitively, but currently are dominated by a single
supplier. The proposed effective date is intended to allow time for
development of both existing and new AIM technologies and establishment
of commercial arrangements for licensing those technologies. It thereby
addresses the concerns about potential unavailability of AIM solutions
at affordable cost that some commenters raised in response to the NPR.
In addition, this extended effective date
[[Page 74936]]
would allow manufacturers to spread over a 36-month period the costs of
modifying the design of their table saws to incorporate AIM technology,
and retooling their factories to produce table saws with the new
technology. Finally, it would allow additional time for new entrants
into the U.S. table saw market.
XVII. Proposed Findings
The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain findings when
issuing a consumer product safety standard. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1),
(f)(3). The proposed findings for this proposed rule are stated in the
appendix for proposed part 1264 and are based on information provided
throughout this preamble. While the proposed findings are largely
similar to those proposed in the 2017 NPR, they reflect newly available
information.
XVIII. Request for Comments
We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect
of the proposed rule. The Commission specifically seeks comments on the
following topics:
A. Scope
Whether certain types of table saws, such as mini or micro
tables saws, or table saws that are used primarily for commercial or
industrial use, should be excluded from the scope of the rule;
Whether the scope of the rule should be expanded to
include types of saws other than table saws that may present a similar
blade-contact hazard (e.g., tile saws);
Whether the definition of table saws should be revised, or
whether other definitions are necessary; and
Home-made table saws or other dangerous alternatives
consumers may pursue if they are unwilling or are unable to purchase a
table saw with AIM capabilities.
B. Market Information
Table saw sales by table saw type (bench, contractor, and
cabinet), and information on the expected product life of each type of
table saw;
Opportunities to develop or otherwise obtain access to AIM
technology for table saws, the time required to realize those
opportunities, related barriers to access, and the anticipated cost of
obtaining access to AIM technology; and
The cost of AIM components, estimates of development and
retooling costs, and expected time requirements to complete the
development and retooling processes, including with respect to battery
powered table saws.
C. Utility
What impacts AIM technology may have on the utility of
table saws for consumers.
D. Effectiveness
The effectiveness of AIM technologies. CPSC estimates that
the requirements of the proposed rule would reduce the societal costs
of blade-contact injuries by approximately 90 percent. The Commission
seeks comments from the public on this estimate;
The extent to which table saws are used for cutting wet
wood or conductive materials such as non-ferrous metals;
The extent to which the AIM technology may be bypassed;
and
The extent to which consumers may switch to alternative,
potentially unsafe methods to cut wood if table saws are required to be
equipped with AIM technology.
E. Manufacturing Costs
Information on manufacturing costs. The Commission seeks
comments that would allow us to make more precise estimates with
respect to the cost impact of a rule requiring the use of AIM
technology on table saws; and
The feasibility of incorporating AIM technology into the
design of small benchtop table saws, including battery powered benchtop
table saws.
F. Test Requirements
How different detection methods may be applied as part of
an AIM system, and appropriate test methods to properly evaluate the
triggering of AIM systems employing these detection methods;
Studies or tests that have been conducted to evaluate AIM
technology in table saws; and
Studies, research, or tests on the speed of the human
hand/finger while woodworking and during actual blade-contact
incidents, in particular.
G. Regulatory Alternatives
Whether a 36-month effective date for the proposed rule is
reasonable, or whether a longer or shorter effective date is warranted;
The feasibility of limiting or exempting a type or subset
of table saws from the proposed rule; and
The potential impact of the proposed rule on small
entities, especially small businesses.
H. Anti-Stockpiling
The limits on manufacturing or exporting contained in the
proposed rule's anti-stockpiling provision; and
The anti-stockpiling provision's base period.
Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
XIX. Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation
Section 9 of the CPSA requires the Commission to provide interested
parties ``an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or
arguments.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The Commission must keep a
transcript of such oral presentations. Id. Any person interested in
making an oral presentation must contact the Commission, as described
under the DATES and ADDRESSES section of this document.
XX. Promulgation of a Final Rule
Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires the Commission to promulgate a
final consumer product safety rule within 60 days of publishing a
proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the Commission must
withdraw the proposed rule if it determines that the rule is not
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of
injury associated with the product or is not in the public interest.
Id. However, the Commission can extend the 60-day period, for good
cause shown, if it publishes the reasons for doing so in the Federal
Register. Id.
The Commission finds that there is good cause to extend the 60-day
period for this rulemaking. Under both the APA and the CPSA, the
Commission must provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit
written comments on a proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 553; 15 U.S.C.
2058(d)(2). The Commission is providing 60 days for interested parties
to submit written comments. A shorter comment period may limit the
quality and utility of information CPSC receives in comments,
particularly for areas where it seeks data and other detailed
information that may take time for commenters to compile. Additionally,
the CPSA requires the Commission to provide interested parties with an
opportunity to make oral presentations of data, views, or arguments. 15
U.S.C. 2058. This requires time for the Commission to arrange a public
meeting for this purpose and provide notice to interested parties in
advance of that meeting, if any interested party requests the
opportunity to present such comments. After receiving written and oral
comments, CPSC staff must have time to review and evaluate those
comments.
These factors make it impractical for the Commission to issue a
final rule
[[Page 74937]]
within 60 days of this proposed rule. Moreover, issuing a final rule
within 60 days of the NPR may limit commenters' ability to provide
useful input on the rule, as well as CPSC's ability to evaluate and
take that information into consideration in developing a final rule.
Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is good cause to extend
the 60-day period for promulgating the final rule after publication of
the proposed rule.
XXI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission proposes
requirements to address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with
table saws.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1264
Consumer protection, Imports, Information, Safety, Table saws.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes
to add part 1264 to title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 1264--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES ON TABLE SAWS
Sec.
1264.1 Scope, purpose and effective date.
1264.2 Definitions.
1264.3 Requirements.
1264.4 Test procedures.
1264.5 Prohibited stockpiling.
Appendix to Part 1264--Findings Under the Consumer Product Safety
Act
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076.
Sec. 1264.1 Scope, purpose and effective date.
(a) This part, a consumer product safety standard, establishes
requirements for table saws, as defined in Sec. 1264.2. These
requirements are intended to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury
associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws.
(b) Any table saw manufactured after [effective date of final rule]
shall comply with the requirements stated in Sec. 1264.3.
Sec. 1264.2 Definitions.
In addition to the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the following definition applies for
purposes of this part:
Table saw means a woodworking tool that has a motor-driven circular
saw blade, which protrudes through the surface of a table. Table saws
include bench saws, jobsite saws, contractor saws, hybrid saws, cabinet
saws, and sliding saws. Table saws may be powered by alternating
current from a wall outlet or direct current from a battery.
Sec. 1264.3 Requirements.
(a) General. All table saws covered by this standard shall meet the
requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Test. All table saws, when powered on, must limit the depth of
cut to no more than 3.5 mm when the center axis of a test probe is
moving parallel to, and 15 2 mm above, the tabletop at a
rate of 1 meter per second, and contacts a spinning saw blade that is
set at its maximum height setting.
(c) Test Probe. The test probe shall act as the surrogate for a
human body/finger and allow for the accurate measurement of the depth
of cut to assess compliance with paragraph (b) of this section.
Sec. 1264.4 Test procedures.
Any test procedure that will accurately determine compliance with
the standard may be used.
Sec. 1264.5 Prohibited stockpiling.
(a) Base period. The base period for table saws is the 12-month
period immediately preceding the promulgation of the final rule.
(b) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of table saws
shall not manufacture or import table saws that do not comply with the
requirements of this part in any 12-month period between [date of
promulgation of the final rule] and [effective date of the final rule]
at a rate that is greater than 115 percent of the rate at which they
manufactured or imported table saws during the base period.
Appendix to Part 1264--Findings Under the Consumer Product Safety Act
The Consumer Product Safety Act requires that the Commission, in
order to issue a standard, make the following findings and include
them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).
(a) Degree and Nature of the Risk of Injury
In 2017, there were an estimated 26,500 table saw blade-contact,
emergency department treated injuries. Of these, an estimated 25,600
injuries (96. 4 percent) involved the finger. The most common
diagnoses in blade-contact injuries were lacerations (approximately
16,100 injuries, or 60.9 percent of total injuries), fractures
(approximately 5,500 injuries, or 20.6 percent), and amputations
(approximately 2,800 injuries, or 10.7 percent).
On a broader scale, NEISS data collected by CPSC staff indicates
that, from 2010 to 2021, there were an average of approximately
30,600 table saw blade-contact injuries per year. Staff determined
that there was no discernible change in the pattern of blade-contact
injuries or types of injuries over this period and detected no
statistically significant downward trend over the period. Staff also
conducted a trend analysis to include the rate of injury per 10,000
table saws in use for each year in the analysis. The analysis
suggested that there was no discernible change in the risk of injury
associated with blade contact related to table saws over this
period, despite the transition of the market to modular blade guards
and riving knives to meet voluntary standard requirements intended
to reduce blade-contact injuries.
(b) Number of Consumer Products Subject to the Rule
The number of table saws in use was estimated with the CPSC's
Product Population Model (PPM), a statistical model that projects
the number of products in use given examples of annual product sales
and product failure rates. Total annual shipments of all table saws
to the U.S. market from 2002 to 2017 ranged from 429,000 to 825,000,
and total annual shipments from 2018 to 2020 are estimated to have
ranged from 746,000 to 995,000. CPSC staff estimated that bench saws
account for about 79 percent of the units sold and have an average
product life of 10 years; contractor saws (including hybrids)
account for 12 percent of the units sold and have an average product
life of 17 years; and cabinet saws account for approximately 9
percent of the units sold and have an average product life of 24
years. Based on this information, staff projected that a total of
about 8.2 million table saws were in use in the United States in
2017, including about 5.35 million bench saws (about 65.25 percent),
1.4 million contractor saws (about 17.1 percent), and 1.46 million
cabinet saws (about 17.65 percent).
(c) Need of the Public for the Product and Probable Effect on Utility,
Cost, and Availability
Consumers commonly purchase table saws for the straight sawing
of wood and other materials, and more specifically, to perform rip
cuts, cross cuts, and non-through cuts. Because operator finger/hand
contact with the table saw blade is a dominant hazard pattern, the
performance requirement would limit the depth of cut and
significantly reduce the frequency and severity of blade-contact
injuries on table saws.
However, the rule will increase table saw production costs. CPSC
expects that the prices for the least expensive bench saws now
available would more than double, to $400 or more. In general, the
retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as $285 to
$700 per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet saws
could rise by as much as $450 to $1,080 per unit. These higher
prices may be mitigated in the longer run, but the extent of any
future mitigation is unknown.
Because of the likely decline in sales following the
promulgation of a rule, consumers who choose not to purchase a new
table saw due to the higher price will experience a loss in utility
by forgoing the use of table saws, or because they will continue to
use older saws that they would have preferred to replace. There may
also be some other impacts on utility, such as an increase in the
weight and (potentially) the
[[Page 74938]]
size of table saws. This factor may have a relatively small impact
on the heavier and larger contractor and cabinet saws but could
reduce the portability of some of the smaller and lighter bench
saws.
(d) Other Means To Achieve the Objective of the Rule, While Minimizing
the Impact on Competition and Manufacturing
The Commission considered alternatives to the rule. For example,
the Commission considered not taking regulatory action, deferring to
the voluntary standard development process, exempting or limiting
certain table saws from regulation, extending the rule's effective
date, and relying on information and education campaigns. However,
the Commission finds that these alternatives would not adequately
mitigate the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table
saws.
(e) Rule and Effective Date are Reasonably Necessary To Eliminate or
Reduce Unreasonable Risk of Injury
CPSC estimates that 26,500 table saw-related injuries involving
blade contact were treated in hospital emergency departments in
2017. Based on this estimate of blade-contact injuries initially
treated in hospital EDs, CPSC's injury cost model projects an
additional 22,675 blade-contact injuries treated in other treatment
settings. Thus, there was an estimated annual total of about 49,176
medically treated blade-contact injuries in 2017. An estimated 96.4
percent of these injuries involved the finger. The most common
diagnoses in blade-contact injuries are laceration injuries,
fractures, amputations, and avulsion. Thousands of amputations (an
estimated 2,800 injuries in 2017 alone) occur each year on table
saws. When compared to all other workshop products, table saws
account for an estimated 52.4 percent of all amputations related to
workshop products in 2015.
Existing safety devices, such as the blade guard and riving
knife, do not adequately reduce the number or severity of blade-
contact injuries on table saws. Table saws have been equipped with
these passive safety devices since 2010, and there is no evidence
that these safety devices have adequately reduced or mitigated
blade-contact injuries. In CPSC's 2017 Special Study, an analysis of
each individual case provided anecdotal information on the usage of
modular and traditional blade guards. Overall, of the estimated
26,500 table saw blade-contact injuries treated in emergency
departments in 2017, the blade guard was not in use in an estimated
88.9 percent of injuries (23,600). Anecdotally, the blade guard was
not in use for 89.2 percent of the cases (91 of 102 cases) involving
table saws equipped with traditional blade guards, and the blade
guard was not in use in 88.0 percent of the cases (22 of 25 cases)
involving table saws equipped with modular blade guards.
CPSC's trend analysis of the annual estimated number of
emergency department-treated injuries associated with table saws
covered two timespans after the voluntary standard implemented the
requirement for riving knives and modular blade guards on table saws
(2010 to 2021 and 2015 to 2021). The data showed that there was no
discernible change in the number of injuries or types of injuries
associated with table saw blade contact over either of the analyzed
periods. A trend analysis to assess the risk of injury per 10,000
table saws in use also showed there was no discernible change in the
risk of injury associated with table saw blade contact over the
analyzed time periods.
The net benefits for the proposed rule would range from
approximately $3,153 per bench saw to approximately $11,597 per
cabinet saw over each unit's expected product life. Aggregate net
benefits over approximately 1 year's production and sale of table
saws could, across all categories of table saws, range from about
$1.28 billion to $2.32 billion.
The proposed rule includes an effective date of 36 months. The
Commission considered a later effective date to mitigate the impact
of the proposed rule for some manufacturers, but a later date could
also delay a market-wide distribution of table saws with AIM
technology. Given the net benefits expected from incorporating AIM
technology, delaying the effective date of the proposed rule would
also delay the expected benefits of the rule.
The Commission concludes that there is an unreasonable risk of
injury associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws and
finds that the rule and the effective date is reasonably necessary
to reduce that unreasonable risk of injury.
(f) Public Interest
This rule is intended to address an unreasonable risk of blade-
contact injuries on table saws. The rule would reduce and mitigate
the severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws in the future;
thus, the rule is in the public interest.
(g) Voluntary Standards
The current voluntary standard for table saws is Underwriters
Laboratories Inc. (UL) 62841-3-1, Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held
Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden Machinery Part 3-1:
Particular Requirements for Transportable Table Saws. This standard
specifies that table saws shall be provided with a modular blade
guard and riving knife.
The voluntary standard does not adequately address blade-contact
injuries on table saws. There has been no statistically significant
reduction in the number or severity of blade-contact injuries from
2008 to 2021. The relevant voluntary standards began requiring
tables saws to include modular blade guard systems in 2010. In
addition, available data indicates that a large percentage of table
saw users encounter circumstances in which blade guards must be
removed in order to effectively use their saws, and at least 100
known blade-contact injuries involving table saws equipped with
modular blade guard systems have occurred.
(h) Reasonable Relationship of Benefits to Costs
Based on CPSC staff's analysis of NEISS data and the CPSC's
Injury Cost Model (ICM), the Commission finds that the rule would
address an estimated 49,176 medically treated blade-contact injuries
annually. The societal costs of these injuries (in 2021 dollars and
using a 3 percent discount rate) amounted to about $3.97 billion in
2021. Overall, medical costs and work losses account for about 31
percent of these costs, or about $1.2 billion. The intangible costs
associated with pain and suffering account for the remaining 69
percent of injury costs.
Increased manufacturing costs, as well as the expected costs of
replacement parts for the AIM system, would range from about $338 to
$1,210 per bench saw, about $531 to $1,376 per contractor saw, and
about $576 to $1,276 per cabinet saw. These costs likely would be
mitigated somewhat over time, but the extent of any future
mitigation is unknown. Based on one year's production and sale of
table saws, aggregate gross costs could range from about $208
million to $400 million annually. In addition to these direct
manufacturing and replacement parts costs, many firms would likely
need to pay royalty fees to patent holders for the AIM technology,
which CPSC estimates could amount to approximately 8 percent of
saws' wholesale price.
Additionally, some consumers who would have purchased table saws
at the lower pre- regulatory prices will likely choose not to
purchase new table saws due to price increases. The cost impact of
the proposed rule on market sales may reduce aggregate sales by as
much as 17 percent to 50 percent annually. The decline in sales
would result in lost utility to consumers who choose not to purchase
table saws because of the higher prices. Further reductions in
consumer utility may result from the added weight, and hence,
reduced portability associated with addition the AIM technology on
table saws.
Nevertheless, because of the substantial societal costs
attributable to blade-contact injuries (nearly $4 billion annually),
and the expected high rate of effectiveness of the rule in
preventing those injuries, the estimated aggregate net benefits are
expected to range from about $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion
annually. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the benefits
expected from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.
(i) Least Burdensome Requirement That Would Adequately Reduce the Risk
of Injury
The Commission considered less burdensome alternatives to the
proposed rule addressing blade-contact injuries on table saws and
concluded that none of these alternatives would adequately reduce
the risk of injury.
(1) Take no regulatory action. The Commission considered not
taking any regulatory action. Under this alternative, table saws
would continue to use existing passive safety devices, such as blade
guards, riving knives, and anti-kickback pawls. Additionally, table
saws with the AIM technology are already available for consumers who
want and can afford them, albeit to a limited extent. However, not
taking any action would leave the unreasonable risk of blade-contact
injuries on table saws unaddressed. Based on the severity of
injuries and recurring hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries,
the absence of any statistically significant decline in
[[Page 74939]]
those injuries over time, inaction by voluntary standards
organizations to address the blade-contact hazard effectively, and
the high societal costs of these injuries, the Commission believes a
performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk
of blade-contact injuries on all table saws.
(2) Later effective date. The proposed rule would require an
effective date that is 36 months after the final rule is published
in the Federal Register. An effective date later than 36 months
could further reduce the impact of the rule on manufacturers because
it would allow them additional time to benefit from the development
of new AIM technologies by diverse suppliers, spread the costs of
developing or negotiating for the rights to use AIM technology,
modify the design of their table saws to incorporate the AIM
technology, and retool their factories for production. However,
almost certainly, a later effective date would also delay the
ubiquitous availability of table saws with AIM technology into the
market. Because we anticipate that a longer period will not be
necessary for commercial availability of AIM technologies from
diverse suppliers, the Commission finds that a 36-month effective
date from the issuance of a final rule is an appropriate length of
time.
(3) Exempt contractor and cabinet saws, or industrial saws, from
a product safety rule. The Commission considered whether to exempt
certain types of saws commonly used by professional, commercial, or
industrial users, based on their size, weight, power, or electrical
specifications. Based on the severity of injuries and recurring
hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high
societal costs of these injuries, though, a performance requirement
is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact
injuries on all table saws. Moreover, there is no clear dividing
line between consumer and professional saws.
(4) Limit the applicability of the rule to some, but not all,
table saws. The Commission considered limiting the scope of the rule
to a subset of table saws to allow manufacturers to produce both
table saw models with AIM technology, and models without AIM
technology. However, based on the severity of injuries and recurring
hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high
societal costs of these injuries, the Commission finds that a
performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk
of blade-contact injuries on all table saws.
(5) Information and education campaign. The Commission
considered whether to conduct an information and education campaign
informing consumers about the dangers of blade-contact hazards, and
the benefits of AIM technology. Although such a campaign could help
inform consumers, without a performance requirement this approach
would not be sufficient to address the unreasonable risk of blade-
contact injuries on table saws.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2023-23898 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P