22190 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY courier to: Office of the Secretary, second (m/s).1 The information COMMISSION Consumer Product Safety Commission, discussed in this preamble is derived Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, from CPSC staff’s briefing package for 16 CFR Part 1245 Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) the NPR, which is available on CPSC’s RIN 3041–AC31 504–7923. Web site at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs- Instructions: All submissions received public/Proposed%20Rule%20- [Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074] must include the agency name and %20Safety%20Standard docket number for this notice. All %20for%20Blade-Contact%20Injuries Safety Standard Addressing Blade- %20on%20Table%20Saws%20- Contact Injuries on Table Saws comments received may be posted without change, including any personal %20January%2017%202017.pdf. AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety identifiers, contact information, or other II. Statutory Authority Commission. personal information provided, to: Table saws are ‘‘consumer products’’ ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. http://www.regulations.gov. Do not that can be regulated by the Commission submit confidential business SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 information, trade secret information, or U.S.C. 2052(a). Section 7 of the CPSA Safety Commission has determined other sensitive or protected information preliminarily that there may be an authorizes the Commission to that you do not want to be available to promulgate a mandatory consumer unreasonable risk of blade-contact the public. If furnished at all, such injuries associated with table saws. In product safety standard that sets forth information should be submitted in performance requirements for a 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 writing. table saw, emergency department- consumer product or that sets forth treated injuries. Of these, CPSC staff Docket: For access to the docket to requirements that a product be marked estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are read background documents or or accompanied by clear and adequate likely related to the victim making comments received, go to: http:// warnings or instructions. A contact with the saw blade. CPSC staff’s www.regulations.gov, and insert the performance, warning, or instruction review of the existing data indicates that docket number CPSC–2011–0074, into standard must be reasonably necessary currently available safety devices, such the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the to prevent or reduce an unreasonable as the modular blade guard and riving prompts. risk or injury. Id. Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the knife, do not adequately address the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: unreasonable risk of blade-contact procedure that the Commission must Caroleene Paul, Directorate for follow to issue a consumer product injuries on table saws. To address this Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer risk, the Commission proposes a rule safety standard under section 7. In Product Safety Commission, 5 Research accordance with section 9, the that is based, in part, on work Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Commission may commence rulemaking (301) 987–2225; fax (978) 367–9122; by issuing an ANPR; as noted, the Inc. The proposed rule would establish email [email protected]. Commission issued an ANPR on table a performance standard that requires saws in October 2011. (76 FR 62678 table saws, when powered on, to limit SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (October 11, 2011)). Section 9 authorizes the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when I. Background the Commission to issue an NPR, a test probe, acting as surrogate for a including the proposed rule and a human body/finger, contacts the On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, preliminary regulatory analysis, in spinning blade at a radial approach rate David Fanning, and James Fulmer, et al. accordance with section 9(c) of the of 1 meter per second (m/s). The (petitioners) requested that the CPSC CPSA and request comments regarding proposed rule would address an require performance standards for a the risk of injury identified by the estimated 54,800 medically treated system to reduce or prevent injuries Commission, the regulatory alternatives blade-contact injuries annually. The from contact with the blade of a table being considered, and other possible Commission estimates that the proposed saw. The petitioners are members of alternatives for addressing the risk. Id. rule’s aggregate net benefits on an SawStop, LLC, and its parent company, 2058(c). Next, the Commission will annual basis could range from about SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). On consider the comments received in $625 million to about $2,300 million. October 11, 2011, the Commission response to the proposed rule and DATES: Submit comments by July 26, published an advance notice of decide whether to issue a final rule, 2017. proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to along with a final regulatory analysis. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, consider whether there may be an Id. 2058(c)–(f). The Commission also identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– unreasonable risk of blade-contact must provide an opportunity for 0074, by any of the following methods: injuries associated with table saws. 76 interested persons to make oral Electronic Submissions: Submit FR 62678. The ANPR began a presentations of their data, views, or electronic comments to the Federal rulemaking proceeding under the arguments, in accordance with section eRulemaking Portal at: http:// Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). 9(d)(2) of the CPSA. Id. 2058(d)(2). www.regulations.gov. Follow the The Commission received According to section 9(f)(1) of the instructions for submitting comments. approximately 1,600 public comments. CPSA, before promulgating a consumer The Commission does not accept The Commission is now issuing a notice comments submitted by electronic mail of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to 1 The Commission voted 3–2 to publish this (email), except through address an unreasonable risk of blade- notice in the Federal Register. Commissioner contact injuries associated with table Robert S. Adler, Commissioner Elliot F. Kaye, and www.regulations.gov. The Commission Commissioner Marietta S. Robinson voted to encourages you to submit electronic saws that would limit the depth of cut approve publication of the proposed rule. Acting comments by using the Federal to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe, Chair Ann Marie Buerkle and Commissioner Joseph acting as surrogate for a human body/ P. Mohorovic voted against publication of the eRulemaking Portal, as described above. proposed rule. The Commissioners’ individual Written Submissions: Submit written finger, contacts the spinning blade at a statements are available at https://www.cpsc.gov/ submissions by mail/hand delivery/ radial approach rate of 1 meter per About-CPSC.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22191

product safety rule, the Commission issue a final rule, the Commission must reasonable relationship to its costs and must consider, and make appropriate find that the rule is ‘‘reasonably that the rule imposes the least findings to be included in the rule, on necessary to eliminate or reduce an burdensome requirements which the following issues: unreasonable risk of injury associated prevent or adequately reduce the risk of • The degree and nature of the risk of with such product’’ and that issuing the injury for which the rule is being injury that the rule is designed to rule is in the public interest. Id. promulgated. Id. 2058(f)(3)(E)&(F). 2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). Additionally, if a eliminate or reduce; III. The Product • the approximate number of voluntary standard addressing the risk consumer products subject to the rule; of injury has been adopted and A. Types of Table Saws • the need of the public for the implemented, the Commission must Table saws are stationary power tools products subject to the rule and the find that: used for the straight sawing of wood and • probable effect the rule will have on The voluntary standard is not likely other materials. The basic design of a utility, cost, or availability of such to eliminate or adequately reduce the table saw consists of a motor-driven saw products; and risk of injury, or that blade that protrudes through a flat table • the means to achieve the objective • substantial compliance with the surface. To make a cut, the operator of the rule while minimizing adverse voluntary standard is unlikely. Id. places the workpiece on the table and, effects on competition, manufacturing, 2058(f)(3(D). using a rip fence or miter gauge as a and commercial practices. Id. 2058(f)(1). The Commission also must find that guide, pushes the workpiece into the Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to expected benefits of the rule bear a blade (see Figure 1.)

Table saws generally fall into three Bench saws are intended to be evolved to include saws with larger and product types: Bench saws, contractor transportable, so they tend to be small, heavier-duty table surfaces, with some saws, and cabinet saws.2 Although there lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. attached to a folding stand with wheels is no exact dividing line, the distinction In recent years, bench saw designs have to maintain mobility. These larger among these types of saws is generally portable saws on wheeled stands are based on size, weight, portability, power This product type typically operates in single phase called ‘‘jobsite’’ saws because they are transmission, and price.3 with a voltage range of 110–240 volts, generating capable of heavier-duty work, but they 1.75 to two horsepower, depending on the model. are still portable enough to move to 2 Cabinet saws also are referred to as stationary There are also sliding saws that are similar to work sites. saws because they are not portable. cabinet saws in that they are belt driven, but they Bench saws generally run on standard 3 In addition to these three primary product types, are typically equipped with an extension and greater rip- and cross-cutting capacity that allows house voltage (110–120 volts), use there are also several hybrid saws in the market. 4 This product type blends components of both for cutting large panels. This type of saw can be universal motors, drive the saw blade contractor and cabinet saws. Specifically, hybrid wired for either single-phase or three-phase saws have the energy requirements, weight, and operation; however, three-phase wiring is a more 4 A universal motor runs on AC or DC power, has mobility of contractor saws with the structure, common feature for sliding table saws. Sliding saws high starting torque, can run at high speed, and is accuracy, and dust control features of cabinet saws. operate in the 220–440 volt range. Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP12MY17.000 22192 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

through gears, and range in weight from between the blade and the operator. 900,000 table saws with riving knives 34 pounds to 133 pounds. The universal Blade guards generally are designed and modular blade guards. motor and gear drive produce the high either as a single-piece unit that covers C. AIM Technology decibel noise and vibration that are the saw blade, as shown in Figure 1, or distinctive characteristics of bench as a modular system with a fixed-top An active injury mitigation (AIM) saws. Prices for bench saws range from barrier and independent side barriers. system uses technology to actively $129 per model, to as much as $1,499 Kickback-prevention devices include mitigate or prevent injury of a human for a high-end model. splitters, riving knives, and anti- body part resulting from contact with a Contractor saws used to be considered kickback pawls. A splitter, also rotating saw blade (e.g. by braking, portable table saws, but designs have commonly called a ‘‘spreader,’’ is removing, and/or retracting the blade). progressed with larger motors and typically a flat piece of metal, aligned Thus, any device that detects imminent heavier table tops to the point that most directly behind the saw blade that rides or actual human contact with the table contractor saws are considered non- within the cut, or kerf, of a workpiece saw blade and then performs an action portable. Although a mobile base can be already fed through the blade. This that mitigates the severity of the injury added to the frame to make contractor prevents the workpiece from closing up is considered to be an AIM system. An saws mobile, they are often found in on itself after it passes the blade and AIM system is active because it reacts to home workshops as non-portable saws pinching the blade, which can cause the a blade contact in a way that minimizes that are a less expensive alternative to workpiece to be thrown upwards and the injury. A blade guard is a passive cabinet saws. Contractor saws generally back toward the operator. Before 2009, system because the guard does not react run on standard house voltage, use most table saws were designed with a to a blade contact, but rather, provides induction motors, are belt driven, and splitter located behind the blade that a passive barrier between the blade and range in weight from around 200 was attached to the blade guard. If a cut the user. pounds to 400 pounds. The induction required removal of the splitter or CPSC staff considers AIM to be a motor and belt drive result in a table guard, they were removed together. viable approach to address blade- saw that produces less vibration, is Riving knives are curved metal plates contact injury in conjunction with quieter, is more accurate, is able to cut that are similar to, and perform the same existing passive safety strategies (blade thicker pieces of wood, and is more function as, splitters, but are often guard and riving knife) to prevent blade durable than a bench saw. Prices for located closer to the blade, rise no contact on table saws. AIM systems can contractor saws range from around $500 higher than the top of the blade, and provide a layer of safety that can to $2,000. attach to the arbor assembly so that they mitigate a blade-contact injury if the Cabinet saws are larger, heavier, and are raised and lowered with the blade.5 blade guard or riving knife are removed more powerful than contractor saws, Like splitters, riving knives physically or fail to function properly. AIM and their motors are enclosed in a solid prevent the two halves of the cut systems can also protect against blade- base. These saws are typically the workpiece from moving back towards contact injuries that can occur when a highest grade saw found in the home each other and pinching the spinning blade guard and riving knife are in place woodworking shop. Cabinet saws blade. However, unlike splitters, the and functioning properly, but blade generally run on 220–240 volts, use a riving knife can be left on for non- contact occurs nonetheless. 1.75–5 hp or stronger motor, are belt through cuts. An AIM system performs two driven, and weigh from around 300 Anti-kickback pawls are another functions: (1) Detects contact between pounds to 1,000 pounds. Components in device designed to help reduce the rotating table saw blade and a cabinet saws are designed for heavy use kickback. The pawls are mounted on human body part, and (2) reacts to and durability, and the greater weight both sides of the splitter and consist of mitigate injury. In a research report further reduces vibration so that cuts are a pair of spring-loaded pieces of metal issued in March 2015, UL researched smoother and more accurate. Cabinet with barbed teeth on the bottom edge developing performance requirements saws are expected to last a lifetime (with that allow passage of the workpiece but for table saw safety standards to help an average product life of 24 years), and will dig into it if it begins to move back address finger injuries due to contact prices range from around $1,200 to toward the operator. with the blade.6 The report examined $5,000. The riving knife and modular blade performance requirements that B. Standard Safety Devices guard represent the latest progression in consisted of a defined relationship Common safety devices on table saws table saw safety design that have been between approach velocity (speed of are designed to reduce contact between incorporated into the voluntary finger at a specified angle relative to saw the saw blade and the operator and to standards for table saws. As discussed blade) and depth of cut to the finger/ reduce kickback, a phenomenon in in section VI of the preamble, under UL hand. In addition, the report focused on which the saw blade imparts its kinetic 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools, the use of a surrogate finger. The report energy to the workpiece and ejects the the voluntary standard effective dates determined that, in addition to the workpiece back towards the operator. for riving knives and modular blade proper trigger attributes, the surrogate The configuration and specific design of guards were January 31, 2014, and finger must possess physical properties these safety devices vary from January 31, 2010, respectively. that allow it to be cut such that manufacturer to manufacturer, but the However, the industry accelerated representative, repeatable and reliable safety devices generally fall into two compliance with the voluntary measurements of the depth of cut can be basic categories: (1) Blade guards, and standard, and the new guarding system recorded. (2) kickback-prevention devices. with modular blade guards and riving Blade guards surround the exposed knives became widely available on table 6 Jiang, H., Tabaddor, M., and He, F. (2015). blade and function as a physical barrier saws in 2008. By 2012, table saw General Characteristics of a Surrogate Finger for manufacturers introduced more than Table Saw Safety Testing. UL Research Report. Available at: http://library.ul.com/wp-content/ lightweight and compact. For these reasons, uploads/sites/40/2015/12/UL-Research-Report-on- universal motors are commonly used in portable 5 The arbor assembly includes the arbor, which is Finger-Surrogate-Characteristics-for-Table-Saw- power tools and equipment. the metal shaft that holds the saw blade. Testing-2015.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22193

CPSC staff’s review of UL’s literature with the table saw blade. Removing circuitry that generates a detection research indicates that detection can be either the spinning blade or the human signal with defined electrical achieved by: (1) Sensing electrical body/finger from the point of contact is characteristics (see Figure 2). The signal properties of the human body/finger; (2) the most logical method to achieve this can then be coupled onto the saw blade sensing thermal properties of the human goal. Current AIM technologies on the through various means, such as body/finger; (3) visual sensing and market remove the spinning blade from conductive, magnetic, or capacitive tracking of the human body/finger; or the point of contact quickly enough, coupling devices. Additional circuitry (4) other methods. Current AIM within milliseconds, to reduce continuously monitors the technologies on the market rely on the significantly the severity of injury. characteristics of the detection signal. first type of detection: Electrical sensing 1. Electrical Detection of Human Body The detection signal changes when a of the human body. CPSC staff based its Current AIM technologies available human body part comes into contact testing of the AIM system on existing on table saws in the U.S. market rely on with the saw blade and the monitoring technology. electrical detection of contact between a circuit senses the change in the signal. Reaction systems must perform some table saw operator and the rotating saw If the change is beyond a certain limit, type of action to limit the severity of blade to activate the AIM system. One the monitoring circuit then activates a injury upon human body/finger contact means of detecting body contact is with reaction mechanism.

2. Current Products in the Market With • The blade carries a small electrical • Removing the brake cartridge and AIM Technology signal. embedded blade. • When a person contacts the blade, • In 2004, SawStop released an Installing a new blade (if necessary) the signal changes because the human and brake cartridge. industrial table saw featuring AIM body is conductive. technology based on electrical detection • The change to the signal activates In 2016, Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) of the human body, and a mechanical the safety system. released a jobsite table saw featuring brake reaction that stops the blade from 2. Brake Activation AIM technology based on electrical spinning and moves the saw blade • An aluminum brake block is forced detection of the human body and a assembly beneath the table top surface. into the spinning blade by a spring combustion-based mechanical reaction Typically, the reaction occurs in less released by an electric signal. that forces the saw blade assembly than 5 milliseconds after contact is • The blade’s angular momentum beneath the table top surface. The Bosch detected. Subsequently, SawStop drives the blade assembly beneath the REAXXTM with Active Response introduced to the market a professional table top, removing the risk of further TechnologyTM system (Bosch cabinet saw, a contractor saw, and a contact. REAXXTM) also works in three steps: bench (jobsite) saw with the same AIM • Power to the motor is shut off. 1. Monitor and Detect technology. The SawStop AIM 3. The AIM system must then be reset • technology works in three steps: by: The blade carries a small low- 1. Monitor and Detect • Shutting off the saw. voltage signal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP12MY17.001 22194 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

• When a person contacts the blade, Trade Commission (ITC) order U.S. with a product or product group, each the signal changes because the human Customs to exclude the Bosch injury has a product code that identifies body is conductive. REAXXTM saws from entering the U.S. the type of product involved. Other • The change to the signal activates market.7 On September 9, 2016, an product-specific information, such as the safety system. administrative law judge (ALJ) made an the product manufacturer or events 2. Blade Retraction initial determination that the Bosch leading to the incident, is not recorded • A combustion reaction is triggered model does infringe on several SawStop in the NEISS. However, information that in a cylindrical cartridge, which fires a patents.8 Subsequently, on November is recorded for each injury includes sex, piston at a high rate of speed (this action 10, 2016, the ITC decided not to review age, diagnosis, disposition, and body is similar to the deployment of an air the ALJ’s initial determination and part. Additional information about the bag in an automobile). requested that the interested parties NEISS can be found online at: http:// • The piston pushes against a linkage provide written submissions on the www.cpsc.gov/en/Research--Statistics/ to rapidly rotate the saw blade assembly issues related to remedies, the public NEISS-Injury-Data. below the table surface away from the interest, and bonding. On January 27, For the injury estimates in the operator. 2017, the ITC issued remedial orders proposed rule, CPSC staff reviewed all • The blade assembly remains locked including a limited exclusion order and the incident data abstracted from NEISS under the table after activation, while cease and desist order against Bosch hospital records for injuries related to the blade coasts to a stop after power to effective March 29, 2017. On April 6, product code 0841 (table or bench saws) the motor is cut off automatically. 2017, Bosch filed an appeal of the ITC for 2015. CPSC staff compared the 3. The AIM system must then be reset determination in the U.S. Court of distributions of table saw injury by: 9 characteristics against all other • Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Shutting off the saw. workshop product-related injuries and • Inserting a fresh/new activation IV. Incident Data consumer product-related injuries for cartridge (two cartridges are paired CPSC staff’s incident data are based 2015. Staff performed an injury trend together, so the unactivated side of the on data from the National Electronic analysis, as well as a risk trend analysis same dual-action cartridge may be Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). for blade-contact injuries from 2004 to used). NEISS is a national stratified probability • 2015. In addition, CPSC staff reviewed Unlocking the blade assembly and sample of approximately 100 U.S. all of the incidents in the CPSC’s raising it back into place. hospitals having 24-hour emergency Consumer Product Safety Risk Neither the SawStop, nor Bosch AIM departments (EDs) and more than six Management System (CPSRMS) technologies, can be used when cutting beds. Coders in each hospital code data database between January 1, 2004 and conductive materials (that allow the from the ED record for consumer December 31, 2015. Finally, in addition flow of an electrical current) because product-related records, and then the to reviewing incident data, to obtain both systems rely on electrical detection data are transmitted electronically to the additional information regarding of the human body. A person touching CPSC. Because NEISS is a probability consumer modular blade guard use, in the conductive material being cut would sample, each case collected represents a 2015, CPSC conducted a survey of allow the detection signal to pass number of injuries (the case’s weight) in consumers who own table saws with a through the conductive material and the total estimate of injuries in the modular blade guard system (modular into the person, activating the system as United States. Different hospitals carry blade guard survey).11 soon as the material touches the saw different weights. blade. For this reason, each product has There are five strata in the NEISS: A. NEISS Data Methodology a bypass mode to allow the user to cut Children’s hospitals, small hospitals, The NEISS provides product conductive materials. In addition, medium hospitals, large hospitals, and information associated with each case, cutting wet wood that is moist enough very large hospitals. Within each by recording up to two product codes to conduct enough electricity to activate stratum is a sample of hospitals that associated with a case. CPSC staff’s the AIM system can cause tripping of make up the primary sampling units of methodology and NEISS estimates are the safety system. Accordingly, the AIM the NEISS. For each hospital in the detailed in TAB B of the staff briefing system generally must be deactivated sample, every first-time emergency package. Starting with all the NEISS while cutting wet wood. The table saw department visit for an injury associated cases associated with product code 0841 automatically exits the bypass mode and with a consumer product is recorded.10 (this is, all injuries recorded in the resets to normal mode after the saw is To facilitate injury estimates associated NEISS as associated with a table or turned off and the blade comes to a bench saw), CPSC staff reviewed and complete stop. 7 In the Matter of Certain Table Saws categorized the data, removing any cases The Bosch REAXXTM has been the Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337– that were not related to an operational only non-SawStop model with AIM TA–965. table saw, and also classified whether technology available in the United 8 Specially, infringement was found in U.S. the injury could have been due to blade States. Both the SawStop bench model Patent No. 7,895,927 (’927 Patent), titled, ‘‘Power contact. This analysis was completed on and the Bosch model with the AIM Equipment with Detection and Reaction Systems’’; and U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279 (’279 Patent) titled, every case associated with the product technology are at the upper end of the ‘‘Power Equipment with Systems to Mitigate or code 0841, with date of treatments bench saw price range. The SawStop Prevent Injury.’’ recorded as January 1, 2004 through bench saw model (which was first 9 On July 16, 2015, SawStop also filed a December 31, 2015, resulting in a marketed in 2015) retails for about complaint against Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon review of 9,300 NEISS cases. $1,300 to $1,400 per unit. The Bosch (Sawstop, LLC v. Bosch, CV No. 3:15–cv–1320) (D. TM REAXX model has a retail price of Or. filed on July 16, 2015). On September 28, 2015, 11 Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016). Table $1,300 to 1,500. However, the future of the Oregon District Court stayed the proceeding in Saw Blade Guard Survey. Available at: http:// the Bosch model is unclear. On July 16, federal court pending final resolution of the ITC’s www.cpsc.gov/Global/Regulations-Laws-and- 2015, SawStop filed a complaint against investigation. Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Voluntary- 10 NEISS does not record return visits to the Standards-Reports/EurekaFactsTableSawBlade Bosch for patent infringement and emergency department or other follow-up medical GuardSurveyReport(Final6bcleared)updatedcover requested that the U.S. International visits for the same injury. page.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22195

For each of the 9,300 cases associated do not include blade contact, such as staff’s analysis for both the 2015 injury with the table saw product code (0841), injuries related to only kickback of the data and trend analysis results from with treatment years 2004 through 2015, stock. Thus, the next level of review for 2004 through 2015. the first level of review involved each case was to determine whether the B. Emergency Department-Treated, removing any cases where the injuries case involved blade contact or not. First, Table Saw Blade-Contact Injury were not related to an operational table diagnoses of lacerations, fractures, saw. Thus, cases not saying ‘‘table saw’’ amputations, and avulsions 12 that were Analysis Results for 2015 were excluded (e.g., cases that only use for body parts below the elbow (not In 2015, there were an estimated the word ‘‘saw’’ not ‘‘table saw,’’ cases including the elbow), were all classified 33,400 table saw, emergency where the injury was related to a park as blade contact, then staff reviewed the department-treated injuries. Of these, bench, or cases where the saw was a NEISS narratives to determine if any CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 homemade table saw). Cases indicating were described as not blade contact. percent) are likely related to the victim a ‘‘circular table saw’’ were removed. Unless otherwise stated in the NEISS making contact with the saw blade. Of Cases where it was unclear that the narrative, staff considered these the 30,800 emergency department- injury was from a table saw were combinations of diagnosis and body part treated, blade-contact injuries, an removed (e.g., cases using wording like to involve blade contact. CPSC staff estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) ‘‘table saw vs. chain saw,’’ where it is reviewed the cases for the remaining involved the finger. The most common not absolutely certain that the saw was combinations of diagnosis and body part diagnoses in blade-contact injuries in a table saw). Cases were removed when for any that could be blade contact. 2015, are as follows: a victim tripped over, fell into, or ran Cases were included from this group • into a table saw and the table saw was only if the NEISS narrative indicated a An estimated 18,100 laceration not operational. Cases were removed hazard pattern of blade contact while injuries (58.8 percent), when the injury was related to the table using a table saw. • an estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 saw being transported, such as the table Given the limited amount of percent), saw being carried or lifted. Finally, descriptive information related to the • an estimated 4,700 amputations cases were omitted that were related to incidents available within the NEISS, (15.2 percent), and using the product for an extended staff believes that some cases could have • an estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 period of time (overuse injuries), such been included that did not involve percent). as sore knees, elbows, backs, and blade contact within the 0841 product shoulders. There are cases where it is code, leading to overestimates in blade- An estimated 3,800 (12.3 percent) of possible that although ‘‘table saw’’ was contact injuries. On the other hand, staff the blade-contact injury victims were used to describe the type of saw, also believes that table saw blade hospitalized. Table 1 provides the narratives also included descriptions contact cases may have been excluded emergency department-treated, blade- such as ‘‘table saw which slipped,’’ within product codes 0845 (saws, not contact injury estimates for the NEISS which might indicate a circular saw, specified) and 0895 (power saws, other variables for age (provided in age groups instead of a table saw; however, because or not specified), leading to an in the table), sex, body part injured, ‘‘table saw’’ is used to identify the saw underestimate of table saw blade- diagnosis, disposition, and locale. Males type, these are included in the table saw contact injuries. CPSC staff does not represent the majority of victims with category. know to what extent either of these blade-contact injuries (96.4 percent); Different types of injuries can occur caveats affects the results. However, and an estimated 45 percent of injuries when using a table saw, some of which these caveats have been applied to CPSC occurred to victims over age 61.

TABLE 1—VICTIM AND INJURY CHARACTERISTICS OF TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2015

Injury estimate Percent of total n 95% Estimate CV † confidence interval Estimate

Total ...... 642 30,800 0.09 25,400–36,200 100%

Age Group: ≤20 ...... 16 * * * * 21–30 ...... 51 2,200 0.16 1,500–2,800 7.0 31–40 ...... 76 3,800 0.18 2,500–5,200 12.5 41–50 ...... 96 4,100 0.15 2,900–5,300 13.2 51–60 ...... 133 6,400 0.14 4,600–8,100 20.7 61–70 ...... 153 8,200 0.14 5,900–10,400 26.6 71–80 ...... 88 4,300 0.16 3,000–5,600 14.0 81+ ...... 29 1,300 0.20 800–1,800 4.1 Sex: Male ...... 622 29,700 0.09 24,400–34,900 96.4 Female ...... 20 * * * * Body Part: Finger ...... 592 28,900 0.10 23,200–34,500 93.8 Hand ...... 46 1,600 0.18 1,100–2,200 5.3 Other ...... 4 * * * * Diagnosis:

12 Merriam Webster Dictionary defines accidentally or surgically.’’ https://www.merriam- ‘‘avulsion’’ as ‘‘a tearing away of a body part webster.com/dictionary/avulsion.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22196 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—VICTIM AND INJURY CHARACTERISTICS OF TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2015—Continued

Injury estimate Percent of total n 95% Estimate CV † confidence interval Estimate

Laceration ...... 372 18,100 0.11 14,200–22,000 58.8 Fracture ...... 112 5,900 0.17 3,900–7,800 19.0 Amputation ...... 119 4,700 0.18 3,000–6,300 15.2 Avulsion ...... 37 2,000 0.24 1,100–2,900 6.5 Other ...... 2 * * * * Disposition: Treated and Released ...... 537 26,800 0.10 21,600–32,100 87.1 Hospitalized ** ...... 98 3,800 0.20 2,300–5,300 12.3 Other ...... 7 * * * * Locale Where Injury Occurred: Home ...... 416 20,600 0.11 16,200–25,100 67.0 Unknown ...... 223 10,100 0.19 6,400–13,900 32.9 Other ...... 3 * * * * Cells marked by ‘‘*’’ indicate an estimate that does not meet CPSC reporting limits. ** Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted. † Coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of the dispersion of the data as a ratio of the standard deviation to the estimate. The higher the CV, the larger the dispersion; for estimates derived from the NEISS, a CV over 0.33 is high.

C. Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries patterns that are specific to table saw amputations. An estimated 18.6 percent Versus Other Product-Related Injuries blade-contact, emergency department- of all amputations in the NEISS are for 2015 treated injuries. related to table saws. Table 2 compares CPSC staff’s review showed that table emergency department-treated injuries CPSC staff compared emergency saw blade-contact injuries have a much from table saw blade contact identified department-treated injuries from table larger proportion of injuries to fingers in the 2015 NEISS to all other consumer saw blade- contact against all other (compared to all other types of product-related, emergency department- consumer product-related emergency consumer products) and have treated injuries in the same timeframe department-treated injuries, to identify significantly larger proportions of (January 1, 2015 through December 31, demographic groups and hazard diagnoses for lacerations and 2015).

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES VERSUS ALL OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT-RELATED INJURIES, 2015

Domain All consumer products Table saws (excluding table saws) Rao-Scott c2 p-value n Estimate * % of n † Estimate * % of 30,800 14,098,700 ‡

Total ...... 642 30,800 100% 358,425 14,098,700 100% N/A

Age Group ***: ≤20 ...... 16 * * 168,496 5,513,200 39.1 <0.0001 21–30 ...... 51 2,200 7.0 40,098 1,709,000 12.1 ...... 31–40 ...... 76 3,800 12.5 30,973 1,384,500 9.8 ...... 41–50 ...... 96 4,100 13.2 27,878 1,257,700 8.9 ...... 51–60 ...... 133 6,400 20.7 29,082 1,290,600 9.2 ...... 61–70 ...... 153 8,200 26.6 22,123 1,039,900 7.4 ...... 71–80 ...... 88 4,300 14.0 17,817 860,200 6.1 ...... 81+ ...... 29 1,300 4.1 21,923 1,042,900 7.4 Sex **: Male ...... 622 29,700 96.4 195,134 7,438,000 52.8 <0.0001 Female ...... 20 * * 163,291 6,660,800 47.2 ...... Locale: Home ...... 416 20,600 67.0 161,190 6,564,100 46.6 <0.0001 Unknown ...... 223 10,100 32.9 98,418 3,820,100 27.1 ...... Other ...... 3 * * 98,817 3,714,600 26.3 ...... Body Part: Finger ...... 592 28,900 93.8 29,987 1,209,800 8.6 <0.0001 Hand ...... 46 1,600 5.3 17,089 732,000 5.2 ...... Other ...... 4 * * 311,349 12,157,000 86.2 ...... Diagnosis: Laceration ...... 372 18,100 58.8 63,727 2,510,600 17.8 <0.0001 Fracture ...... 112 5,900 19.0 54,210 2,037,500 14.5 ...... Amputation ...... 119 4,700 15.2 584 20,400 0.1 ......

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22197

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES VERSUS ALL OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT-RELATED INJURIES, 2015—Continued

Domain All consumer products Table saws (excluding table saws) Rao-Scott c2 p-value n Estimate * % of n † Estimate * % of 30,800 14,098,700 ‡

Other ...... 39 2,200 7.0 239,904 9,530,200 67.6 ...... Disposition: Treated and Released ...... 537 26,800 87.1 323,369 12,768,300 90.6 0.0095 Hospitalized# ...... 98 3,800 12.3 29,203 1,120,300 7.9 ...... Other ...... 7 * * 5,853 210,100 1.5 ...... * CVs for the table saws for reported estimates range from 0.09 to 0.24. CVs for estimates for the other products range from 0.07 to 0.25. ** Two observations are classified as ‘‘unknown sex’’ in the NEISS in the timeframe. These two observations were omitted to facilitate compari- sons. This does not affect any conclusions or comparisons. *** To facilitate comparisons, 35 observations with unknown ages are not used in the age group analysis; thus, the statistics provided for age group do not necessarily sum exactly to totals. This does not affect any conclusions. † This ‘‘n’’ is smaller than all of the NEISS, due to cases omitted from the product code 0841 (see Methodology section) as not related to a table saw or blade contact. ‡ Percentages are calculated prior to rounding. # Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted.

CPSC staff’s review showed there is only a slightly larger male woodworking tools). In addition, table differences in the injury distributions of proportion. saw blade-contact injuries have age groups when comparing table saw CPSC staff also compared table saw significantly larger proportions of blade-contact injuries to all other blade-contact injuries and all other diagnoses for lacerations, fractures, and consumer product-related injuries. woodworking workshop, product- amputations, than injuries associated Older age groups represent larger related injury estimates to identify any with all other workshop products. CPSC proportions in table saw injuries than demographic groups and hazard staff’s review showed that table saws with all other products. Approximately patterns that are specific to table saw account for an estimated 52.4 percent of blade-contact injuries within groups 75 percent of the estimated table saw all amputations related to workshop that are more likely to have been blade-contact injuries occur to people products. exposed to table saws. Table saws, in within the age range of 41 through 80. particular, table saw blade-contact Table 3 compares table saw blade- The proportion of all other consumer injuries, represented a larger proportion contact, emergency department-treated product-related injuries for the 41 of injuries to fingers than all other injuries from the 2015 NEISS to all other through 80 age groups is approximately workshop products (which include tools workshop product-related, emergency 30 percent. Almost all injuries involving such as radial arm saws, miter saws, department-treated injuries in the same table saw blade contact involve males; circular saws, band saws, and routers, timeframe (January 1, 2015 through whereas, with all consumer products, along with other power and manual December 31, 2015).

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES VERSUS ALL OTHER WORKSHOP PRODUCT-RELATED INJURIES, 2015

Domain Table saws All workshop products Rao-Scott (excluding table saws) c2 p-value % of n Estimate * 30,800 † n Estimate * % of 270,500 †

Total ...... 642 30,800 100% 5,313 270,500 100%

Age Group: ≤20 ...... 16 * * 702 29,500 10.9 <0.0001 21–30 ...... 51 2,200 7.0 943 46,300 17.1 ...... 31–40 ...... 76 3,800 12.5 952 50,400 18.6 ...... 41–50 ...... 96 4,100 13.2 979 50,400 18.6 ...... 51–60 ...... 133 6,400 20.7 887 46,000 17.0 ...... 61–70 ...... 153 8,200 26.6 536 30,000 11.1 ...... 71–80 ...... 88 4,300 14.0 243 13,800 5.1 ...... 81+ ...... 29 1,300 4.1 71 4,100 1.5 ...... Sex: Male ...... 622 29,700 96.4 4,582 234,600 86.7 <0.0001 Female ...... 20 * * 731 35,900 13.3 ...... Locale: Home ...... 416 20,600 67.0 2,976 158,900 58.8 0.0049 Unknown ...... 223 10,100 32.9 2,152 103,300 38.2 ...... Other ...... 3 * * 185 8,300 3.1 ...... Body Part:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22198 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF VICTIM CHARACTERISTICS FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES VERSUS ALL OTHER WORKSHOP PRODUCT-RELATED INJURIES, 2015—Continued

Domain Table saws All workshop products Rao-Scott (excluding table saws) c2 p-value % of n Estimate * 30,800 † n Estimate * % of 270,500 †

Finger ...... 592 28,900 93.8 2,022 101,800 37.6 <0.0001 Hand ...... 46 1,600 5.3 838 44,400 16.4 ...... Other ...... 4 * * 2,453 124,300 46.0 ...... Diagnosis: Laceration ...... 372 18,100 58.8 2,562 132,100 48.8 <0.0001 Fracture ...... 112 5,900 19.0 378 18,600 6.9 ...... Amputation ...... 119 4,700 15.2 108 4,200 1.6 ...... Other ...... 39 2,200 7.0 2,265 115,600 42.8 ...... Disposition: Treated and Released ...... 537 26,800 87.1 5,027 258,400 95.5 <0.0001 Hospitalized ‡ ...... 98 3,800 12.3 219 8,700 3.2 ...... Other ...... 7 * * 67 3,300 1.2 ...... * CVs for the table saws for reported estimates range from 0.09 to 0.24. CV’s for estimates for the all other workshop products range from 0.08 to 0.20. † Percentages are calculated prior to rounding. ‡ Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted.

When table saw blade-contact injuries contact injuries from 2004 to 2015, compliant with the new standard were compared to all other workshop using estimates from NEISS. As increased. However, CPSC staff’s product-related injuries, CPSC staff mentioned in section III.B. of the analysis shows that the addition of the identified differences in the preamble, UL 987 Stationary and Fixed riving knife and modular blade guard in distributions of age groups. Older age Electric Tools includes provisions the voluntary standard has not reduced groups represented larger proportions of requiring a riving knife and modular the number or severity of blade-contact table saw blade-contact injuries than for blade guard. The voluntary standard injuries. other workshop products. effective dates for riving knives and CPSC staff performed trend analyses Approximately 45 percent of the modular blade guards was January 31, for blade-contact injuries, as well as estimated table saw blade-contact 2014, and January 31, 2010, blade contact amputations, injuries occurred to people within the respectively. The date range for the age range of 61 through 80. In trend analysis includes a timespan hospitalizations, and finger/hand comparison, the proportion of all other before the voluntary standard required injuries. CPSC staff concludes that there workshop product-related injuries for table saws to be equipped with a riving is no discernible change in the number the 61 through 80 age groups was knife and modular blade guard (2004 to of blade-contact injuries or types of approximately 18 percent. Accordingly, 2009) and a timespan after the voluntary injuries related to table saw blade the mean age for table saw blade-contact standard requirements became effective contact from 2004 to 2015. Furthermore, injuries was 55.6 years, in comparison on most table saws (2010 to 2015). Table CPSC staff concludes that there is no to 42.7 years for all other workshop saws manufactured before the current discernible change in the number of product-related injuries. This voluntary standard remain in use blade-contact injuries or types of approximate 13-year difference in the throughout this entire period. However, injuries related to table saw blade mean age of people sustaining injuries in more recent years, after the current contact from the timespan before the is a statistically significant difference (p- voluntary standard became effective, an voluntary standard was implemented value < 0.0001), indicating that table increasing proportion of table saws in (2004–2009) to the time span after the saw blade-contact injuries involve older use conform to the current voluntary implementation of the voluntary victims compared to injuries related to standard. Thus, if the voluntary standard requiring the riving knife and all other workshop products. standard was having an impact on the modular blade guard on all table saws number or severity of injuries, there (2010–2015). The estimated number of D. Trend Analysis for Table Saw Injuries would be a steady decrease in the table saw blade-contact, emergency CPSC staff estimated the yearly number of injuries or severity of injuries department-treated injuries from 2004 injuries associated with table saw blade- as the proportion of table saws through 2015 is in Table 4.

TABLE 4—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2004–2015

Table saw blade-contact injury estimates Year 95% confidence N Estimate CV interval

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 ...... 632 29,600 0.09 24,300–35,000

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22199

TABLE 4—NEISS ESTIMATES FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2004–2015—Continued

Table saw blade-contact injury estimates Year 95% confidence N Estimate CV interval

2010 ...... 657 30,100 0.10 24,000–36,200 2009 ...... 714 33,000 0.10 26,500–39,500 2008 ...... 723 34,600 0.09 28,700–40,500 2007 ...... 694 31,100 0.09 25,400–36,700 2006 ...... 766 34,200 0.09 27,900–40,400 2005 ...... 812 34,500 0.09 28,300–40,700 2004 ...... 773 36,300 0.09 29,600–43,100

To assess any changes across time in hand injuries. No trend was detected in amputations, hospitalizations, and the severity of table saw blade-contact any of these analyses (p-values = 0.44, finger/hand injuries from blade contact, injuries, CPSC staff performed trend 0.53, and 0.17 for amputations, with the percentage of each to the total analyses for blade-contact amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand number of estimated blade-contact hospitalizations (includes two injuries, respectively). Table 5 provides injuries (Table 4). dispositions: Treated with admission the estimated number of blade-contact and treated with transfer), and finger/ injuries from 2004 through 2015, for

TABLE 5—NEISS INJURY ESTIMATES FOR TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT AMPUTATIONS, HOSPITALIZATIONS, AND FINGER/ HAND INJURIES, 2004–2015

Amputations Hospitalizations Finger/hand injuries % of % of % of Year Estimate blade- Estimate blade- Estimate blade- (95% CI) contact (95% CI) contact (95% CI) contact injuries injuries injuries

2015 ...... 4,700 15.2 3,800 12.3 30,500 99.1 (3,100–6,300) (2,300–5,300) (24,900–36,100) 2014 ...... 4,000 13.1 3,100 10.1 29,400 97.2 (2,400–5,500) (1,700–4,400) (24,600–34,300) 2013 ...... 3,400 11.7 3,000 10.2 29,200 99.2 (2,300–4,600) (1,800–4,200) (24,300–34,200) 2012 ...... 4,100 13.9 2,900 9.8 29,100 98.7 (2,700–5,600) (1,300–4,400) (23,700–34,400) 2011 ...... 3,900 13.2 2,900 9.9 29,400 99.3 (2,700–5,100) (1,900–3,900) (24,200–34,700) 2010 ...... 3,500 11.6 2,800 9.2 29,800 99.2 (2,500–4,500) (2,000–3,600) (23,700–36,000) 2009 ...... 4,100 12.5 3,000 9.0 32,500 98.5 (3,000–5,200) (2,000–3,900) (26,100–38,900) 2008 ...... 3,700 10.6 2,600 7.4 34,200 98.7 (2,700–4,600) (1,700–3,400) (28,300–40,100) 2007 ...... 3,900 12.6 3,000 9.5 30,700 98.7 (2,600–5,200) (1,800–4,100) (25,100–36,200) 2006 ...... 4,300 12.5 2,700 7.9 33,700 98.7 (3,100–5,500) (1,600–3,800) (27,500–39,900) 2005 ...... 4,600 13.5 2,800 8.2 34,100 98.9 (3,100–6,200) (2,000–3,600) (28,000–40,200) 2004 ...... 5,100 14.1 2,900 8.0 36,000 99.2 (3,600–6,700) (1,900–3,900) (29,300–42,800)

CPSC staff also conducted a trend information available, CPSC staff use for each year in the analysis. The analysis to include the rate of injury analyzed the risk of blade-contact injury estimated numbers of table saws in use (that is, the rate of injury, measured by using the estimated number of table yearly is provided in TAB C of the staff the numerator as the estimated number saws in use for each year from 2004 to briefing package. of injuries and the denominator as the 2015. Table 6 provides the risk of blade- exposure estimate). Based on the contact injury per 10,000 table saws in

13 No estimates of variance or covariance conservative approach). Variance for will increase analyses performed, and conclusions are unlikely to associated with the number of table saws in use if using both numerator and denominator variance change if another method was chosen. were calculated. CPSC staff determined that the and covariance structures; this makes it harder to 14 CVs for estimates are equivalent to the CVs for ability to detect trend is increased by omission of detect trend mathematically. However, CPSC staff injury estimates, due to no variance estimates being the variance-covariance associated with the determined that there is minimal impact on the used for the denominator estimates. denominator variable (thus, creating a more

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22200 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 6–ESTIMATED TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES PER 10,000 TABLE SAWS IN USE, 2004–2015

Table saw blade-contact injury es- Estimated Estimates ** of table saw timates number of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in table saws in use use Year (in 10,000s) * Blade-contact 95% Confidence 95% injury estimate interval Table saws in Estimate 14 Confidence use interval estimate 13

2015 ...... 30,800 25,100–36,500 813.8 37.8 30.9–44.8 2014 ...... 30,300 25,300–35,300 818.6 37.0 30.8–43.2 2013 ...... 29,500 24,500–34,500 824.0 35.8 29.8–41.8 2012 ...... 29,500 24,100–34,900 832.5 35.4 28.9–41.9 2011 ...... 29,600 24,300–35,000 838.9 35.3 29.0–41.7 2010 ...... 30,100 24,000–36,200 847.7 35.5 28.3–42.7 2009 ...... 33,000 26,500–39,500 873.1 37.8 30.3–45.3 2008 ...... 34,600 28,700–40,500 881.5 39.3 32.6–45.9 2007 ...... 31,100 25,400–36,700 882.5 35.2 28.8–41.5 2006 ...... 34,200 27,900–40,400 865.0 39.5 32.2–46.7 2005 ...... 34,500 28,300–40,700 846.3 40.8 33.5–48.0 2004 ...... 36,300 29,600–43,100 829.4 43.8 35.7–51.9 * 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.

CPSC staff’s analysis shows that there CPSC’s CPSRMS database. The CPSRMS occurred between January 1, 2004 and was no discernible change in the risk of database is not a representative sample December 31, 2015, and the injuries injury associated with blade contact of all blade-contact injuries, and only were reported to CPSC by March 1, related to table saws from 2004 to 2015. injury estimates from the NEISS are 2016. The data collection is ongoing for Furthermore, staff concludes that there used for nationally representative the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, and it is no discernible change in the risk of estimates of table saw and/or blade- is possible for CPSC staff to receive injury associated with blade contact contact injuries. These are anecdotal additional reports of blade-contact related to table saws from the timespan reports of blade-contact injuries, and the injuries that occurred during this before the voluntary standard was reports are not intended to be used to timeframe. Of the 53 reported blade- implemented (2004–2009) to the time understand trends or the magnitude of contact injuries, 26 were attributable to span after the voluntary standard’s the number of blade-contact injuries. bench saws, 22 to contractor saws, 2 to implementation (2010–2015), which CPSC staff reviewed this data to cabinet saws, and 3 were unknown. required the riving knife and modular understand the scenarios and the CPSC staff reviewed whether there blade guard on all table saws. injuries associated with table saw blade- were any incidents with unexpected contact injuries, information not workpiece movement, such as kickback E. Other Table Saw-Related Injuries typically captured within a NEISS of the workpiece. Table 7 summarizes Table saw-related incidents are not report. CPSC staff reviewed all reports incidents by unexpected workpiece commonly reported to CPSC through in the CPSRMS associated with the movement. For the majority of means other than the NEISS. However, product code 0841 (table saws) with incidents, it is unknown whether the CPSC received a small number of incident dates from January 1, 2004 unexpected workpiece movement was reports of table saw-related injuries through December 31, 2015. The involved in the blade contact, thus through other means, such as news incident dates chosen match the trend making conclusions difficult. However, articles, consumer-submitted reports, analysis performed on the NEISS for of the incidents where information attorney-submitted reports, and table saws. about the contribution of workpiece manufacturer and retailer reports. CPSC staff identified 53 incidents in movement was known, most blade- Reported incidents through means other the CPSRMS database that involved contact injuries involved some type of than the NEISS are entered into the blade-contact injury on table saws that unexpected workpiece movement.

TABLE 7—UNEXPECTED STOCK MOVEMENT FOR REPORTED TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2004–2015

Unexpected workpiece movement Frequency Percent

Yes ...... 20 37.7 No ...... 4 7.5 N/A 15 ...... 1 1.9 Unknown ...... 28 52.8

Total ...... 53 * 100.0 * Due to rounding errors, totals may not exactly equal 100.

15 Stock movement is ‘‘N/A’’ in one incident, time of blade contact. Reportedly, the victim started the saw accidentally, and a nearby object pulled the where the victim was not performing a cut at the victim’s hand into the blade.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22201

CPSC staff also reviewed all 53 well as information on whether the of the type of blade guard, by the use of reported incidents to assess the type of blade guard was in use at the time of the the blade guard. blade guard that came with the saw, as incident. Table 8 provides the frequency

TABLE 8—TYPE OF BLADE GUARD BY BLADE GUARD USE FOR REPORTED TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2004– 2015

Frequency Blade guard in use (row percent) 16 Total Type of blade guard Yes No Unknown N/A

Modular ...... 1 1 9 0 11 9.1% 9.1% 81.8% 0.0% Traditional ...... 7 7 19 3 36 19.4% 19.4% 52.8% 8.3% Other/Unknown 17 ...... 1 2 3 0 6 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0%

Total ...... 9 10 31 3 53

CPSC staff noted that although there were reported to not be using the blade using the blade guard at the time of are large proportions of unknowns for guard, 19 had an unknown guard use injury, one was reported to not be using the blade guard use, making conclusions status, and three were not able to use the blade guard, and nine have difficult, out of the 53 reported blade- the blade guard. Of the 53 reported unknown guard use status. Table 9 contact injuries, 36 are associated with blade-contact injuries, 11 are associated shows the frequency of the scenarios for a traditional blade guard. Of those 36, with a modular blade guard as part of the type of blade guard by injury type. seven were reported to be using the the original equipment on the table saw. blade guard at the time of injury, seven Of those 11, one was reported to be

TABLE 9—INJURY DESCRIPTION FOR REPORTED TABLE SAW BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES, 2004–2015

Type of blade guard * Injury Other/ Modular Traditional unknown/NA Total

Amputation ...... 4 21 4 29 Amputation and Laceration ...... 0 3 1 4 Fatal Laceration ...... 0 1 0 1 Laceration ...... 2 4 1 7 Laceration and Fracture ...... 1 0 0 1 No Details Provided ...... 4 7 0 11

Total ...... 11 36 6 53 * Table 8 shows that it is often unknown whether a blade guard was in use at the time of the incident. This table does not break down the type of injury and type of guard according to whether the blade guard was in use or not.

Although for many of these injuries it F. Modular Blade Guard Survey convenience sample of participants is unknown whether the blade guard recruited by various advertisement was in use at the time of the injury, To obtain additional information strategies; therefore, no results from the CPSC staff’s review of the reports regarding modular blade guard use, in survey are generalized to the indicates that the incident scenarios for 2015, CPSC contracted EurekaFacts, population. table saws with modular blade guards LLC (EurekaFacts) to conduct a survey Results of the survey indicate that, of of consumers who own table saws with are similar to the incidents for table the 200 respondents, a majority of a modular blade guard system.18 The saws with traditional blade guards, in respondents (80%) reported that there survey instrument was designed to are circumstances that require the blade terms of incidents (amputations and identify the potential reasons that may guard to be removed, and a majority of lacerations) occurring with and without affect how a consumer uses the blade respondents did not use the blade guard the use of blade guards, and incidents guard. EurekaFacts completed 200 ‘‘sometimes’’ (28%), ‘‘often’’ (17%) or occurring with and without unexpected surveys of respondents who owned a ‘‘always’’ (14%). The results of the stock movement from kickback of the table saw manufactured after 2009, or survey demonstrate that for material. later, that included a modular blade woodworkers who participated in the guard. The survey was based on a survey, removal of the blade guard,

16 Blade guard use is recorded as ‘‘N/A’’ in three 17 For the six incidents in the blade guard type category were classified as ‘‘unknown’’ blade guard incidents, when blade guard use was either of ‘‘Other/Unknown,’’ one incident is in the ‘‘other’’ type, due to the limited information provided. impossible (Dado cut, molding attachment on a saw category, where the blade guard description did not 18 Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016), supra from the 1950s), or the victim started the saw fully meet the traditional description, but the saw note 11. accidentally, and his hand was pulled into the was manufactured in the time span of traditional blade by a nearby object. blade guards; the remaining five incidents in this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22202 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

traditional or modular, is a necessary saw that occurred between January 1, presented estimates of the numbers and and proper action when making certain 2004 and December 31, 2015, and were types of emergency department-treated cuts on table saws. In addition, many reported to CPSC by March 1, 2016. Of injuries related to table saws in this 2- respondents in the survey stated that the 53 reported incidents related to table year study, which was published in they chose not to use the modular blade saw blade contact, 36 incidents March 2011.21 In October 2011, the guard at all or only some of the time. involved table saws that came equipped ANPR used the 2007–2008 special study CPSC staff believes that any situation in with a traditional blade guard, and 11 estimates as the analytical support for which the blade guard is not used incidents involved table saws that came the discussion of table saw-related eliminates the effectiveness of the blade equipped with a modular blade guard. injuries.22 guard in preventing blade-contact Laceration and amputation injuries However, the public comments injuries. Accordingly, use of the blade occurred on table saws equipped with submitted to the CPSC in response to guard cannot be relied upon to prevent traditional guards and on table saws the ANPR called attention to a injury. equipped with modular blade guards. In contradiction between the estimated addition, CPSC staff’s review of the numbers for each type of table saw and G. Summary of Incident Data reports indicates that the incident the estimated injuries of direct-drive Based on CPSC staff’s review of the scenarios for table saws with modular and indirect-drive table saws in the existing data, the Commission does not blade guards are similar to table saws 2007–2008 special study.23 As a result believe that currently available safety with traditional blade guards in terms of of these comments, CPSC staff devices, such as the modular blade incidents occurring with and without reanalyzed the saw-type and drive-type guard and riving knife, will adequately the use of blade guards and incidents responses provided by the injury address the unreasonable risk of blade- occurring with and without unexpected victims in the 2007–2008 special study. contact injuries on table saws. In 2015, workpiece movement from kickback of CPSC published the results of the there were an estimated 33,400 table the material. reanalysis in June 2014.24 CPSC staff saw, emergency department-treated Finally, CPSC staff’ review of the found that the estimated number of injuries. Of these, staff estimates that modular blade guard survey shows that, injuries based on the type of saw were 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to for woodworkers who responded to the inconsistent with the estimated injuries the victim making contact with the saw survey, removal of the blade guard, associated with respondent-declared blade. Of the 30,800 emergency traditional or modular, is a necessary drive type, which indicated that bench department-treated blade-contact and proper action when making certain saws may be associated with a much injuries in 2015, an estimated 28,900 cuts on table saws. In addition, many larger proportion of the estimated injuries (93.8 percent) involved the woodworkers selected in the survey injuries than initially reported. finger. The most common diagnoses in chose not to use the modular blade To address the inconsistencies about blade-contact injuries are: an estimated guard at all or only some of the time. the distribution of type of table saw in 18,100 laceration injuries (58.8 percent); Based on CPSC staff’s review of the table saw-related injuries in the 2007– an estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 incident data, the Commission believes 2008 special study, CPSC staff percent); an estimated 4,700 that operator finger/hand contact with conducted a second special study on amputations (15.2 percent); and an the table saw blade is a dominant table saws in 2014–2015. This study, estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 percent). hazard pattern that presents an performed by contractors, collected An estimated 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the unreasonable risk of injury that can be computer-aided telephone interview blade-contact injury victims in 2015 addressed by a performance (CATI) responses from 275 individuals were hospitalized. requirement to reduce the frequency treated for injuries related to stationary Thousands of amputations occur each and severity of blade-contact injuries on saws (this category includes table saws) year on table saws; an estimated 4,700 table saws. The proposed performance and to unidentified types of saws in amputation injuries occurred in 2015, requirement is discussed in section VII emergency departments of NEISS alone. Compared to all other types of of the preamble. member hospitals between July 2014 consumer products, table saw-related and December 2015. For injuries amputations are estimated to account H. Special Studies determined to be table saw-related, for 18.6 percent of all amputations in As discussed in the ANPR, in 2001, interviewers read definitions to the the NEISS in 2015. When compared to CPSC performed a NEISS special study participants regarding each table saw all other workshop products, table saws for stationary power saw-related type, and interviewers asked additional accounted for an estimated 52.4 percent injuries.19 The purpose of the survey questions when the participant of all amputations related to workshop was to collect more specific and identified a saw and drive type that products in 2015. The estimated mean accurate information about the type of were not compatible. age for table saw blade-contact injuries table saw involved and also to collect As explained in TAB F of the staff is 55.6; whereas, all other workshop more in-depth information about the briefing package, after the contractors product-related injuries have an hazard pattern and contributing factors completed the 2014–2015 special study, estimated mean age of 42.7. This to the injuries. The results were approximate 13-year difference in the published in a memorandum, ‘‘Injuries 21 http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/118311/ mean age of injuries is a statistically Associated with Stationary Power Saws, statsaws.pdf. significant difference (p-value < 0.0001), 2001.’’ 20 In 2007, CPSC staff conducted, 22 76 FR 62681. 23 indicating that table saw blade-contact through a contractor, another stationary Staff’s economic analysis in the ANPR briefing injuries involve older victims in package first noted that there was an apparent power saw special study, running inconsistency between some study participants’ comparison to injuries related to all through 2008. The report, ‘‘Survey of responses to the type of saw used and their other workshop products. Injuries Involving Stationary Saws: responses about the type of drive system used in CPSC staff also reviewed table saw- Table and Bench Saws, 2007–2008,’’ the saw. related reported incidents in the 24 http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and- Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Home%20Maintenance CPSRMS database. Staff identified 53 19 76 FR 62680–81. %20and%20Construction/ incidents in the CPSRMS database that 20 https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/ CoverpageandMemoofStaff involve blade-contact injury on a table powersaw.pdf. AnalysisofTableSawTypeinNEISSSpecialStudy.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22203

CPSC staff identified patterns in (2) complex lacerations involving cuts back toward the consumer. Ripping participant response data across the 275 deeper than 4 mm that cause damage to involves the cut workpiece passing completed survey responses that tendons, nerves, and blood vessels. between the spinning blade and a rip indicated that the interviewer may have Simple lacerations can be managed at fence, which forms a fixed boundary affected the participants’ responses, a emergency departments with little that constrains the movement of the phenomenon known as ‘‘interviewer expertise or by simple at-home care workpiece. Thus, any lateral movements effect.’’ Ninety-four percent (259) of the because these cuts generally heal or rotation of the workpiece (or completed surveys were conducted by without complications. Conversely, misalignment of the fence) may cause two interviewers from one company. complex lacerations may require skilled the workpiece to bind and be thrown or Statistically significant differences microsurgery to repair damaged propelled at the consumer. The sudden between responses collected by the two tendons, nerves, and vessels, and such movement of the workpiece from interviewers existed for critical care often requires hospital stays, kickback can cause the consumer to lose questions, such as the type of table saw transfer to a hospital with the required control of the workpiece and lead to involved in the injury, use of safety expertise, and extensive occupational blade contact in a number of ways. For features, and activities preceding the therapy. example: injury. Because the integrity of the According to the UL report, magnetic • The consumer’s hand or push stick responses was indeterminable, CPSC resonance imaging (MRI) scans show can slip off the workpiece, causing the staff did not use the 2014–2015 special that critical tissues are deepest at the hand to move into the blade. study results as a basis for the proposed proximal phalanx of the long finger • The workpiece can strike the rule. (base of the middle finger) and most consumer’s arm or hand, sending the In addition, contractor interviewer shallow at the distal phalanx of the little hand into the blade. information from the 2007 to 2008 finger. The neurovascular bundle, • The consumer can reflexively reach special study was not available, so CPSC which contains the nerves and arteries, for the workpiece to regain control and staff was unable to prove or disprove is the structure closest to the skin’s inadvertently move the hand into the whether interviewer effect impacted surface. The mean distance from the blade. that study’s responses. Accordingly, surface of the skin to the neurovascular • The consumer’s hand, if positioned CPSC staff did not use the data from bundle on the tip of the little finger is behind the blade to hold, support, or either of the prior special studies to 4.3 mm.27 Therefore, UL determined remove the workpiece or cutoff, can be inform recommendations in the that, based on measurements from the ‘‘pulled’’ into the blade with the proposed rule for a performance study, a depth of 4 mm is the maximum workpiece. requirement to address table saw blade- depth of cut to a finger before serious 28 Many of the scenarios may be possible contact injuries. injury is sustained. even when a blade guard is in use, V. Risk of Injury B. Analysis of Operator Behavior in because blade guard systems generally Blade-Contact Injuries are designed to allow free passage of the A. Description of Hazard CPSC staff reviewed operator behavior workpiece into the blade from the front; CPSC staff reviewed analyses of finger in blade-contact injuries (TAB E of the therefore, other objects, such as hands injuries on table saws conducted by staff briefing package). The most basic and fingers also can move into the blade researchers at the University of and common cutting operations from this direction. Thus, although Michigan in a study titled, ‘‘Table Saw performed on a table saw are ripping, blade guard systems can reduce the Injuries: Epidemiology and a proposal which involves narrowing the width of likelihood of blade contact from certain for preventive measures,’’ which was angles and certain approaches, the 25 a piece of wood or other ‘‘workpiece’’ by commissioned by UL. UL extracted sawing along its length, and potential for contact remains. In sections from that study, with some crosscutting, which involves shortening addition, hand or finger contact with the modifications, for its report, ‘‘Table Saw the length of a workpiece by sawing blade can occur even without kickback. Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Possible blade contact scenarios during 26 across its width. Anecdotally, ripping Blade Contact.’’ The UL report appears to be the more common of these ripping, unrelated to kickback, include indicated that lacerations to the finger two operations in the context of table the following: • or hand of varying severity are the most saw use. The consumer’s hand gets too close common injury associated with table to the blade while feeding the saw operator blade contact. The severity 1. Ripping Scenarios workpiece, particularly small of injury ranges from minor cuts to Blade contact may be more likely to workpieces, and the fingers contact the severe cuts and injuries resulting in occur while the consumer is ripping a blade. In some cases, the consumer may amputation. Finger lacerations can be workpiece, rather than crosscutting, be wearing gloves for protection, or classified into two categories by the because consumers often use just their because of cool temperatures, and the extent of damage to the structures of the hands to feed the workpiece into the blade catches the glove and pulls the finger: blade while ripping, except when hand into the blade.29 (1) Simple lacerations involving ripping narrow workpieces. • The consumer reaches near or past damage only from the skin surface to a Additionally, ripping has greater the blade to regain control of a depth of approximately 2 mm to 4 mm, potential to result in kickback, workpiece that is slipping, lifting up, and compared to crosscutting. ‘‘Kickback’’ falling off the table, or otherwise moving can be defined as the binding of a in an unexpected way, and the hand 25 Chung, K. and Shauver, M. 2014. Table saw workpiece in the blade and the contacts the blade.30 injuries: Epidemiology and a proposal for • The consumer reaches for a cutoff preventive measures. Available at: https:// consequent thrusting of that workpiece www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154236/. or brushes debris from the table while 26 Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due 27 Staff’s analysis of cadaverous tissue data to Blade Contact, UL Research Report, Jan. 2014. indicates that the measurements presented in UL’s 29 For example, IDI nos. 121018CNE1304. Available at: http://library.ul.com/wp-content/ research report are relative to the volar (palmar) 30 For example, IDI nos. 080415CCC2550 and uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WhitePapers_ surface of the skin. 141120CNE0001. Note that in IDI no. Tablesaw_V11.pdf. 28 UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26 at 18. 141120CNE0001, a blade guard was in use.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22204 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

the blade is still spinning and the hand potentially increase the risk of injury. CPSC staff identified differences in contacts the blade. Saw blades can Blade guard systems might contribute to the distribution of age groups when continue spinning for some time after a difficulties in seeing where a cut is comparing table saw blade-contact table saw has been switched off. being made, and consumers sometimes injuries to all other workshop product- Accordingly, some consumers might report this as a reason for removing related injuries. Staff analysis of injuries contact the blade after having already blade guard systems. Staff also notes in 2015 indicates that the mean age for switched off the table saw but before the that consumers typically are instructed table saw blade-contact injuries is 55.6 blade has come to a complete stop. to wear eye protection when operating years, compared to 42.7 years for all Furthermore, consumers who are aware a table saw.32 Although proper eye gear other workshop product-related injuries. of the potential for kickback might be can provide important protection from This approximately 13-year difference motivated to remove a cutoff projectiles striking the eye, the eye in the mean age of victims of table saw immediately to prevent a cut piece from protection may affect one’s ability to see blade-contact injuries is a statistically kicking back or being thrown in some a cut clearly, particularly if the eyewear significant difference and indicates that other way. is scratched or partially covered in table saw blade-contact injuries involve • The consumer gets distracted and debris, such as sawdust. older victims compared to victims of turns or looks away, causing his or her injuries from all other workshop 2. Crosscutting Scenarios hand to move into the blade. Such a products. distraction may not be merely Blade contact scenarios involving daydreaming, but can include cases in crosscutting are likely similar to those VI. Relevant Existing Standards which someone enters the room and the involving ripping because many of the A. Voluntary Standards operator diverts their attention to make same potential issues can arise, such as sure the other person is not placing the consumer feeding the workpiece 1. History themselves in a hazardous situation. with their hand too close to the blade, In 1971, Underwriters Laboratories This may be especially likely if the reaching past the blade for a cutoff, or Inc. (UL) published the first edition of other person is someone for whom the becoming distracted. Although the UL 987, Stationary and Fixed Electric consumer is responsible, such as a potential for kickback seems less likely Tools. UL 987 included requirements child. for crosscutting than for ripping, for table saws that specified the • The consumer slips, stumbles, or kickback still occurs, and the following safety devices: A single-piece otherwise loses balance and consequent loss of workpiece control blade guard, a spreader, and anti- inadvertently moves a hand into the can result in the hand contacting the kickback pawls. In 2005, UL published blade, possibly as a natural motor blade. In addition, during a crosscut, the the sixth edition of UL 987, which response to regain balance. Similarly, if workpiece may become ‘‘jammed’’ in added riving knives to the general a consumer is startled by something or the blade guard or anti-kickback device. requirements for table saws. The someone, the consumer may move This may be more likely if the effective date for the riving knife reflexively or jerk a hand toward the workpiece shifts position or rotates from requirements for products already listed blade. against the miter gauge. In such a with UL was January 2014. In 2007, UL • The consumer’s hand or push stick scenario, the consumer may reach published the seventh edition of UL slips off the workpiece, causing the toward the blade to adjust the 987, which expanded the table saw hand to move into the blade. This workpiece position or attempt to move guarding requirements to include a new scenario is similar to the one cited the offending portion of the guard modular blade guard design developed earlier in the context of kickback, but it system, and inadvertently contact the by a joint venture of the leading table is not necessarily preceded by a sudden blade with the fingers. saw manufacturers. The effective date movement of the workpiece. for the modular blade guard 3. Adult Aging Issues Many of these scenarios may be more requirements was January 2010. The likely to occur if the consumer is tired, As discussed in section IV of the revised standard specified that the blade or if the view of the blade or cut is preamble and TAB B of the staff briefing guard shall not consist of a hood, but impaired somehow. Working with a package, approximately 45 percent of all comprise a top-barrier guarding element table saw for long periods likely would estimated table saw-related, emergency and two side-barrier guarding elements. contribute to fatigue, which in turn, can department-treated injuries that likely The new modular guard design was degrade a consumer’s decision-making related to the victim making contact intended to be an improvement over abilities, judgment, reaction time, and with the blade involved consumers traditional hood guard designs by vigilance.31 Even devices and older than 60 years of age. Although providing better visibility, offering equipment that are intended to protect CPSC staff does not know if older easier methods to remove and install the consumers may adversely affect consumers have greater exposure to guard, and incorporating a permanent consumers’ ability to monitor a cutting these products, adult aging is associated riving knife design. In 2011, UL operation with a table saw, and with declines in many perceptual, published the eighth edition of UL 987, cognitive, and physical abilities, as which clarified requirements for table 31 See Sharit, J. (2006). Human Error. In G. discussed in TAB E of the staff briefing saws. The eighth edition remains the Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and package. Some of these age-related current edition of UL 987. Ergonomics, 3rd ed. at 708–760. Hoboken, NJ: deficits likely contribute to blade Wiley. Staff also notes that, when ripping, In February 2016, UL balloted a consumers must make sure the workpiece contact incidents with table saws. proposal to adopt the first edition of maintains contact with the rip fence for the entire International Electrotechnical cut. Thus, a consumer’s attention is likely to be 32 For example, general safety instructions for all Commission (IEC) 62841–3–1, Standard where the workpiece meets the fence, rather than power tools, published by the Power Tool Institute the blade, for at least part of the cut. This (PTI), states that one should ‘‘[a]lways wear eye for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held necessarily means that adequate attention cannot be protection,’’ and the section of the document that Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn given to the position of the hands relative to the is specific to table saws states, in part: ‘‘Always and Garden Machinery—Safety—Part blade. If attention is focused, instead, on the fingers wear safety goggles or safety glasses with side 3–1: Particular Requirements for relative to the blade, the workpiece may move off shields.’’ See, http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/ the rip fence and lead to kickback, which also can pti-includes/pdfs/Tool-Specific-Files/Table- Transportable Table Saws as the first cause the fingers to contact the blade. Saws.pdf. edition of UL 62841–3–1. This effort is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22205

part of UL’s international harmonization depth study with hazard analyses, of UL 987 (since UL 987 will be merged goal to adopt international standards, injury classification, and approach with IEC 62841–3–1). such as one published by the IEC speed experiments. The intent of the Under the proposal, manufacturers (International Electrotechnical research was to understand the were allowed the maximum latitude to Commission) or ISO (International circumstances that lead to hand/finger design table saws to meet the Organization for Standardization), into contact injuries for table saw operators requirements. The ballot proposed a one UL standard that is based on the and to help identify critical parameters performance requirement that IEC/ISO standard, with appropriate to define the hazard level. The report introduces a conductive test probe, national differences.33 The proposal identified the quantitative threshold connected to a circuit, which mimics passed, and in August 2016, UL between a simple and complex the electrical properties of a human published the first edition of UL 62841– laceration of a finger at about 4 mm body, to the table saw blade, at an 3–1, Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held from the surface of the skin. approach rate of 1 m/s, and limited the Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn In February 2015, UL balloted a depth of cut upon contact with the and Garden Machinery Part 3–1: proposal to add AIM requirements for blade to 4 mm or less. The performance Particular Requirements for table saws to the Standard for requirement also permitted other test Transportable Table Saws. UL 62841–3– Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools, UL probes to be used for AIM technology 1 is recognized as an American National 987. The performance requirements that depend on visual or thermal Standards Institute (ANSI) standard and were based on a defined relationship detection of finger contact to the blade. includes requirements for a modular between approach velocity of a finger to CPSC staff sent a letter of comment to blade guard, riving knife, and anti- a rotating table saw blade and the depth UL, dated March 11, 2016, expressing kickback pawls. The effective date for of cut to the finger once contact has staff’s support of AIM requirements in 37 UL 62841–3–1 is August 29, 2019. Until been made. The ballot proposed a the voluntary standard for table saws. that date, UL 987 remains in effect, and performance requirement that In April 2016, the UL proposal for table saw manufacturers can list their introduced a surrogate test finger that adoption of IEC 62841–3–1 reached products to UL 987 or UL 62841–3–1. demonstrates the proper triggering consensus when the ballot received 15 Currently, UL 987 (Section 43.2.2) characteristics particular to the AIM votes in favor of (versus 2 votes against) and UL 62841–3–1 (Section 19.101) technology to the table saw blade, at an the proposal. However, the proposal to specify that table saws shall be provided approach rate of 1 m/s, and that limits add an AIM requirement did not reach with a modular blade guard. UL 987 the depth of cut to 4 mm or less, upon consensus; the ballot received 12 votes (Section 43.2.3) and UL 62841–3–1 contact with the blade. against (versus 5 votes in favor of) the (Section 19.103) specify that table saws CPSC staff sent a letter to UL dated proposal. The ballots failed, in part, shall be equipped with a riving knife. March 24, 2015, expressing staff’s because the table saw industry objected to making AIM requirements part of the Both voluntary standards include: (1) support of AIM requirements in the UL standard, and because they believed Similar performance requirements to voluntary standard.35 Staff also that the proposed requirements were not ensure that the modular blade guard provided in-depth investigations (IDIs) sufficiently developed. prevents incidental contact from the top of five incidents that occurred on table and from both sides of the saw blade; saws that met the UL standard for table B. Voluntary Standards and Patent and (2) similar specifications for the saws at the time (and had a riving knife Policy location and rigidity of the riving knife. and modular blade guard). In April The American National Standards 2. Recent Developments 2015, the ballot failed to reach Institute (ANSI) has a patent policy 38 consensus; the ballot received 14 votes that is included in the ANSI Essential In June 2011, UL announced its against (versus 7 votes for) the proposal. intention to create a standard that Requirements: Due process In March 2015, UL published a report requirements for American National addresses the performance titled, General Characteristics of a characteristics needed to reduce blade- Standards (ANSI Requirements). This Surrogate Finger for Table Saw Safety policy sets forth requirements that apply contact injuries associated with table Testing.36 The report discusses the saws, and UL invited CPSC staff to to situations in which a proposed attributes of a human finger that could voluntary standard may require the use participate in developing blade-to-skin be used as the basis for triggering an performance requirements for UL 987. of an essential patent claim. UL’s AIM system and identified three Standards Patent Policy 39 contains UL formed a working group that met primary methods to detect a human regularly during 2011 to 2015 to requirements that are consistent with finger: Visual, electrical, and thermal. ANSI’s policy. develop performance requirements for In February 2016, UL balloted two table saws to address flesh-to-blade- Section 3.1 of the ANSI Requirements proposals: (1) To adopt the first edition states that if an ANSI-Accredited contact injuries. The UL working group of International Electrotechnical developed the term ‘‘active injury Commission (IEC) 62841–3–1, Standard 37 Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John mitigation’’ (AIM) to describe any type for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Stimitz, UL, dated March 11, 2016. Available at: of safety system that detects an Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSCletterto imminent or actual human contact with and Garden Machinery—Safety—Part ULcommenttoAIMS.pdf. 38 See Section 3.1, ANSI Patent Policy—Inclusion the table saw blade and then performs 3–1: Particular Requirements for an action that mitigates the severity of of Patents in American National Standards of the Transportable Table Saws as the first ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process the injury. edition of UL 62841–3–1; and (2) to add requirements for American National Standards In January 2014, UL published a AIM system requirements for table saws (January 2017) available at: https://share.ansi.org/ report titled, Table Saw Hazard Study shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/ as part of the adoption of IEC or as part American%20National%20Standards/Procedures, on Finger Injuries Due to Blade _ _ 34 %20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2017 ANSI Contact. The report provides an in- 35 Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Essential_Requirements.pdf. Stimitz, UL, dated March 24, 2015. Available at: 39 See UL Patent Policy (March 1, 2017) available 33 See http://ulstandards.ul.com/about/ https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoUL at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/develop-standards/ harmonizing-standards/. commenttoAIMSproposalwenclosures.pdf. stps/ul-patentpolicy/?_ 34 UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26. 36 UL Research Report, 2015, supra note 6. ga=l.154860536.1359786552.1492183496.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22206 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Standards Developer (ASD) of a The modular blade guard survey and modular blade guards requirements proposed American National Standard assessed table saw users who own, or in the voluntary standards does not is informed that the standard may are familiar with, a table saw with the appear to have had an impact on the require the use of an essential patent modular guard system.42 Results of the number or extent of blade-contact claim, the ASD shall receive from the survey indicate that a majority of injuries on table saws. patent holder (or its authorized respondents (80%) reported that there Based on CPSC staff’s evaluation of representative) written or electronic: are circumstances that require the blade the data, the Commission concludes that (a) Assurance in the form of a general guard to be removed, and a majority of the existing voluntary standard disclaimer to the effect that such party respondents did not use the blade guard requirements for riving knives or does not hold and does not currently ‘‘sometimes’’ (28%), ‘‘often’’ (17%), or modular blade guards will not prevent intend holding any essential patent ‘‘always’’ (14%). The results of the or adequately mitigate blade-contact claim(s); or survey demonstrate that removal of the injuries on table saws. (b) assurance that a license to such blade guard, traditional or modular, is a D. OSHA Regulations essential patent claim(s) will be made necessary and proper action when available to applicants desiring to making certain cuts on table saws. In In addition to the voluntary standard, utilize the license for the purpose of addition, many users choose not to use several Occupational Safety and Health implementing the standard either: 40 the modular blade guard at all. CPSC Act of 1970 (OSHA) regulations apply to (i) Under reasonable terms and staff believes that any situation where table saws that are used in the conditions that are demonstrably free of the blade guard is not used eliminates workplace. Under section 3(a)(5) of the any unfair discrimination; or the effectiveness of the blade guard in CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052, a ‘‘consumer (ii) without compensation and under preventing blade-contact injuries. product’’ means, with certain reasonable terms and conditions that are Accordingly, staff’s review shows that exceptions, any article or component demonstrably free of any unfair reliance on the blade guard for injury part thereof, produced or distributed for discrimination. prevention is insufficient because sale to, or use or consumption by, or According to these policies, it appears consumers have legitimate reasons for enjoyment of, a consumer for use in or that a voluntary standard on table saws removing the guard or do not use it at around a permanent or temporary that may require the use of an essential all or only some of the time. household or residence, a school, in patent claim might not be adopted if the CPSC staff is also aware of at least 11 recreation, or otherwise. Section 31 of ASD did not obtain one of the listed incidents from the CPSRMS database the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2080, provides that assurances from any essential patent that involve table saws that meet the the Commission shall have no authority holders. current voluntary standard requirements to regulate any risk of injury associated C. Adequacy of the Voluntary Standards for riving knives and modular blade with a consumer product if such risk in Addressing Injuries guards. Of those 11 incidents, four could be eliminated or reduced to a incidents involved amputation, two sufficient extent by action taken under Currently, no voluntary standard incidents involved laceration, and one OSHA. However, if the risk to contains any requirements for AIM incident involved laceration and consumers cannot be sufficiently technology. CPSC staff does not believe fracture. These incidents show that reduced or eliminated by OSHA’s the existing requirements for a riving blade-contact injuries continue to occur actions, the CPSC has the authority to knife and modular blade guard will on table saws equipped with riving address that risk of injury associated adequately reduce the number or knives and modular blade guards, with with the consumer product. severity of blade-contact injuries on and without the blade guard in use. OSHA currently has regulations on table saws because table saws have been Moreover, as discussed above in table saws used in the workplace, which equipped with these safety devices section IV of the preamble and in TAB are codified at 29 CFR 1910.213, since 2009, and these safety devices B of the staff briefing package, CPSC Woodworking Machinery Requirements. have not been effective in reducing or staff performed a trend analysis of the The OSHA regulations require that table mitigating blade-contact injuries. In annual estimated number of emergency saws in the workplace include a blade 2011, staff evaluated the modular blade department-treated injuries associated guard, a spreader, and an anti-kickback guard system and concluded that it is an with table saws from 2004 to 2015. This device. 29 CFR 1910.213(c)&(d). The improvement over the single hood guard trend analysis includes the timespan OSHA regulations require the saw be design, but its effectiveness is still before the voluntary standard guarded by a hood with certain limited by users’ willingness to use the implemented the requirement for riving performance standards including, guard.41 knives and modular blade guards on among other things, requirements that As discussed in section IV of the the hood be strong enough to withstand preamble, since the ANPR, CPSC staff table saws (2004 to 2009) and the timespan after the requirements were certain pressures, be adjustable to the has conducted a modular blade guard thickness of the material being cut, and survey among owners of table saws with implemented (2010 to 2015). Staff concludes that there is no discernible be constructed in a way to protect the modular blade guards in 2015, reviewed operator from flying splinters and incidents from the CPSRMS database to change in the number of injuries or types of injuries related to table saw broken saw teeth. 29 CFR identify incidents involving table saws 1910.213(c)(1). The OSHA regulations equipped with modular blade guard blade contact from 2004 to 2015. CPSC also require inspection and maintenance systems, and performed a trend analysis staff also performed a trend analysis for of woodworking machinery. 29 CFR of the annual estimated number of the risk of blade-contact injury per 1910.213(s). The existing OSHA emergency department-treated injuries 10,000 table saws and concludes that regulations for table saws do not reflect associated with table saws from 2004 to there is no discernible change in the risk the latest revisions to 8th edition of UL 2015. of injury associated with table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. Accordingly, 987, which require riving knives and modular blade guards. 40 The assurances under subsection (b) above are the implementation of the riving knives commonly referred to as FRAND Commitments (or As discussed in the ANPR, CPSC staff fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). 42 Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016), supra found that the primary differences 41 76 FR 62683. note 11. between consumer and professional

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22207

users of table saws are environment and regulations are intended primarily to contact injuries associated with table training/experience.43 In many work ensure a safer work environment in the saws used by consumers, which include production environments where a professional workplace setting, rather cabinet and contractor saws. However, specific cut is performed continuously, than the home woodworking the Commission seeks comment guards and safety cut-off switches are environment. OSHA regulations rely on regarding whether the scope of the rule custom designed for that operation. The a comprehensive approach to promote should be modified to exclude certain area is specifically designed to be as safe safe practices in the workplace, types of table saws that are primarily as possible, and safety is a continuous including training and outreach, as well used for commercial or industrial use. focus through warning/instruction signs as mandatory safety standards and and posters that are often displayed enforcement. These safeguards are not VII. Overview and Basis for Proposed throughout the work area. The available to consumers operating table Requirements workplace is also subject to spontaneous saws in a home woodworking As discussed in section V of the inspection by OSHA inspectors; environment. preamble, CPSC staff reviewed data therefore, the prospect of being fined for Although the safety requirements analyses of finger injuries on table saws safety violations increases the provided in OSHA regulations would conducted by researchers at the likelihood that workers or supervisors not address the home woodworking University of Michigan in a study titled, will help ensure safety codes are environment, we note that there is no ‘‘Table saw injuries: epidemiology and a followed. In addition, professional clear dividing line between consumer proposal for preventive measures,’’ 45 woodworkers are in an industrial setting and professional saws, except at the and by UL in a report titled, ‘‘Table Saw where employees often receive training very highest levels of price and Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to on safety practices and in the proper use performance. We have little information Blade Contact,’’ 46 to assess the extent of the tool. Professional woodworkers on the proportion of occupational and severity of lacerations to the finger are more likely to have had training and purchasers for contractor saws and or hand from table saw operator bade to be experienced in performing any cabinet saws. However, CPSC staff’s contact. UL determined that, based on special or complex operations with the review shows that, based on discussions measurements from the study, a depth saw and are more likely to recognize with industry representatives, electrical of 4 mm is the maximum depth of cut situations and set-ups that may be requirements and power appear to to a finger before serious injury is dangerous or require extra care and provide the best distinction between sustained.47 caution. table saws typically used by consumers After conducting a range of tests on Conversely, as the ANPR further and those used most often in industrial sample table saws with AIM technology, discussed, amateur woodworkers settings. Tables saws operating at 1.75 CPSC staff developed a proposed generally have little or no safety horsepower or greater likely cannot be performance requirement to reduce the training, nor training in the proper use run on typical household wiring. Most severity of operator blade-contact 44 of the table saw. They may take consumers do not have the necessary injuries on table saws. The proposed woodworking classes or obtain a electrical wiring, specifically the requirement would require table saws to training video, but there is no specialized outlets and adapters, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm or less mechanism to encourage the home accommodate power tools with when a test probe, acting as surrogate woodworker to use a table saw as safely horsepower ratings greater than 1.75 or for a human finger, contacts the as possible. The home users typically requiring 220–240 volt power. Sliding spinning blade at a radial approach rate have far less experience than table saws and many other cabinet saws of 1 meter per second (m/s). professional woodworkers and may require such electrical capabilities and, discover dangerous or difficult therefore, are less likely to be used by A. CPSC Test Results on Existing AIM operations only by actually consumers. However, CPSC staff is Technology experiencing near accidents or aware of the development of a sliding CPSC staff purchased samples of table problems. The consumer woodworker saw aimed at the high-end do-it-yourself saws with AIM technology and also does not have the same OSHA- (DIY) market, and some serious developed test protocols to evaluate the regulated protections in the home wood woodworking hobbyists may wire their performance of the existing technology. shop. The focus on a safe environment home workshops to accommodate the UL report ‘‘Table Saw Hazard Study on in a consumer setting depends on the more powerful saws. Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact’’ knowledge and initiative of the home Although some of the more expensive, identified critical parameters that would woodworker. For example, in a high voltage table saws are used in define the hazard associated with a construction work or by professional workplace, regulations require that human finger/hand coming into contact wood workers, many of these same saws unsafe saws be removed from service with a spinning table saw blade.48 The may also be used in the home, in immediately, push sticks or push blocks two critical parameters identified are: schools, and in recreation be provided at the work place for (1) Approach velocity of the hand/ (woodworking workshops and clubs). guiding or pushing material past the finger when making contact with the Therefore, the CPSC staff believes that blade, and emphasis be placed on the table saw blade. these types of saws may be used more cleanliness around woodworking (2) Maximum depth of cut to the than occasionally by consumers. We machinery and, in particular, the hand/finger that would distinguish note that the incident data reviewed by effective functioning of guards and between simple and complex staff, as discussed in TAB B of the staff prevention of fire hazards. 29 CFR lacerations. briefing package, excludes occupational 1910.213(s). Due to ethical considerations which We continue to believe that OSHA injuries from the NEISS data, and are prohibit the use of human subjects to regulations may not adequately reduce not included in the injury data estimates. the risk of operator blade-contact 45 Chung, K. and Shauver, M., 2014, supra note injuries to consumers because OSHA’s Based on CPSC staff’s review, the 25. Commission concludes that current 46 UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26. 43 76 FR 62682. OSHA regulations do not adequately 47 Id. at 18. 44 Id. address the unreasonable risk of blade- 48 Id. at 3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22208 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

test the AIM capability of a table saw to of cut on the probe after activation of store electrical charge from a voltage mitigate blade-contact injury, CPSC staff the table saw’s AIM system. Staff source. A detailed description of staff’s developed a performance test using a determined that an AIM system based development of the HBN for these tests suitable test probe to serve as a on electrical detection can be triggered is available in TAB A of the staff surrogate for the human finger/hand. In by a conductive test probe that is briefing package. the case of an AIM system that relies on coupled to an electric circuit that CPSC staff used a cuboid-shaped test electrical detection, staff developed an mimics the human body, hereafter probe made of conductive silicone electric circuit mimicking human referred to as the human body network rubber because the probe had already contact to trigger the AIM system. CPSC (HBN). been developed by UL in its own testing staff determined that effective injury The test probe requires two mitigation can be defined by a properties: (1) Electrical conductivity, of AIM technology and the probe was maximum depth of cut to the test probe and (2) volumetric and mechanical readily available. The test probe, shown when it is introduced to the table saw properties that allow depth of cut to be in Figure 3, is made of low resistance, blade at a prescribed approach rate. The measured. The probe is electrically conductive silicone rubber measuring allowable depth of cut in the probe coupled to the HBN, which is a network 12.5 mm x 12.5 mm x 60 mm. Staff represents the quantitative threshold of resistors and capacitors that determined that a layer of less between a simple and complex approximate how the body would conductive material to represent the laceration, which is the difference respond to an electrical signal. The epidermis (outer layer of skin) of a between a minor injury and a severe body’s response is the result of two human finger is not necessary for AIM injury to arteries, nerves, or tendons that physical properties of the human body: testing because the system is triggered requires microsurgery to repair. This (1) Body resistance, which is a physical by contact with conductive ‘‘flesh’’ once threshold is 4 mm from the surface of property of the human body that limits the epidermal layer has been broken. the skin. the flow of electrical current into the Therefore, for test triggering purposes, CPSC staff focused on test protocols body when a voltage source is staff used a test probe that represents that introduced a probe, as a substitute contacted, and (2) body capacitance, the conductive layer of human flesh for a human finger, into the rotating saw which is a physical property of the once the epidermis has been cut by a blade and measured the resulting depth human body that allows the body to table saw blade.

The quantitative threshold between a mm value represents the quantitative speed at which a human finger moves simple and complex laceration of a threshold between a simple and toward the saw blade during a blade human finger is a 4.0 mm cut from the complex laceration of a human finger, as contact incident on a table saw. surface of the skin, and the mean measured by the test probe. However, there is no standard body of epidermal thickness for a fingertip is Staff coupled the test probe to the data that quantifies finger/hand 0.369 mm ± 0.112 mm, or a maximum HBN with a wire lead, fixed the probe approach rate to the saw blade in a table thickness of approximately 0.5 mm.49 in a holder attached to a computer- saw incident, and CPSC staff analysis of Because the test probe represents controlled linear actuator, and fastened blade contact incidents indicates that human flesh beneath the epidermis, the actuator to the table saw surface. there are many scenarios in which an staff subtracted the 0.5 mm thickness of This test protocol allowed staff to operator’s finger/hand can contact a the epidermal layer of skin from the 4.0 control the approach of the test probe to table saw blade. These scenarios are mm threshold value to arrive at a 3.5 a rotating saw blade and to measure the described in detail in TAB E of the staff mm value for the maximum allowable depth of cut to the test probe after briefing package. Sudden movement depth of cut to the test probe. This 3.5 activation of the table saw’s AIM from kickback can cause the operator to system. lose control of the workpiece and cause 49 Judi Whitton and J.D. Everall, ‘‘The Thickness of the Epidermis,’’ British Journal of Dermatology, The approach rate of the test probe to his/her hand to fall into or be ‘‘pulled’’ Vol. 89, Issue 5 (Nov. 1973) at 467–476. the saw blade represents the rate of into the blade. Hand/finger contact is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP12MY17.002 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22209

also possible without kickback in between 3.6 in/s (91 mm/s) and 14.5 in/ contact incident (see Figure 4.) 51 UL situations where the operator’s hand s (368 mm/s), and 14 percent of the considered its own analysis of gets too close to the blade while feeding incidents involved kickback of the SawStop’s incident data, literature the workpiece or the operator is workpiece.50 In 2014, UL conducted its searches, and human subject distracted and inadvertently contacts own analysis of approach rates and experiments and determined that 39.4 the saw blade. noted the difficulty of taking laboratory in/s (1000 mm/s or 1 m/s) is a In comments to the table saw ANPR measurements of human subjects and reasonable first-order estimate of a published on October 11, 2011, translating that information to estimate typical case in which a table saw SawStop presented analysis of the the approach velocity of an operator’s operator accidentally contacts the saw company’s incident data (over 1,316 hand or finger toward the center of the blade.52 table saw incidents), which indicates saw blade, or radial component of the approach rates to the blade occurred approach velocity, in an actual blade

CPSC staff’s analysis of operator detect finger contact and injury depth of cut for each test run. For all behavior in table saw blade-contact mitigation after contact. The test method capacitance values, both the SawStop injuries indicates that blade-contact may work if a system were designed and Bosch table saws produced cuts that injuries occur at approach rates that using visual tracking, or other means of were under the 3.5 mm threshold for range from slow feeding of the detection, to mitigate injury after allowable depth of cut into the probe. workpiece when the operator’s hand is detection. However, the test probe used The depth of cut for the SawStop table close to the blade and inadvertent to test AIM systems based on other saw tests ranged from 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm contact is made, to faster approach rates methods of detection should have the and the depth of cut for the Bosch table that occur when kickback of the appropriate properties to trigger the saw tests ranged from 1.9 mm to 2.5 workpiece causes the operator’s hand to system. mm. make contact with the blade. Staff CPSC staff tested a SawStop JSS–MCA CPSC staff’s test results indicate that concludes that a radial approach rate of jobsite table saw and a Bosch REAXXTM table saws with AIM systems that rely 1 m/s is appropriate for a performance jobsite table saw for AIM technology on electrical detection were able to test because this is a high rate of speed performance in accordance with the mitigate injury to a test probe, for the radial component of the hand’s above test protocol. Both saws have 10- approaching toward the center of the approach rate to the saw blade. In inch diameter blades, and the rotating saw blade at a rate of 1 m/s, addition, this radial approach rate is manufacturer’s blades were used in all upon contact with the blade by limiting more than twice as fast as the highest test runs. Staff ran tests with the probe the depth of cut to 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm. radial approach rate calculated by connected to the HBN which was These table saws limited the depth of SawStop in more than a thousand blade- connected to the table saw’s ground cut well below the 3.5 mm threshold contact injuries that activated their AIM wire. Staff tested 11 HBN settings/ between a simple and complex system. Therefore, staff conducted all configurations to represent the effect of laceration in a human finger, as tests at an approach rate of 1 m/s. mutual capacitance between the human measured by the test probe. CPSC staff developed a test method to body and its surroundings that increases evaluate various existing AIM systems the capacitance of the human body B. Proposed Requirement to compare them to the performance beyond its minimum self-capacitance of CPSC staff’s testing of the current AIM standard limiting the depth of cut after 50 pF in 50 pF steps up to 500 pF plus technology available on table saws in triggering, using a test probe that can be an additional short circuit test.53 The the U.S. market demonstrates that blade- used to evaluate the depth of cut when HBN settings reflect a stepped increase contact injuries on table saws would be the probe makes contact with the in increments of 50 pF to cover a reduced if table saw manufacturers are rotating saw blade while approaching reasonable range of body capacitance. required to meet a performance the blade at 1 m/s. Staff has used this CPSC staff tested both table saws with requirement for table saws that limits test method on currently available AIM 11 test probe activations at an approach the depth of cut to the specified test systems that use electrical sensing to rate of 1 m/s, and determined the probe probe, upon making contact with the

50 Gass, S. (2012). Comments and Information www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2011- 53 The units for electrical capacitance is the farad Responsive to the ANPR for Table Saw Blade- 0074-1106. (F). For most applications, the capacitance value is contact injuries by SawStop, LLC. https:// 51 UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26 at 22. very small so the picofarad (pF) is used to denote 52 Id. at 5. one trillionth (10¥12) of a farad.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP12MY17.003 22210 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

saw blade at an approach rate of 1.0 m/ they use effectively assesses compliance Commission received over 1,600 s, to 3.5 mm. The proposed rule would with the standard. comments in response to the ANPR. The require a test probe to act as surrogate The Commission is aware that, comments can be viewed on for the human body/finger contact with currently, there are only two AIMs www.regulations.gov by searching under the saw blade and to allow accurate systems currently capable of mitigating the docket number of the ANPR, CPSC– measurement of the depth of cut. a blade-contact injury, those used by 2011–0074. Approximately 134 Although the test probe and test SawStop and Bosch REAXXTM, which commenters supported developing method described in TAB A of the staff operate by sensing electrical properties regulatory standards for table saws. The briefing package, are appropriate for the of the human body/finger and then other commenters generally opposed the evaluation of AIM systems using an retracting the blade. Although the rulemaking proceeding. These electrical detection system, other test Commission believes that new AIM comments are addressed below. probes and test methods using a technologies can be developed in addition to the existing AIM A. Mandatory Standard Would Create different detection system may be Monopoly developed to detect human body/finger technologies to meet the performance contact with the saw blade and to requirements, if such new technologies Comment: Numerous commenters measure depth of cut. There are many cannot be developed, the Commission stated that table saw performance possible methods to detect human has considered the economic impacts on requirements that mitigate blade-contact contact with a saw blade that range from manufacturers who may be required to injuries would force all manufacturers electrical, optical, thermal, license the existing technologies. That to use the SawStop patented technology. electromagnetic, to ultrasound and discussion appears in section XI of the Many commenters stated that others. For example, a detection system preamble and in TAB C of the staff mandating the use of the SawStop technology will result in a monopoly could be developed that uses thermal briefing package. and stifle innovation, granting an unfair sensing properties of the human body/ VIII. Stockpiling advantage to one company. Commenters finger or visual sensing and tracking of In accordance with Section 9 of stated that table saw performance the human body/finger. The CPSA, the proposed rule contains a requirements would be ‘‘a design Commission believes that AIM systems provision that would prohibit a standard’’ because SawStop’s parent using a different detection approach manufacturer from ‘‘stockpiling,’’ or company (SD3, LLC) owns a number of than what is currently on the market substantially increasing the manufacture U.S. patents for sensing technology and may be developed, based on sound or importation of noncomplying table blade braking and blade retracting material science and engineering saws between the date that the proposed technology. Some commenters stated knowledge. rule may be promulgated as a final rule that if the CPSC did not mandate a Likewise, there are many different and the final rule’s effective date. The particular technology, other companies methods to limit the depth of cut to a proposed rule would prohibit the could introduce their own safety probe. SawStop removes the blade from manufacture or importation of technologies, some of which may prove contact with the finger by stopping the noncomplying table saws in any period to be better than SawStop’s technology. blade and allowing angular momentum of 12 consecutive months between the Some commenters predicted that if to retract the blade. The Bosch date of promulgation of the final rule CPSC did not mandate the SawStop TM REAXX retracts the blade with an and the effective date, at a rate that is AIM technology, other injury mitigation explosive discharge. Other ways of greater than 120% of the rate at which technologies would be developed and retracting the blade could include they manufactured or imported table the competition among the technologies pneumatic (using high pressure air), or saws during the base period for the would eventually bring down the prices hydraulic (high pressure oil) systems. manufacturer. The base period is any associated with these new technologies. Another method to minimize blade period of 365 consecutive days, chosen Response: The proposed performance contact could involve moving the finger by the manufacturer or importer, in the requirements would not require or hand away from the blade by 5-year period immediately preceding manufacturers to use the SawStop projecting the blade away from the hand promulgation of the rule. patented technology. The proposed rule or projecting the table upwards rather Assuming a promulgation date in does not mandate a particular detection than retracting the blade. The 2018, the sales period from 2013–2017 method or test method to mitigate blade- Commission seeks comments on the (shipments were 600,000 in 2013 and contact injury. The proposed feasibility of developing new AIM 625,000 in 2014) would allow performance requirement for table saws technology on table saws and whether manufacturers to produce more than limits the depth of cut to a test probe, different detection methods may be 720,000 saws (600,000 ×120 percent), upon making contact with the saw blade applied as part of an AIM system. assuming sales in years 2015 to 2017 are at a radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to The proposed rule would establish a stable. In the longer term of 2002 to 3.5 mm. Any test probe that is used performance requirement, but it does 2014, annual shipments averaged must act as a surrogate for a human not dictate how table saw manufacturers 675,000 table saws. The stockpiling body/finger to ensure that the depth of would meet those requirements. Rather, limit would thus allow the industry to the cut can be measured properly upon firms would have the flexibility to meet any foreseeable increase in the contact with the saw blade. There are determine the appropriate technology to demand for table saws without allowing many methods to detect human contact meet the specified performance large quantities of table saws to be with a saw blade that range from requirement. In the staff’s briefing stockpiled. electrical, optical, thermal, package, CPSC staff has explained the electromagnetic, to ultrasound and test procedure and equipment that staff IX. Response to Comments others. Likewise, there are many would use to assess compliance with an In this section, we describe and methods to limit the depth of cut to a AIM system that uses electrical sensing respond to comments to the table saw probe that would not require retraction technology. However, manufacturers ANPR. We present a summary of of the saw blade. Although all of these need not use this particular test comments by topic, followed by the different systems do not yet exist, such procedure, so long as the test method Commission’s response. The AIM systems may be developed.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22211

Although the proposed rule does not technology (if available) as an each year in the analysis. CPSC staff require a particular AIM technology, the alternative to the SawStop technology. performed a trend analysis on the risk Commission is aware that, currently, Alternatively, if the courts decide that of blade-contact injuries and found that there are only two AIMs systems other technologies do, in fact, infringe there is no discernible change in the risk capable of mitigating a blade-contact upon SawStop patents, then SawStop of blade-contact injury associated with injury, those used by SawStop and may effectively have a monopoly on the table saws from 2004 to 2015. Bosch REAXXTM. Both of these systems technology needed to comply with a In addition, staff is aware of at least operate by sensing electrical properties mandatory rule, until SawStop’s patents 11 incidents from the CPSRMS database of the human body/finger and limiting expire. However, even if the patents (2004–2015) that involve table saws that the depth of cut by retraction of the expire, if new AIM technology is not meet the current voluntary standard blade. developed, other manufacturers likely requirements for a riving knife and The Commission is also aware of would be required to work with modular blade guard. A riving knife ongoing litigation between SawStop and SawStop and/or Bosch to license the may reduce the occurrence of kickback other table saw manufacturers, SawStop or Bosch technologies for use (that can lead to unexpected stock including Bosch. For example, on July in their saws. Even if all of the relevant movement and finger/hand contact with 16, 2015, SawStop filed a complaint patents eventually become public, many the blade) on a table saw, but kickback against Bosch at the ITC, requesting an manufacturers may not be able to can still occur on table saws equipped investigation under section 337 of the develop their own AIM system, and will with a riving knife. Furthermore, Tariff Act of 1930, to limit entry into the either have to license the technology or reducing kickback will not eliminate United States of the Bosch REAXXTM exit the table saw market. As discussed blade-contact injuries because blade- table saws that allegedly infringed on in section XI of the preamble and in contact injuries can occur without several SawStop patents. In the Matter TAB C of the staff briefing package, the kickback of the stock. of Certain Table Saws Incorporating level at which the royalty payments are The new modular blade guard system Active Injury Mitigation Technology and set will play a significant role in is a significant improvement over the Components Thereof, Investigation No. determining the economic impacts that old guard design; however, the 337–TA–965. The status of litigation CPSC’s rule could have on table saw effectiveness of any blade guard system between Bosch and SawStop is ongoing manufacturers. depends upon an operator’s willingness to use it. Results of the modular blade and has not been resolved. We note that B. Voluntary Standard Process some of the allegedly infringed upon guard survey in 2015 of table saw patents may expire in 2020, and 2022, 1. Comment: Numerous commenters owners with modular blade guards which may resolve the patent issues in stated that CPSC staff should work with indicate that a majority of respondents the ITC investigation. However, we do the table saw industry to offer solutions. (80%) reported that there are not know what other SawStop patents The commenters stated that the circumstances that require the blade may be impacted by companies that voluntary standards process is working guard to be removed and a majority of attempt alternative AIM technologies, and has resulted in the addition of a respondents removed the blade guard nor do we know the expiration dates of permanent riving knife on all table ‘‘sometimes’’ (28%), ‘‘often’’ (17%) or the other existing SawStop patents saws. In addition, other commenters ‘‘always’’ (14%).55 The results of the given that SawStop filed more than 100 stated that the industry has also user survey demonstrate that removal of patents with the U.S. Patent and required the modular blade guard on all the blade guard is a necessary and Trademark Office related to SawStop’s table saws, which has improved the proper action when making certain cuts woodworking safety systems. Therefore, safety of table saws. on table saws. In addition, many users it is possible that any injury mitigation Numerous commenters also stated choose not to use the modular blade system on a table saw that relies on that current table saws (some referring guard at all or only some of the time. sensing electrical properties, or other to older table saws with traditional Any situation where the blade guard is properties of the human body and blade guards, and some referring to not used eliminates the effectiveness of finger, and engages a reaction system newer table saws with riving knives and the blade guard in preventing blade- may potentially infringe on a SawStop modular blade guards) are safe, if used contact injuries. properly. Many commenters cited their patent.54 Based on the trend analysis of blade- The outcome of ongoing lawsuits own personal experiences with table contact injuries and risk of blade- involving the SawStop technology will saw use and claimed that because they contact injuries from 2004 to 2015, the determine some of the impacts that may have not had an injury this proves that CPSRMS incidents, and staff’s review of result from a mandatory rule requiring current table saws are safe. responses to the modular blade guard Response: CPSC staff performed a AIM technology for table saws. If the survey, the Commission does not see trend analysis of the annual estimated courts determine that the patents evidence that the voluntary standard number of emergency department- covering the SawStop technology allow requirements have reduced or changed treated table saw blade-contact injuries for companies to manufacture their own blade-contact injuries on table saws. In from 2004 to 2015. This trend analysis saws with alternative AIM technologies addition, CPSC staff has participated includes the timespan before the (such as the Bosch REAXXTM saw), then with the table saw industry and other voluntary standard required riving some manufacturers may choose to try stakeholders in UL working groups knives and modular blade guards on to develop their own proprietary since September 2011 to develop safety table saws (2004 to 2009) and the technology or license the Bosch standards for table saws. UL proposed timespan after the requirements were AIM system performance requirements 54 SawStop has also filed antitrust claims alleging implemented (2010 to 2015). Staff’s for table saws in February 2015 and that several major table saws manufacturers review shows that there is no February 2016, which indicates that the conspired to boycott SawStop’s safety technology discernible change in the number of voluntary standards governing body and manipulate safety standards. See SawStop LLC injuries or types of injuries related to v. Black & Decker, et. al, 801 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. believes that table saws should exhibit 2015); SawStop LLC v. Black & Decker, et. al, CV table saws from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff No. 1:14-cv-00191, 2016 WL 6093488 (E.D.Va. Oct. then analyzed the risk of blade-contact 55 Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016), supra 18, 2016). injury per 10,000 table saws in use for note 11.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22212 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

active injury mitigation performance. estimated 52.4 percent of all from NEISS and the CPSC’s Injury Cost However, despite these efforts, the AIM amputations related to workshop Model (ICM), the proposed rule would requirements have not been adopted in products in 2015. Based on the severity address an estimated 54,800 medically the UL standard. Therefore, the of injuries and recurring hazard patterns treated blade-contact injuries annually. Commission believes that the voluntary of blade-contact injuries, coupled with The societal costs of these injuries (in standard activities have not been the high societal costs of these injuries, 2014 dollars and using a 3 percent effective at addressing blade-contact the Commission believes that a discount rate) amounted to about $4.06 injuries on table saws. performance requirement is necessary to billion in 2015. Amputations accounted reduce the risk of injuries associated for about 14 percent of the medically C. Consumer Choice with blade contact on table saws. treated blade-contact injuries but almost 1. Comment: Numerous commenters 2. Comment: Many commenters two-thirds of the injury costs. Overall, stated that table saw users should be supported preserving consumer choice medical costs and work losses account responsible for their actions, should use in the table saw market by not for about 30 percent of these costs, or common sense when operating the table mandating AIM technology. Most about $1.2 billion. The intangible costs saw, and should accept the risk of using wanted table saws equipped with AIM associated with pain and suffering a table saw. Many commenters stated technology to be available, and some account for the remaining 70 percent of that SawStop table saws are already even stated that they owned a SawStop injury costs. Because of the substantial available and the free market system saw; however, they wanted to preserve societal costs attributable to blade- should determine whether or not the option to purchase less expensive contact injuries, and the expected high consumers will purchase a table saw table saws not equipped with an AIM rate of effectiveness of the proposed with enhanced safety features. Many of technology. Many commenters stated requirement in preventing blade-contact these same commenters opposed any that the consumer should decide injuries, the estimated net benefits (i.e., mandate from the federal government to whether table saws equipped with AIM benefits minus costs) for the market as make table saws safer. These technology are worth the increased cost. a whole averaged $1,500 to $4,000 per commenters contended that the federal Some commenters stated that there are saw. Aggregate net benefits on an government should not regulate already safety devices, such as splitters, annual basis could amount to about consumer choice or behavior. Many blade guards, and push sticks, which if $625 million to about $2,300 million. commenters stated that other products used properly, will reduce injuries; and However, the Commission also can also cause injury such as knives or therefore, consumers who properly use considered alternatives to the rule, band saws and ask if the CPSC will these devices should not be forced to including no regulatory action, deferring regulate those products as well. Other pay more for saws with AIM technology. to the voluntary standard, later effective commenters argued that lawsuits against Some commenters requested that dates, exempting certain classes or types table saw manufacturers reward users manufacturers be required to offer at of table saws, and information and who are irresponsible and use table least one table saw with AIM education campaigns. These alternatives saws improperly. technology, instead of requiring all table are discussed in detail in section XI.J. of Response: CPSC staff’s analysis of saws to be equipped with the the preamble and TAB C of the staff blade contact incidents indicates that technology. Other commenters noted briefing package. The Commission there are many scenarios in which an that saws equipped with AIM determined preliminarily that the operator’s finger/hand can contact a technology are already available in the various alternatives would not greatly table saw blade, and there are certain marketplace and if consumers wanted reduce the number of blade-contact cuts on table saws that require removal these saws, they could purchase them. injuries that would be addressed by the of the blade guard. Therefore, an Response: We acknowledge that, proposed rule. Based on the severity of operator’s decision to use a table saw although some consumers would prefer injuries and recurring hazard patterns of without all safety devices does not table saws with the AIM technology, blade-contact injuries, coupled with the necessarily indicate intentional neglect other consumers would prefer to have high societal costs of these injuries, the or ignorance on the part of the operator. the option to purchase a table saw Commission believes that a performance Sudden movement of the workpiece without the AIM technology. In requirement is necessary to reduce the from kickback can cause the operator to addition, some consumers may also unreasonable risk of blade-contact lose control of the workpiece and cause prefer the use of passive table saw safety injuries on all table saws. However, the his/her hand to fall into or be ‘‘pulled’’ devices, as opposed to the AIM Commission seeks comment on various into the blade. Hand/finger contact is technology. However, the Commission alternatives that would not require all also possible without kickback, in believes that while the proposed rule table saws to be produced with the AIM situations where the operator’s hand would prevent consumers from technology. gets too close to the blade while feeding purchasing table saws without some the workpiece or the operator is type of AIM technology, the proposed D. Table Saw Incident Data Analysis distracted and inadvertently contacts requirement would also substantially 1. Comment: Numerous commenters the saw blade. In addition, many of the reduce the serious b blade-contact stated that CPSC staff injury data scenarios leading to blade contact may injuries involving table saws every year. analysis was faulty because it did not be more likely if the consumer is tired In addressing the blade contact risk, the include the effects of the modular blade or if the view of the blade, or cut, is Commission must weigh the costs of guard system. Specifically, the impaired in some way. blade-contact injuries against the cost of commenters argued that a meaningful An estimated 4,700 amputations limiting consumer choice and the rule’s analysis cannot be completed based on related to table saws occur each year. potential effect on the utility, cost, and the 2007–2008 Injury Report because it When compared to all other types of product availability to consumers. includes data only related to old guard consumer products, an estimated 18.6 As discussed in section XI of the designs rather than the new modular percent of all amputations in the NEISS preamble and in TAB C of the staff blade guarding system. The Power Tool in 2015 are related to table saws. When briefing package, the Commission Industry (PTI) estimated that, in 2012, compared to all other workshop considered the costs and benefits of more than 900,000 table saws had been products, table saws accounted for an proposing the rule. Based on estimates sold since 2007 that use the modular

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22213

blade guard. Some commenters stated involving table saws with traditional riving knives will eliminate kickback that CPSC staff failed to estimate the blade guards in terms of their use with and therefore reduce most injuries. risk of injury associated with table saw and without blade guards and accidents Response: Based on CPSC staff’s use, and that this data is needed to occurring with and without unexpected review of the data, the Commission evaluate the effectiveness of the stock movement from kickback of the believes that while the proposed rule voluntary standard requirements for a material. In addition, the modular blade would not eliminate kickback, the riving knife and modular guard on table guard survey conducted by the CPSC in proposed performance requirement saws. 2015 indicates that consumers would reduce injuries that occur when Response: For the proposed rule, frequently remove the modular blade kickback results in blade contact. CPSC CPSC staff estimated the yearly table guard to perform certain cuts, or do not staff’s analysis of blade contact saw blade-contact injuries from 2004 to use the modular blade guard at all or incidents indicates that there are many 2015 by using estimates from NEISS. only some of the time. scenarios in which an operator’s finger/ The date range for the trend analysis Based on the trend analysis of blade- hand can contact a table saw blade and includes a timespan before the contact injuries and risk of blade- there are certain cuts on table saws that voluntary standard required table saws contact injuries dating from 2004 to require removal of the blade guard. to be equipped with a riving knife and 2015 conducted by staff, plus anecdotal Sudden movement of the workpiece modular blade guard (2004 to 2009) and evidence from CPSRMS that blade- from kickback can cause the operator to a timespan after the voluntary standard contact injuries continue to occur on lose control of the workpiece and cause requirements became effective on most table saws that meet the current his/her hand to fall into or be ‘‘pulled’’ table saws (2010 to 2015). A proportion voluntary standards requirements, and into the blade. However, hand/finger of table saws manufactured before the results from the modular blade guard contact is also possible without current voluntary standard became survey, the Commission does not see kickback when the operator’s hand gets effective is expected to remain in use evidence that the voluntary standard too close to the blade while feeding the throughout this whole period. However, requirements for riving knives or workpiece, or when the operator is in more recent years, after the current modular blade guards have reduced or distracted and inadvertently contacts voluntary standard became effective, an mitigated blade-contact injuries on table the saw blade. increasing proportion of table saws in saws. Accordingly, the Commission CPSC staff identified 53 incidents in use conforms to the current voluntary believes that the proposed performance the CPSRMS database that involve standard. Thus, if the voluntary requirement is necessary to reduce the blade-contact injury on a table saw that standard was positively impacting the unreasonable risk of blade-contact occurred between January 1, 2004 and number or severity of injuries, there injuries associated with table saws. December 31, 2015, and were reported would be a steady decrease in the 2. Comment: One commenter to CPSC by March 1, 2016. For the majority of incidents, it is unknown number of injuries or severity of injuries questioned the results of the 2007–2008 whether unexpected workpiece as the proportion of compliant table NEISS special study indicating that 68.7 movement was involved in the blade saws increased. However, the data percent of saws involved in incidents contact. However, of the incidents reviewed by CPSC staff do not indicate were fixed cabinet saws, 18.3 percent where information about the that requirements in the voluntary were semi-portable contractor saws, and contribution of workpiece movement standard have had any impact in 10.5 percent were portable bench saws. was known, most blade-contact injuries reducing the number or severity of The commenter stated the results were blade-contact injuries on table saws. involved some type of unexpected inconsistent with other data in the CPSC staff performed trend analyses workpiece movement. In addition, 11 of survey regarding the table saws’ for blade-contact injuries, as well as the 53 incidents involved table saws blade contact amputations, characteristics. that meet the current voluntary standard hospitalizations, and finger/hand Response: CPSC staff conducted a re- requirements for a riving knife and injuries from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff analysis of the saw type and drive type modular blade guard. CPSC staff concludes that there is no discernible responses provided by the injury believes that the data show that blade- change in the number of blade-contact victims in the 2007–2008 special study contact injuries continue to occur on injuries or types of injuries related to and published the results of the re- table saws equipped with a riving knife table saw blade contact from 2004 to analysis in June 2014. CPSC staff stated and modular blade guard. 2015. CPSC staff also performed a trend that consideration should be given to 4. Comment: One commenter claimed analysis for the risk of blade-contact staff’s finding that the distribution of that the full NEISS sample injury per 10,000 table saws and, injuries for different types of saws overestimated the number of table saw likewise, concludes that there is no cannot be based on how respondents blade-contact injuries in 2007–2008 discernible change in the risk of injury answered questions about the type of based on estimates from the National 56 associated with table saws from 2004 to saw. However, as discussed in section Electronic Injury Surveillance System— 2015. IV of the preamble, the Commission is All Injury Program (NEISS–AIP). More CPSC staff has also reviewed not relying on any data used in the specifically, the commenter argued that incidents reported through means other 2007–2008 special study for the because the proportion of NEISS–AIP than the NEISS, which are entered in proposed rule. amputations (52%) treated in hospital the CPSC’s CPSRMS database. Of the 53 3. Comment: Several commenters emergency department(s) (ED) was incidents identified in the CPSRMS stated that most table saw injuries are statistically less than the proportion of database that were reported in the caused by kickback of the workpiece ED amputations from the full NEISS period from 2004 to 2015, 36 involved and the SawStop system does not estimate, NEISS–AIP is the appropriate table saws with a traditional blade guard prevent kickback. Others stated that and preferable sample to use when and 11 involved table saws with a making national estimates of table saw modular blade guard. A review of the 56 See http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research- ED injuries. and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Home reports indicates that the incident %20Maintenance%20and%20Construction/ Response: In the proposed rule, CPSC scenarios for table saws with modular CoverpageandMemoofStaffAnalysisofTableSaw staff has reviewed updated incident data blade guards are similar to incidents TypeinNEISSSpecialStudy.pdf. based on estimates from NEISS hospital

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22214 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

records for injuries related to product offices, emergency clinics, ambulatory emergency rooms, and this is reflected code 0841 (table or bench saws) for care centers, etc.).57 As described more in the CPSC injury estimates. 2015. For the ANPR, staff’s estimate of fully in section XI of the preamble and 2. Comment: Two commenters ED-treated blade-contact injuries for TAB C of the staff briefing package, focused on several aspects of the table saws, including the estimate of ED- estimates were derived from empirical economic value of injury risks used by treated amputations, was based on the relationships between ED-treated the CPSC in its 2011 analysis. One weighted national estimate of actual injuries and injuries treated in other commenter suggested that the CPSC did blade-contact injuries reported through settings, based on National Health not provide any supporting data for any the full NEISS sample of hospitals Interview Survey records (which of the four cost components of the ICM: during 2007–2008. NEISS is a stratified provided detailed information on where Medical treatment, lost time from work, national probability sample of the injuries were treated) stretching over product liability costs, and pain and approximately 100 U.S. hospital EDs 10 years. suffering. The commenter suggested that counting product liability costs as well that allows the CPSC to make The estimate of occupational table as pain and suffering may lead to double statistically valid national estimates of saw injuries treated in hospital EDs is counting. Furthermore, the commenter product-related injuries treated in U.S. not relevant for the table saw analysis. asserted that the appropriate method for hospital EDs. The NEISS–AIP is a The CPSC excludes occupational statistical subsample of the full NEISS assessing the benefits from public injuries from the CPSC estimate of sample that is administered by the CDC programs is society’s willingness to pay consumer injuries whenever possible. and consists of approximately two- to avert small risks, an ex ante amount, Moreover, the NIOSH estimates thirds of the NEISS hospitals in each as opposed to a retrospective piecemeal mentioned by the commenter were not stratum. This subsample collects approach adopted by the CPSC. Finally, based on a ‘‘NIOSH hospital sample.’’ information on injuries outside CPSC’s this commenter noted that even if jury Rather they were based on the NEISS– jurisdiction, including occupational, awards for pain and suffering AIP, a subsample of NEISS hospitals motor vehicle, boating, and other corresponded to willingness to pay administered by the CDC. The AIP injuries. values, there is no justification for For table saw injuries (product code = subsample covers a much broader range applying these rates to all table saw 0841) in 2007–2008, approximately 62 of injuries, i.e. occupational, motor injuries. Another commenter stated that percent of the weighted national vehicle, boating and other injuries, in the pain and suffering portion of the estimate comes from the hospitals in the addition to injuries that are consumer ICM injury cost estimates are overstated NEISS–AIP subsample. Although the product related, so the number of and inappropriate. commenter estimated that amputations records collected is much higher for the Response: The methodology and data from the NEISS–AIP subsample AIP subsample. Thus, the results for the supporting the various components in accounted for only about 52 percent of CPSC estimate of consumer injuries and the ICM are described in section XI of amputations from the total NEISS the NIOSH estimate of occupational the preamble and in TAB C of the staff sample and reported that the difference injuries are not inconsistent. briefing package. The societal costs of was statistically significant, contrary to Finally, the mix of injury severities blade-contact injuries represent the pool the commenter’s assertions, the from the NEISS ED injury sample was from which the benefits of a blade proportion of amputations coming from not simply projected onto the estimate contact rule are derived. The societal NEISS–AIP was not, in fact, statistically of injuries treated outside of hospital costs of these injuries are quantified different than the overall national EDs. Rather, the estimates were based with the ICM. The ICM is fully estimate of table saw injuries that came on the characteristics of injuries and integrated with NEISS, and, in addition from the full NEISS sample. victims treated outside of hospital EDs. to providing estimates of the societal costs of injuries reported through E. Economic Issues For example, based on information from the National Health Interview Survey, a NEISS, it also estimates the costs of 1. Comment: One commenter stated 40-year-old woman is almost twice as medically treated injuries that are that CPSC staff gives no basis for likely to be treated in a doctor’s office treated outside of hospital EDs. The projecting injury estimates derived from (or some other non-ED settings) with a major aggregated societal cost NEISS onto other medically treated fractured clavicle than would a 10-year- components provided by the ICM injuries to obtain a national injury rate old boy.58 Consequently, for this include medical costs, work losses, and for table saws. The commenter noted example, the ICM would estimate more the intangible costs associated with lost that other estimates of table saw-related injuries treated outside the emergency quality of life or pain and suffering. In injuries differ from CPSC’s; using the room for 40-year-old women and fewer recent years, CPSC staff has excluded NIOSH hospital sample, the average injuries treated outside of hospital EDs the product liability costs from ICM cost total number of work-related injuries for 10-year-old boys. The more serious estimates. Although this component was treated in hospital emergency rooms for and life threatening injuries are more intended to represent the costs of table saws was below the CPSC likely to be treated in hospital administering the product liability estimate. The commenter asserted that, system in the United States, there was to the extent that more serious injuries the possibility of some double counting, 57 Miller, Lawrence, Jensen, Waehrer, Spicer, are likely to be treated in emergency Lestina, Cohen, The Consumer Product Safety as suggested by the commenter. rooms, the mix of injury severity based Commission’s Revised Injury Cost Model (Dec. Accordingly, product liability costs on the NEISS data overstates the 2000), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/ administration costs are not included in severity mix once the injury total is 100269/costmodept1.PDF. Since the table saw the proposed rule. ANPR was published, the methodology for multiplied by a set factor. projecting the number of non-ED-treated injuries The commenter also promotes the Response: The CPSC staff uses the has been updated. It is described in: Revised concept of willingness-to-pay over the CPSC’s ICM to project the number of Incidence Estimates for Non-Fatal, Non- method used by CPSC staff to estimate medically treated injuries treated Hospitalized Consumer Product Injuries Treated the likely benefits of regulation. CPSC Outside Emergency Departments, Bruce Lawrence, outside of hospital emergency Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, does use willingness-to-pay estimates in departments (e.g., non-ED office visits, Calverton, MD, (April 2013). valuing fatal injuries. However, such including medical treatment in doctor’s 58 Miller et al., 2000, supra note 57, Table 6. estimates do not generally exist for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22215

nonfatal injuries, such as blade-contact commenter suggested that this factors noted above. At the time of the injuries on table saws. purported error would be corrected by ANPR, these estimates were based on an 3. Comment: One commenter asserted reducing CPSC’s estimate of non-ED analysis of 10 years of data from the that the injury data used by CPSC’s staff office visits (based on ratios involving National Health Interview Survey to estimate societal costs in its 2011 rates of hospitalization). The commenter (NHIS, 1987 to 1996) which provided analysis were based on extrapolations concluded that there were about 42,800 information on the proportion of finger that were imprecise and resulted in medically attended blade-contact amputations initially treated in the ED greatly overstated societal costs. The injuries involving table saws annually relative to the proportion of finger commenter based this statement on two during 2007–2008, about 36 percent less amputations initially treated outside of factors. First, the commenter asserted than CPSC’s estimate of 67,300. the ED during non-ED office visits. The that injury costs should be limited to Response: CPSC staff’s review of 2015 current version of the ICM uses data blade-contact injuries reported through data, based on estimates from NEISS from the 1996–2007 Medical hospital emergency rooms. Second, and the CPSC’s ICM, shows that the Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) using because only about 11 percent of ED- draft proposed rule would address an the same classification tree methodology treated injuries resulted in estimated 54,800 medically treated to estimate the proportion of injuries hospitalization, the commenter blade-contact injuries annually. As treated outside the ED.60 suggested that inclusion of the ED- described in more detail in section XI of The hospital admitted injuries that treated and released injuries greatly the preamble, and TAB C of the staff the commenter discussed are used by exaggerated the CPSC estimate of briefing package, the ICM uses the ICM only to estimate the injuries societal costs. empirically derived relationships that bypass the emergency room and are Response: CPSC staff uses the ICM to between ED-treated injuries and injuries admitted directly to the hospital. project the number of medically treated treated in other settings to estimate the Injuries that bypass the ED, but result in injuries treated outside of hospital number of injuries treated outside of hospitalization would, for example, emergency departments, and the costs of hospital EDs. The methodology does not include cases in which an injury is those injuries. Estimates were derived use a single 1 to 1 extrapolation factor, initially treated in a doctor’s office, but from empirical relationships between as suggested by the commenter. Nor the doctor decides that the victim ED-treated injuries and injuries treated does it estimate non-ED table saw blade- should be hospitalized immediately. in other settings, and based on National contact injuries by assuming ‘‘that the One medical facility, the Maryland Health Interview Survey records (which average injury severity (and thus the Institute for Emergency Medical provided detailed information on where likelihood of seeking ED treatment) is Services Systems (MIEMSS) also the injuries were treated) stretching over comparable to that for other types of directly admits trauma victims. The 10 years.59 Cost estimates for the products,’’ as suggested by the ratio used for estimating these direct injuries treated outside of hospital commenter. Rather, based on national admissions was computed with data emergency departments are generally survey data from the National Health from the National Ambulatory Medical less than the costs of injuries initially Interview Survey, the ICM uses Care Survey and the National Hospital treated in emergency rooms. To exclude information on the age, sex, diagnosis Discharge Survey.61 injuries treated outside of hospital (e.g., fracture, amputation), body part, The commenter points out that, when emergency departments would severely and injury disposition to estimate compared to injuries involving other underestimate the types and costs of injuries treated in non-ED settings. For products, a higher proportion of table injuries associated with table saw use. example, according to national survey saw blade-contact injuries that are Moreover, while it is true that costs data (from the National Health Interview treated initially in hospital EDs result in associated with injuries that were Survey), a 40-year-old woman is almost hospital admission. Based on NEISS treated and released from emergency twice as likely to go to a doctor’s office, estimates, this statement is correct. It departments are substantially less than an emergency clinic, or some other non- may also suggest that, relative to other hospitalized injuries, the costs ED office setting with a fractured product-related hazards, a higher associated with treated and released clavicle as a 10-year-old boy. proportion of blade-contact injuries is injuries can still be substantial. To Consequently, as suggested by this likely to be treated initially in hospital exclude the treated and released example, the ICM estimates more EDs as opposed to non-ED settings (a injuries, which typically account for injuries treated outside the emergency conclusion that is fully consistent with about 90 percent to 95 percent of table room for certain combinations of injury the staff’s ICM estimates of table saw saw injuries presenting at hospital EDs, and victim characteristics. For other blade-contact injuries). However, this would substantially underestimate the types of injuries, a greater proportion conclusion is not sufficient to allow us cost of table saw injuries. would be treated in hospital emergency to quantify directly the proportion of 4. Comment: One commenter asserted rooms. blade-contact injuries treated outside that the methodology CPSC uses to The ICM uses a classification tree that the ED. Nor does it imply, by itself, that extrapolate from ED-treated injuries to takes into account age, gender, body the ICM has overestimated the number all medically treated injuries does not part, and injury diagnosis in of table saw injuries initially treated in acknowledge that table saw injuries are determining the ratios of non-ED office non-ED office visits or that the number likely to be more serious, and thus, visits to ED-treated injuries. Thus, for of injuries treated outside of hospital more likely to require treatment in a example, estimates of non-ED doctor- hospital ED, than injuries involving treated finger amputations involving 60 Lawrence, 2013, supra note 57. fingers, wrists, hands, and lower arms table saws are not product specific, but 61 Since the ANPR was published, the that are associated with other consumer rather, are based on general ratios of methodology for projecting the number of admitted injuries bypassing the emergency room has been products. Accordingly, the commenter finger amputations involving all updated and is described in Bhattachara, S., contended that the ICM overstates the consumer products in each of the Lawrence, B., Miller, T.R., Zaloshnja, E., Jones, P.R., annual number of blade-contact injuries medical treatment settings (i.e., the ratio Ratios for Computing Medically Treated Injury of finger amputations treated in the EDs Incidence and Its Standard Error from NEISS Data treated during non-ED office visits. The (Contract CPSC–D–05–0006, Task Order 8). to amputations treated in non-ED office Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and 59 Miller et al., 2000, supra note 57. visits), with adjustments for the other Evaluation, (Aug. 2012).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22216 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

EDs should be lowered. The ICM bases indices that reflect actual changes in higher, approximately $4.06 billion in estimates of non-ED office visits on 10 price levels, rather than changes in the 2014 dollars, based on more recent data years of NHIS data showing the ‘‘real wage cost’’ (RWC) used by the and analyses. relationship between injuries treated in commenter, then the estimates of costs 7. Comment: One commenter asserted the ED and injuries treated elsewhere. associated with the lost quality of life that an economic justification for To estimate the number of injuries would result in costs per table saw product safety regulation requires some treated in non-ED settings, the injury that are comparable to, or higher kind of fundamental market failure. The commenter applied diagnosis-specific than, CPSC’s estimates. commenter noted that in the absence of ratios of the hospitalization rate for table The commenter’s approach for such a failure the usual assumption is saw injuries to the hospitalization rate inflating non-medical costs for changes that consumers will purchase products for other products. However, this in the nominal price level is not that offer the mix of characteristics and appears to be an ad hoc procedure for appropriate because it provides product price that best match their reducing non-ED office visits (which the estimates of changes in real wages, but preferences. The major types of market commenter had already concluded, does not adjust for changes in the price failure mentioned by the commenter without supporting data, to be too high). level. (The change in the RWC index is include: (1) Inadequate or asymmetric Moreover, the commenter presented no computed by dividing the changes in information about risks; (2) externalities empirical basis for estimating (or wages by the CPI-All Items index, and that impose costs on non-table saw reducing) the number of injuries treated measures changes over and above users; and (3) market power that would in non-ED office visits based solely on inflation.) As a consequence, the allow firms some control over market information from ratios of hospitalized commenter’s approach using the RWC prices. The commenter concluded that injuries. While the severity of an injury to inflate non-medical costs there was no economic justification for may affect where an injury is treated, substantially underestimates the actual a possible table saw rule; in other the number of table saw injuries treated change in the nominal price level. words, none of the market failures was in doctors’ offices cannot be determined 6. Comment: One commenter present or was not present to such a directly and solely from estimates of suggested that the tangible and degree as to require a regulatory fix. injuries that are hospital admitted. intangible societal costs associated with Response: According to the Office of 5. Comment: One commenter stated table saw blade-contact injuries Management and Budget’s (OMB) that the approach CPSC uses to value amounted to about $1.39 billion, less Circular A–4 (2003) 62 which provides the intangible costs of injuries is based than 60 percent of the CPSC societal OMB’s guidance on regulatory analyses, on estimates from an unrepresentative cost estimate of $2.36 billion used by a key element of a good regulatory sample of jury awards and settlements CPSC staff in its 2011 analysis. analysis is a statement of the need for involving unrelated products, motor Response: The commenter’s two such a rule and a description of the vehicles, and premises liability. adjustments to the table saw blade- problem that the rule is intended to Moreover, the commenter stated that contact injury estimates are the address.63 If improved safety is needed, inflators used to ‘‘roll-forward’’ older principal reason for the difference and private markets have been unable to ICM model values to estimate 2008 between the commenter’s estimates of efficiently provide it, such a market dollar costs produce much higher unit injury costs and the ANPR estimates. failure provides an economic cost estimates than if reasonable First, the commenter’s use of the justification for regulatory intervention. alternative methods were used to adjust NEISS–AIP subsample proportions to The major types of market failure, as for changes in prices and wages over adjust the estimate for non-admitted described in Circular A–4, concern (1) time. injuries, has no statistical justification. inadequate or asymmetric information, Response: CPSC staff’s evaluation of Second, the commenter’s assertions that (2) externalities, or (3) market power. the intangible cost estimates in the ICM the CPSC underestimated the proportion Inadequate or asymmetric information in the proposed rule is based on 2014 of table saw injuries that were treated in would exist when consumers dollars and the methodology for the a hospital setting (and hence the CPSC’s underestimate or are generally unaware injury cost estimates has changed since estimate of other medically attended of the risks posed by risky products or the ANPR was issued. Using regression injuries is over estimated) is not are unable to interpret or adequately analysis allowed CPSC staff to adjust the supported by any empirical data. These process the risk information. pain and suffering awards by a number two issues are discussed in greater Externalities would exist in the market of relevant factors, including the injury detail in the responses to comments place when one party’s actions impose diagnosis and body part affected, the sex above. In contrast, CPSC’s analysis is uncompensated benefits or costs on of the victim, and the medical costs and based on 10 years of the National Health another party. Market power would work losses resulting from the injury. Interview Survey which was used to exist when firms can exercise market This process allowed the staff to provide calculate the ratios between injuries power to reduce output below what specialized estimates of the intangible treated and released from the emergency would be offered in a competitive costs based on the characteristics of the department and those treated in doctors’ industry to obtain higher prices. injury. Additionally, because some of offices and clinics. Correcting for these Inadequate or asymmetric the awards involved motor vehicles and two injury adjustments would raise the information. Many of the risks premises liability, the regression commenter’s cost estimate by 31.7 associated with the use of table saws, as analysis also adjusted for these factors percent to about $1.83 billion. well as the potential severity of injuries to isolate and exclude their impacts Additionally, correcting both injury and when users come into contact with a from the pain and suffering estimates inflator estimates would raise the injury moving blade, are obvious. However, attributable to consumer products. cost estimate to approximately $2.2 some risks associated with the use of Although the commenter criticizes the billion, roughly comparable to the $2.36 table saws may be poorly understood by jury verdict methodology for estimating billion estimate in the ANPR. As consumers, such as sudden movement lost quality of life, and presents discussed in section XI of the preamble, alternative valuations based on and TAB C of the staff briefing package, 62 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ reductions in quality-adjusted life years, estimates of societal costs calculated for circulars_a004_a-4. if these estimates are adjusted using the proposed rule are substantially 63 Id. at 3–7.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22217

of the workpiece from kickback which the market. For table saws, patents small businesses. Similarly, some said can cause the operator to lose control of acquired by one firm (i.e., SawStop) that mandating the AIM technology the workpiece and cause his/her hand to regarding their AIM technology, would increase the price of table saws fall into or be ‘‘pulled’’ into the blade. combined with efforts to prevent patent to the point that it prohibits people from Saw blades are jagged and rotate infringement, appear to have provided purchasing a table saw for home hobby rapidly, and because the blades are used that firm with sufficient market power use or for starting a small business. One to cut wood their impact on fingers or to exert some control over the price of commenter equated the increased cost hands is readily imaginable. Table saws the technology (by means of licensing of buying a table saw with AIM also come with extensive warnings and agreements) and to limit the ability of technology with having to pay for safety devices (such as blade guards, other firms to develop and market someone else’s stupidity. Another riving knives, and anti-kickback pawls) similar technology. The emergence of a commenter opposed mandating the AIM that are intended to reduce the risk of second firm (i.e., Bosch) that began technology because requiring automatic blade contact. Hence, it would be producing and selling a table saw model detection and blade retraction in the difficult to argue that the risks of table with the AIM technology in 2016 does case of body-contact would eliminate saws use are unknown or somehow not preclude or negate the existence of the sub-$1,000 saw segment. hidden from the consumer. market power for one or both of these Response: The Commission is aware On the other hand, it is possible that firms. Moreover, litigation over the that the proposed rule would be costly some of those injured have not been alleged patent infringement of the and would result in disruption of the trained in proper table saw use or have second firm is ongoing. table saw market. In addition, the not paid close attention to product In summary, there could be several Commission has to balance the number warnings. Non-occupational users may market impediments to a more and severity of blade-contact injuries use table saws only sporadically and widespread adoption of the AIM system and the impact of the proposed rule on forget or simply neglect safety technology by table saw purchasers. the product’s utility, cost and procedures. Fatigue is known to have These impediments are discussed availability to the consumer. While the played a role in some incidents, and the further in section XI of the preamble proposed rule would substantially risk of fatigue due to extended periods and at TAB C of the staff briefing reduce blade-contact injuries and the of cutting may not be obvious to all package. societal costs associated with those consumers. Some of those injured may 8. Comment: Based on an evaluation injuries, CPSC staff’s review showed be adolescents or seniors who are either of information provided in the ANPR, that the impact of increasing table saw undergoing cognitive development or and the methodology used in Dr. John production costs on consumers also cognitive decline and may not fully Graham’s economic analysis of AIM would be considerable. The prices for appreciate the dangers posed by table technology,64 one commenter the least expensive bench saws now saws. This is not to suggest that users concluded that mandating the SawStop available are expected to more than are unaware of the obvious risks. technology for the bench-top category of double, to $300 or more. In general, the However, casual users may be unaware table saws is not economically retail prices of bench saws could of how quickly and how violently an justifiable. Numerous other commenters increase by as much as $200 to $500 per injury can occur, if, for example, a cut also stated that the costs of regulation to unit, and the retail prices of contractor results in kickback. Consequently, some increase table saw safety are not and cabinet saws could rise by as much consumers could underestimate the justified. as $350 to $1,000 per unit. These higher actual risks they face. It also may be Response: The proposed rule would prices may be mitigated in the longer difficult for occasional users to interpret not mandate the SawStop technology for run, but the extent of any future price or process the risk information in a way the table saw industry. However, the reductions is unknown. However, given that allows them to take the appropriate economic impact of the proposed rule, that the least expensive bench saws level of safety precautions. including potential royalty payments currently cost about $129, and the least Externalities. Externalities exist when and licensing fees, is addressed in expensive contractor saws are priced at one party’s actions impose section XI of the preamble and in TAB about $529, CPSC staff expects that uncompensated benefits or costs on C of the staff briefing package. Staff’s some bench and contractor saws will another party. In the case of table saws, review of the potential benefits and retail for under $1,000. the externalities would generally be In addition, because of the likely costs of the proposed rule shows that financial. If, for example, medical decline in sales following the the proposed rule would address treatment costs are not borne by the promulgation of a rule, consumers who roughly 54,850 medically treated blade- injured party, but rather shifted to the choose not to purchase a new saw due contact injuries annually. The societal public at large, there is a financial to the higher price will experience a loss costs of these injuries amount to about externality that the purchaser may not in utility by forgoing the use of table take into account when buying or using $4.06 billion annually. Based on CPSC saws, or because they continue to use a table saw. Based on the injury cost staff’s benefit and cost estimates, the net older saws which they would have data reviewed by staff for the proposed benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs) of the preferred to replace. rule, medical costs and lost wages proposed rule would amount to an There also may be some other utility amounted to roughly $160 million and average of $1,500 to $4,000 per saw for impacts. The inclusion of the AIM $1,040 million, respectively. Some the market as a whole. technology may, for example, increase proportion of these medical costs and 9. Comment: Some commenters the weight and (potentially) the size of work losses are shifted to the public at asserted that a standard mandating the table saws to accommodate the new large by means of insurance premiums AIM technology will increase the price technology, to allow access to change and unemployment compensation. of table saws and will make table saws the brake cartridge, and to mitigate the Market Power. Market power exists unaffordable for many individuals and effects of the force associated with the when one or more firms can exert some activation of the brake cartridge. 64 Graham, John D., and Chang, Joice, 2014. control over the price of the product (by Reducing the risk of injury from table saw use: The Although this factor may have a limiting production), or create barriers potential benefits and costs of automatic protection. relatively small impact on the heavier that prevent other firms from entering Risk Analysis, 35(2) at 307–317. and larger contractor and cabinet saws,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22218 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

the impact on some of the smaller and concerns about the availability of initially. Because of the expected higher lighter bench saws could markedly replacement cartridges and whether costs and reduced sales, some table saw reduce their portability. they would be interchangeable among manufacturers are likely to be adversely CPSC staff found no evidence to different brands or models of table saws. affected by a mandatory standard. suggest that the proposed rule will If replacement cartridges were specific 13. Comment: One commenter eliminate table saws from home hobby to the brand or model of table saw, it compared a potential regulation use or for starting small businesses. could limit the availability and add to requiring an AIM technology in table However, there will be significant the cost of activation. impacts on the cost, utility and Response: CPSC staff is aware of two saws to regulations requiring the use of availability of table saws in the near table saw AIM technologies that have seat belts. The commenter stated that a term. In its preliminary regulatory been developed; the first requires person who injures a finger with a table analysis staff clearly sets out all these replacement of an activation cartridge saw is unlikely to become a burden to considerations. After careful review, the and, almost always, the repair or society at large, which the commenter Commission has decided that issuing replacement of the blade once the states is often the case with victims of the proposed rule is appropriate. system has been activated (SawStop). automobile accidents. Therefore, the 10. Comment: Some commenters The second only requires replacement commenter stated, the decision of expressed concern about the effects of of the activation cartridge after two whether to purchase a table saw the proposed rule on small businesses, activations (Bosch REAXXTM). equipped with AIM technology versus such as construction contractors, small However, the future availability of the one without it should be left up to the woodworking shops, cabinet makers, second system is questionable due to consumer. Another commenter implied, and wood furniture shops. Concerns ongoing patent litigation. Although however, that taxpayers will either pay were raised about the ability of small conductive materials or wet wood that for table saw injuries on what the businesses to afford new table saws and is moist enough to conduct enough commenter called the front end, due to whether they would go out of business. electricity could activate the AIM the additional cost of a table saw Two commenters suggested that system and trip the safety system, both equipped with AIM technology, or the unemployment would increase due to the AIM systems currently in use allow tail end due to the disability of these small businesses closing. bypass of the system which can be consumers injured in accidents Response: As discussed in the initial deactivated while cutting conductive involving table saws. The commenter regulatory flexibility analysis in section materials or wet wood. Accordingly, stated that he preferred paying the XII of the preamble, and TAB D of the replacement costs would generally be additional cost on the front end. staff briefing package, CPSC staff incurred only if the user’s hand or arm believes that the proposed rule will came into contact with an operating Response: These commenters appear have an impact on small businesses. table saw blade. On average, the to be discussing the issue of The price of table saws will increase replacement cost for the average blade externalities that might be associated significantly. However, staff believes and/or cartridge is expected to amount with table saw injuries. Externalities that even if the increased cost of a new to roughly $11 to $14 annually over the would be the costs of injuries that are table saw was $800, and a firm life of the saw, which would be far borne by third parties, people other than purchased a new table saw each year, below the cost of a blade-contact injury users or suppliers of table saws. The the impact on the firm is unlikely to be that could amount to tens of thousands existence of externalities may provide a significant unless the firm had annual of dollars. CPSC staff acknowledges that justification for regulation, if the receipts of less than $80,000. if a different cartridge is required for use purpose of the regulation is to reduce Nevertheless, staff believes that it is with a dado set, then switching between the costs that fall on third parties not possible that a small number of small a regular blade and a dado set may engaged in the activity (i.e., supplying businesses might lay off a small number require more time and expense than or using table saws). For table saws, the of employees. required in the absence of an AIM externalities are largely financial and 11. Comment: Some commenters system. This may affect productivity in would exist when the costs of medical stated that the SawStop technology is some shops that do a large volume of treatment and work losses resulting expensive given the cost of the dado cuts. from blade contact are shifted to the cartridges and blades that would have to 12. Comment: One commenter stated public through medical insurance be replaced when the technology is that the increased cost of table saws that premiums and unemployment triggered. One commenter noted that his incorporate an AIM technology will not compensation. However, these blades cost about $100 each and his increase the likelihood that people will externalities constitute a relatively small dado set costs about $300. The purchase table saws but it will likely commenter expressed concern that the reduce the demand for table saws and proportion of the societal costs need to replace the cartridge when harm table saw manufacturers. associated with table saw blade-contact changing between saw blade and dado Response: A mandatory standard injuries. As described in the preliminary set would also increase the set-up time would increase the manufacturing cost regulatory analysis, the primary cost of when making such transitions. Some of table saws and manufacturers would injury is associated with the intangible commenters were concerned with false- attempt to pass on the increased costs to costs of injury, or pain and suffering. positive detection with the SawStop consumers in the form of higher prices. These costs are largely borne by the systems, especially when cutting Although some consumers might be injury victims, rather than third party pressure-treated wood or metal, more likely to purchase the safer table bystanders. Therefore, although some of increasing their costs. One commenter saws with the AIM technology, the the medical costs and some of lost claimed to have ‘‘managed medium size expected price increase likely will result productivity costs associated with table shops where the technology probably in a significant decrease in the quantity saw injuries could be considered saved a finger’’ but also where of table saws demanded. CPSC staff externalities, most of the societal costs ‘‘accidental tripping of the mechanism estimates that the number of table saws associated with table saw injuries are cost thousands of dollars annually.’’ sold annually could decrease by about borne by the injured person and do not, Another commenter expressed some 90,000 to 250,000 units, at least therefore, constitute externalities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22219

F. Unintended Consequences injuries. If the system is effective and tool system. The commenters stated that 1. Comment: Numerous commenters works as intended, the severity of an the ShopSmith equipment could not be stated that adding AIM technology to injury resulting from blade contact will redesigned to allow for the installation table saws will give users a false sense be lessened, which likely would reduce of a SawStop system. One commenter of security and will increase unsafe the overall number of severe injuries expressed concern that the proposed behavior in users that will translate to associated with table saws. rule could force the company out of 2. Comment: Several commenters injuries on other power tools. Many business. suggested that some users might modify Response: Incorporating an AIM commenters felt that users will not learn the saws to bypass the safety technology on some table saws may to respect the dangers of table saws and mechanism, especially in the case of present some especially difficult power tools in general. Some asserted false activations, which users will challenges that are not faced by other that excessive reliance on safety devices perceive as a nuisance. table saw manufacturers. Although the can lead to complacent behavior, which Response: Although some consumers engineering challenges can be resolved, will inevitably result in an accident. might attempt to bypass the AIM safety the upfront costs for incorporating the One commenter suggested that technology, CPSC staff believes that AIM system on some table saws may be mandating the AIM technology on all consumers would have little reason to substantial for a small business. As saws would result in additional non- bypass it once it is already on the table discussed in sections XI and XII of the blade contact and kickback injuries saw. Because the AIM technology is not preamble and TAB C and TAB D of the because consumers would be less likely generally expected to interfere with the staff briefing package, it is possible that to use other safety technology such as normal use of the table saw and can be some small manufacturers would reduce blade guards and riving knife/splitter used with most types of cuts (with the their table saw offerings or even exit the combinations. possible exception for dado cuts on table saw market if the proposed rule is Response: As described in TAB E of some table saws), there would be no issued as a final mandatory standard. the staff briefing package, consumer incentive to alter or bypass the safety behaviors may adapt if an AIM system mechanism. Moreover, staff does not G. Training and Warnings is installed on a table saw. CPSC staff believe there is a high rate of false 1. Comment: Several commenters agrees that reliance on the AIM safety activations. Based on reports of sales of stated that table saw injuries are best technology could lead some users to replacement brake cartridge on the reduced by training and educating users reduce their use of other safety SawStop system, which requires on safe practices and operation of table technology, such as blade guards or replacement of the brake cartridge and saws. Many believed mandatory training riving knife/splitter combinations, blade after an activation of the system, in the form of certification is needed thereby increasing exposure and risk of SawStop estimates that the AIM system while others believed that instructional operator blade contact. However, as may activate about once every nine videos should be provided with every discussed in section IV of the preamble, years of use. table saw purchase. Other commenters a review of incidents from the NEISS 3. Comment: Numerous commenters stated that only warnings or instruction data and CPSRMS database that involve also stated that to avoid paying for a labels are required to reduce injuries. table saws indicates that blade-contact table saw with additional safety Response: As discussed in TAB E of injuries continue to occur on table saws features, consumers will pursue more the staff briefing package, CPSC staff originally equipped with riving knives dangerous methods to cut wood by agrees that warnings, instructions, and and modular blade guards. In addition, using other tools, such as circular saws, other methods of educating consumers results of the modular blade guard buying used products, or continuing to about the proper use of table saws are survey indicate that a majority of use an older table saw past its safety important. However, the effectiveness of respondents (80%) reported that there life. such approaches is known to be limited. are circumstances that require the blade Response: CPSC staff agrees that the For example, safety and warnings guard to be removed and a majority of proposed rule would increase the price literature consistently identify a classic respondents did not use the blade guard of table saws, and that these price hierarchy of approaches that should be all of the time. Accordingly, consumers increases are likely to reduce sales. We followed to control hazards. The use of appear to already take actions that do not know how consumers, who warnings is viewed universally as less reduce the efficacy of safety devices, would have purchased a new table saw effective at eliminating or reducing such as the removal of the blade guard had the price not increased, would exposure to hazards than designing the or not choosing to use the modular respond. Some may hire professionals hazard out of a product or guarding the blade guard at all. instead of doing some projects consumer from the hazard. Therefore, Based on CPSC staff’s analysis, the themselves. Others might borrow or rent the use of warnings is lower in the Commission cannot predict whether table saws, or use an older table saw hazard control hierarchy than these consumers will take less care when that they would have preferred to other two approaches. Warnings are less using a table saw with an AIM system replace. Some might also attempt to use effective because they do not prevent relative to current table saws, but some other tools in the place of table saws, as consumer exposure to the hazard, and consumers might be even less inclined the commenters suggest. If the substitute instead, they rely on educating to use blade guards, which many tools are risky, then the estimated consumers about the hazard and consumers already remove even in the benefits attributed to the proposed rule persuading consumers to alter behavior absence of an AIM system. However, a would be reduced. The Commission to avoid the hazard. In addition, to be key factor in assessing the ultimate seeks comment on the likelihood that effective, warnings rely on consumers effect of an AIM system is not simply consumers will pursue more dangerous behaving consistently, regardless of whether consumers will be less careful methods to cut wood if table saws are situational or contextual factors that when cutting with a table saw equipped with AIM technology and the influence precautionary behavior, employing the system, or even whether alternatives consumers will use to do so. including fatigue, stress, or social the incidence of blade contact is likely 4. Comment: A couple of commenters influences. Thus, CPSC staff believes to increase, but whether such changes expressed concern for the impact of the that warnings should be viewed as ‘‘last likely will result in a decrease in serious proposed rule on the ShopSmith multi- resort’’ measures that supplement,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22220 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

rather than replace, redesign or consumer product if such risk could be a later effective date is in the public guarding, unless these higher level eliminated or reduced to a sufficient interest. As discussed in section XI of hazard-control efforts are not feasible. extent by action taken by OSHA. the preamble, and TAB C of the staff Educational programs may offer more However, if the risk to consumers briefing package, to meet the proposed opportunities to present hazard cannot be sufficiently reduced or performance requirements, it is likely information in varied ways and in eliminated by OSHA’s actions, the CPSC that table saw manufacturers will have greater detail than is possible on a has the authority to address that risk of to develop new technology or redesign warning label. However, CPSC staff injury associated with the consumer virtually all table saw models, retool believes that educational programs product. As discussed in that section, production facilities, and enter into suffer from limitations similar to those the Commission believes that OSHA licensing arrangements. Because the associated with warnings because, like regulations do not sufficiently reduce Commission believes 180 days may not all hazard communications, the the risk of blade-contact injuries to the be adequate time to allow for such effectiveness of such programs depends consumer. Moreover, the Commission modifications, it is instead proposing an on affected consumers not only believes that there is no clear dividing effective date of three years following receiving and understanding the line between consumer and professional publication of a final rule, at which time message, but also being persuaded to saws, except at the very highest levels all table saws would be required to heed the message. Mere knowledge or of price and performance. Although comply with the applicable awareness of a hazard is not necessarily some of the more expensive, high requirements of the rule. enough. Some versions of the hazard voltage table saws may be used in B. Definitions—§ 1245.2 control hierarchy, particularly those in construction work or by professional the context of industrial or wood workers, many of these same saws The proposed rule would provide that organizational settings, include training may be also be used in the home, in the definitions in section 3 of the CPSA as a separate approach at the same schools, and in recreation (15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In addition, the approximate level as warnings because (woodworking workshops, schools and proposed rule would include the training also involves educating clubs). Therefore, the Commission following definition: consumers about potential hazards and believes that these types of saws may be • Table saw—a woodworking tool proper actions or procedures to avoid used more than occasionally by that has a motor-driven circular saw those hazards. In fact, instructional consumers and fall within the scope of blade, which protrudes through the materials that accompany products can the proposed rule. However, the surface of a table. Table saws include be viewed as a form of training. Thus, Commission seeks comment regarding bench saws, contractor saws, and warnings, instructions, educational whether the scope of the rule should be cabinet saws. programs, and training serve similar modified to exclude certain types of The Commission seeks comment on functions and have similar weaknesses. table saws used primarily for whether the definition of a table saw Although CPSC staff supports the use commercial or industrial use. should be revised or whether additional of these approaches, including 2. Comment: Some commenters stated definitions are necessary. providing consumers with instructional that the CPSC should provide an ‘‘open C. Requirements for Table Saw Blade videos, human error is inevitable, even license’’ for AIM technology, offer a among expert woodworkers. Even Contact—§§ 1245.3 and 1245.4 retrofit option for existing table saws, consumers who are fully aware of the and encourage AIM technology through 1. Description of Requirement hazards and how to avoid them may tax policy. The proposal would require table suffer from slips or lapses that could Response: The Commission has no lead to blade contact and injury despite saws, when powered on, to limit the authority under the CPSA to mandate an depth of cut to 3.5 mm when a test the consumer’s best intentions to use a open license for AIM technology, product safely. A performance probe, acting as a surrogate for a human require retrofits on existing table saws, body/finger, makes contact with a requirement that can detect and react to or implement tax policies. blade contact in a way that lessens the spinning saw blade at a radial approach consequences makes the table saw more X. Description of the Proposed rate of 1.0 m/s. The proposal would forgiving of such errors and expected Requirement require that the test probe allow for the behaviors, so that the results are not accurate measurement of the depth of A. Scope, Purpose and Effective Date— cut from contact with the saw blade to catastrophic. Moreover, mandating a § 1245.1 performance requirement for table saws assess compliance with the proposed would not preclude manufacturers from The proposed rule would apply to all requirement. Any test probe that is used encouraging table saw purchasers to table saws, as defined, including bench should have the appropriate properties become trained on safe table saw saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws. (such as electrical, optical, thermal, practices. Manufacturers can provide The proposed rule would include a electromagnetic, ultrasound, etc.) to additional instruction videos on safe requirement to mitigate the risk of indicate human body/finger contact table saw practices or provide free blade-contact injuries on table saws. with the saw blade and the appropriate training. Specifically, the proposed rule would physical properties to accurately establish a performance standard such measure depth of cut. The test probe H. Other Comments that table saws, when powered on, must and test method described in TAB A of 1. Comment: Several commenters limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when staff briefing package, (Appendix A), are stated that CPSC should mandate AIM a test probe, acting as a surrogate for a considered appropriate for the technology on table saws only in human body/finger, contacts a spinning evaluation of AIM systems using an industrial or workshop settings or blade at a radial approach of 1.0 m/s. electrical detection system. This test schools. Under the CPSA, the effective date for method may be used for such systems Response: As discussed in section a consumer product safety standard and will be used by CPSC staff in VI.C. of the preamble, the Commission must not exceed 180 days from the date evaluating such systems. However, the does not have authority to regulate any the final rule is published, unless the Commission does not propose to make risk of injury associated with a Commission finds, for good cause, that this test method mandatory because

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22221

other AIMS systems may use a different the microsurgical repair of nerves, blood XI. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis detection approach. For AIM systems vessels, and tendons for an incident that The Commission is proposing to issue using a different detection approach, the might otherwise have resulted in an a rule under sections 7 and 9 of the method should be modified based on amputation or could involve injury to CPSA. The CPSA requires that the sound material science and engineering several digits or a wider area. Although Commission prepare a preliminary knowledge to accurately assess some incidents may occur under regulatory analysis and that the compliance with the proposed conditions so demanding that AIM preliminary regulatory analysis be requirement. performance is unable to prevent a published with the text of the proposed 2. Rationale severe injury from occurring, available rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). data on radial approach rates during The Commission believes that an AIM kickback and non-kickback-related table A. Introduction system can be used to reduce or limit saw blade contact incidents reviewed by The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule the severity of a table saw blade-contact staff indicate that the approach rate does to address the unreasonable risk of injury in conjunction with existing table not exceed 0.368 m/s.65 Thus, CPSC blade-contact injuries associated with saw voluntary standard requirements for staff’s testing and research indicate that table saws. This rulemaking proceeding a blade guard and riving knife. AIM the majority of operator blade-contact was initiated by an ANPR published in systems provide a layer of safety that injuries from table saws can be reduced the Federal Register on October 11, can mitigate a blade-contact injury if the or mitigated by the proposed 2016. In 2015, to enhance CPSC’s blade guard or riving knife are removed performance requirement. understanding of the market for table or fail to function properly, as well as saws, CPSC staff entered into two those blade-contact injuries that can D. Prohibited Stockpiling—§ 1245.5 contracts with Industrial Economics, occur when a blade guard or riving knife Inc. (IEc) to conduct market research In accordance with Section 9 of the are in place and functioning properly, and cost impact analysis on table saws. but where blade contact occurs CPSA, the proposed rule contains a One report, titled ‘‘Revised Final Table nonetheless. provision that would prohibit a Saws Market Research Report’’ (March A performance requirement that manufacturer from ‘‘stockpiling’’ or 28, 2016) (referred to as IEc, 2016a), limits the depth of cut to a test probe substantially increasing the manufacture updates information relied upon in the that contacts a saw blade to 3.5 mm will or importation of noncomplying table ANPR and provided in public significantly reduce the severe saws between the date of the final rule comments concerning the market for lacerations, fractures, amputations, and and its effective date. The rule would table saws. The report uses publically avulsions associated with operator blade prohibit the manufacture or importation available information and limited contact incidents on table saws because of noncomplying table saws in any outreach to potentially affected entities. the probe will have the appropriate period of 12 consecutive months The other report, titled ‘‘Final Table properties to indicate human body/ between the date of promulgation of the Saws Cost Impact Analysis’’ (June 9, finger contact with the saw blade and final rule and the effective date, at a rate 2016) (referred to as IEc, 2016b), the equivalent injury mitigation on a that is greater than 120 percent of the estimates the manufacturing and other real human finger will avoid most rate at which they manufactured or costs of possible requirements intended microsurgery. Most microsurgery will be imported table saws during the base to mitigate table saw blade-contact avoided because the neurovascular period for the manufacturer. The base injuries based on previous information bundle in a human little finger, which period is any period of 365 consecutive contains nerves and arteries, is at a collected by the CPSC in the ANPR, days, chosen by the manufacturer or public comments, limited interviews depth of approximately 3.5 mm below importer, in the 5-year period the 0.5 mm thick epidermal layer of the with table saw manufacturers, immediately preceding promulgation of additional research, and the results of skin. CPSC staff has determined that a the rule. 3.5 mm depth of cut into a conductive IEc, 2016a. In addition to CPSC staff’s The 5-year period in the anti- test probe is an appropriate surrogate for analysis of existing data, studies, and stockpiling provision is intended to a 4mm depth of cut into a finger with reports, staff relies on the IEc reports for allow manufacturers and importers insulating epidermis over conductive additional data and information to sufficient flexibility to meet normal tissue. Additionally, incidents that support the staff’s preliminary changes in demand that may occur in occur under conditions that increase regulatory analysis (TAB C of the staff the period between the promulgation of AIM performance (such as slower briefing package) and initial regulatory a rule and its effective date while approach rate of the hand/finger to the flexibility analysis (TAB D of the staff limiting their ability to stockpile saw blade and/or circumstances that briefing package). These reports are noncomplying table saws for sale after increase detection) may result in available on the CPSC’s Web site at that date. The Commission seeks minimal injuries. https://www.cpsc.gov/research- The Commission recognizes there comments on the proposed product statistics/other-technical-reports. manufacture or import limits and the may be some scenarios, such as B. Market Information kickback, which can cause the base period with respect to the anti- operator’s hand to be ‘‘pulled’’ into the stockpiling provision. 1. Manufacturers blade at a high rate of speed or lead the E. Findings—§ 1245.6 A total of 22 firms are known to operator to reach as fast as possible for supply table saws to the U.S. market. a falling workpiece. There are other In accordance with the requirements This does not include manufacturers of scenarios where the radial velocity of of the CPSA, we are proposing to make miniature table saws used for the hand/finger may exceed 1 m/s when the findings required by section 9 of the constructing doll houses and other it contacts the saw blade. At approach CPSA. The proposed findings are hobby products, or tile-cutting table speeds greater than 1 m/s, AIM system discussed in section XVIII of the saws. In addition, the 22 firms do not performance may result in injury preamble. include a number of Asian table saw severity that requires extensive medical manufacturers who may have some attention. Such incidents may include 65 See Gass, S. (2012), supra note 50. limited U.S. distribution.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22222 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

The Power Tool Institute (PTI) $1,599–$2,049, represent some of the 4. Sales and Numbers in Use estimates that its member companies most expensive models in that product Although the design and engineering account for 80 percent of all table saws category, including the highest-priced of table saws may occur in the United sold in the United States. Most of these offering. The SawStop cabinet models States, most table saws are currently companies are large, diversified range in price from $2,299–$5,349, manufactured overseas; several firms international corporations with billions depending on power and performance. staff contacted indicated that their saws of dollars in sales, such as Stanley Black The SawStop model priced at $5,349 are manufactured in Taiwan. For and Decker, Robert Bosch, Makita, and represents the highest priced cabinet example, one company indicated that it Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. These saw. The Bosch REAXXTM saw ranges in operates quality control offices in four large, diversified firms are price from $1,299–$1,499. Taiwan and China, and imports saws currently supplying table saws to the from Asia. This is supported by data 3. Types of Table Saws Commonly Used U.S. market, but table saws make up a from the ITC, which indicates that in By Consumers relatively small part of their revenues, 2014 approximately 99 percent of probably less than one percent. PTI There are three primary categories of imported table saw units were built in tends to represent the mass market table saws: Bench, contractor, and Taiwan and China.67 Additionally, a bench table saw manufacturers, while small volume of expensive saws most many of the smaller suppliers are cabinet. Bench saws tend to be lightweight, portable, and with several likely intended for industrial use and primarily in the cabinet and contractor not intended for consumer use were saw market segments. exceptions, generally are priced from about $150 to $1,000. Bench saws imported from European and Canadian With the exception of two firms that manufacturers.68 sell only table saws or multi-purpose generally are intended for consumer use, but also are used at work-sites. The annual number of table saws in tools incorporating table saws (i.e., use, a measure of risk exposure, was SawStop and Shopsmith, respectively), Contractor saws are larger, heavier, and more powerful than bench saws, and estimated with the CPSC’s Product anecdotal information provided to CPSC Population Model (PPM), a computer generally are priced from $500 to staff suggests that, for the smaller, more model that projects the number of $2,000. Cabinet saws (also referred to as specialized firms supplying table saws products in use given estimates of stationary saws) weigh from about 300 to the U.S. market, table saws are annual product sales and product to 1,000 pounds, are not portable, and generally not a large percentage of firms’ failure rates.69 According to PTI, total sales. One company reported that table generally are priced from about $1,200 annual shipments of all table saws to saw sales contribute a negligible fraction to $5,000. Although these saws all are the U.S. market from 2002 to 2014 have of its $15 million annual revenue. used by consumers to some extent, ranged from 429,000 to 850,000. Another company with an annual contractor and cabinet saws are more Estimates of sales value are not readily revenue of $20 to $40 million stated that likely to be used by professional and available industry-wide. CPSC staff table saws represent approximately five occupational users. estimated that bench saws account for percent of total sales. Similarly, a third Based on staff discussions with about 75 percent of the units sold. Staff company indicated that only seven to industry representatives, electrical assumed further that contractor saws eight percent of total revenue is requirements and power appear to (including hybrids) and cabinet saws 66 attributable to table saw sales. provide the best distinction between account for 20 percent and 5 percent, 2. Retail Prices of Table Saws table saws typically used by consumers respectively. The failure rate used by staff (i.e., the rate at which table saws The range of prices for table saws and those used most often in industrial go out of use) follows a gamma generally overlaps for three products: settings. Two industry representatives distribution, a commonly used Bench, contractor, and hybrid saws. indicated to staff that saws operating at distribution for the failure of products. Bench saws are the least expensive, 1.75 horsepower or greater likely cannot That showed an average product life of ranging in price from $129 to $975, with be run on typical household wiring. 10 years for bench saws, 17 years for a few exceptions. Prices for contractor Most consumers do not have the contractor saws, and 24 years for cabinet saws range from $529 to $2,049, and necessary electrical wiring, specifically saws. Using these parameters, CPSC prices for hybrid saws range from $675– the specialized outlets and adapters, to staff projected a total of about 8.2 $1,595. Generally, cabinet and sliding accommodate power tools with million table saws in use in the United saws are more expensive. Prices for horsepower ratings greater than 1.75 or States in 2015, including about 5.1 cabinet saws range from $1,199 to requiring 220–240 volt power. Sliding million bench saws, 2.3 million $5,349. The price range for sliding table table saws and many other cabinet saws contractor saws, and 0.8 million cabinet saws ($2,850–$24,995) overlaps with the require such electrical capabilities and, saws. Thus, staff estimated that bench, range for cabinet saws, but sliding saws therefore, are less likely to be used by contractor, and cabinet saws account for are typically more expensive. consumers. However, one manufacturer The SawStop models containing the indicated the firm has begun about 62 percent, 28 percent, and 10 AIM technology are consistently priced development of a sliding saw aimed at the high-end do-it-yourself (DIY) 67 Data compiled from tariff and trade data from at the upper end of the price range in the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC for each of the three primary table saw market, and a representative from Harmonized Tariff Schedule classification numbers categories (bench, contractor, and another firm indicated that some serious 8465910036 (Tilting arbor table saw, woodworking) woodworking hobbyists may wire their and 8465910078 (Sawing machines, woodworking, cabinet). Aside from a couple of bench _ home workshops to accommodate the NESOI). See https://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user saws priced at just under $1,500, the set.asp. SawStop bench saw is next most more powerful saws. CPSC staff’s 68 For example, a $25,000 computerized expensive in the bench saw category at review showed that 89 cabinet, hybrid, numerically controlled (CNC) panel saw designed $1,299–$1,399, depending on the and sliding models run solely on 220– to cut large pieces of wood, like sheets of plywood distributor. Similarly, the three SawStop 240 volts. Given wiring requirements, is likely only to be used industrially. 69 Lahr, M.L., Gordon, B.B., 1980. Product life contractor saws, ranging in price from these 89 higher-voltage models are less model feasibility and development study. Contract likely to be used by typical consumers CPSC–C–79–009, Task 6, Subtasks 6.01–6.06). 66 IEc, 2016a at 12. than industrial users. Columbus, OH: Battelle Laboratories.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22223

percent of the table saw population, IV of the preamble and TAB B of the more precise estimates of injuries respectively. The Commission seeks staff briefing package, an estimated treated in doctor visits or injuries comments concerning the proportion of 30,800 injuries reported through NEISS admitted directly to the hospital than table saw sales by table saw type, or any during 2015 were likely to have other regression techniques. For additional information on the expected involved blade contact. example, where data is available, the product life of table saws. In addition to injuries initially treated age and sex of the victim can have an in hospital EDs, many product-related C. Benefit-Cost Analysis influence on the estimates of the injuries are treated in other medical number of injuries treated outside the This section of the analysis consists of settings, such as, among others, emergency department. When we a comparison of the benefits and costs physicians’ offices, clinics, and combine the national estimates of the of the proposed rule. The analysis is ambulatory surgery centers. Some NEISS with the non-ED estimates from conducted from a societal perspective, injuries also result in direct hospital the ICM using classification tree considering all of the significant costs admission, bypassing the hospital ED techniques, we obtain a total of and health outcomes. CPSC staff entirely. The number of table saw medically treated injuries. reviewed the characteristics and societal injuries treated outside of hospital EDs Based on the annual estimate of about costs of table saw blade-contact injuries. are estimated with the CPSC’s ICM, 30,800 blade-contact injuries initially The benefits of the proposed rule are which uses empirical relationships treated in hospital EDs, the ICM projects measured as the estimated reduction in between the characteristics of injuries approximately 24,050 blade-contact the societal costs of injuries resulting (diagnosis and body part) and victims injuries treated in other treatment from the use of saws containing the AIM (age and sex) initially treated in hospital settings. Combined with the ED-treated technology. The costs of the proposed EDs and the characteristics those injuries, there were an estimated annual rule are defined as the added costs initially treated in other settings.70 The total of about 54,850 medically treated associated with the incorporation of the ICM estimate of injuries treated outside blade-contact injuries. About 13.7 AIM technology in the table saws. Staff of hospitals or hospital EDs (e.g., in percent of the medically treated injuries calculates the benefits and costs of the doctors’ offices, clinics, etc.) is based on involved amputations, 56.9 percent proposed rule on a per product in use data from the Medical Expenditure involved lacerations, 22.8 percent basis. Panel Survey (MEPS). involved fractures, and 6.1 percent Because of the differences in the The MEPS is a nationally involved avulsions.71 About 27.5 physical characteristics, the use representative survey of the civilian, percent of the amputations resulted in patterns, and the likely population of non-institutionalized population that hospital admission, compared to about users of each of the table saw types (i.e., quantifies individuals’ use of health 4.0 percent of lacerations and 12.1 bench, contractor, and cabinet saws), an services and corresponding medical independent evaluation of the benefits percent of fractures. About 31.5 percent expenditures. It combines data from a of the amputations were treated in the and costs for each table saw type could panel of participants interviewed be useful. For example, the costs of the doctors’ offices/clinics and other non- quarterly over a two-year time period hospital settings, compared with about proposed rule could exceed the benefits with data from the respondents’ medical for one or more saw types, even though, 41.0 percent of lacerations, 50.3 percent providers. The MEPS is administered by of fractures, and 38.7 percent of in aggregate, benefits could exceed costs the Agency for Healthcare Research and for the market as a whole. However, avulsions. Quality (AHRQ). The ICM uses the The blade-contact injury rate per because staff did not have information MEPS data, in combination with a on the types of saws involved in the 100,000 saws is calculated by dividing classification tree analysis technique, to medically treated injuries by the injuries, we did not assess the societal project the number and characteristics costs or benefits of the proposed rule by estimated number of table saws in use. of injuries treated outside of hospitals. Overall, the blade-contact injury rate for saw type. Nevertheless, staff has To project the number of direct table saws amounted to about 670 sufficient information on the potential hospital admissions which bypass medically treated injuries per 100,000 costs of the proposed rule to conduct a hospital EDs, the ICM uses data from the saws. An approximate 95 percent breakeven analysis for the various saw Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the confidence interval for medically types—an analysis that allows us to Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project treated injuries, based on estimates of estimate the number of injuries for each (HCUP–NIS), which was also analyzed the coefficient of variation (CV) from the of the saw types that would need to be using a classification tree analysis NEISS injury estimates, ranges from prevented for the benefits of the technique. HCUP is a family of about 550 to 790 medically treated proposed rule to equal or exceed the healthcare databases and related injuries per 100,000 saws in use. costs. Aggregated estimates of the software tools and products developed benefits and cost on an annual basis can through a federal-state-industry 2. Injury Costs of Blade-Contact Injuries be readily calculated given projections partnership and sponsored by AHRQ. The societal costs of blade-contact of annual table saw sales. CPSC staff The HCUP–NIS provides information injuries represent the pool from which also compared breakeven estimates for annually on approximately 3 to 4 the benefits of a blade contact rule are the various saw types to possible million inpatient stays from about a derived. The societal costs of these hypothetical distributions of injuries to thousand hospitals. injuries are quantified with the ICM. estimate the number of injuries for each The classification tree analysis The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS, of the saw types that would need to be technique (also called decision tree) is and, in addition to providing estimates prevented for the benefits of the a statistical tool that divides and sorts of the societal costs of injuries reported proposed rule to equal or exceed the data into smaller and smaller groups for through NEISS, it also estimates the costs. estimating the ED share of injuries until costs of medically treated injuries that 1. Blade-Contact Injuries no further gains in predictive power can be obtained. This technique allows for 71 Medically treated table saw injuries, by injury The proposed rule is intended to diagnosis, differ from the NEISS estimates because address table saw injuries resulting from 70 Miller et al., 2000, Lawrence, B., 2013, supra the NEISS cases are limited to those initially treated blade contact. As discussed in section note 57; Bhattachara, S., et al., 2012, supra note 61. in hospital emergency departments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22224 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

are initially treated outside of hospital the mental anguish of victims and capital in the U.S. economy. The 3 emergency departments. The major caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult percent rate is intended to represent aggregated societal cost components to quantify because they do not what is sometimes called the ‘‘social provided by the ICM include medical represent products or resources traded rate of time preference,’’ which is more costs, work losses, and the intangible in the marketplace. Nevertheless, they consistent with the rate which ‘‘society’’ costs associated with lost quality of life typically represent the largest discounts future consumption flows to or pain and suffering.72 component of injury cost and need to be their present value.75 Using the lower Medical costs include three categories accounted for in any benefit-cost social discount rate means that future of expenditures: (1) Medical and analysis involving health outcomes.73 benefits are valued somewhat more hospital costs associated with treating The ICM develops a monetary estimate highly than they would be with the a the injury victim during the initial of these intangible costs from jury higher discount rate. Most sources recovery period and in the long run, awards for pain and suffering. Although suggest that the social rate of time including the costs associated with these awards can vary widely on a case- preference is more appropriate when corrective surgery, the treatment of by-case basis, studies have shown them evaluating health-related chronic injuries, and rehabilitation to be systematically related to a number interventions,76 which is the intended services; (2) ancillary costs, such as of factors, including economic losses, purpose of the proposed rule. costs for prescriptions, medical the type and severity of injury, and the Consequently, the 3 percent discount equipment, and ambulance transport; age of the victim.74 Estimates for the rate is probably the more appropriate and (3) costs of health insurance claims ICM were derived from regression discount rate for evaluating the benefits processing. Cost estimates for these analysis of jury awards in nonfatal and costs of the proposed rule. expenditure categories were derived product liability cases involving Presenting most results using both the 3 from a number of national and state consumer products compiled by Jury percent and 7 percent, as recommended databases, including the MEPS, the Verdicts Research, Inc. by OMB, shows the sensitivity of the HCUP–NIS, the Nationwide Emergency Based on ICM estimates, the aggregate results to variations in the discount rate. Department Sample (NEDS), the present value of the injury costs The distribution of injury costs, by National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS), associated with the estimated 54,843 MarketScan® claims data, and a variety medical treatment setting (using the 3 medically-treated table saw injuries percent discount rate) showed that of other federal, state, and private amounted to about $4.06 billion (in databases. overall, medical costs and work losses 2014 dollars) when future injury losses accounted for roughly 30 percent of the Work loss estimates include: (1) The (primarily those associated with long forgone earnings of the victim, total, while the non-economic losses term work loss) were discounted at 3 associated with pain and suffering including lost wage work and percent. This suggests injury costs of household work, (2) the forgone accounted for 70 percent. Injury cost about $74,050 per injury (i.e., $4.06 estimates for non-hospitalized injuries earnings of parents and visitors, billion ÷ 54,843 injuries). When future including lost wage work and ranged from about $28,000 for blade- losses were discounted at 7 percent, the contact injuries treated outside of household work, (3) imputed long term aggregated present value amounted to work losses of the victim that would be hospitals and EDs, to about $42,000 for about $3.65 billion, or about $66,650 per injuries initially treated in hospital EDs associated with permanent impairment, injury (i.e., $3.65 billion ÷ 54,843 and (4) employer productivity losses, (but not admitted). Injury costs for injuries). hospitalized injuries, in contrast, such as the costs incurred when OMB (2003) recommends discounting averaged about $450,000 per injury. employers spend time juggling future benefits (or costs) using both 3 schedules or training replacement percent and 7 percent discount rates. While amputations accounted for workers. Estimates are based on The 7 percent discount rate is intended about 13.7 percent of the medically information from HCUP–NIS, NEDS, to reflect the rate of return to private treated blade-contact injuries, they Detailed Claims Information (a workers’ accounted for almost 64 percent of the compensation database), the National 73 Rice, Dorothy P., MacKenzie, Ellen J., and annual estimate of $4.06 billion in Health Interview Survey, U.S. Bureau of Associates, 1989. Cost of injury in the United States: societal costs resulting from blade Labor Statistics, and other sources. A report to Congress. San Francisco, CA: Institute contact. The average imputed cost per The intangible, or non-economic, for Health & Aging, University of California and Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins amputation injury amounted to about costs of injury reflect the physical and University; Haddix, Anne C., Teutsch, Steven M., $345,000, and ranged from $120,000 to emotional trauma of injury as well as Corso, Phaedra S., 2003. Prevention effectiveness: A $195,000 for non-hospitalized guide to decision and economic evaluation (2nd amputations to about $825,000 per 72 Miller et al., 2000, Lawrence, B., 2013 supra ed.). New York: Oxford University Press; Cohen, hospitalized amputation.77 If note 57; see also, Lawrence, Bruce, Impact of Mark A., Miller, Ted R., 2003. ‘‘Willingness to alternative discount rates on injury cost model award’’ nonmonetary damages and implied value of estimates (Contract CPSC–D–05–0006, Task Order life from jury awards. International Journal of Law 75 OMB, 2003. Circular A–4: Regulatory analysis. 7). Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and and Economics, 23 at 165–184; Neumann, Peter J., Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. _ _ Evaluation (Nov. 2008); Lawrence, Bruce, Updated Sanders, Gillian D,, Russell, Louise B., Siegel, https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars a004 a- price indexes for the Injury Cost Model (Contract Joanna E. Ganiats, Theodore G., 2016. Cost- 4. CPSC–D–0003, Task Order 3, Subtask 4). Calverton, effectiveness in health and medicine: Second 76 Gold, Marthe R., Siegel, Joanna E. Russell, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Louise B., Weinstein, Milton C., 1996. Cost- (Aug. 2015); Lawrence, Bruce, Update medical costs 74 Viscusi, W. Kip, 1988. The determinants of the effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: for ED-treated injuries (Contract CPSC–D–0003, disposition of product liability cases: Systematic Oxford University Press; Haddix, Anne C., Teutsch, Task Order 3, Subtask 1). Calverton, MD: Pacific compensation or capricious awards? International Steven M., Corso, Phaedra S., 2003. Prevention Institute for Research and Evaluation (Jan. 2015); Review of Law and Economics, 8, at 203–220; effectiveness: A guide to decision and economic Lawrence, Bruce, Update medical costs hospital- Rodgers, Gregory B., 1993. Estimating jury evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University admitted injuries (Contract CPSC–D–0003, Task compensation for pain and suffering in product Press; Neumann, Peter J., Sanders, Gillian D., Order 3, Subtask 2). Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute liability cases involving nonfatal personal injury. Russell, Louise B., Siegel, Joanna E., Ganiats, for Research and Evaluation (Jan. 2015); Lawrence, Journal of Forensic Economics 6(3), at 251–262; Theodore, G., 2016. Cost-effectiveness in health and Bruce, Updated survival probabilities for the Injury Cohen, Mark A., Miller, Ted R. (2003). ‘‘Willingness medicine: Second Edition. New York: Oxford Cost Model (Contract CPSC–D–0003, Task Order 3, to award’’ nonmonetary damages and implied value University Press. Subtask 3). Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for of life from jury awards. International Journal of 77 About 29.3 percent of the amputation injury Research and Evaluation (Aug. 2015). Law and Economics, 23, at 165–184. costs were attributed to medical costs and work

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22225

amputations were excluded from the 3. Societal Costs, per Table Saw in Use saw’s expected useful product life (row injury cost estimates, the injury costs d). For this analysis, the expected would have been reduced from about Table 10 presents estimates of the product life was based on an average for present value of societal costs, per table $74,050 per injury to about $31,200 per the three saw types, weighted by the saw in use. Row (a) shows the aggregate injury. proportion of saws in use for each table annual societal costs, by discount rate. In contrast to the average injury cost saw type. The present value figure of about $345,000 per medically treated Row (c) shows annual societal costs per saw, and the results are calculated by amounts to about $5,400 per table saw amputation, the average imputed cost using a 3 percent discount rate and for lacerations (which accounted for dividing the aggregate annual societal about $3,800 at 7 percent; this present about 56.9 percent of medically treated costs (row a) by table saws in use (row value estimate represents the maximum injuries) amounted to about $19,500. b). per unit benefits that could be derived The average imputed cost for fractures Row (e) presents the present value of (accounting for about 22.8 percent of societal costs, and the results were from a rule addressing blade contact if injuries) and avulsions (6.1 percent of calculated using the row (c) estimate of such a rule prevented all blade-contact injuries) amounted to about $48,250 and annual societal costs and a 3 percent injuries. $72,900, respectively. and 7 percent discount rate over the

TABLE 10—PRESENT VALUE OF SOCIETAL COSTS PER TABLE SAW IN USE

Discount rate 3 percent 7 percent

(a) Aggregate Annual Societal Costs (Billions $) ...... $4.06 $3.65 (b) Table Saws in Use (Millions) ...... 8.2 8.2 (c) Societal Costs per Table Saw [(a) ÷ (b)] ...... $495 $445 (d) Expected Useful Product Life (years) ...... 13.3 13.3 (e) Present Value of Societal Costs, per Table Saw ...... $5,366 $3,772

4. Effectiveness and Expected Benefits Based on CPSC staff’s testing of • benefits at 90 percent effectiveness of the Proposed Rule existing AIM systems, we assume that at 7 percent—$3,015 the AIM technology will prevent or The benefits at 70 and 90 percent The benefits of the proposed rule are substantially or mitigate 70 percent to effectiveness, result in about a 62 measured as the reduction in the 90 percent of blade-contact injuries. The percent and 80 percent reduction, societal costs of injuries resulting from estimate of 90 percent effectiveness respectively, in the estimated societal the use of the safer saws. Consequently, assumes that all blade-contact injuries, costs. CPSC staff estimated the expected including blade-contact injuries effectiveness of the proposed rule in 5. Costs To Meet Performance initiated by kickback, will be addressed Requirements preventing blade-contact injuries. by the AIM technology, but that about Although effectiveness cannot be 10 percent of blade-contact injuries will This section discusses the types of determined precisely, staff believes that not be prevented or mitigated because of costs that would result from a rule that an AIM system can reduce or mitigate the reasons given above. The estimate of would require an AIM safety technology a blade-contact injury even if the blade 70 percent effectiveness assumes that to meet the proposed performance guard or riving knife is removed or fails about 40 percent of blade-contact requirement, and quantifies some to function properly. Based on testing injuries involved kickback, and that estimates of these costs provided by experience with existing AIM systems, only about half of the kickback injuries industry participants. Table saw CPSC staff believes that the proposed would be prevented or substantially manufacturers are likely to incur three performance requirement can mitigated. Additionally, we assume that primary types of costs to incorporate significantly reduce the severity of the mitigated accidents that would have AIM technology into their table saws, injury involving blade contact. resulted in amputations, avulsions, and including: • However, a rule requiring fractures are not prevented entirely, but Costs to develop AIM technology. manufacturers to develop an AIM become medically treated lacerations, Manufacturers would have to either technology to meet the proposed and that accidents that would have design and develop their own AIM performance requirement will not resulted in medically treated lacerations technology or license the AIM prevent all blade-contact injuries. It will are either mitigated to injuries that do technology developed and owned by not prevent blade-contact injuries that not require medical attention or are another party. • occur: (1) When the blade is operating prevented entirely. Redesign and retooling costs. but the AIM system has been Expected benefit of the rule, per table Incorporating AIM technology into deactivated; (2) when the operator’s saw, over the saws expected product life existing models would require hand is moving into the blade so are as follows: manufacturers to redesign each model quickly that contact with the blade • Benefits at 70 percent effectiveness and retool the facilities where the saws cannot be reduced sufficiently to at 3 percent—$3,335 are manufactured. All table saw models prevent serious injury; and (3) when the • benefits at 70 percent effectiveness not currently incorporating the AIM AIM technology leads to complacency at 7 percent—$2,345 technology likely would require or reductions in safety efforts by users • benefits at 90 percent effectiveness redesign to provide room for blade that result in injury. at 3 percent—$4,288 retraction, to allow access for users to

loss; 70.7 percent were attributed to pain and suffering.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22226 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

change the cartridge and, if necessary, decision of the ITC. In the ITC leave the table saw market. PTI and the blade, and to withstand the force of proceeding, an administrative law judge SawStop agree that this is the case. The the AIM system being triggered. (ALJ) issued an initial determination in level at which the royalty payments are • Materials costs. The combination of September 2016 that the Bosch set will play a significant role in the addition of a brake cartridge, or REAXXTM bench saw infringes on determining the economic impacts the other means of stopping or retracting the several SawStop patents.79 Specifically, CPSC’s proposed rule would have on blade after contact with flesh, and the the ALJ found that Bosch infringes the table saw manufacturers. We note that redesign of the table saw to claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927 some of the allegedly infringed upon accommodate the additional electronic (‘927 Patent),80 titled ‘‘Power patents may expire in 2020 (‘927), and components and wiring, the required Equipment with Detection and Reaction 2022 (‘279). However, given the clearances, and the weight and Systems’’; and U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279 extensive number and reach of the dimensions of the AIM technology, (‘279 Patent) titled ‘‘Power Equipment SawStop patents, we do not know how, would result in increased material costs. with Systems to Mitigate or Prevent and to what extent, the SawStop patents Injury.’’ 81 may impact companies who attempt to a. Costs To Develop AIM Technology On November 10, 2016, the ITC introduce alternative AIM technologies. The proposed performance decided not to review the ALJ’s initial Nor do we know when the other requirement for table saws would limit determination, and requested that SawStop patents expire or whether the depth of cut to a test probe, upon interested parties provide written SawStop will file additional patents. making contact with the saw blade at a submissions on the issues of remedy, The royalty fee for licensing the AIM radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to 3.5 the public interest, and bonding by technology from SawStop is uncertain. mm. Although the proposed rule would November 22, 2016, with reply Although Dr. Gass has indicated that allow for a variety of detection methods submissions due December 2, 2016. On SawStop would accept royalty (such as electrical, optical, thermal, January 27, 2017, the ITC issued payments of 8 percent of a saw’s electromagnetic, ultrasound) to comply remedial orders including a limited wholesale price if all table saws are with the proposed requirements, the exclusion order and cease and desist required to use SawStop’s AIM Commission is aware that, currently, order against Bosch effective March 29, technology,82 there is no certainty that only two manufacturers have developed 2017. On April 6, 2017, Bosch filed an SawStop would actually license the an AIM technology using an electric appeal of the ITC determination in the technology under terms that would be detection system that is available on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal acceptable to other manufacturers. market: SawStop and Bosch REAXXTM Circuit. Indeed, with the exception of one table saws.78 If manufacturers are The outcome of the ongoing lawsuit company,83 several companies that have unable to develop their own AIM involving the SawStop technology will attempted to license the SawStop system, or if their AIM technology determine some of the impacts that may technology thus far have not been 84 infringes on SawStop patents, we result from a mandatory rule requiring successful. believe that ongoing patent infringement AIM technology in table saws. If the CPSC staff believes that in addition to litigation initiated by SawStop may court determines that the patents the direct manufacturing and have a bearing on SawStop or other covering the SawStop technology allow replacement parts costs and the lost companies’ willingness to license their for companies to manufacture their own consumer surplus discussed below, AIM technologies. Various stakeholders saws with alternative AIM technologies approximately $30 million to $35 have expressed concern that a (such as the Bosch REAXXTM saw), then million annual royalty fees for the AIM mandatory rule could impose a some manufacturers may choose to try technology could accrue to patent monopoly for SawStop technology given to develop their own proprietary holders. This estimate is based on the assumption that royalty fees will the numerous patents that have been technology or license the Bosch amount to about 8 percent of the filed on its behalf. PTI reports that technology (if available) as an wholesale costs of table saws when a SawStop has filed more than 140 patent alternative to the SawStop technology. rule would become effective. However, applications, and has over 100 issued Alternatively, if the court decides that because royalties represent transfers patents pertaining to SawStop alternative technologies do in fact from manufacturers to a patent holder, technology. infringe upon SawStop patents, then they are not included as costs for On July 16, 2015, SawStop filed a SawStop may effectively have a purposes in the benefit-cost analysis.85 complaint in the U.S. District Court in monopoly on the technology needed to The rationale for not including royalties Oregon for patent infringement against comply with a mandatory rule until the is based on the premise that royalty fees patents expire. Other manufacturers Bosch. On the same date SawStop also represent a transfer from one market likely would be required to work with filed a complaint against Bosch with the segment to another (i.e., from table saw SawStop to license the SawStop ITC requesting a permanent order manufacturers to patent holders) and technology for use in their saws, or excluding from entry into the United remain available (by a different party) States certain table saws incorporating for productive use. Nevertheless, from 79 Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury AIM technology and components that the point of view of an individual infringe on SawStop’s patent claims. Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, USITC, Inv. No. 337–TA–965 (ALJ Thomas B. manufacturer who pays the royalty, the The complaint filed in the District Court Pender, Sept. 9, 2016). payment represents a cost. Table saw in Oregon is on hold pending the final 80 As described in ID, the ‘927 patent generally manufacturers who would be paying describes woodworking machine safety systems that royalties to a competitor would, in 78 A third company, Whirlwind Tool Company, include reaction systems designed to retract a has developed a ‘‘Black Box flesh-sensing cutting tool below a working system with prototype,’’ which does not involve a blade approximately 14 milliseconds after the detection of 82 IEc, 2016a at 19. retraction system, but uses a fixed protective guard a dangerous condition. Id. at 5–6. 83 SawStop and Griggio, an Italian manufacturer and a very rapid, non-destructive motor-braking to 81 As described in the ID, the ‘279 patent collaborated to develop a sliding table saw. IEc, stop the saw blade when the operator’s hand is too generally describe woodworking safety systems that 2016a at 18. close to the spinning blade. However, the include an actuator designed to move a moveable 84 Id. Whirlwind system is not yet available in the component in order to mitigate injury in response 85 OMB, 2003. Circular A–4, available at: https:// market. to detection of a dangerous condition. Id. at 6. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22227

effect, be reducing their competitiveness firms interviewed indicated that the cost specific information about relative to the patent holder receiving of redesigning their saws to incorporate manufacturing costs, CPSC staff uses the royalties. Consequently, the royalty AIM technology may be too great, this figure as the basis for the low-end transfers represent an impact of the relative to their sales volume, to support estimate of manufacturing cost increases proposed rule that needs to be such a redesign. They indicated that for bench saws. considered, and staff has evaluated the they might respond by reducing or For contractor and cabinet saws, the potential costs of royalties as discussed eliminating their offerings of table saws low-end expected cost impacts were in Table 12. to the U.S. market.90 based on discussions with other industry members. One manufacturer b. Redesign Costs c. Material Costs estimated that the retail price of the Interviews with several In addition to the redesign and tooling single table saw model that they manufacturers, as well as a review of costs, additional costs would result from produce would increase by about 30 public comments provided by PTI to the the additional components and the percent as a result of the rule, including ANPR, revealed general agreement that increased use of raw materials the cost of royalties. Excluding royalties, implementing a rule requiring AIM associated with inclusion of the AIM this estimate suggested a cost increase technology would necessitate a system. For SawStop models, the associated with redesign, retooling, and complete redesign of all saws that do additional costs associated with the materials of about $256.92 For this not currently incorporate the AIM AIM system is approximately $58 analysis, we assume that this $256 low- technology. More specifically, the (including brake cartridge, cartridge key, end cost increase can be applied to all trunnion system would have to be cartridge cable, cartridge bracket, contractor and cabinet saws. redesigned, and the cabinet/interior of insulation on arbor, electrode shell the saw would need to be modified to assembly, and power supply/motor 2. High-End Manufacturing Costs incorporate the technology and allow control). An estimate from another firm For bench saws, the high-end cost access to change out the brake cartridge suggested $74 (including cartridge, increase is based on information or to allow clearance for blade electronics, and mechanical parts). provided by PTI, whose members retraction.86 The support structure, such The AIM technology also will affect produce primarily bench saws. PTI as the stand, would also likely need to the weight of the table saws, adding to estimates that the increase would be be redesigned to bear the extra weight material costs. Although the added $100 to $800 per saw, excluding of the AIM system and to absorb the weight is applicable to all table saws royalties.93 In the absence of more force applied by the triggering of the equipped with the AIM technology, the specific estimates, CPSC staff uses the AIM mechanism. PTI estimates that the added weight will particularly affect the midpoint of this range, $450 per saw, as cost to redesign and retool existing table bench saws, which typically can be the short-term high-end estimate for saws would range from $2 million to transported by a single person. bench saws. $10 million per company.87 Currently, the lightest bench saws weigh For contractor and cabinet saw SawStop has indicated that SawStop’s 35 to 40 pounds. While the various models, we apply the high-end of the tooling costs were approximately components needed for AIM range estimated by PTI and other $200,000 for its first cast iron (i.e., compliance may only weigh a few manufacturers. One table saw contractor/cabinet) table saw, and were pounds, the structure of some saws may manufacturer provided an estimate approximately $700,000 for its first need to be strengthened to be stable and ranging from $500 to $800 for ‘‘larger benchtop table saw.88 SawStop’s to withstand the shock of blade braking saws,’’ excluding royalties. Another estimates are within the range of and/or retraction if those methods are manufacturer estimated that the retail estimates provided by other firms. In used. This need for strength may price of saws would increase 20 percent, interviews with manufacturers, several contribute substantially to the added excluding the cost of royalties.94 companies indicated the cost to weight of some complying saws. Adding Applying this percentage to the redesign saws could be approximately the AIM technology effectively could company’s cabinet saw models results $500,000 per saw.89 One company double the weight of some of the lightest in added costs of about $260 to $800. indicated that retooling could cost saws, reducing the portability and Consequently, CPSC staff assumes the $100,000 to $200,000. An additional utility of lightweight bench saws. high-end incremental cost increase is cost of several hundred thousand D. Unit Manufacturing Cost Impact $800, the upper bound of each range dollars may be necessary depending on suggested by PTI and these two the level of engineering required for the 1. Low-End Manufacturing Costs manufacturers. In the longer term, after redesign. For example, according to one For bench saws, SawStop has about five years, we would expect that company, a redesign of the trunnion indicated that retail prices for bench the incremental cost would decrease, system alone may cost $200,000. saws would increase by no more than though the magnitude of such a Several companies suggested that the $150 per unit as result of the rule.91 Dr. decrease is uncertain. redesign and retooling of table saws Gass estimates that in the short-term 3. Replacement Part Costs would, at least on the initial models, be (i.e., within the first five years following expected to take one to three years. the promulgation of the rule), the In addition to the direct costs of the However, redesigning and retooling cheapest saws available (i.e., rule just described, there also will be the subsequent models would require a inexpensive bench saws that currently added costs of replacement parts related shorter period and cost less. Four small cost about $150) will have a price of to the AIM system. For purposes of our approximately $299. Thus, SawStop analysis, we base the cost of 86 A trunnion is an assembly that holds a saw’s projects a short term cost increase of replacement parts on the SawStop arbor to the underside of the saw table. system, which requires replacement of 87 Graham, J. 2010. Expert report of Dr. John D. about $150. In the absence of more Graham. (April 27). Submitted with the PTI public the brake cartridge and blade after an comments (2012) CPSC–2011–0074–1106, available 90 Id. at: regulations.gov. 91 SawStop, LLC. 2009. Presentation to CPSC, 92 IEc, 2016b at 11–12. 88 SawStop Comment to the ANPR, supra note 50. December 8 & 9. See also, Osorio v. One World 93 Id. at 12. 89 IEc, 2016a at 20. Technologies, Inc., 659 F.3d 81, 83 (1st Cir. 2011). 94 Id.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22228 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

activation of the system. Replacement about $94 for bench saws (with a 10- the Bosch cartridge activates once every part prices are estimated to include $69 year expected product life), $145 for nine years, based on the SawStop for a replacement brake cartridge (based contractor saws (with an estimated 17- experience, and the cost is $100 for two on current online prices), and $30 to year product life), and $186 of cabinet activations, then the expected annual $90 for a replacement blade. Based on saws (with an expected 24-year product per-unit replacement cost would be sales of replacement brake cartridges, life). With a discount rate of 7 percent, about $5.55 annually (($100/2) ÷ 9). The SawStop estimates that the AIM system the present value of expected costs present value of this expected annual may activate about once every nine would amount to about $77, $107, and cost of $5.55 over an average product years of use.95 At a replacement rate of $126 for bench, contractor, and cabinet life of 10 years for a bench saw once every nine years (and assuming saws, respectively. For purposes of this (discounted at a rate of 3 percent) would $60 per replacement blade), this results cost analysis, we use the midpoint of amount to about $47 per saw, about half in an annual per-unit replacement part this range. Hence, we estimate that the expected costs of the SawStop cost of approximately $14 [($69 + $60) replacement parts costs for the AIM system. Additionally, the Bosch system ÷ 9]. However, because blades system would amount to about $86 for does not require any additional dado depreciate and would require periodic bench saws, $126 for contractor saws, hardware related to the AIM system. replacement even in the absence of an and $156 for cabinet saws. Consequently, if the Bosch REAXXTM AIM activation, we assume that the Additionally, the Bosch REAXXTM stays in the market, our baseline need for replacement blades due to an bench saws, introduced on June 1, 2016, estimates of replacement costs might be activation costs an average of about $30 use a $100 cartridge that lasts for two reduced. every nine years (rather than $60), for an activations. Since the blade is not The direct manufacturing and average of about $11 annually [($69 + destroyed by the activation, the Bosch replacement costs are presented in $30) ÷ 9]. The present value of this system has lower replacement part Table 11, and rely on the low- and high- expected annual cost of $11 over the life costs. However, staff does not have any end direct manufacturing costs and the of a typical table saw, and discounted at information on how frequently the SawStop replacement costs as a rate of 3 percent, would amount to cartridge will be activated. If, however, described.96

TABLE 11—DIRECT MANUFACTURING AND REPLACEMENT COSTS

Direct manufacturing Total direct + costs replacement costs Table saw type Replacement Low-end High-end parts costs Low-end High-end estimates estimates estimates estimates

Bench ...... $150 $450 $86 $236 $536 Contractor ...... 256 800 126 382 926 Cabinet ...... 256 800 156 412 956

Based on the available information, compliance may only weigh a few the lightest saws, reducing the there is considerable uncertainty pounds, the structure of some saws may portability and utility of lightweight concerning the per unit manufacturing need to be strengthened to be stable and bench saws. The Commission seeks cost impact of a rule requiring the use to withstand the shock of blade braking public comments on the impact of the of AIM technology on table saws. and/or retraction if those methods are AIM technology on the utility of table Accordingly, the Commission seeks any used. This need for strength may saws, and possible methods of comments that would allow us to make contribute substantially to the added quantifying these impacts. more precise estimates or narrow the weight of some complying saws, range we present regarding the unit perhaps as much as an 18 pound E. Impact of Higher Prices on Sales and manufacturing cost impact of a rule increase. Lost Consumer Surplus requiring the use of AIM technology on An additional four or five pounds is The increasing retail prices of table table saws. not a major weight penalty on a forty saws, as costs are passed on to 4. Impact on Product Usability pound bench saw, but an 18 pound consumers, will result in a reduction in increase would reduce portability. An table saw sales. As a consequence, and The AIM technology will also affect additional 20 pounds (on top of the 18 in addition to the price impacts on the weight of the table saws, adding to pounds) for a more substantial jobsite consumers who continue to purchase material costs. While the added weight saw type structure, if necessary, would saws, consumers who decide not to is applicable to all table saws equipped further decrease portability. For purchase table saws because of the with the AIM technology, the added contractor saws, with wheels and higher prices will experience a loss in weight will particularly affect bench stands, the weight penalty would not be consumer surplus. For purposes of this saws, which, as currently configured, substantial. Cabinet saws are not analysis, we assume that cost increases typically can be transported by a single portable at all, so the weight penalty as well as royalties are pushed forward person. Currently, the lightest bench may make no real difference. However, to consumers. Table 12 provides saws weigh 35 to 40 pounds. While the adding the AIM technology could baseline sales and median retail price various components needed for AIM effectively double the weight of some of estimates,97 along with the total per

95 Id. at 13. 97 Retail price information was collected for all of Consequently, we apply the median price 96 The SawStop AIM system has optional the table saw models available. However, we were advertised for each category as baseline pre- hardware to perform dado cuts which includes an unable to calculate a weighted average retail price regulatory retail prices. $89 dado brake cartridge. This dado brake system for each category of saw because we do not have is not included in Table 11. sales information for the various models.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22229

product compliance cost estimates, product life of a table saw. Table 12 also wholesale price.98 The per unit cost and including both the costs associated with provides an estimate of the expected royalty fee estimates are provided for manufacturing the redesigned table royalty fee, under the assumption, based both the low-end and high-end cost saws and the expected costs of on Dr. Gass’s statements, that the fee estimates. replacement parts over the expected would amount to 8 percent of a saw’s

TABLE 12—BASELINE ANNUAL TABLE SAW SHIPMENTS, RETAIL PRICES, AND PER UNIT COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES AND ROYALTY FEES

Pre-regulatory baseline Per unit cost Per unit royalty fees estimates estimates * Table saw type Low-end High-end Low-end High-end Median price estimates estimates cost cost Shipments ** (per unit) (% of (% of estimates estimates baseline) baseline)

Bench ...... 499,000 $400 $236 $536 $37 $57 (59.0%) (134%) Contractor ...... 133,000 1,225 $382 $926 99 135 (31.2%) (75.6%) Cabinet ...... 33,000 2,550 $412 $956 187 223 (16.2%) (37.5%) * Includes direct manufacturing and replacement part costs. ** Excludes 10,000 units assumed to contain the AIM technology

Table 13 shows the expected estimates (column a) to about 251,700 consumer surplus ranges from about reduction in annual sales as well as the under the high-end cost estimates $10.0 million under the low cost expected lost consumer surplus. (column d), a sales reduction of about estimates (column c), to about $72.3 Reduced sales could range from 93,400 14.0 percent to 37.8 percent, million, under the high cost estimates table saws under the low-end cost respectively. The annual loss in (column f).

TABLE 13—AGGREGATE EXPECTED POST-REGULATORY ANNUAL TABLE SAW SALES, SALES REDUCTION, AND LOST CONSUMER SURPLUS, BY COST LEVEL AND TABLE SAW TYPE

Low-end cost estimate High-end cost estimate Aggregate Aggregate Table saw type Expected Expected lost Expected Expected lost sales post- consumer sales post- consumer reduction regulatory surplus reduction regulatory surplus sales (millions $) sales (millions $)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Bench ...... $78,500 $420,500 $7.3 $213,000 $286,000 $54.0 Contractor ...... 13,000 120,000 2.3 34,200 98,800 16.0 Cabinet ...... 1,900 31,100 0.4 4,500 28,500 2.3 Total ...... 93,400 571,600 10.0 251,700 413,300 72.3

Table 14 presents the total costs per saw, is calculated as the aggregate lost range from roughly $253 to $725 per table saw, including both the direct consumer surplus (from Table 13, bench saw to roughly $400 to $1,000 per manufacturing costs, replacement part columns c and f) divided by the post- unit for contractor and cabinet saws. costs, and the lost consumer surplus. regulatory estimate of sales (Table 13, The lost consumer surplus, per table columns b and e). Total per unit costs

TABLE 14—TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, PER TABLE SAW, BY COST LEVEL AND TABLE SAW TYPE

Low-end cost estimates, High-end cost estimates, per table saw per table saw Table saw type Direct + Lost Direct + Lost replacement consumer Total replacement consumer Total costs surplus (a) + (b) costs surplus (d) + (e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Bench ...... $236 $17 $253 $536 $189 $725 Contractor ...... 382 19 401 926 162 1,088

98 IEc, 2016b at 14. Staff also spoke with Dr. Gass would accept royalty payments of 8 percent of a saw’s wholesale value if a rule is mandated on November 26, 2015, who indicated that SawStop requiring AIM technology on all table saws.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22230 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 14—TOTAL COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, PER TABLE SAW, BY COST LEVEL AND TABLE SAW TYPE— Continued

Low-end cost estimates, High-end cost estimates, per table saw per table saw Table saw type Direct + Lost Direct + Lost replacement consumer Total replacement consumer Total costs surplus (a) + (b) costs surplus (d) + (e)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Cabinet ...... 412 13 425 956 81 1,037

The annual aggregate costs of the rule estimates, to about $345 million based cost estimates and about 60 percent of are estimated in columns (c) and (f) of on our high-end cost estimates. Bench the costs under the high-end estimates. Table 15, and range from about $170 table saws account for about 63 percent million based on our low-end cost of the total under the low-end annual

TABLE 15—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

Per unit Per unit costs Annual costs Aggregate Annual (direct costs + Aggregate Table saw type post- (direct costs + costs post- replacement costs regulatory replacement (millions $) regulatory costs + lost (millions $) table saw costs + lost × able saw × sales consumer (a) (b) sales consumer (d) (e) surplus) surplus)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Bench ...... $420,500 $253 $106.4 $286,000 $725 $207.4 Contractor ...... 120,000 401 48.1 98,800 1,088 107.5 Cabinet ...... 31,100 425 13.2 28,500 1,037 29.6 Total ...... 571,600 ...... 167.7 413,300 ...... 344.5

Over time, we would expect the costs remain constant for years 1 through 5, benefits per table saw are provided in of the AIM technology to decrease. If, but decline by about two-thirds in years rows (a) and (b). The estimated costs per for example, we assume that the annual 6 through 10, the present value of the table saw are shown in rows (c) and (d). aggregate costs remain constant for years aggregate costs over 10 years (using a 3 Cost estimates were developed from 1 through 5, but decline by about one- percent discount rate) would range from Table 15; they represent the average third in years 6 through 10, the present about $990 million to $2,000 million; on lower and upper bound cost estimates, value of the aggregate costs over 10 an annualized basis, this would amount weighted by projected sales. Net years (using a 3 percent discount rate) to about $120 million to $240 million. benefits per table saw are estimated in would range from about $1,200 million F. Benefit-Cost Findings rows (e) and (f), and range from about to $2,500 million; on an annualized $2,500 to $4,000 with a 3 percent basis, this would amount to about $140 The expected benefits and costs of the discount rate and about $1,500 to $2,700 million to $290 million annually. proposed rule, are presented and at 7 percent. Alternatively, if annual aggregate costs compared in Table 16. The estimated

TABLE 16—ESTIMATES OF BENEFITS, COSTS AND NET BENEFITS, BY TABLE SAW [2014 dollars]

Discount rate Categories Row 3 Percent 7 Percent

Estimates per Table Saw, Over Its Expected Product Life

Expected Benefits per Table Saw: 70% Effective ...... $3,335 $2,345 (a) 90% Effective ...... $4,288 $3,015 (b) Expected Costs per Table Saw: Lower Bound Cost Estimates ...... $293 $293 (c) Higher Bound Cost Estimates ...... $833 $833 (d) Range of Expected Net Benefits per Table Saw: (a) ¥ (d) ...... $2,502 $1,512 (e) to to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22231

TABLE 16—ESTIMATES OF BENEFITS, COSTS AND NET BENEFITS, BY TABLE SAW—Continued [2014 dollars]

Discount rate Categories Row 3 Percent 7 Percent

(b) ¥ (c) ...... $3,995 $2,722 (f)

Expected Annual Sales

Low Cost Estimate ...... $571,600 571,600 (g) High Cost Estimate ...... $413,300 413,300 (h)

Aggregate Annual Estimates, Based on One Year of Sales

Range of Expected Benefits (Millions $): (a) + (h) ...... $1,378 $969 (i) to to (b) + (g) ...... $2,450 $1,723 (j) Range of Expected Costs (Millions $): (c) × (g) ...... $168 $168 (k) to to (d) × (h) ...... $344 $344 (l) Range of Expected Net Benefits (Millions $): (i) ¥ (l) ...... $1,034 $625 (m) to to (j) ¥ (k) ...... $2,282 $1,555 (n)

Given table saw sales estimates, injuries involving table saws, and (4) Variations in the expected product shown in rows (g) and (h) of Table 16, our estimates of injury costs. life of the table saws had a relatively we can provide aggregate annual Relative to the reference case analysis, small impact on net benefits (See Table estimates of the benefits and costs of the the sensitivity analysis allows: The 17, Part B, rows b and c). A longer proposed rule. As shown in rows (i) and expected product life of table saws to expected product life reduces societal (j), estimates of aggregate annual vary by about 20 percent; the number of costs per table saw on an annual basis benefits range from about $970 million table saws in use to vary by 25 percent; (because there would be more saws in to $2,450 million, and aggregate costs, and the national estimate of medically use), but increases the number years shown in rows (m) and (n), range from treated injuries by the upper and lower over which benefits are accumulated in about $170 million to about $345 bounds of an approximate 95 percent the present value calculation. million. Aggregate net benefits, from confidence interval. Finally, we Conversely, a shorter expected product rows (m) and (n), range from about evaluate the results of the analysis when life increases the annual societal costs $1,030 million to $2,280 million with a benefits are limited to the economic per table saw (because there would be 3 percent discount rate, and from about costs of injury (i.e., medical costs and fewer saws in use), but decreases the $630 million to $1,560 million at 7 work loss), and the intangible costs number of years over which the benefits percent. associated with pain and suffering are are accumulated. In all cases, net excluded. This exclusion of pain and benefits remained positive and G. Sensitivity Analysis suffering is not intended to suggest that significant, and roughly equal to The benefit-cost analysis described the intangible costs are not important; estimates from the reference case. our methodology and the results of our rather it simply shows the impact of Variations in the number of saws in reference case analysis. This section limiting the costs to the economic losses use, which might result if sales were presents an analysis to help evaluate the associated with medical costs and work systematically under- or over-estimated, sensitivity of the results to variations in losses. had a somewhat greater impact on net some of the key parameters and Table 17 describes the results of the benefits (Table 17, Part B, rows d and e). assumptions of the analysis. Such an sensitivity analysis. Only changes in net Net benefits rose when fewer saws were analysis is needed to account for benefits per table saw are shown in the assumed to be in use, because injury uncertainty in the values of the input table. Aside from changing the input costs were apportioned over a smaller variables. The variables CPSC staff variables, the methodology used to population of saws; conversely, net examines include: (1) The expected estimate net benefits in the sensitivity benefits decreased when more saws product life of table saws, (2) the analysis was identical to that presented were assumed to be in use. number of table saws in use, (3) the in the reference case analysis shown in Nevertheless, net benefits remained national estimate of medically treated Table 16. positive.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:14 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22232 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 17—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: EXPECTED NET BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH VARIATIONS IN INPUT VALUES

Range of expected net benefits per table saw, Row Input value by discount rate 3 Percent 7 Percent

Part A: Reference Case Results.*

a ...... Reference Case Analysis * (Rows (i) and (j) from Table 16) ...... $2,502 to $3,995 ...... $1,512 to $2,722.

Part B: Alternative Inputs for Sensitivity Analysis

Row Input variable and value(s) used in sensitivity analysis Range of expected net benefits by discount rate

3 Percent 7 Percent

Expected Product Life (years)

b ...... Lower expected product life: 10.8 years ...... 2,817 to 4,400 ...... 1,834 to 3,136.

c ...... Higher expected product life: 16.2 years ...... 2,502 to 3,995 ...... 1,414 to 2,596.

Saws in Use

d ...... 25% fewer saws in use: 6.1 million ...... 3,651 to 5,472 ...... 2,319 to 3,760.

e ...... 25% more saws in use: 10.3 million ...... 1,822 to 3,121 ...... 1,034 to 2,107.

Medically Treated Injuries (per year)

f ...... Approximate lower 95% CI: 45,150 ...... 1,914 to 3,239 ...... 1,098 to 2,190.

g ...... Approximate upper 95% CI: 64,500 ...... 3,088 to 4,749 ...... 1,924 to 3,252.

Exclusion of Pain and Suffering Estimates from Injury Costs

h ...... Medical costs and work losses only, excluding imputed costs of 279 to 1,136 ...... ¥52 to 711. pain and suffering.. * Reference Case Inputs: 3% discount rate; expected product life, 13.3 years; saws in use, 8.2 million; medically treated blade-contact injuries, 54,843 per year; including100% of pain and suffering estimates in injury cost calculation.

Variations in the national estimate of proposed rule over the table saw market how quickly and unexpectedly kickback medically treated injuries (rows f and g), as a whole, combining all of the saw injuries can occur) or to remember were based on the lower and upper types into a single category. However, safety procedures; they are also bounds of an approximate 95 percent because we had no information on the probably more likely to purchase the confidence interval, based on estimates distribution of injuries by saw type, we inexpensive bench saw models. the coefficient of variation (CV) from the were unable to evaluate the relationship Consequently, because of the different NEISS injury estimates. The upper between benefits and costs for each of characteristics and potentially varying bound estimates increased net benefits the three major saw categories: Bench use patterns associated with the various substantially, as would be expected, saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws. saw types, it is possible that the costs of while the lower bound estimates Such a detailed analysis of benefits the proposed rule might exceed the lowered them. and costs, by saw type, is useful because benefits for one or more table saw types, Finally, net benefits were significantly the saw types have different physical even though, in aggregate (as shown reduced when benefits were limited to characteristics and different patterns of above), benefits exceed aggregate costs the reduction in economic losses usage. Contractor saws, in general, are for the market as a whole. associated with medical costs and work heavier, less mobile, and more Although we cannot conduct a losses, excluding the intangible costs expensive than bench saws; similarly, benefit-cost analysis of the individual associated with pain and suffering cabinet saws are heavier, less mobile, saw types, we can evaluate the (Table 17, Part B, row h). Reductions in and more expensive than contractor relationship between benefits and costs pain and suffering accounted for about saws. Some types of table saws may be of the proposed rule by saw type. To do 70 percent of the societal costs used more frequently or more this, we will, for each saw type, estimate associated with blade-contact injuries. intensively than others. Contractor and the number of injuries that would have Nevertheless, although net benefits cabinet saws may be more likely to be to be prevented in order for benefits to appear to have remained positive using used by hobbyists or occupational users equal or exceed the costs. This is called a 3 percent discount rate, benefits were who may, relative to bench saw users, a breakeven analysis, and the number of generally comparable to costs when a 7 have more expertise or experience in the injuries that would have to be prevented percent discount rate was applied. safe use of table saws. before benefits would equal costs can be H. Breakeven Analysis On the other hand, many consumers called the breakeven estimate. We will use table saws only occasionally. These then develop several hypothetical The preceding analysis evaluated the types of consumers may be less likely to distributions of injuries across saw expected benefits and costs of the fully understand table saw risks (e.g., types, and compare the expected injury

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22233

reduction for each to the breakeven CPSC staff applied the breakeven worth of table saw sales through their estimates. Table 18 shows the breakeven analysis to table saw sales from a single useful product lives to determine the injury estimates, including hypothetical year to allow staff to calculate the expected number of injuries that would injury distributions and the expected breakeven injury estimate from likely be prevented by the proposed injury reduction associated with one information that we have already rule. year of table saw sales, by table saw presented in this regulatory analysis. type. Staff also followed the single years’

TABLE 18—BREAKEVEN INJURY ESTIMATES AND THE EXPECTED INJURY REDUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH ONE YEAR OF TABLE SAW SALES, BY TABLE SAW TYPE

Type of saw Row Bench Contractor Cabinet

a ...... Breakeven Injury Estimates ...... 1,437–3,116 ...... 650–1,615 ...... 178–445.

Hypothetical Injury Distributions

b ...... 1. Every Saw Has the Same Annual Risk of Injury. c ...... Annual Risk per Saw ...... 0.00669 ...... 0.00669 ...... 0.00669. d ...... Estimated Annual Injuries ...... 1,913–2,812 ...... 661–803 ...... 191–208. e ...... Present Value of Annual Injury Estimate ...... 13,435–23,990 ...... 6,451–10,567 ...... 2,186–3,323. f ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction * ...... 8,330–19,192 ...... 4,000–8,454 ...... 1,355–2,818.

g ...... 2. Equivalent risks for the saw types, over ex- pected product life. h ...... Annual Risk per Saw ...... 0.00808 ...... 0.00475 ...... 0.00337. i ...... Estimated Annual Injuries ...... 2,312–3,399 ...... 470–571 ...... 96–105. j ...... Present Value of Annual Injury Estimate ...... 16,237–28,993 ...... 4,586–7,512 ...... 1,101–1,774. k ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction * ...... 10,067–23,194 ...... 2,843–6,010 ...... 682–1,419.

l ...... 3. Injury Risks Proportional to the Median Saw Price. m ...... Annual Risk per Saw ...... 0.00318 ...... 0.00974 ...... 0.02027. n ...... Estimated Annual Injuries ...... 910–1,337 ...... 962–1,169 ...... 578–631. o ...... Present Value of Annual Injury Estimate ...... 6,389–11,408 ...... 9,396–15,389 ...... 6,628–10,679. p ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction * ...... 3,961–9,126 ...... 5,825–12,311 ...... 4,109–8,543.

q ...... 4. Injuries are Proportional to Median Saw Price. r ...... Annual Risk per Saw ...... 0.00103 ...... 0.00700 ...... 0.04187. s ...... Estimated Annual Injuries ...... 295–433 ...... 691–840 ...... 1,193–1,302. t ...... Present Value of Annual Injury Estimate ...... 2,070–3,696 ...... 6,749–11,054 ...... 13,687–22,053. u ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction * ...... 1,283–2,957 ...... 4,184–8,843 ...... 8,486–17,642. * Assumes 70 percent to 90 percent of the blade-contact injuries are prevented or mitigated by the proposed rule.

1. Calculation of the Breakeven Injury equal or exceed costs. For bench saws, breakeven injury estimate for contractor Estimates using a 3 percent discount rate, the saws ranges from 650 to 1,615, and the breakeven estimates range from 1,437 breakeven estimate for cabinet saws Breakeven injury estimates are injuries ($106.4 million ÷ $74,050) to ranges from 178 to 445. CPSC staff notes derived from: (1) The expected post- 2,801 injuries ($207.4 million ÷ that throughout this breakeven analysis, regulatory sales, and (2) the aggregate $74,050). Using a 7 percent discount we are implicitly assuming that the cost estimates, by saw type, presented in rate, the breakeven estimates range from types of injuries experienced, and hence Table 15. For example, to calculate the about 1,599 injuries ($106.4 million ÷ the societal costs, are the same across breakeven injury estimate for bench $66,550) to about 3,116 ($207.4 million the three types of table saws. However, saws, we begin with the aggregate cost ÷ $66,550). If, for simplicity, we in reality, the distribution of injuries estimates of $106.4 million to $207.4 combine these ranges, we have an and the resulting societal costs, by saw million. The $106.4 million was based overall breakeven range from about type, are likely to vary. on our lower bound cost estimate for 1,437 (based on the lower bound cost 2. Hypothetical Blade-Contact Injury bench saws (annual sales of 420,500 estimate injury costs discounted at 3 × Distributions bench saws $253 cost per bench saw) percent) to 3,116 injuries (based on the and $207.4 million was based on our upper bound cost estimate and injury Because we have no information on upper bound cost estimate (annual sales costs discounted at 7 percent). the actual distribution of blade-contact × of 286,000 bench saws $725 cost per This breakeven estimate means that if injuries across saw types, CPSC staff bench saw). the proposed rule could prevent at least considered four hypothetical If we divide these aggregate cost 1,437 to 3,116 bench saw injuries over distributions. The first assumes that estimates by the average cost per injury the expected product life of one years’ injuries are proportional to saws in use, (i.e., $74,050 with a 3 percent discount production and sale of bench saws, then and that every table saw has an equal rate and $66,550 at 7 percent), we can the benefits of the proposed rule would likelihood of injury on an annual basis. estimate a range of injuries that would equal or exceed the costs for that saw Thus, the risk for a bench saw, over the have to be prevented for benefits to type. Using the same methodology, the course of a year, is equal to the risk for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22234 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

contractor and cabinet saws. Because contractor saw, and $2,550 per cabinet 3. Sensitivity Analysis of Breakeven the present value of the expected injury saw), the annual risk on a contractor Results reduction for bench saws (8,330 to saw would be about 3.06 times the risk 19,192; row f) exceeds the breakeven for a bench saw (i.e., $1,225 ÷ $400) and The breakeven analysis evaluated four range (1,437 to 3,116; row a), we can say the annual risk on a cabinet saw would hypothetical injury distributions, and that the benefits are very likely to be about 6.37 times the risk for a bench found (for the most part) that the exceed the costs for bench saws for this saw (i.e., $2,550 ÷ $400). Given the expected injury reduction for each of hypothetical injury distribution. distribution of the estimated 8.2 million the saw types substantially exceeded the Additionally, the present value of table saws currently in use by saw type, breakeven estimates, regardless of the prevented injuries ranges from 4,000 to this hypothetical injury distribution hypothesized injury distribution. The 8,454 injuries for contractor saws and would suggest that about 29.6 percent of CPSC staff also conducted a sensitivity 1,355 to 2,818 injuries for cabinet saws. the 54,843 blade-contact injuries in analysis of the breakeven results by Because the present value of each of 2015 involved bench saws, 40.8 percent allowing variation in some key these ranges exceeds the breakeven involved contractor saws, and 29.6 parameters and assumptions underlying range (650–1,615 for contractor saws percent involved cabinet saws. Relative the analysis, including variations in the and 178–445 for cabinet saws), we can to the first two hypothetical injury number of table saws in use, the say that, for this distribution of injuries, distributions, this injury distribution national estimate of medically treated the estimated benefits of the proposed would suggest that injury risks are lower injuries, and estimates of injury costs. rule are likely to exceed the costs for all on bench saws, but higher on contractor Results are presented in Table 19, which three table saw types. and cabinet saws (row m). The results shows the present value of the expected The second hypothetical injury suggest that the present value of injuries injury reduction for the four injury distribution assumes that the risks for prevented (row p) would exceed the distributions presented in Table 18, the saw types are equal to one another breakeven levels. when estimates of the number of Tables over their expected product lives. Whereas the third hypothetical injury saws (by type) were either 25 percent Consequently, given the expected distribution suggested that injury risks lower or 25 percent higher than in the product life of about 10 years for bench were proportional to median prices, our base analysis and when estimates of saws, 17 years for contractor saws, and fourth hypothetical injury distribution medically treated injury estimates were 24 years for cabinet saws, the annual assumes that estimated blade-contact set equal to the lower and higher risk for contractor saws would, on an injuries, by table saw type, are bounds of an approximate 95 percent annual basis, be about 59 percent (10 proportional to the median retail prices. confidence interval, based on the ÷ Consequently, the annual number of years 17 years) of the risk for bench coefficient of variation from the NEISS blade-contact injuries on contractor saws, and the risk for cabinet saws blade-contact injury estimates. would be about 42 percent (10 years ÷ saws would be about 3.06 times the 24 years) of the risk for bench saws. number on bench saw injuries, and the As suggested by rows (b) through (p) Given the distribution of an estimated number of injuries on cabinet saws of Table 19, the present value of the 8.2 million table saws currently in use would be about 6.37 times the number expected injury reductions from the first by saw type, this hypothetical injury on bench saws. Given the distribution of three hypothetical injury distributions distribution would suggest that about the estimated 8.2 million table saws remain uniformly higher than the 75.2 percent of the 54,843 blade-contact currently in use by saw type, this breakeven estimates (row a), as do the injuries in 2015 involved bench saws, hypothetical injury distribution would projected injury reductions for 19.9 percent involved contractor saws, suggest that about 9.6 percent of the contractor and cabinet saws from the and 4.9 percent involved cabinet saws. 54,843 blade-contact injuries in 2015 fourth hypothesized injury distribution This injury distribution suggests involved bench saws, 29.3 percent (rows q through u). However, increased injury risk for bench saws but involved contractor saws, and 61.1 considering bench saws from the fourth lower risks for contractor and cabinet percent involved cabinet saws. injury distribution, the present value saws (row h). Nevertheless, the present Comparing the present value of the injury estimates appear to be generally value of injuries prevented (row k) expected injury reduction (row u) with comparable, or marginally lower, than would continue to exceed the breakeven the breakeven injury estimates (row a) the breakeven injury estimates when: (1) levels (row a). suggests that the expected injury The estimate of bench saws in use was Our third hypothetical injury reduction would exceed the breakeven assumed to be 25 percent higher than distribution assumes that the blade level. However, for bench saws, the the reference case (row s); and (2) when contact risk for the three table saw types present value of injury reduction (1,283 bench saw injuries were estimated at the is proportional to their median retail to 2,957) appears to be generally lower bound of an approximate 95 prices. Given the median retail prices comparable to, or slightly lower than, percent confidence interval for (i.e., $400 per bench saw, $1,225 per the breakeven level (1,437 to 3,116). medically treated injuries (row t).

TABLE 19—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR BREAKEVEN RESULTS

Type of saw Row Bench Contractor Cabinet

a ...... Breakeven Injury Estimates ...... 1,437–3,116 650–1,615 178–445

Hypothetical Injury Distributions and Present Values for Expected Injury Reductions, Conditional on the Described Input Variation

b ...... 1. Every Saw Has the Same Annual Risk of Injury. c ...... 25% fewer Table Saws in Use ...... 11,106–25,590 5,333–11,271 1,807–3,758 d ...... 25% more Table Saws in Use ...... 6,664–15,354 3,200–6,762 1,084–2,254 e ...... Lower bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 6,860–15,806 3,294–6,962 1,117–2,320

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22235

TABLE 19—SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR BREAKEVEN RESULTS—Continued

Type of saw Row Bench Contractor Cabinet

f ...... Upper bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 9,799–22,578 4,705–9,945 1,595–3,315

g ...... 2. Equivalent Risks for the Saw Types, Over Expected Product Life. h ...... 25% fewer Table Saws in Use ...... 13,420–30,920 3,791–8,011 910–1,892 i ...... 25% more Table Saws in Use ...... 8,052–18,552 2,274–4,807 595–1,135 j ...... Lower bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 8,291–19,104 2,342–4,950 562–1,169 k ...... Upper bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 11,843–27,287 3,346–7,070 803–1,670

l ...... 3. Injury Risks Proportional to the Median Saw Price. m ...... 25% fewer Table Saws in Use ...... 5,281–12,169 7,767–16,414 5,479–11,391 n ...... 25% more Table Saws in Use ...... 3,168–7,310 4,660–10,089 3,287–6,834 o ...... Lower bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 3,262–7,517 4,798–10,139 3,384–7,036 p ...... Upper bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 4,660–10,736 6,853–14,482 4,834–10,050

q ...... 4. Injuries are Proportional to the Median Saw Price. r ...... 25% fewer Table Saws in Use ...... 1,710–3,942 5,579–11,790 11,314–23,523 s ...... 25% more Table Saws in Use ...... 1,027 –2,364 3,347–7,074 6,788–14,114 t ...... Lower bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 1,057–2,435 3,446–7,283 6,989–14,530 u ...... Upper bound Estimate of Medically Treated Injuries ...... 1509–3,477 4,922–10,402 9,982–20,754

The CPSC staff also considered the suffering component, the average injury 11,994 injuries ($207.4 million ÷ sensitivity of the results to the exclusion cost would be reduced from about $17,300). Thus, for bench saws, the of the intangible costs associated with $74,050 to $21,900; using a 7 percent overall range for the breakeven injury the pain and suffering. The staff is not discount rate, the average injury cost estimate is 4,854 to 11,994 injuries. suggesting that the intangible costs are would be reduced from about $66,550 to Using the same methodology, the unimportant; rather the analysis simply $17,300. Consequently, following the breakeven injury estimate for contractor shows the impact of limiting the costs bench saw example discussed earlier, and cabinet saws would range from to the economic losses associated with the breakeven estimate, excluding the 2,194 to 6,217 and 602 to 1,711, injuries medical costs and work losses. By intangible costs associated with pain respectively. implicitly reducing injury costs, we are and suffering, would range from 4,854 in effect changing the breakeven injuries (106.4 million ÷ $21,900) to The breakeven injury estimates for the estimates which, were estimated as the 9,461 injuries ($207.4 million ÷ $21,900) three types of saws, excluding pain and quotient of aggregate injury costs for when discounted at 3 percent. When suffering, are presented in Table 20 and each type of saw divided by the average discounted at 7 percent, the breakeven compared to the present value of the injury cost. Using a 3 percent discount estimate would range from 6,150 expected injury reductions developed in rate, and excluding the pain and injuries ($106.4 million ÷ $17,300) to Table 18.

TABLE 20—BREAKEVEN INJURY ESTIMATES (EXCLUDING PAIN AND SUFFERING) AND THE PRESENT VALUE OF EXPECTED INJURY REDUCTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH ONE YEAR OF TABLE SAW SAWS, BY TABLE SAW TYPE

Type of saw Row Bench Contractor Cabinet

a ...... Breakeven Injury Estimates ...... 4,854–11,988 2,194–6,214 602–1,711

Hypothetical Injury Distributions

b ...... 1. Equivalent Risks for the Saw Types, on an Annual Basis. c ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction ...... 8,330–19,192 4,000–8,454 1,255–2,818 d ...... 2. Equivalent Risks for the Saw Types, Over Expected Product Life. e ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction ...... 10,067–23,194 2,843–6,010 682–1,419 f ...... 3. Injury Risks Proportional to the Median Saw Price. g ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction ...... 3,961–9,126 5,825–12,311 4,109–8,543 h ...... 4. Injuries are Proportional to Median Saw Price. i ...... Present Value of Expected Injury Reduction ...... 1,283–2,957 4,184–8,843 8,486–17,642

The results suggest that, even without However, there were several exceptions. saws under the second hypothetical the pain and suffering component, the First, the present value of the expected injury distribution (row e). Second, the expected injury reduction would exceed injury reduction was generally present value estimates were generally the breakeven estimates for most of the comparable to the breakeven injury comparable to, or slightly less than, the saw types and injury distributions. estimates for contractor and cabinet breakeven estimates for bench saws

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22236 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

under the third hypothetical injury injury distributions, the benefits likely cartridge, and to mitigate the effects of distribution (row g). And third, the would exceed the costs for each saw the force associated with the activation present value estimates were lower than type. of the brake cartridge. While this factor the breakeven estimates for bench saws Notwithstanding the high level of may have a relatively small impact on under the fourth hypothetical injury expected net benefits, the proposed rule the heavier and larger contractor and distribution (row i). also would be costly and would result cabinet saws, the impact on some of the Staff’s analysis shows, that, for the in disruption of the table saw market. smaller and lighter bench saws could most part, the sensitivity analysis of the Under the rule, table saw manufacturers markedly reduce their portability. breakeven estimates indicated that would need to develop their own AIM As discussed further below, the estimates of the present value of the technology, without impinging on Commission also considered several expected injury reduction were either existing patents or license the patented alternatives to the proposed rule. These comparable to or substantially exceeded AIM technology that already exists. alternatives would mitigate the the breakeven injury estimates for the Most, if not all, table saw models not proposed rule’s costs and potential various saw types and across all of the already incorporating the AIM disruptions in the marketplace. In hypothetical injury distributions. The technology would require major design particular, they could, individually or in primary exception involved bench saws changes and the retooling of production combination, reduce the adverse under the fourth hypothetical injury facilities, a process that likely would impacts of the proposed rule on distribution, in which the relative risk take two or more years to accomplish. manufacturers (including small on cabinet saws was roughly 40 times The cost impact of the proposed rule on manufacturers), allow for greater choice the risk on a bench saw. market sales might also be substantial, in the types and safety characteristics of I. Summary of the Preliminary potentially reducing aggregate sales by the table saws that consumers can Regulatory Analysis about 14 percent to 38 percent annually. purchase, reduce the impact of the In discussions between staff and proposed rule on table saws intended Based on CPSC staff’s analysis, the manufacturers, several firms indicated for commercial or professional use, and proposed rule would address that the cost of redesigning their saws to address the market failures resulting in approximately 54,800 medically treated incorporate the AIM technology may be the need for a product safety rule in the table saw blade-contact injuries that too great, relative to their sales volume, first place. However, these alternatives occur annually. The societal cost of to support such a redesign. These firms would reduce the expected benefits of these injuries, on the order of about indicated that they might respond by the proposed rule. These alternatives are $3.65 billion to $4.06 billion annually, reducing or eliminating their offerings the same alternatives as those represents the pool from which the of table saws to the U.S. market. considered in the initial regulatory benefits would be derived. Medical Although the proposed rule would flexibility analysis in section XII of the costs and work losses, the economic substantially reduce blade-contact preamble, and TAB D of the staff losses associated with these injuries, injuries and the societal costs associated briefing package. Accordingly, any account for about 30 percent of the total; with those injuries, the impact of potential impacts of alternatives on the intangible, or non-economic, costs increasing table saw production costs on small manufacturers are also addressed associated with pain and suffering consumers also would be considerable. here in section XI.J. account for the remaining 70 percent of Staff expects that the prices for the least the total. We expect the proposed rule J. Regulatory Alternatives expensive bench saws now available would prevent or substantially mitigate could more than double, to $300 or 70 percent to 90 percent of the 1. No Action Alternative more. In general, the retail prices of medically treated blade-contact injuries. Under this alternative, the CPSC staff’s review also shows bench saws could increase by as much Commission would take no regulatory substantial net benefits (i.e., benefits— as $200 to $500 per unit, and the retail action and the status quo would be costs) for the proposed rule. Estimates of prices of contractor and cabinet saws maintained, at least in the short term. net benefits, across all saw types, could rise by as much as $350 to $1,000 This option acknowledges that passive 99 averaged about $1,500 to $4,000 per saw per unit. These higher prices may be safety devices, such as blade guards, over its expected product life. Aggregate mitigated in the longer run, but the riving knives, and pawls, are already net benefits over approximately one extent of any future price reductions is provided to purchasers of new table year’s production and sale of table saws unknown. saws and can be used by consumers to could amount to about $625 million to Additionally, because of the likely prevent many types of blade-contact about $2,300 million. Net benefits decline in sales following the injury. Additionally, the option varied but generally remained positive promulgation of a rule, consumers who recognizes that table saws with the AIM in our sensitivity analysis. choose not to purchase a new saw due technology are already available for Because we had no information on the to the higher price will experience a loss consumers who want and can afford distribution of injuries across saw types in utility by forgoing the use of table them. (i.e., bench, contractor, and cabinet saws, or because they continue to use Over the longer term, changes in the saws), CPSC staff was unable to older saws which they would have voluntary standard may increase the compare directly the benefits and costs preferred to replace. There may also be level of safety with table saws. Sales of for each saw type. However, based on some other utility impacts. The table saws with the AIM technology several assumptions discussed above inclusion of the AIM technology will, may also gradually increase as and in TAB C of the staff briefing for example, increase the weight and consumers become more familiar with package, staff was able to conduct a (potentially) the size of table saws to the improved safety characteristics of breakeven analysis by estimating the accommodate the new technology, to these table saws. Table saws with AIM approximate number of injuries that allow access to change the brake systems are now available for purchase would have to be substantially mitigated by consumers in all table saw categories, 99 The current retail prices of the SawStop models for each type of saw for the benefits to and the Bosch REAXXTM model currently marketed including the introductions of the equal or exceed the costs. This analysis are consistent with the upper end of these possible SawStop bench saw model in March suggested that, under most plausible price increases. 2015 and the introduction of the Bosch

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22237

REAXXTM jobsite saw in June 2016. standards that include AIM systems for smaller subset of cabinet or industrial Moreover, sales of saws with the AIM table saws. Although relying on the saws based on a certain size, weight, technology could expand further if voluntary standard process would power, and electrical specifications. prices decline. However, for now, the minimize the impact on small table saw These alternatives would reduce the price differentials between a table saw manufacturers, that approach would be impact on small table saw with AIM and a comparable saw unlikely to mitigate the blade-contact manufacturers because cabinet and without AIM are substantial, injuries that are associated with table contractor saw manufacturers tend to be particularly for bench saws. saws. small. (Manufacturers of bench saws, on We cannot estimate the benefits and the other hand, tend to be large.) 3. Later Effective Dates costs that would be associated with this However, there is no clear dividing line alternative because the estimates would The proposed rule includes an between consumer and professional be affected by factors such as the extent effective date that is 3 years after the saws, except at the very highest levels to which manufacturers introduce new final rule is published in the Federal of price and performance. Additionally, table saws with AIM technology, the Register. Given the complexities and we have little information on the price of the table saws, and the rate at costs that would be associated with proportion of occupational purchasers which consumers would choose to developing (or licensing) the AIM for contractor saws and cabinet saws. purchase table saws with AIM technology, redesigning virtually all Moreover, as discussed above in technology in the absence of a rule. table saw models, and retooling section VI.C. of the preamble, although However, because the rate at which AIM production facilities, an effective date most cabinet and contractor saws are technology would be adopted in the later than 3 years could further reduce used by professionals or in commercial absence of a mandatory rule probably the impact of the rule on small settings, they are available for sale to would be substantially lower than the manufacturers. A longer effective date consumers, and many serious consumer rate under a mandatory rule, both the would allow manufacturers additional woodworkers and hobbyists also use benefits and costs of this alternative time to spread the costs of developing these saws. Cabinet and contractor saws would be much lower than estimated for or negotiating for the rights to use an are also frequently used in schools and the proposed rule. Most significantly, AIM technology, to modify the design of other educational settings. CPSC staff’s although taking no mandatory their table saws to incorporate the AIM breakeven analysis found that regulatory action would minimize the technology, and to retool their factories mandating AIM technology on cabinet impact on small table saw for production. For manufacturers that and contractor saws likely would result manufacturers, it would not mitigate the might choose to exit the table saw in substantial net benefits under the large number of blade-contact injuries market, perhaps because their volume of various scenarios modelled. However, that are associated with table saws. table saw sales does not justify the cost the Commission seeks comment of redesigning the table saws, the regarding whether the scope of the rule 2. Defer to the Voluntary Standard for additional delay might also provide should be modified to exclude certain Table Saws them with more time to consider types of table saws that are primarily Another alternative would be for the alternative business opportunities. A used for commercial or industrial use or CPSC staff to continue participating and later effective date might especially that have certain specifications. encouraging safety improvements to the benefit manufacturers of bench saws voluntary standard for table saws, UL because of the added technical 5. Limit the Applicability of the 987. While this option would be similar difficulties in engineering small bench Performance Requirements to Some, but Not All, Table Saws to the ‘no action alternative,’ the saws to incorporate an AIM technology. Commission could direct the staff to While later effective dates would Rather than requiring all table saws to continue to pursue safety improvements mitigate somewhat the impact of the meet the requirements of the proposed in the voluntary standard, including the proposed rule on some manufacturers, rule, the Commission could consider an adoption of the AIM safety technology including small manufacturers, that alternative that requires only a subset of over time, as a conditional alternative to approach also could delay the table saws to meet the requirements. For a mandatory standard. The Commission introduction of table saws with AIM example, if a firm produces only bench could consider proposing a mandatory technology into the market and possibly saws, the Commission might require the standard if the voluntary standard discourage manufacturers from firm to produce at least one bench saw development activities remain introducing table saws with AIM model that meets the requirements of unsatisfactory. technology earlier than the effective the standard. Similarly, if a firm CPSC staff has had an ongoing, active date. Moreover, a delayed effective date produces bench saws and contractor role in the voluntary standards body would delay the mitigation of blade- saws, the Commission might require the and the development of UL 987. Staff contact injuries associated with table firm to produce at least one bench saw has supported recent changes in the saws, and reduce the net benefits model and one contractor saw model voluntary standard, including associated with the proposed rule. The that meet the requirements of the requirements for improved blade guards Commission seeks comment on the standard. Or, as a variation, the and riving knives, and considers the duration of the effective date and Commission might allow each newer blade guard systems to be a whether a longer or shorter effective manufacturer to produce at least one significant improvement over earlier date is appropriate. bench saw model that does not meet the systems. However, as discussed in requirements of the standard as long as section VI of the preamble, there is little 4. Exempt Contractor and Cabinet Saws their other bench models conform to the evidence that improvements in these From a Product Safety Rule requirements of the rule. passive safety devices has effectively Another alternative considered by the Limiting the requirement for the AIM reduced the number or severity of blade- Commission would exempt cabinet and/ technology to a subset of table saws contact injuries on table saws. or contractor saws that are used by and could have several advantages. Saws Additionally, voluntary standards are intended for professional, with the AIM technology would be committees have twice rejected commercial, or industrial users. Or the available in substantially greater initiatives by UL to adopt voluntary Commission could exempt an even numbers than they have been in recent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

years. It would also address the requirement for the AIM technology to compliance requirements of the potential market failure associated with a subset of table saws would have on proposed rule, including an estimate of one firm’s market power over the AIM manufacturers, including small the classes of small entities which will technology through patents, effectively businesses. be subject to the requirement and the eliminating competition, while at the type of professional skills necessary for 6. Information and Education Campaign same time allowing consumers to preparation of the report or record; and choose table saws without AIM The Commission could conduct an (5) identification to the extent technology if they prefer. Consequently, information and education campaign practicable, of all relevant Federal rules consumers who place a great value on informing consumers about blade which may duplicate, overlap or safety or who face greater than average contact hazards and blade-contact conflict with the proposed rule. risks will find the safer table saws more injuries, and the benefits of the AIM An IRFA must also contain a desirable and will be more likely to buy technology. This alternative could be description of any significant them. Consumers who do not want the implemented on its own, in the absence alternatives that would accomplish the safer but more expensive saws can of other regulatory options, or it could stated objectives of the applicable decide to purchase saws without the be implemented in combination with statutes and that would minimize any AIM technology. In this way, consumer any of the alternative options. significant economic impact of the preferences might be better matched As discussed in section IX of the proposed rule on small entities. with the products they wish to preamble and in TAB E of the staff According to the IRFA, alternatives purchase. briefing package, the effectiveness of could include: (1) Differing compliance If licensing agreements satisfactory to warnings and instructions is limited. or reporting requirements that take into all parties could be arranged, this Although educational programs offer account the resources available to small alternative would also alleviate (though more opportunities to present hazard businesses; (2) clarification, not eliminate) the burden of the information in varied ways, and in consolidation, or simplification of proposed rule on some manufacturers, greater detail than warning labels, the compliance and reporting requirements including small manufacturers, because effectiveness of such programs is also for small entities; (3) use of performance it would not require that all of their limited because they depend on rather than design standards; and (4) an saws contain the AIM technology. consumers not only receiving and exemption from coverage of the rule, or However if licensing arrangements understanding the message, but also any part of the rule thereof, for small could not be agreed upon, then small being persuaded to heed the message. entities. The alternatives the manufacturers might be faced with an Although the Commission believes that Commission considered are discussed even greater burden and potentially face such a campaign could help inform in section XI(J) of the preamble and TAB even higher prices. If patent holders are consumers, based on the severity of D of the staff briefing package. not willing to license their technology injuries and recurring hazard patterns of A. Reason for Agency Action under reasonable terms, the impact on blade-contact injuries, coupled with the small manufacturers could be greater high societal costs of these injuries, the The proposed rule for table saws because they would need either to incur Commission believes that a performance would reduce an unreasonable risk of greater costs to develop their own requirement is necessary to reduce the injury associated with blade-contact technology or exit the table saw market. unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. CPSC staff Moreover, this alternative would injuries on table saws. estimates that there are approximately address only a portion of blade-contact 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries. If, for example, the requirement XII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility injuries annually based on 2015 injury led to about 50 percent of table saws Analysis data and estimates from the ICM. being equipped with the AIM This section provides an analysis of Almost 23 percent of the injuries technology, the expected benefits would the impact the proposed rule would involved fractures, amputations be on the order of about 50 percent of have on small businesses. Whenever an accounted for 14 percent of the injuries, the benefits described in the reference agency is required to publish a proposed and lacerations accounted for about 57 case analysis (or somewhat higher if rule, section 603 of the Regulatory percent. AIM technology has been consumers with the greater risks were Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that the shown to effectively mitigate the more likely to purchase the safer table agency prepare an initial regulatory severity of injuries caused by a victim’s saws).100 Accordingly, this alternative flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes hand or other body part contacting the would not mitigate the large number of the impact that the rule would have on blade while the table saw is in blade-contact injuries associated with small businesses and other entities. 5 operation. Accordingly, the proposed table saws, and would reduce the net U.S.C. 603. An IRFA is not required if rule would establish a performance benefits associated with the proposed the head of an agency certifies that the requirement to address the risk of rule. The Commission seeks comment proposed rule will not have a significant injuries associated with blade-contact on what impact limiting the economic impact on a substantial injuries on table saws. number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the 100 We cannot predict what proportion of table The IRFA must contain: saw sales would ultimately contain the AIM Proposed Rule technology under this alternative. If consumers (1) A description of why action by the place a high value on safety, and prices are reduced agency is being considered; The objective of the proposed rule is or moderated over time, the proportion might be (2) a succinct statement of the to mitigate operator injuries resulting high. If, however, consumers would generally prefer objectives of, and legal basis for, the from blade contact on table saws. The saws without the AIM technology because of the Commission published an ANPR in lower prices or for other reasons, the proportion proposed rule; would be lower. Product liability concerns on the (3) a description of and, where October 2011, which initiated this part of manufacturers would probably increase the feasible, an estimate of the number of proceeding to evaluate regulatory proportion of table saws with the AIM technology. small entities to which the proposed options and potentially develop a Once the table saws with AIM technology become mandatory standard to address the risks more commonplace, table saws without the rule will apply; technology would be more likely to be challenged (4) a description of the projected of blade-contact injuries associated with in product liability suits. reporting, recordkeeping and other the use of table saws. The proposed rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22239

is being promulgated under the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when a test attempted to license the SawStop authority of the CPSA. probe contacts the spinning saw blade at technology without success. Bosch uses a radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s. an AIM technology on its REAXXTM C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Section 14 of the CPSA requires bench saw that was developed, in part, Rule Will Apply manufacturers, importers, or private through a joint venture of several The proposed rule would apply to labelers of a consumer product subject members of the PTI. The terms under manufacturers, importers, and private to a consumer product safety rule to which this technology may be available labelers of table saws that are sold in the certify, based on a test of each product for license are not known and may be United States. As of February 2016, or a reasonable testing program, that the affected by ongoing patent infringement CPSC is aware of 22 firms that supply product complies with all rules, bans or litigation. table saws to the U.S. market. Of these standards applicable to the product. The To avoid royalty or licensing fees, the 22 firms, at least 8, and possibly 10, are proposed rule does not specify a test manufacturer would have the challenge small according to criteria established procedure that the Commission would of developing its own AIM technology by the Small Business Administration use to determine compliance with the that did not infringe on an existing (SBA).101 According to the SBA criteria, standard. Any test procedure that will patent. At a minimum, developing an a table saw manufacturer is considered accurately determine compliance with AIM system would likely cost at least small if it has fewer than 500 the proposed performance requirements several hundred thousand dollars, and employees, and a table saw importer is may be used. However, if a final rule is perhaps several million dollars, based considered small if it has fewer than 100 issued, manufacturers must certify that on the estimated costs of developing the employees. Private labelers of table saws the product conforms to the standard, existing technologies. However, the are considered ‘‘small’’ if their annual based on either a test of each product, extent and scope of the SawStop patents revenue exceeds $38.5 million in the or any reasonable method to that could impact future AIM case of home centers, $32.5 million in demonstrate compliance with the technological developments is the case of department stores, and $7.5 requirements of the standard. For unknown. It is possible that new AIM million in the case of hardware products that manufacturers certify, technologies that are developed could stores.102 manufacturers would issue a general also infringe on existing SawStop Small table saw manufacturers supply certificate of conformity (GCC). patents that have been filed or are mostly contractor and cabinet saws, Section 14 of the CPSA sets forth the pending. which are typically more expensive and requirements for GCCs. Among other After acquiring an AIM technology, heavier than bench saws. Contractor requirements, each certificate must manufacturers will need to redesign saws generally retail for between $529 identify the manufacturer or private their table saws and retool their to $2,049 and weigh between about 198 labeler issuing the certificate and any manufacturing facilities to incorporate and 414 pounds. Cabinet saws typically third party conformity assessment body, the technology. According to several retail for $1,199 to $5,349 and weigh on whose testing the certificate manufacturers, incorporating an AIM between about 321 and 1,040 pounds. depends, the place of manufacture, the technology would require a redesign of One small company sells a date and place where the product was each table saw including possibly, the multipurpose machine that includes a tested, each party’s name, full mailing trunnion, the cabinet, and interior of the table saw, lathe, drill press, sander, and address, telephone number, and contact saw. In addition, the support structure router, among other tools. The cost of information for the individual of the table saw, including the stand, this multipurpose machine starts at responsible for maintaining records of might have to be strengthened to bear about $3,379. As of March 2016, only test results. The certificates must be in the added weight of the system and to three bench saw models were being English. The certificates must be absorb the force that could result from offered by small manufacturers. One of furnished to each distributor or retailer the system being triggered. these was a bench saw that was much of the product and to the CPSC, if Estimates of the redesign and heavier (233 pounds) and more requested. retooling costs ranged from a low of expensive ($1,499) than most other about $100,000 per model to $700,000. 1. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would bench saws. Another bench saw, offered The redesign and retool process would Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers by SawStop, already incorporates an be expected to take 1 to 3 years AIM technology and retails for around To comply with the proposed rule, depending upon the problems $1,300. The size and weight of the third table saw manufacturers would need to encountered in the process. The bench is more typical of the bench table license or develop an AIM technology. redesign and retooling costs for saws offered by the larger To license a technology, manufacturers subsequent models might be somewhat manufacturers.103 will have to pay a royalty to the owner less than the costs associated with the of the patents on the technology. The first model. D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record royalty cost for licensing an AIM There is some uncertainty as to how Keeping Requirements of Proposed Rule technology is uncertain. Dr. Gass of the redesign and retooling costs would The proposed rule would establish a SawStop has indicated that SawStop affect manufacturers. One manufacturer performance requirement limiting the would be willing to license the SawStop noted that the redesign and retooling AIM technology for a royalty payment of costs have to be paid upfront and 101 IEc, 2016a at 9. 8 percent of the wholesale price of the manufacturers generally desire to 102 Under the North American Industrial saw, but only if the Commission amortize these costs over three years. Classification System (NAICS) manufacturers of establishes a mandatory standard However, most table saw brand owners table saws are classified in category 333243 (Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery requiring AIM technology. There is no contract with Chinese or Taiwanese Manufacturing). Importers or private labelers of certainty that SawStop actually would manufacturers to actually manufacture table saws include some department stores (NAICS license its technology under terms that the table saws. In some cases, these category 4452111, home centers (NAICS category would be acceptable to other manufacturers may produce table saws 444110), and some hardware stores (NAICS category 444130). manufacturers even if a mandatory for more than one firm and may be 103 IEc, 2016a, Table Saw Models, February 29, standard were established. Several willing to absorb some of the costs in 2016. companies have asserted that they had order to remain in the market.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22240 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

In addition to the redesign and equipment. Anecdotal information alternatives are discussed in more detail retooling costs, there will be added costs suggests that U.S. sales of table saws in section XI.J. of the preamble. The due to the additional components account for a small percentage of the Commission invites comments on this required on saws that incorporate an total revenue of most small firms. IRFA and the potential impact of the AIM technology. Depending upon the Information supplied by one proposed rule on small entities, specific system used, the additional manufacturer suggests that U.S. table especially small businesses. Small parts may include a brake cartridge, saw sales accounted for about 1 percent businesses that believe they will be cables, additional parts or brackets to of the firm’s total revenue. Two other affected by the proposed rule are secure the brake cartridge, electrodes firms estimated that U.S. table saw sales especially encouraged to submit and assemblies and a power supply or accounted for between 5 and 8 percent comments. The comments should be motor control. These additional of their total revenue. Actions that specific and describe the potential components are expected to add impact a firm’s revenue by more than 1 impact, magnitude, and alternatives that between $58 and $74 to the percent are potentially significant. could reduce the impact of the proposed manufacturing cost of a table saw. Therefore, given that it is likely that rule on small businesses. small table saw manufacturers would XIII. Environmental Considerations 2. Impacts on Small Businesses drop one or more table saws from the To comply with the proposed rule, U.S. market if the proposed rule were The Commission’s regulations address most small manufacturers are expected adopted, and may leave the market whether CPSC is required to prepare an to license an AIM technology instead of entirely if they are unable to license an environmental assessment (EA) or an developing their own technology. The AIM technology, the proposed rule environmental impact statement (EIS). costs of attempting to develop their own could have a significant impact on small 16 CFR 1021.5. Those regulations state AIM technology would probably be too manufacturers. However, the proposed CPSC’s actions that ordinarily have high for most small manufacturers. rule is not likely to cause most small ‘‘little or no potential for affecting the However, there is no certainty that small manufacturers to fail completely. One human environment,’’ and therefore, are manufacturers would be able to small manufacturer, SawStop, would categorically excluded from the need to negotiate acceptable licensing significantly benefit from the prepare and EA or EIS. Among those agreements with SawStop or another promulgation of the proposed rule actions are rules, such as the proposed patent holder. If small manufacturers because it already manufactures table rule addressing blade-contact injuries are unable to negotiate acceptable saws with AIM technology and owns on table saws, which provide licensing agreements for AIM multiple patents that cover AIM performance standards for products. Id. technology, it is likely that all small technology. 1021.5(c)(1). table saw manufacturers, with the E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, XIV. Executive Order 12988 exception of SawStop, will exit the U.S. Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed (Preemption) table saw market. Rule In accordance with Executive Order If small table saw manufacturers are OSHA has established standards that 12988 (February 5, 1996), the CPSC able to license AIM technology, they states the preemptive effect of the would be expected to evaluate the sales cover woodworking equipment used in workplace settings. These standards are proposed rule, as follows: volume of each table saw model and the The regulation for addressing blade- likely cost of redesigning and retooling codified at 29 CFR 1910.213. Generally, these requirements cover workplace contact injuries on table saws is the model and decide whether to safety and the use of safety devices such proposed under authority of the CPSA. continue offering the model in the as blade guards and hoods. Currently, 15 U.S.C. 2051–2089. Section 26 of the United States. If the manufacturer does OSHA standards do not mandate CPSA provides that ‘‘whenever a not believe that the sales volume would performance requirements that would consumer product safety standard under be sufficient to recoup these costs in a use AIM technology on table saws that this Act is in effect and applies to a risk reasonable amount of time, it is likely are used by consumers. Accordingly, the of injury associated with a consumer that the manufacturer would Commission has not identified any product, no State or political discontinue the sale of the model (at federal rules that duplicate or conflict subdivision of a State shall have any least in the United States).104 The fact with the proposed rule. authority either to establish or to that some small table saw manufacturers continue in effect any provision of a might license the AIM technology from F. Alternatives Considered To Reduce safety standard or regulation which SawStop would mean that these the Burden on Small Entities prescribes any requirements as to the manufacturers would be paying Under section 603(c) of the Regulatory performance, composition, contents, royalties to a competitor. This would be Flexibility Act, an initial regulatory design, finish, construction, packaging expected to reduce their flexibility analysis should ‘‘contain a or labeling of such product which are competitiveness in the table saw market. description of any significant designed to deal with the same risk of Four firms indicated to CPSC staff that alternatives to the proposed rule which injury associated with such consumer they would likely reduce or eliminate accomplish the stated objectives of the product, unless such requirements are the table saws that they currently offer applicable statutes and which minimize identical to the requirements of the in the United States if AIM technology any significant impact of the proposed Federal Standard.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). is mandated. rule on small entities.’’ CPSC examined Upon application to the Commission, a With the exception of SawStop and several alternatives to the proposed rule state or local standard may be excepted one other firm, most small table saw that could reduce the impact on small from this preemptive effect if the state manufacturers also supply other types entities. These include: (1) No or local standard: (1) Provides a higher of woodworking or metal working regulatory action; (2) defer to voluntary degree of protection from the risk of standard activities for table saws; (3) injury or illness than the CPSA 104 One small manufacturer indicated to staff in a telephone call on November 30, 2015, that they establish alternative effective dates; (4) standard, and (2) does not unduly would want to be able to amortize the redesign and exempt or limit certain categories of burden interstate commerce. In retooling costs over a 3-year period. table saws from the rule. These addition, the federal government, or a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22241

state or local government, may establish might choose to exit the table saw estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 or continue in effect a non-identical market, perhaps because their volume of percent), and an estimated 2,000 requirement for its own use that is table saw sales does not justify the cost avulsions (6.5 percent). An estimated designed to protect against the same risk of redesigning the table saws, the 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact of injury as the CPSC standard if the additional delay might also provide injury victims were hospitalized. federal, state, or local requirement them with more time to consider An estimated 4,700 amputation provides a higher degree of protection alternative business opportunities. injuries on table saws occurred in 2015, than the CPSA requirement. 15 U.S.C. alone. Compared to all other types of XVIII. Proposed Findings 2075(b). consumer products, CPSC estimates that Thus, the table saw requirement The CPSA requires the Commission to table saw-related amputations account proposed in today’s Federal Register make certain findings when issuing a for 18.6 percent of all amputations in would (if finalized) preempt non- consumer product safety standard. the NEISS in 2015. When compared to identical state or local requirements for Specifically, the CPSA requires that the all other workshop products, table saws table saws designed to protect against Commission consider and make account for an estimated 52.4 percent of the same risk of injury from blade- findings about: all amputations related to workshop contact injuries on table saws. • The degree and nature of the risk of products in 2015. Based on NEISS injury; estimates, the trend analysis for yearly XV. Certification • the number of consumer products blade-contact injuries associated with Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires subject to the rule; table saws showed no discernible • that products subject to a consumer the need of the public for the change in the number of injuries or product safety rule under the CPSA, or product and the probable effect on types of injuries related to table saw to a similar rule, ban, standard or utility, cost, and availability of the blade contact from 2004 to 2015. In regulation under any other act enforced product; and • addition, the trend analysis for the risk by the Commission, must be certified as other means to achieve the objective of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table complying with all applicable CPSC- of the rule, while minimizing the impact saws in use yearly showed no enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. on competition, manufacturing, and discernible change in the risk of injury 2063(a). A final rule addressing blade- commercial practices. associated with table saw blade contact contact injuries on table saws would 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1). from 2004 to 2015. subject table saws to this certification The CPSA also requires that the requirement. Commission find that the rule is B. Number of Consumer Products reasonably necessary to eliminate or Subject to the Proposed Rule XVI. Paperwork Reduction Act reduce an unreasonable risk of injury The annual shipments of all table The proposed rule does not require associated with the product and that saws to the U.S. market from 2002 to manufacturers (including importers) to issuing the rule is in the public interest. 2014 have ranged from 429,000 to maintain records beyond those 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). 850,000. Estimates of sales value are not necessary to comply with 16 CFR part In addition, the Commission must readily available industry-wide. 1110. Accordingly, the proposed rule find that: However, staff estimates that: does not contain collection of • If an applicable voluntary standard • Bench saws account for about 75 information requirements as defined has been adopted and implemented, percent of the units sold and have an under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 that compliance with the voluntary average product life estimated at 10 U.S.C. 3501–3520. standard is not likely to reduce years; • XVII. Effective Date adequately the risk of injury, or contractor saws (including hybrids) compliance with the voluntary standard account for 20 percent of the units sold The CPSA requires that consumer is not likely to be substantial; and have an average product life of 17 product safety rules take effect not later • that benefits expected from the years; than 180 days from their promulgation regulation bear a reasonable relationship • cabinet saws account for 5 percent unless the Commission finds there is to its costs; and of the units sold and have an average good cause for a later date. 15 U.S.C. • that the regulation imposes the least product life of 24 years; 2058(g)(1). The Commission proposes burdensome requirement that would • the annual number of table saws in that the rule would take effect 3 years prevent or adequately reduce the risk of use in the United States is 8.2 million from the date of publication of the final injury. Id. table saws, including about 5.1 million rule for table saws. These findings are discussed below. bench saws, 2.3 million contractor saws, Given the complexities and costs that A. Degree and Nature of the Risk of and 0.8 million cabinet saws. would be associated with developing or Thus, bench, contractor, and cabinet Injury licensing the AIM technology, saws account for about 62 percent, 28 redesigning virtually all table saw In 2015, there were an estimated percent, and 10 percent of the table saw models, and retooling production 33,400 table saw, emergency population, respectively. facilities, the Commission believes that department-treated injuries. Of these, this later effective date could reduce the CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 C. The Need of the Public for Table impact of the rule on manufacturers, percent) are likely related to the victim Saws and the Effects of the Proposed including small manufacturers. This making contact with the saw blade. Of Rule on Their Utility, Cost, and later date would allow manufacturers to the 30,800 emergency department- Availability spread the costs of developing or treated, blade-contact injuries, an Consumers commonly purchase table negotiating for the rights to use an AIM estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) saws for the straight sawing of wood technology, modify the design of their involved the finger. The most common and other materials, and more table saws to incorporate the AIM diagnosis in blade-contact injuries is an specifically, to perform rip cuts, cross technology, and retool their factories for estimated 18,100 laceration injuries cuts, and non-through cuts. Because the production of table saws with the (58.8 percent), followed by an estimated operator finger/hand contact with the new technology. For manufacturers who 5,900 fractures (19.0 percent), an table saw blade is a dominant hazard

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22242 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

pattern, the Commission proposes a workshop products, table saws account F. Public Interest performance requirement that would for an estimated 52.4 percent of all limit the depth of cut and significantly amputations related to workshop This proposed rule is intended to reduce the frequency and severity of products in 2015. address an unreasonable risk of blade- blade-contact injuries on table saws. Existing safety devices, such as the contact injuries on table saws. As The proposed rule would increase blade guard and riving knife, do not explained in this preamble, adherence table saw production costs. CPSC adequately reduce the number or to the requirements of the proposed rule expects that the prices for the least severity of blade-contact injuries on would reduce and mitigate severe blade- expensive bench saws now available table saws. Table saws have been contact injuries on table saws in the would more than double, to $300 or equipped with these passive safety future; thus, the rule is in the public more. In general, the retail prices of devices since 2009 and there is no interest. bench saws could increase by as much evidence of the effectiveness of these G. Voluntary Standards as $200 to $500 per unit, and the retail safety devices in reducing or mitigating prices of contractor and cabinet saws blade-contact injuries. In CPSC’s 2015 The current voluntary standard for could rise by as much as $350 to $1,000 modular blade guard survey, a majority table saws is Underwriters Laboratories per unit. These higher prices may be of respondents (80%) reported that there Inc. (UL) 987, Stationary and Fixed mitigated in the longer run, but the are circumstances that require the blade Electric Tools. In August 2016, UL extent of any future price reductions is guard to be removed, and a majority of published the first edition of UL 62841– unknown. respondents reported they did not use 3–1, Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Because of the likely decline in sales the blade guard ‘‘sometimes’’ (28%), Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn following the promulgation of a rule, ‘‘often’’ (17%) or ‘‘always’’ (14%). Any and Garden Machinery Part 3–1: consumers who choose not to purchase situation where the blade guard is not Particular Requirements for a new saw, due to the higher price, will used eliminates the effectiveness of the Transportable Table Saws. UL 62841–3– experience a loss in utility by forgoing blade guard in preventing blade-contact 1. The effective date for UL 62841–3–1 the use of table saws, or because they injuries. In addition, a review of is August 29, 2019. Until that date, UL continue to use older saws that they CPSRMS database found 11 incidents 987 remains in effect, and table saw would have preferred to replace. There involving table saws that meet the manufacturers can list their products to may also be some other impacts on current voluntary standard requirements either UL 987 or UL 62841–3–1. Both utility, such as an increase in the weight for riving knives and modular blade standards specify that table saws shall and (potentially) size of table saws. This guards. These incidents show that be provided with a modular blade guard factor may have a relatively small blade-contact injuries continue to occur and riving knife. impact on the heavier and larger on table saws equipped with riving The Commission does not believe that contractor and cabinet saws, but could knives and modular blade guards. the voluntary standards adequately markedly reduce the portability of some CPSC’s trend analysis of the annual address blade-contact injuries on table of the smaller and lighter bench saws. estimated number of emergency saws. Existing safety devices, such as D. Other Means To Achieve the department-treated injuries associated the blade guard and riving knife, which Objective of the Proposed Rule, While with table saws covered the timespan have been provided on table saws since Minimizing Adverse Effects on before the voluntary standard 2009, do not adequately reduce the Competition and Manufacturing implemented the requirement for riving number or severity of blade-contact The Commission considered knives and modular blade guards on injuries on table saws. In CPSC’s 2015 alternatives to the proposed rule. For table saws (2004 to 2009) and the modular blade guard survey, 80 percent example, the Commission considered timespan after the requirements were of respondents indicated that there are not taking regulatory action, deferring to implemented (2010 to 2015). The data circumstances that require the blade the voluntary standard development showed that there is no discernible guard to be removed. Clearly, removal of process, exempting or limiting certain change in the number of injuries or the blade guard eliminates its ability to table saws from regulation, and types of injuries related to table saw prevent or reduce injuries. CPSC’s information and education campaigns. blade contact from 2004 to 2015. A review of incidents from the CPSRMS However, as explained further in these trend analysis to assess the risk of injury database identified 11 incidents proposed findings (section XVIII.I. of per 10,000 table saws in use showed involving table saws that were equipped the preamble), the Commission finds there is no discernible change in the risk with riving knives and modular blade that these alternatives would not of injury associated with table saw blade guard systems. These incidents show adequately mitigate the unreasonable contact from 2004 to 2015. that blade-contact injuries continue to risk of injuries that is associated with CPSC staff’s review shows substantial occur on table saws equipped with table saw blade contact. net benefits for the proposed rule. riving knives and modular blade guards. Estimates of net benefits, across all table Finally, CPSC’s trend analysis of the E. Unreasonable Risk saw types, averaged about $1,500 to annual estimated number of emergency CPSC estimates that 30,800 table saw- $4,000 per saw over its expected department-treated injuries associated related injuries involving blade contact product life. Aggregate net benefits over with table saws from 2004 to 2015 were treated in hospital emergency approximately 1 year’s production and shows that there is no discernible departments (ED) in 2015. An estimated sale of table saws could amount to about change in the number of injuries or 93.8 percent of these injuries involved $625 million to about $2,300 million. types of injuries related to table saw the finger. The most common diagnoses The Commission concludes blade contact from 2004 (when table in blade-contact injuries are laceration preliminarily that there is an saws did not have riving knives and injuries, fractures, amputations, and unreasonable risk of injury associated modular blade guards) to 2015 (when avulsion. Thousands of amputations (an with blade-contact injuries on table table saws did have these features). estimated 4,700 amputation injuries in saws and finds that the proposed rule is For these reasons, the Commission 2015 alone) occur each year on table reasonably necessary to reduce that believes that the voluntary standard will saws. When compared to all other unreasonable risk of injury. not adequately address an unreasonable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22243

risk of blade-contact injuries on table hence, reduced portability associated is 3 years after the final rule is saws. with adding the AIM technology to the published in the Federal Register. The table saws. Commission considered a later effective H. Relationship of Benefits to Costs Based on our benefit and cost date. An effective date later than 3 years Based on estimates from NEISS and estimates, the Commission estimates could further reduce the impact of the the ICM, the Commission finds that the that net benefits (i.e., benefits minus rule on small manufacturers because it proposed rule would address an costs) for the market as a whole (i.e., would allow them additional time to estimated 54,800 medically treated combining the three types of table saws spread the costs of developing or blade-contact injuries annually. The together) amount to an average of about negotiating for the rights to use an AIM societal costs of these injuries (in 2014 $1,500 to $4,000 per saw. Aggregate net technology, modify the design of their dollars and using a 3 percent discount benefits on an annual basis could table saws to incorporate the AIM rate) amounted to about $4.06 billion in amount to about $625 million to about technology, and retool their factories for 2015. Amputations accounted for about $2,300 million. the production. For manufacturers that 14 percent of the medically treated I. Least Burdensome Requirement That might choose to exit the table saw blade-contact injuries and almost two- market, the additional delay might thirds of the injury costs. Overall, Would Adequately Reduce the Risk of provide them with more time to medical costs and work losses account Injury consider alternative business for about 30 percent of these costs, or The Commission considered less opportunities. about $1.2 billion. The intangible costs burdensome alternatives to the associated with pain and suffering proposed rule addressing blade-contact However, later effective dates could account for the remaining 70 percent of injuries on table saws and concluded also delay the introduction of table saws injury costs. preliminarily that none of these with AIM technology into the market Because of the substantial societal alternatives would adequately reduce and discourage manufacturers from costs attributable to Blade-contact the risk of injury. introducing table saws with AIM injuries (about $4 billion annually), and No Action Alternative. The technology earlier than the effective the expected high rate of effectiveness of Commission considered not taking any date, and possibly, put those the proposed requirements in regulatory action. Under this alternative manufacturers at a competitive preventing blade-contact injuries, the table saws would continue to use disadvantage. Accordingly, the estimated gross benefits of the proposed existing passive safety devices, such as Commission believes that a 3-year rule (i.e., the expected reduction in blade guards, riving knives, and anti- effective date from the issuance of a societal costs) could amount to an kickback pawls. Additionally, table final rule is an appropriate length of average of about $2,300 to $4,300 per saws with the AIM technology are time. already available for consumers who saw. Based on 1 year’s production and Exempt Contractor and Cabinet Saws want and can afford them. However, not sale of table saws, aggregate gross from a Product Safety Rule. The taking any action would leave the benefits could range from about $970 Commission considered whether to million to $2,450 million annually. unreasonable risk of blade-contact exempt cabinet and/or contractor saws Staff estimates showed that increased injuries on table saws unaddressed. used by professional, commercial, or manufacturing cost, as well as the Based on the severity of injuries and industrial users, or based on certain expected costs of replacement parts for recurring hazard patterns of Blade- size, weight, power, and electrical the AIM system, would range from contact injuries, coupled with the high specifications of the table saw. about $230 to $540 per bench saw, to societal costs of these injuries, the However, based on the severity of about $375 to $925 per contractor saw, Commission believes that a performance injuries and recurring hazard patterns of and to about $400 to $950 per cabinet requirement is necessary to reduce the blade-contact injuries, coupled with the saw. These costs likely would be unreasonable risk of blade-contact high societal costs of these injuries, the mitigated somewhat over time, but the injuries on all table saws. extent of any future cost reduction is Defer to the Voluntary Standard for Commission believes that a performance unknown. Based on 1 year’s production Table Saws. The Commission requirement is necessary to reduce the and sale of table saws, aggregate gross considered deferring action to allow the unreasonable risk of blade-contact costs could range from about $170 voluntary standard for table saws, UL injuries on all table saws. Moreover, million to $340 million annually. In 987, to develop AIM technology. there is no clear dividing line between addition to the direct manufacturing Although the CPSC has supported consumer and professional saws, except and replacement parts costs, firms may recent changes in the voluntary at the very highest levels of price and need to pay approximately $30 million standard with requirements for newer performances. to $35 million annually in royalty fees blade guard systems and riving knives Limit the Applicability of the to patent holders for the AIM and considers these to be a significant Performance Requirements to Some, but technology. improvement over earlier systems, there Not All, Table Saws. The Commission Additionally, some consumers who is little evidence that improvements in also considered limiting the scope of the would have purchased table saws at the these passive safety devices have rule to a subset of table saws to allow lower pre-regulatory prices will choose effectively reduced injuries. manufacturers to produce both table not to purchase new table saws. The Additionally, voluntary standards saw models with AIM technology, and cost impact of the proposed rule on committees have twice rejected models without AIM technology. market sales may reduce aggregate sales initiatives by UL to adopt provisions However, based on the severity of by as much as 14 percent to 38 percent that would require AIM systems. injuries and recurring hazard patterns of annually. The decline in sales will Consequently, it does not appear that blade-contact injuries, coupled with the result in lost utility to consumers who the voluntary standards process is likely high societal costs of these injuries, the choose not to purchase table saws to lead to a requirement for the AIM Commission believes that a performance because of the higher prices. Further, technology in the near future. requirement is necessary to reduce the more reductions in consumer utility Later Effective Dates. The proposed unreasonable risk of blade-contact may result from the added weight, and rule would require an effective date that injuries on all table saws.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22244 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

Information and Education Campaign patent claim shall ‘‘receive from the extent to which the AIM technology patent holder or a party authorized to may be deactivated during use. The Commission also considered • whether to conduct an information and make assurances on its behalf, in Information on whether consumers education campaign informing written or electronic form, either: will use more unsafe methods to cut consumers about the dangers of blade- (a) Assurance in the form of a general wood as an alternative to table saws that contact hazards, and the benefits of the disclaimer to the effect that such party are equipped with AIM technology. AIM technology. Although such a does not hold and does not currently Manufacturing Costs campaign could help inform consumers, intend holding any essential patent • Information on manufacturing without a performance requirement, that claim(s); or costs. Based on the available approach would not be sufficient to (b) assurance that a license to such information, there is considerable address the unreasonable risk of blade- essential patent claim(s) will be made uncertainty concerning the per unit contact injuries on table saws. available to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of manufacturing cost impact on a table XIX. Request for Comments implementing the standard either: (i) saw that would meet the requirements We invite all interested persons to Under reasonable terms and conditions of the proposed rule. The Commission submit comments on any aspect of the that are demonstrably free of any unfair seeks any comments that would allow proposed rule. Specifically, the discrimination; or (ii) without us to make more precise estimates or Commission seeks comments on the compensation and under reasonable narrow the range we present regarding following: terms and conditions that are the unit manufacturing cost impact of a demonstrably free of any unfair rule requiring the use of AIM Scope discrimination.’’ (RAND Commitment) technology on table saws. • • Information on whether certain • Information on whether the refusal Information on the feasibility of types of table saws should be excluded of a potential essential-patent holder of incorporating AIM technology on small from the scope of the rule, such as mini the AIM technology to give the required bench top table saws. or micro tables saws, or table saws that assurances set forth in the ANSI patent Test Requirements are used primarily for commercial or policy would prohibit a voluntary • Information on how different industrial use. standard requiring such technology. • detection methods may be applied as Information on whether the scope • Information on the effect that a part of an AIM system and appropriate of the rule should be expanded to RAND Commitment covering test methods to properly evaluate the include types of saws other than table potentially essential patent claims triggering of AIM systems employing saws (e.g., tile saws). would have on the proposed rule’s • these detection methods. Information on whether the economic impact, including, but not definition of table saws should be • Studies or tests that have been limited to, its impact on competition, conducted to evaluate AIM technology revised, or whether other definitions are small businesses, and the cost and necessary. in table saws. availability of table saws. • • Information on home-made table • Studies, research, or tests on the Information on whether, as a matter radial velocity of the human hand/finger saws or other dangerous alternatives of policy, CPSC should finalize a consumers may pursue if they are not in wordworking and, in particular, mandatory rule implicating potential during actual blade contact incidents. willing or are unable to purchase a table essential patents absent a RAND saw (with AIM capabilities). Commitment covering such patents. Regulatory Alternatives Market Information • Information on other government • Information on whether a 36-month • Information on table saw sales, by agencies that have proposed or adopted effective date is reasonable, and whether table saw type (bench, contractor, regulations implicating potential a longer or shorter effective date is cabinet), and information on the essential patents, including whether the warranted. expected product lives of each type of holders of those patents had entered • Information on the feasibility of table saw. into RAND Commitments prior to the limiting or exempting a subset of table finalization of such regulations. saws or certain types of table saws from Patents Utility the performance requirements. • Information on the effects of the • Information on the potential impact • pending expiration of certain SawStop Information on what impacts AIM of the proposed rule on small entities, patents in 2020 and 2022. technology may have on the utility of especially small businesses. • Information on barriers to licensing table saw use by consumers. Anti-Stockpiling technology that is patented. Effectiveness • Information on the role of patents in • Information on the proposed standard business practice, and how • Information on effectiveness of AIM product manufacture or import limits this does or does not relate to table saw technologies. The CPSC staff’s and the base period with respect to the safety. regulatory analysis estimated that the anti-stockpiling provision. requirements of the proposed rule Comments should be submitted in Binding RAND Commitment would reduce the risk of blade-contact accordance with the instructions in the • Information on the applicability of injury by 70 percent to 90 percent. The ADDRESSES section at the beginning of the American National Standards Commission seeks comments from the this document. Institute’s (ANSI) patent policy to any public that either support these voluntary standard for table saws effectiveness estimates or that help the XX. Conclusion incorporating AIM technology. The Commission adjust them appropriately. For the reasons stated in this patent policy requires that ANSI- • Information concerning the extent preamble, the Commission proposes Accredited Standards Developers who to which table saws are used for cutting requirements to address an receive notice that a proposed standard wet wood and conductive materials, unreasonable risk of injury associated may require the use of an essential such as non-ferrous metals, and the with table saws.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22245

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1245 § 1245.4 Test procedures. blade contact from 2004 to 2015. In Any test procedure that will addition, the trend analysis for the risk Consumer protection, Imports, accurately determine compliance with of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table Information, Safety. the standard may be used. saws in use yearly showed no For the reasons discussed in the discernible change in the risk of injury § 1241.5 Prohibited stockpiling. preamble, the Commission proposes to associated with table saw blade contact amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal (a) Base period. The base period for from 2004 to 2015. Regulations as follows: table saws is any period of 365 (c) Number of consumer products consecutive days, chosen by the subject to the rule.The annual ■ 1. Add part 1245 to read as follows: manufacturer or importer, in the 5-year shipments of all table saws to the U.S. period immediately preceding the PART 1245—SAFETY STANDARD FOR market from 2002 to 2014 have ranged promulgation of the final rule. from 429,000 to 850,000. Estimates of BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES ON (b) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and TABLE SAWS sales value are not readily available importers of table saws shall not industry-wide. However, staff estimates Sec. manufacture or import table saws that that bench saws account for about 75 1245.1 Scope, purpose and effective date. do not comply with the requirements of percent of the units sold and have an 1245.2 Definitions. this part in any 12-month period average product life estimated at 10 1245.3 Requirements. between (date of promulgation of the years. Contractor saws (including 1245.4 Test procedures. rule) and (effective date of the rule) at hybrids account for 20 percent of the 1245.5 Prohibited stockpiling. a rate that is greater than 120 percent of units sold and have an average product 1245.6 Findings. the rate at which they manufactured or life of 17 years. Cabinet saws account Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076. imported table saws during the base for 5 percent of the units sold and have period. § 1245.1 Scope, purpose and effective an average producat life of 24 years. The annual number of table saws in use in date. § 1241.6 Findings. the United States is 8.2 million, (a) This part 1245, a consumer (a) General. To issue a consumer including about 5.1 million bench saws, product safety standard, establishes product safety standard under the 2.3 million contractor saws, and 0.8 requirements for table saws, as defined Consumer Product Safety Act, the million cabinet saws. Thus, bench, in § 1245.2(a). These requirements are Commission must make certain findings contractor, and cabinet saws account for intended to reduce an unreasonable risk and include them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. about 62 percent, 28 percent, and 10 of injury associated with blade-contact 2058(f)(3). These findings are presented percent of the table saw population, injuries on table saws. in this section. respectively. (b) Any table saw manufactured or (b) Degree and nature of the risk of (d) The need of the public for table imported on or after [date that 36 injury. (1) In 2015, there were an saws and the effects of the rule on their months after publication of a final rule] estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency utility, cost, and availability. Consumers shall comply with the requirements department-treated injuries. Of these, commonly purchase table saws for the stated in § 1245.3. CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 straight sawing of wood and other percent) likely are related to the victim materials, and more specifically, to § 1245.2 Definitions. making contact with the saw blade. Of perform rip cuts, cross cuts, and non- In addition to the definitions in the 30,800 emergency department- through cuts. Because operator finger/ section 3 of the Consumer Product treated, blade-contact injuries, an hand contact with the table saw blade Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) is a dominant hazard pattern, the following definition applies for involved the finger. The most common performance requirement would limit purposes of this part 1245. diagnosis in blade-contact injuries is an the depth of cut and significantly reduce (a) Table Saw means a woodworking estimated 18,100 laceration injuries the frequency and severity of blade- tool that has a motor-driven circular saw (58.8 percent), followed by an estimated contact injuries on table saws. blade, which protrudes through the 5,900 fractures (19.0 percent), an However,the rule would increase table surface of table. Table saws include estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 saw production costs. CPSC expects that bench saws, contractor saws, and percent), and an estimated 2,000 the prices for the least expensive bench cabinet saws. avulsions (6.5 percent). An estimated saws now available would more than 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact double, to $300 or more. In general, the (b) [Reserved]. injury victims were hospitalized. retail prices of bench saws could § 1245.3 Requirements. (2) An estimated 4,700 amputation increase by as much as $200 to $500 per injuries on table saws occurred in 2015, unit, and the retail prices of contractor (a) General. All table saws covered by alone. Compared to all other types of and cabinet saws could rise by as much this standard shall meet the consumer products, CPSC staff as $350 to $1,000 per unit. These higher requirements stated in paragraph (b) of estimates that table saw-related prices may be mitigated in the longer this section. amputations account for 18.6 percent of run, but the extent of any future price (b) Test. All table saws, when all amputations in the NEISS in 2015. reductions is unknown. Because of the powered on, shall limit the depth of cut When compared to all other workshop likely decline in sales following the to 3.5 mm when a test probe contacts products, table saws account for an promulgation of a rule, consumers who the spinning saw blade at a radial estimated 52.4 percent of all choose not to purchase a new table saw, approach rate of 1.0 meter per second amputations related to workshop due to the higher price, will experience (m/s). products in 2015. Based on NEISS a loss in utility by forgoing the use of (c) Test Probe. The test probe shall act estimates, the trend analysis for yearly table saws, or because they continue to as the surrogate for a human body/finger blade-contact injuries associated with use older saws that they would have and allow for the accurate measurement table saws showed no discernible preferred to replace. There may also be of the depth of cut to assess compliance change in the number of injuries or some other impacts on utility, such as with paragraph (b) of this section. types of injuries related to table saw an increase in the weight and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 22246 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

(potentially) size of table saws. This department-treated injuries associated percent of respondents indicated that factor may have a relatively small with table saws covered the timespan there are circumstances that require the impact on the heavier and larger before the voluntary standard blade guard to be removed. Clearly, contractor and cabinet saws, but could implemented the requirement for riving removal of the blade guard eliminates markedly reduce the portability of some knives and modular blade guards on its ability to prevent or reduce injuries. of the smaller and lighter bench saws. table saws (2004 to 2009) and the CPSC’s review of incidents from the (e) Other means to achieve the timespan after the requirements were CPSRMS database identified 11 objective of the rule, while minimizing implemented (2010 to 2015). The data incidents involving table saws that were the impact on competition and showed that there is no discernible equipped with riving knives and manufacturing. The Commission change in the number of injuries or modular blade guard systems. These considered alternatives to the rule. For types of injuries related to table saw incidents show that blade-contact example, the Commission considered blade contact from 2004 to 2015. A injuries continue to occur on table saws not taking regulatory action, deferring to trend analysis to assess the risk of injury equipped with riving knives and the voluntary standard development per 10,000 table saws in use showed modular blade guards. Finally, CPSC’s process, exempting or limiting certain there is no discernible change in the risk trend analysis of the annual estimated table saws from regulation, and of injury associated with table saw blade number of emergency department- information and education campaigns. contact from 2004 to 2015. treated injuries associated with table However, the Commission finds that (4) CPSC staff’s review shows saws from 2004 to 2015 shows that there these alternatives would not adequately substantial net benefits for the rule. is no discernible change in the number mitigate the unreasonable risk of blade- Estimates of net benefits, across all table of injuries, types of injuries, or risk of contact injuries on table saws. saw types, averaged about $1,500 to injuries related to table saw blade (f) Unreasonable risk. (1) CPSC $4,000 per saw over its expected contact from 2004 (when table saws did estimates that 30,800 table saw-related product life. Aggregate net benefits over not have riving knives and modular injuries involving blade contact were approximately 1year’s production and blade guards) to 2015 (when table saws treated in hospital emergency sale of table saws could amount to about did have these features). For these departments (ED) in 2015. An estimated $625 million to about $2,300 million. reasons, the Commission believes that 93.8 percent of these injuries involved The Commission concludes the voluntary standard will not the finger. The most common diagnoses preliminarily that there is an adequately address an unreasonable risk in blade-contact injuries are laceration unreasonable risk of injury associated of injury associated with blade-contact injuries, fractures, amputations, and with blade-contact injuries on table injuries on table saws. avulsion. Thousands of amputations, saws and finds that the rule is (i) Relationship of benefits to costs. (1) (an estimated 4,700 amputation injuries reasonably necessary to reduce that Based on estimates from NEISS and the in 2015 alone), occur each year on table unreasonable risk of injury. ICM, the Commission finds that the rule saws. When compared to all other (g) Public interest. This rule is would address an estimated 54,800 workshop products, table saws account intended to address an unreasonable medically treated blade-contact injuries for an estimated 52.4 percent of all risk of blade-contact injuries on table annually. The societal costs of these amputations related to workshop saws. Adherence to the requirements of injuries (in 2014 dollars and using a 3 products in 2015. the rule would reduce and mitigate the percent discount rate) amounted to (2) Existing safety devices, such as the severity of blade-contact injuries on about $4.06 billion in 2015. blade guard and riving knife, do not table saws in the future; thus, the rule Amputations accounted for about 14 adequately reduce the number or is in the public interest. percent of the medically treated blade- severity of blade-contact injuries on (h) Voluntary standards. (1) The contact injuries but almost two-thirds of table saws. Table saws have been current voluntary standard for table the injury costs. Overall, medical costs equipped with these passive safety saws is Underwriters Laboratories Inc. and work losses account for about 30 devices since 2009, and there is no (UL) 987, Stationary and Fixed Electric percent of these costs, or about $1.2 evidence of the effectiveness of these Tools. In August 2016, UL published the billion. The intangible costs associated safety devices in reducing or mitigating first edition of UL 62841–3–1, Electric with pain and suffering account for the blade-contact injuries. In CPSC’s 2015 Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, remaining 70 percent of injury costs. modular blade guard survey, a majority Transportable Tools and Lawn and (2) Because of the substantial societal of respondents (80%) reported that there Garden Machinery Part 3–1: Particular costs attributable to blade-contact are circumstances that require the blade Requirements for Transportable Table injuries (about $4 billion annually), and guard to be removed, and a majority of Saws. UL 62841–3–1. The effective date the expected high rate of effectiveness of respondents reported they did not use for UL 62841–3–1 is August 29, 2019. the requirements in preventing blade- the blade guard ‘‘sometimes’’ (28%), Until that date, UL 987 remains in contact injuries, the estimated gross ‘‘often’’ (17%) or ‘‘always’’ (14%). Any effect, and table saw manufacturers can benefits of the proposed rule (i.e., the situation where the blade guard is not list their products to either UL 987 or expected reduction in societal costs) used, eliminates the effectiveness of the UL 62841–3–1. Both standards specify could amount to an average of about blade guard in preventing blade-contact that table saws shall be provided with $2,300 to $4,300 per saw. Based on 1 injuries. In addition, a review of a modular blade guard and riving knife. year’s production and sale of table saws, CPSRMS database found 11 incidents (2) The Commission does not believe aggregate gross benefits could range involving table saws that meet the that the voluntary standards adequately from about $970 million to $2,450 current voluntary standard requirements address blade-contact injuries on table million annually. for riving knives and modular blade saws. Existing safety devices, such as (3) Staff estimates showed that guards. These incidents show that the modular blade guard and riving increased manufacturing cost, as well as blade-contact injuries continue to occur knife, which have been provided on the expected costs of replacement parts on table saws equipped with riving table saws since 2009, do not adequately for the AIM system, would range from knives and modular blade guards. reduce the number or severity of blade- about $230 to $540 per bench saw, (3) CPSC’s trend analysis of the contact injuries on table saws. In CPSC’s about $375 to $925 per contractor saw, annual estimated number of emergency 2015 modular blade guard survey, 80 and about $400 to $950 per cabinet saw.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 91 / Friday, May 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 22247

These costs likely would be mitigated Based on the severity of injuries and effective date from the issuance of a somewhat over time, but the extent of recurring hazard patterns of blade- final rule is an appropriate length of any future cost reduction is unknown. contact injuries, coupled with the high time. Based on 1 year’s production and sale societal costs of these injuries, the (iv) Exempt Contractor and Cabinet of table saws, aggregate gross costs Commission believes that a performance Saws from a Product Safety Rule. The could range from about $170 million to requirement is necessary to reduce the Commission considered whether to $340 million annually. In addition to unreasonable risk of blade-contact exempt cabinet and/or contractor saws the direct manufacturing and injuries on all table saws. used by professional, commercial, or replacement parts costs, firms may need (ii) Defer to the Voluntary Standard industrial users, or based on certain to pay approximately $30 million to $35 for Table Saws. The Commission size, weight, power, and electrical million annually in royalty fees to considered deferring action to allow the specifications of the table saw. patent holders for the AIM technology. voluntary standard for table saws, UL However, based on the severity of (4) Additionally, some consumers 987, to develop AIM technology. injuries and recurring hazard patterns of who would have purchased table saws Although the CPSC has supported blade-contact injuries, coupled with the at the lower pre-regulatory prices will recent changes in the voluntary high societal costs of these injuries, the choose not to purchase new table saws. standard with requirements for newer Commission believes that a performance The cost impact of the rule on market blade guard systems and riving knives requirement is necessary to reduce the sales may reduce aggregate sales by as and considers these to be a significant unreasonable risk of blade-contact much as 14 percent to 38 percent improvement over earlier systems, there injuries on all table saws. Moreover, annually. The decline in sales will is little evidence that improvements in there is no clear dividing line between result in lost utility to consumers who these passive safety devices have consumer and professional saws, except choose not to purchase table saws effectively reduced injuries. at the very highest levels of price and because of the higher prices. Further, Additionally, voluntary standards performances. more reductions in consumer utility committees have twice rejected (v) Limit the Applicability of the may result from the added weight, and initiatives by UL to adopt provisions Performance Requirements to Some, but hence, reduced portability associated that would require AIM systems. Not All, Table Saws. The Commission with addition the AIM technology on Consequently, it does not appear that also considered limiting the scope of the table saws. the voluntary standards process is likely rule to a subset of table saws to allow (5) Based on our benefit and cost to lead to a requirement for the AIM manufacturers to produce both table estimates, the Commission estimates technology in the near future. saw models with AIM technology, and that net benefits (i.e., benefits minus (iii) Later Effective Dates. The rule models without AIM technology. costs) for the market as a whole (i.e., would require an effective date that is However, based on the severity of combining the three types of table saws 3 years after the final rule is published injuries and recurring hazard patterns of together) amount to an average of about in the Federal Register. The blade-contact injuries, coupled with the $1,500 to $4,000 per saw. Aggregate net Commission considered a later effective high societal costs of these injuries, the benefits on an annual basis could date. An effective date later than 3 years Commission believes that a performance amount to about $625 million to about could further reduce the impact of the requirement is necessary to reduce the $2,300 million. rule on small manufacturers because it unreasonable risk of blade-contact (j) Least burdensome requirement that would allow them additional time to injuries on all table saws. would adequately reduce the risk of spread the costs of developing or (vi) Information and Education injury. (1) The Commission considered negotiating for the rights to use an AIM Campaign. The Commission also less burdensome alternatives to the rule technology, modify the design of their considered whether to conduct an addressing blade-contact injuries on table saws to incorporate the AIM information and education campaign table saws and concluded preliminarily technology, and retool their factories for informing consumers about the dangers that none of these alternatives would the production. For manufacturers that of blade-contact hazards, and the adequately reduce the risk of injury. might choose to exit the table saw benefits of the AIM technology. (i) No Action Alternative. The market, the additional delay might Although such a campaign could help Commission considered not taking any provide them with more time to inform consumers, without a regulatory action. Under this alternative, consider alternative business performance requirement, that approach table saws would continue to use opportunities. However, later effective would not be sufficient to address the existing passive safety devices, such as dates could also delay the introduction unreasonable risk of blade-contact blade guards, riving knives, and anti- of table saws with AIM technology into injuries on table saws. kickback pawls. Additionally, table the market and discourage (2) [Reserved]. saws with the AIM technology are manufacturers from introducing table already available for consumers who saws with AIM technology earlier than Alberta E. Mills, want and can afford them. However, not the effective date, and possibly, put Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety taking any action would leave the those manufacturers at a competitive Commission. unreasonable risk of blade-contact disadvantage. Accordingly, the [FR Doc. 2017–09098 Filed 5–11–17; 8:45 am] injuries on table saws unaddressed. Commission believes that a 3-year BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:51 May 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12MYP2.SGM 12MYP2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS2