[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75504-75505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31008]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 75504]]



CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Chapter II

[Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074]


Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries; Notice of Extension of Time for 
Comments

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

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. In the Federal Register of October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62678), 
we published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR''), 
inviting written comments concerning the risk of injury associated with 
table saw blade contact, regulatory alternatives, other possible means 
to address this risk, and other topics or issues. In response to a 
request from the Power Tool Institute, Inc., we are announcing an 
extension of the comment period for 60 days.

DATES: Submit comments by February 10, 2012.

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 (email), except 
through: http://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, 
U.S. 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 petition number for this rulemaking. 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; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 issued an ANPR on table saw blade contact injuries in 
the Federal Register of October 11, 2011 (76 FR 62678). CPSC staff also 
updated its briefing package, which supplements the initial briefing 
package, and the updated briefing package is available on the CPSC Web 
site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia11/brief/tablesaw.pdf.
    The ANPR contained information describing the product, the market 
for table saws, the incident data, economic considerations, existing 
standards, and regulatory alternatives (76 FR at 62679 through 62683). 
The ANPR identified three regulatory alternatives: (1) A voluntary 
standard addressing risks associated with table saw blade contact 
injuries; (2) a mandatory rule establishing performance requirements 
that would address table saw blade contact injuries, or (3) a labeling 
rule requiring specified warnings and instructions to address table saw 
blade contact injuries (76 FR at 62683). The ANPR also invited comment 
on 25 topics or issues. For the reader's convenience, we list those 
topics or issues here:
    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

[[Page 75505]]

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 
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 work piece 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.
    The ANPR requested comments by December 12, 2011.
    On November 3, 2011, the Power Tool Institute, Inc. (``PTI'') 
requested a 60-day extension of the comment period. PTI explained that 
in March 2011, it had submitted a Freedom of Information Act request 
for all documents and materials related to and underlying the ``Table 
Saw Study'' conducted by CPSC staff. It further explained that:

    In the ANPR, CPSC makes it clear that it was this updated injury 
information upon which the Commission's decision to issue the 
proposed rule was based. The importance of this injury data, and the 
associated materials describing the context of the injuries, makes 
it vital that stakeholders have the ability to analyze this 
information prior to submitting comments on the ANPR.

Letter from Susan M. Young, Power Tool Institute, Inc., to Inez M. 
Tenenbaum, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission, dated November 
3, 2011, at 1. PTI further indicated that it had not received all 
materials relating to its FOIA request and, between September 29, 2011 
and October 28, 2011, had submitted an additional three FOIA requests 
for other materials pertaining to the ``CPSC's development of a table 
saw standard.'' Id. at 1-2. PTI said that:

    A 60-day extension of the comment period would allow PTI the 
ability to adequately analyze the reports underlying the Table Saw 
Study, give CPSC staff time to respond to PTI's outstanding FOIA 
requests, and give PTI the opportunity to formulate an adequate 
analysis of the information received. With the additional time 
granted, PTI will be in a position to submit comments to CPSC in 
support of the Commission's goal of increasing public protection 
from unnecessary injuries.

Id. at 2.

    The Commission has produced all underlying reports regarding the 
Table Saw Study to PTI, including more than 800 pages of information. 
While additional FOIA requests by PTI may be pending, the documents 
relevant to the Table Saw Study all have been produced, and PTI's other 
FOIA requests seek documents on different products or issues that are 
not relevant to the ANPR. Thus, the production of additional documents 
in response to PTI's outstanding FOIA requests does not justify a 
further extension of the comment date. However, to ensure that the 
public has an adequate opportunity to comment with regard to the 
underlying reports regarding the Table Saw Study that have been 
produced to PTI, the Commission will be posting those reports in its 
FOIA Reading Room on the CPSC Web site and will make them a part of the 
administrative record. Through this notice, we are announcing a 60-day 
extension of the comment period to give all interested parties 
additional time to prepare their responses to the ANPR. Thus, the 
comment period for the ANPR is extended to February 10, 2012.

    Dated: November 29, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-31008 Filed 12-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P