[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62678-62684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26171]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Chapter II

[Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074]


Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries; Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking; Request for Comments and Information

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC'' or 
``Commission'' or ``we'') is considering whether a new performance 
safety standard is needed to address an unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with table saws. We are conducting this proceeding under the 
authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (``CPSA''), 15 U.S.C. 
2051-2084. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') 
invites written comments from interested persons

[[Page 62679]]

concerning the risk of injury associated with table saw blade contact, 
the regulatory alternatives discussed in this notice, other possible 
means to address this risk, and the economic impacts of the various 
alternatives. We also invite interested persons to submit an existing 
standard, or a statement of intent to modify or develop a voluntary 
standard, to address the risks of injury described in this ANPR.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission voted 5-0 to publish this ANPR in the Federal 
Register. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum and Commissioner Robert Adler 
issued statements. The Web address for Commissioners' statements is: 
http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html.

DATES: Written comments and submissions in response to this notice must 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
be received by December 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-
0074, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    To ensure timely processing of comments, the Commission is no 
longer accepting comments submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) except 
through www.regulations.gov.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following way:
    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM 
submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted 
without change, including any personal identifiers, contact 
information, or other personal information provided, to http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroleene Paul, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 
Research Place, Rockville, Maryland 20850; telephone (301) 987-2225; 
fax (301) 869-0294; e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, 
et al. (``petitioners'') requested that we require performance 
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with 
the blade of a table saw. The petitioners cited estimates of 30,000 
annual injuries involving table saws, with approximately 90 percent of 
the injuries occurring to the fingers and hands, and 10 percent of the 
injuries resulting in amputation. The petitioners alleged that current 
table saws pose an unacceptable risk of severe injury because they are 
inherently dangerous and lack an adequate safety system to protect the 
user from accidental contact with the blade.
    In the Federal Register of July 9, 2003 (68 FR 40912) and September 
5, 2003 (68 FR 52753), we invited comments on the issues raised by the 
petition (Petition No. CP03-2). We received 69 comments. CPSC staff's 
initial briefing package regarding the petition is available on the 
CPSC Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia06/brief/tablesaw.pdf. On July 11, 2006, the Commission voted (2-1) to grant the 
petition and directed CPSC staff to draft an ANPR. On July 15, 2006, 
the Commission lost its quorum and was unable to move forward with 
publication of an ANPR at that time. However, CPSC staff continued to 
evaluate table saws and initiated a special study from January 2007 to 
December 2008, to gather more accurate estimates on table saw injuries 
and hazard patterns related to table saw injuries. Based on CPSC 
staff's updated information on blade contact injuries associated with 
table saw use, and CPSC staff's evaluation of current technologies on 
table saws, we believe it is appropriate to issue an ANPR on table saw 
blade contact injuries at this time. CPSC staff's updated briefing 
package, which supplements the initial briefing package, is available 
on the CPSC Web site at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia11/brief/tablesaw.pdf.

B. Statutory Authority

    We are conducting this proceeding under authority of the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. The Commission 
believes it has the statutory authority to move forward with this ANPR 
because table saws that are used by consumers present risks that may 
not be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by actions 
undertaken under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. 15 U.S.C. 
Sec.  2080(a).
    Before adopting a CPSA standard, the Commission may issue an ANPR, 
as provided in section 9(a) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2058(a). If the 
Commission decides to continue the rulemaking proceeding after 
considering responses to the ANPR, the Commission must then publish the 
text of the proposed rule, along with a preliminary regulatory 
analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(c). If the Commission thereafter moves forward to issue a final 
rule, in addition to the text of the final rule, it must publish a 
final regulatory analysis that includes: (1) A description of the 
potential benefits and costs of the rule; (2) a summary of any 
alternatives that were considered, their potential costs and benefits, 
and the reasons for their rejection; and (3) a summary and assessment 
of any significant issues raised on the preliminary regulatory analysis 
that accompanied the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(2). In addition, 
the Commission, among other things, must make findings that an existing 
or proposed voluntary standard would not be adequate, that the benefits 
of the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs, and that the 
rule is the least burdensome requirement that prevents or adequately 
reduces the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).

C. The Product

    Table saws are stationary power tools used for the straight sawing 
of various materials--but primarily wood. In essence, a table saw 
consists of a table that sits on a base and through which a spinning 
blade protrudes. To make a cut, the table saw operator places the 
workpiece on the table, and, typically guided by a rip fence or miter 
gauge, slides the workpiece into the blade.
    There are three basic table saw categories that comprise the 
population of table saws used for both consumer and professional use: 
bench saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws. Generally, the range of 
quality and accuracy of a table saw is commensurate with its size, 
motor horsepower, weight, and, indirectly, price.
    Bench saws are lightweight, inexpensive saws, designed to be moved 
around easily and placed temporarily on a work bench or stand. Prices 
for bench saws range from $100 to $600. Contractor saws are 
characterized by a set of light-duty legs and a bigger table and motor 
than a bench saw. Prices for a contractor saw range from about $500 to 
$1,800, or more. These saws are generally quieter, more accurate, and 
able to cut materials up to 2 inches

[[Page 62680]]

thick. Cabinet saws are heavier than contractor saws because the higher 
powered motor is enclosed in a solid base. Prices for cabinet saws 
range from $1,000 to $3,000. These saws are designed for heavy use, and 
the greater weight reduces vibration so that cuts are smooth and more 
accurate. These saws are typically the highest grade saw found in the 
home woodworking shop.
    Standard safety devices on table saws are designed to prevent the 
saw blade from making contact with the operator and to prevent the saw 
blade from imparting its kinetic energy to the workpiece and throwing 
the workpiece back toward the operator, a phenomenon known as kickback. 
The configuration and specific design of safety devices vary from 
manufacturer to manufacturer, but the safety devices generally fall 
into two basic categories: blade guards and kickback prevention 
devices.
    Traditionally, table saws sold in the United States have employed a 
blade guard system that combines a hood-type blade guard, splitter 
(also known as spreader), and anti-kickback pawls as a single unit that 
is bolted to the saw's carriage assembly. The hood is a single, 
rectangular piece of transparent plastic that surrounds the exposed 
blade with a sloped front to allow the guard to rise and ride over the 
workpiece as the piece is fed toward the blade during a cut. The 
splitter generally serves as the main support and connection point for 
the blade guard and the anti-kickback pawls. Thus, removing the 
splitter for any reason, necessarily removes the rest of the blade 
guard system and the protections those devices might offer.
    Splitters, riving knives, and anti-kickback pawls are the primary 
safety devices on table saws that are intended to prevent kickback of 
the workpiece. Splitters ride within the cut, or kerf, to prevent the 
workpiece from closing up and pinching the blade, which can cause the 
workpiece to be thrown back toward the operator. Because the height of 
the splitter is often taller than the blade, splitters must be removed 
when making non-through cuts because the top portion of the blade must 
be exposed to cut into the workpiece. If other safety devices are 
attached to the splitter, removal of the splitter removes these safety 
devices as well.
    Riving knives are curved steel plates that are similar to, and 
perform the same function as, splitters, but sit very close to the 
blade and rise no higher than the top of the saw blade. The riving 
knife attaches to the arbor assembly so that it moves up and down with 
the blade. These characteristics allow riving knives to be used while 
making non-through cuts because the top of the blade is exposed. A 
properly installed riving knife may be the most effective way to 
prevent kickback because it limits workpiece access to the rear teeth 
of the saw blade. Anti-kickback pawls consist of two hinged and barbed 
pieces of metal that allow passage of the workpiece but will dig into 
the workpiece if it begins to move back toward the operator.
    CPSC staff has identified several characteristics of traditional 
blade guard systems that are likely to hinder table saw use and 
motivate consumers to remove them to make performing a cut simpler or 
easier. These characteristics include:
    (1) Potential jamming of the workpiece on the guard: Some blade 
guards may jam on the leading edge of the workpiece, requiring the 
consumer to push the workpiece forcefully or to raise the guard 
manually;
    (2) Poor visibility caused by the guard: Hood guards can limit 
visibility when lining up cuts and during a cut, especially with 
sawdust accumulation in the guard;
    (3) Poor splitter alignment with the blade: A splitter can bend 
over time with use of the table saw. A blade guard system with a 
splitter that is not aligned properly with the blade can make feeding 
the workpiece through the blade increasingly difficult and can actually 
increase the likelihood of kickback; and
    (4) Mandatory removal of the blade guard for certain cuts: The 
splitter and blade guard must be removed for certain oversized cuts, 
very narrow cuts, and any type of non-through cut. To switch back to 
typical through cuts, the splitter and guard must be reinstalled in 
keeping with manufacturers' recommendations that blade guard systems be 
used whenever performing a through cut.

D. The Market

    CPSC staff has identified at least 15 manufacturers and importers 
of table saws. According to the Power Tool Institute (``PTI''), its 
members account for approximately 85 percent of all table saws sold in 
the United States. Most manufacturers are large, diversified, 
international corporations with billions of dollars in sales, of which 
table saws generally make up a relatively small part of their revenue. 
Several other U.S. corporations manufacture or import smaller numbers 
of table saws for the U.S. market. According to PTI, estimated annual 
shipments of table saws have fluctuated widely in recent years. In 2006 
and 2007, estimated shipments were 800,000 to 850,000 units. However, 
estimated shipments declined to 650,000 in 2008, 589,000 in 2009, and 
429,000 in 2010.
    CPSC staff also obtained information from PTI regarding the 
expected useful life estimates for different categories of table saws, 
ranging from 6 years for an inexpensive bench saw, to 17 years for a 
contractor saw, to 24 years for an expensive cabinet saw. Based on 
these expected product lives and sales data for the different types of 
saws, PTI estimated the number of table saws in use at 8.0 million in 
2001/2002, and 9.5 million in 2007/2008. CPSC staff believes that this 
estimate is generally consistent with independent estimates of table 
saws in use, based upon product population estimates using the CPSC's 
Product Population Model (``PPM''). The PPM is used by CPSC staff to 
estimate the number of products in use, given sales estimates and 
information on expected product life. Assuming an average retail price 
of $500 per table saw, and average annual shipments of about 700,000 
units, CPSC staff believes that annual retail sales may be in the range 
of $300 to $400 million.
    CPSC staff also reviewed tariff and trade data from the U.S. 
Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission, 
which showed that China and Taiwan together account for more than $150 
million dollars in annual imports. Allowing for markups of table saws 
at the manufacturer/private labeler level and the retail level, CPSC 
staff found that imports may account for a majority of the estimated 
$300 million to $400 million in shipments estimated. According to CPSC 
staff, exports from the United States appear to be minimal, less than 
$1 million annually.

E. Incident Data

    CPSC staff first reviewed the National Electric Injury Surveillance 
System (``NEISS'') data in 2001 and 2002. The data indicated that there 
were 38,000 total emergency room-treated injuries associated with table 
saws in 2001, and 38,980 injuries in 2002. In 2001, CPSC staff 
conducted follow-up investigations on stationary saw-related injuries 
for NEISS cases treated between October 1, 2001 and December 31, 2001. 
As a result of the investigations, CPSC staff was able to identify 
injuries that resulted from previously unspecified saw categories, 
resulting in more precise injury estimates for 2001 and 2002. Of the 
28,300 emergency room-treated injuries in 2001 and 2002 involving table 
saw operator blade contact, most of the injuries were sustained to the 
finger(s), and the majority of the injuries were lacerations. Fewer 
injuries resulted in amputations. The remaining injuries

[[Page 62681]]

included fractures, avulsions (the forcible separation or tearing away 
of a part of the body), and crushings.
    Since its initial review of table saw blade contact injuries, based 
on data from NEISS, CPSC staff found that the estimated number of 
emergency department-treated injuries associated with table saws 
averaged 36,400 per year from 2001 to 2008. The trend analysis 
conducted by CPSC staff of the annual estimates for 2001 to 2008, 
indicated that the number of all saw-related injuries (including table 
saws, band and radial saws, handheld saws, and saws not specified) was 
steady during this time.
    CPSC staff conducted a follow-up special study on stationary saw-
related injuries between January 2007 to December 2008, to gather more 
accurate estimates on table saw injuries and hazard patterns related to 
table saw injuries. The special study conducted follow-up interviews on 
emergency room-treated table saw incidents that were reported through 
NEISS. The special study allowed more precise table saw injury 
estimates to be computed for 2007 (38,300 injuries), and 2008 (41,200 
injuries). Of the 79,500 total emergency department-treated injuries 
associated with table saws in 2007 and 2008, an estimated 76,100 
injuries were sustained by operators of the table saws. Of the injuries 
to table saw operators, an estimated 66,900 injuries (88%) involved 
blade contact, which is the pattern of addressable hazards that this 
ANPR seeks to address.
    CPSC staff estimates that there were approximately 66,900 emergency 
room-treated injuries involving table saw operator blade contact in 
2007 and 2008. Of the 66,900 emergency room-treated injuries involving 
table saw operator blade contact in 2007 and 2008, the majority (68.5%) 
of the victims were between the ages of 15 to 64 years old, and 31 
percent were 65 years old or older. Among the operator blade contact 
injuries, laceration was the most frequent (65.9%) form of injury, 
followed by fractures (12.4%), amputation (12.0%), and avulsion (8.5%). 
The rate of hospitalization was 7.1 percent, compared to an average 4 
percent rate of hospitalization for all consumer products reported 
through the NEISS system. Because CPSC staff determined that the injury 
trend associated with all saws has been relatively stable from 2001 and 
2008, and they concluded that the results of the special study 
represented the most accurate estimates available, CPSC staff relied on 
the data from the special study for 2007 and 2008 to summarize blade 
contact injuries and their associated hazard patterns.
    Of the 66,900 emergency room-treated injuries involving table saw 
operator blade contact in 2007 and 2008, approximately 20,700 (30.9%) 
of the injuries occurred on table saws where a blade guard was in use. 
Approximately 44,500 (66.5%) of the injuries occurred on table saws 
that did not have a blade guard attached. The most common reason for 
absence of the blade guard was removal by the consumer (75.0%). An 
estimated 23,800 injuries (35.5%) occurred as a result of kickback of 
the material, including scenarios where kickback of the material caused 
the operator's hand to be pulled into the blade, resulting in a 
laceration injury or amputation. Of the 23,800 blade contact injuries 
that occurred as a result of kickback, lacerations were the most 
frequent (61.2%) form of injury followed by amputations (15.6%), 
fractures (14.2%), and avulsions (6.5%). The rate of hospitalization 
was 9.0 percent.
    Of the 66,900 emergency room-treated injuries involving table saw 
operator blade contact in 2007 and 2008, an estimated 39,600 injuries 
(59.2%) did not occur as a result of kickback of the material. Non-
kickback injury scenarios included situations caused by a lapse in 
attention of the operator, such as reaching over the blade to retrieve 
a cut piece or otherwise not being aware of the blade during a cut. Of 
the 39,600 blade contact injuries that did not occur as a result of 
kickback, lacerations were the most frequent (69.4%) form of injury, 
followed by fractures (11.0%), amputations (9.5%), and avulsions 
(9.5%). The rate of hospitalization was 5.0 percent. CPSC staff did not 
find sufficient information regarding whether kickback caused operator 
contact with the blade in approximately 3,500 of the 66,900 operator 
blade contact injuries.

F. Economic Considerations

    The Commission's Injury Cost Model (``ICM'') uses empirically 
derived relationships between emergency department injuries estimated 
through NEISS and injuries treated in other settings (e.g., doctor's 
offices, clinics) to estimate the number of injuries treated outside 
hospital emergency departments. Based on CPSC's 2007-2008 special 
study, staff estimated that approximately 33,450 emergency department-
treated blade contact injuries occurred annually over the 2-year period 
2007-2008. From these 33,450 annual injuries, the ICM projects an 
annual total of 67,300 medically treated blade contact injuries with an 
associated injury cost of approximately $2.36 billion per year. CPSC 
staff determined that deaths resulting from blade contact during table 
saw use are rare and appear to be the result of secondary effects of 
the injuries (e.g., heart attack) rather than the injuries themselves. 
Accordingly, economic costs from deaths have been excluded.
    CPSC staff's preliminary review showed that societal costs per 
blade contact injury amount to approximately $35,000. This includes 
costs for medical treatment, lost time from work, product liability 
litigation, and pain and suffering. The relatively high societal costs, 
compared to the $22,000 average cost for all medically treated consumer 
product related injuries, reflect the high costs associated with 
amputations and the relatively high hospitalization rate associated 
with these injuries.
    CPSC staff's preliminary review also showed that the expected 
present value of the societal costs of blade contact injuries over the 
life of a table saw is substantial. Therefore, an effective 
performance-based table saw standard potentially could result in 
significant reductions in the injury costs associated with blade 
contact. However, current systems designed to address blade contact 
injuries on table saws appear to be costly and could substantially 
increase the retail cost of table saws, especially among the least 
expensive bench saws.

G. Existing Standards

    The current U.S. voluntary consensus standard for table saws is the 
seventh edition of UL 987, Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools. 
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (``UL'') published this standard in 
1971, and has revised it several times. The original requirement for 
table saw guarding specified a complete guard that consisted of a hood, 
a spreader, and some type of anti-kickback device. The requirement 
further specified that the guard hood completely enclose the sides and 
top portion of the saw blade above the table and that the guard 
automatically adjust to the thickness of the workpiece. A blade guard 
that met this requirement was typically a hinged, rectangular piece of 
clear plastic.
    The sixth edition of UL 987, published in January 2005, added 
design and performance requirements for a riving knife and performance 
requirements for anti-kickback devices. This revision essentially 
required new table saws to employ a permanent riving knife that was 
adjustable for all table saw operations. The requirement also allowed 
for riving knife/spreader combination units, where the riving

[[Page 62682]]

knife could be used as the attachment point for a blade guard during 
through cuts. The effective date for the riving knife requirement is 
January 31, 2014, for currently listed products, and January 31, 2008, 
for new products submitted for listing to the UL standard.
    The current edition, the seventh edition of UL 987, published in 
November 2007, expanded the table saw guarding requirements to include 
descriptions of a new modular blade guard design developed by a joint 
venture of the leading table saw manufacturers. The revised standard 
specified that the blade guard shall consist not of a hood, but of a 
top-barrier guarding element and two side-barrier guarding elements. 
The new modular guard design was intended to be an improvement over 
traditional hood guard designs by providing better visibility, being 
easier to remove and install, and incorporating a permanent riving 
knife design. The revised standard also specified detailed design and 
performance requirements for the modular blade guard, riving knife, and 
anti-kickback device(s). The effective date for the new requirements 
was January 31, 2010.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (``OSHA'') 
currently has regulations on table saws used in the workplace, which 
are codified at 29 CFR 1910.213, Woodworking Machinery Requirements. 
The OSHA regulations require that table saws in the workplace include a 
blade guard, a spreader, and an anti-kickback device. 29 CFR 
1910.213(c)(1)-(3). The OSHA regulations require the saw be guarded by 
a hood with certain performance standards including, among other 
things, requirements that the hood be strong enough to withstand 
certain pressures, be adjustable to the thickness of the material being 
cut, and be constructed in a way to protect the operator from flying 
splinters and broken saw teeth. 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1). The OSHA 
regulations also require inspection and maintenance of woodworking 
machinery. For example, unsafe saws must be removed from service 
immediately, push sticks or push blocks must be provided at the 
workplace for guiding or pushing material past the blade, and emphasis 
must be placed on the cleanliness around woodworking machinery and, in 
particular, the effective functioning of guards and prevention of fire 
hazards. 29 CFR 1910.213(s).
    CPSC staff found that the primary differences between consumer and 
professional users of table saws are environment and training/
experience. In many work production environments where a specific cut 
is performed continuously, guards and safety cut-off switches are 
custom designed for that set up. The area is specifically designed to 
be as safe as possible and safety is a continuous focus through 
warning/instruction signs and posters that are often displayed 
throughout the work area. The workplace is also subject to spontaneous 
inspection by OSHA inspectors; therefore, the prospect of being fined 
for safety violations increases the likelihood that workers or 
supervisors will help ensure safety codes are followed. In addition, 
professional woodworkers are in an industrial setting where employees 
often receive training on safety practices and in the proper use of the 
tool. Professional woodworkers are more likely to have had training and 
to be experienced in performing any special or complex operations with 
the saw and are more likely to recognize situations and set-ups that 
may be dangerous or require extra care and caution.
    Amateur woodworkers generally have little or no safety training, 
nor training in the proper use of the table saw. They may take 
woodworking classes or watch a training video, but the home users 
typically have far less experience than professional woodworkers and 
may discover dangerous or difficult operations only by actually 
experiencing near accidents or problems. The home woodworker also does 
not have the same OSHA-regulated protections in the home-based 
woodshop. The focus on a safe environment in a consumer setting is 
dependent upon the knowledge and initiative of the home woodworker, but 
there is no oversight to educate and motivate the consumer to prepare 
as safe an environment as possible.
    CPSC staff also reviewed the 2007-2008 special study of table saw-
related injury estimates to assess whether they were work-related. 
Narratives and responses in the 862 cases in the table saw study were 
reviewed to identify cases that might be work-related. Four of the 
cases appeared to be work-related, and another 12 cases appeared to be 
potentially work-related. Combined, these cases comprised less than 2 
percent of the sample data and less than 2 percent of the estimated 
79,500 total table or bench saw injuries over the two years 2007-2008. 
The remaining 846 cases in the special study represented an estimated 
78,000 non-work-related injuries.
    We believe that OSHA regulations may not adequately reduce the risk 
of operator blade contact injuries to consumers because these 
regulations are primarily intended to ensure a safer work environment 
in the professional workplace setting, rather than the home woodworking 
environment. OSHA regulations rely on a comprehensive approach to 
promote safe practices in the workplace. These strategies include 
training and outreach, as well as mandatory safety standards and 
enforcement. This approach would not be available to consumers 
operating table saws in a home woodworking environment. CPSC staff's 
review showed that less than 2 percent of the estimated 79,500 total 
table or bench saw injuries over the 2007-2008 period appear to be 
work-related. Moreover, we note that the OSHA regulations for guarding 
are essentially identical to the requirements in the now superseded 
fifth edition of the voluntary standard for table saws, UL 987, 
Standard for Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools. Accordingly, the 
existing OSHA regulations for table saws do not reflect the latest 
revisions to UL 987, which require riving knives and the new modular 
blade guard design developed by the table saw industry. However, even 
if OSHA incorporates the new UL requirements in its regulations, we 
believe that current safety devices still may not adequately address 
the operator blade contact injuries associated with table saw use by 
consumers.

H. Regulatory Alternatives

    One or more of the following alternatives could be used to reduce 
the identified risks associated with table saw blade contact injuries:
    1. Voluntary Standard. If the industry developed, adopted, and 
substantially conformed to an adequate voluntary standard, we could 
defer to the voluntary standard, instead of issuing a mandatory rule. 
The current voluntary standard for table saws includes requirements for 
a splitter/spreader, blade guard, and anti-kickback device to address 
the hazard posed by contact with the saw blade. The voluntary standards 
body only recently has begun to review requirements for a riving knife 
that may reduce certain kickback conditions that can result in 
unexpected blade contact. However, a riving knife would not address the 
blade contact injuries that were not caused by kickback of the 
material, an estimated 39,600 injuries in 2007 and 2008.
    CPSC staff evaluated two new technologies that have been introduced 
to the table saw market since 2007 to address blade contact injury. 
Technologies that address blade contact injuries on table saws can be 
categorized by their main purpose: (1) Prevention of the event, and (2) 
mitigation of the event.

[[Page 62683]]

    In 2007, a joint venture of the leading table saw manufacturers 
introduced a new modular blade guard design to the market. The new 
modular guard, like traditional blade guard systems, is aimed at 
preventing the event of blade contact. In general, traditional blade 
guards and the new modular blade guards can effectively prevent most 
physical side, rear, and downward contact with the table saw blade but 
will primarily act as a tactile warning for front approach contact with 
the blade. The new modular blade guard system appears to be a 
significant improvement over most traditional blade guard systems 
because it uses a permanent, adjustable riving knife, rather than a 
removable splitter, as the primary kickback prevention device and 
support for the guard. However, the new blade guard system still would 
not prevent blade contact injuries resulting from the hand approaching 
the front, or leading portion, of the blade. Furthermore, the new blade 
guard system still can hinder certain table saw tasks, thereby 
encouraging its removal, and it can prevent certain sawing tasks from 
being performed unless it is removed. CPSC staff's review showed that 
removing the blade guard system is easy but installation can be tricky 
and, if the process is repeated, it can also be time-consuming and 
burdensome. These characteristics may motivate some consumers--
especially experienced or expert woodworkers--not to bother 
reinstalling the system once it is removed.
    In 2008, the petitioners developed a contractor saw with a blade 
contact detection and reaction system that was introduced to the table 
saw market as the SawStop system. Blade contact detection and reaction 
systems function as a secondary safety system to mitigate the event of 
blade contact. The system is not intended to prevent table saw blade 
contact incidents, but rather, to lessen the consequences of blade 
contact when it occurs. The SawStop system includes two components: An 
electronic detection unit, and a brake. The system induces a small 
electrical signal onto the saw blade that is partially absorbed by the 
human body if contact is made. When this reduction in signal is 
detected, the system applies a brake to the blade that stops and 
retracts the blade below the table surface within milliseconds. In 
principle, the only injury likely to be sustained by direct contact 
with the saw blade when the system functions as intended is a small 
cut.
    The SawStop system reviewed by CPSC staff did not seem to interfere 
with most sawing operations, and, once installed, the system is 
essentially invisible to the consumer until it is needed. If the system 
is activated or the standard 10-inch blade needs to be replaced with a 
smaller dado blade (a type of saw blade used to cut grooves), the brake 
cartridge underneath the table surface must be replaced. Removing and 
reinstalling the brake cartridge when switching to and from dado sets, 
or once the system has been activated, can be difficult. However, in 
all likelihood, system activation would occur only after contact with 
the skin, a situation in which the consumer might have sustained 
serious injury had the system not been in place.
    We are concerned that the requirements in the voluntary standard 
for table saws, UL 987, Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools, which 
mandate a permanent riving knife and the new modular blade guard 
system, may not adequately address the operator blade contact injuries 
associated with table saw use. While we support the recent progress UL 
has made in improving the voluntary standard to address blade contact 
injuries by focusing solely on prevention of skin-to-blade contact, the 
standard requirements do not appear to address adequately the number or 
severity of blade contact injuries that occur on table saws, nor do 
they address the associated societal costs. In addition, while we 
believe that the new modular guard design is a significant improvement 
over the old guard design, the effectiveness of any blade guard system 
depends upon an operator's willingness to use it. Safety equipment that 
hinders the ability to operate the product likely will result in 
consumers bypassing, avoiding, or discarding the safety equipment. In 
addition, of the 66,900 table saw operator blade contact injuries in 
2007 and 2008, approximately 20,700 (30.9%) of the injuries occurred on 
table saws where the blade guard was in use. The current voluntary 
standard for table saws does not appear to address those types of 
injuries. Accordingly, we are particularly interested in obtaining 
information regarding current or developing voluntary standards that 
would address table saw blade contact injuries.
    2. Mandatory rule. We could issue a rule mandating performance 
requirements on table saws that would address blade contact injuries.
    3. Labeling rule. We could issue a rule requiring specified 
warnings and instructions to address table saw blade contact injuries.

I. Request for Information and Comments

    This ANPR is the first step in a proceeding that could result in a 
mandatory safety standard for table saws to address the risk of injury 
associated with blade contact from table saws. We invite interested 
persons to submit their comments on any aspect of the alternatives 
discussed above in part H of this document. In particular, we request 
the following additional information:
    1. Written comments with respect to the risk of injury identified 
by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and 
other possible alternatives for addressing the risk;
    2. Any existing standard or portion of a standard that could be 
issued as a proposed regulation;
    3. A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary 
standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along 
with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so;
    4. Studies, tests, or surveys that have been performed to analyze 
table saw blade contact injuries, severity of injuries, and costs 
associated with the injuries;
    5. Studies, tests, or surveys that analyze table saw use in 
relation to approach/feed rates, kickback, and blade guard use and 
effectiveness;
    6. Studies, tests, or descriptions of new technologies, or new 
applications of existing technologies that can address blade contact 
injuries, and estimates of costs associated with incorporation of new 
technologies or applications;
    7. Estimated manufacturing cost, per table saw, of new technologies 
or applications that can address blade contact injuries;
    8. Expected impact of technologies that can address blade contact 
injuries on wholesale and retail prices of table saws;
    9. Expected impact of technologies that can address blade contact 
injuries on utility and convenience of use;
    10. Information on effectiveness or user acceptance of new blade 
guard designs;
    11. Information on manufacturing costs of new blade guard designs;
    12. Information on usage rates of new blade guard designs;
    13. Information on U.S shipments of table saws prior to 2002, and 
between 2003 and 2005;
    14. Information on differences between portable bench saws, 
contractor saws, and cabinet saws in frequency and duration of use;
    15. Information on differences between saws used by consumers, saws

[[Page 62684]]

used by schools, and saws used commercially in frequency and duration 
of use;
    16. Studies, research, or data on entry information of materials 
being cut at blade contact (i.e., approach angle, approach speed, and 
approach force);
    17. Information that supports or disputes preliminary economic 
analyses on the cost of employing technologies that reduce blade 
contact injuries on table saws;
    18. Studies, research, or data on appropriate indicators of 
performance for blade-to-skin requirements that mitigate injury;
    19. Studies, research, or data that validates human finger proxies 
for skin-to-blade tests;
    20. Studies, research, or data on detection/reaction systems that 
have been employed to mitigate blade contact injuries;
    21. Studies, research, or data on the technical challenges 
associated with developing new systems that could be employed to 
mitigate blade contact injuries;
    22. Studies, research, or data on guarding systems that have been 
employed to prevent or mitigate blade contact injuries;
    23. Studies, research, or data on kickback of a workpiece during 
table saw use;
    24. The costs and benefits of mandating a labeling or instructions 
requirement; and
    25. Other relevant information regarding the addressability of 
blade contact injuries.
    Comments and other submissions should be identified by identified 
by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074 and submitted in accordance with the 
instructions provided above. All comments and other submissions must be 
received by December 12, 2011.

    Dated: October 5, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-26171 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P