[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22190-22247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09098]



[[Page 22189]]

Vol. 82

Friday,

No. 91

May 12, 2017

Part II





 Consumer Product Safety Commission





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





16 CFR Part 1245





Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws; 
Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 22190]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1245

RIN 3041-AC31
[Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074]


Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined 
preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact 
injuries associated with table saws. In 2015, there were an estimated 
33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC 
staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the 
victim making contact with the saw blade. CPSC staff's review of the 
existing data indicates that currently available safety devices, such 
as the modular blade guard and riving knife, do not adequately address 
the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. To 
address this risk, the Commission proposes a rule that is based, in 
part, on work conducted by Underwriters Laboratories Inc. The proposed 
rule would establish a performance standard that requires table saws, 
when powered on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a 
test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the 
spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s). 
The proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated 
blade-contact injuries annually. The Commission estimates that the 
proposed rule's aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range 
from about $625 million to about $2,300 million.

DATES: Submit comments by July 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-
0074, by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept 
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through 
www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic 
comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.
    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand 
delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Room 820, 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 
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at 
all, 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, and insert the 
docket number CPSC-2011-0074, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroleene Paul, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 
Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone (301) 987-2225; fax 
(978) 367-9122; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer, 
et al. (petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance 
standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with 
the blade of a table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, 
and its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). On October 
11, 2011, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) to consider whether there may be an unreasonable risk 
of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. 76 FR 62678. The 
ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety 
Act (CPSA). The Commission received approximately 1,600 public 
comments. The Commission is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR) to address an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries 
associated with table saws that would limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm 
or less when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, 
contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per 
second (m/s).\1\ The information discussed in this preamble is derived 
from CPSC staff's briefing package for the NPR, which is available on 
CPSC's Web site at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Blade-Contact%20Injuries%20on%20Table%20Saws%20-%20January%2017%202017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission voted 3-2 to publish this notice in the 
Federal Register. Commissioner Robert S. Adler, Commissioner Elliot 
F. Kaye, and Commissioner Marietta S. Robinson voted to approve 
publication of the proposed rule. Acting Chair Ann Marie Buerkle and 
Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic voted against publication of the 
proposed rule. The Commissioners' individual statements are 
available at https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Authority

    Table saws are ``consumer products'' that can be regulated by the 
Commission under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 U.S.C. 2052(a). 
Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to promulgate a 
mandatory consumer product safety standard that sets forth performance 
requirements for a consumer product or that sets forth requirements 
that a product be marked or accompanied by clear and adequate warnings 
or instructions. A performance, warning, or instruction standard must 
be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk or 
injury. Id.
    Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure that the Commission 
must follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 
7. In accordance with section 9, the Commission may commence rulemaking 
by issuing an ANPR; as noted, the Commission issued an ANPR on table 
saws in October 2011. (76 FR 62678 (October 11, 2011)). Section 9 
authorizes the Commission to issue an NPR, including the proposed rule 
and a preliminary regulatory analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) 
of the CPSA and request comments regarding the risk of injury 
identified by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being 
considered, and other possible alternatives for addressing the risk. 
Id. 2058(c). Next, the Commission will consider the comments received 
in response to the proposed rule and decide whether to issue a final 
rule, along with a final regulatory analysis. Id. 2058(c)-(f). The 
Commission also must provide an opportunity for interested persons to 
make oral presentations of their data, views, or arguments, in 
accordance with section 9(d)(2) of the CPSA. Id. 2058(d)(2).
    According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a 
consumer

[[Page 22191]]

product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make appropriate 
findings to be included in the rule, on the following issues:
     The degree and nature of the risk of injury that the rule 
is designed to eliminate or reduce;
     the approximate number of consumer products subject to the 
rule;
     the need of the public for the products subject to the 
rule and the probable effect the rule will have on utility, cost, or 
availability of such products; and
     the means to achieve the objective of the rule while 
minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and 
commercial practices. Id. 2058(f)(1). Under section 9(f)(3) of the 
CPSA, to issue a final rule, the Commission must find that the rule is 
``reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with such product'' and that issuing the rule is in 
the public interest. Id. 2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). Additionally, if a 
voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted and 
implemented, the Commission must find that:
     The voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or 
adequately reduce the risk of injury, or that
     substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is 
unlikely. Id. 2058(f)(3(D).
    The Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule 
bear a reasonable relationship to its costs and that the rule imposes 
the least burdensome requirements which prevent or adequately reduce 
the risk of injury for which the rule is being promulgated. Id. 
2058(f)(3)(E)&(F).

III. The Product

A. Types of Table Saws

    Table saws are stationary power tools used for the straight sawing 
of wood and other materials. The basic design of a table saw consists 
of a motor-driven saw blade that protrudes through a flat table 
surface. To make a cut, the operator places the workpiece on the table 
and, using a rip fence or miter gauge as a guide, pushes the workpiece 
into the blade (see Figure 1.)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY17.000

    Table saws generally fall into three product types: Bench saws, 
contractor saws, and cabinet saws.\2\ Although there is no exact 
dividing line, the distinction among these types of saws is generally 
based on size, weight, portability, power transmission, and price.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cabinet saws also are referred to as stationary saws because 
they are not portable.
    \3\ In addition to these three primary product types, there are 
also several hybrid saws in the market. This product type blends 
components of both contractor and cabinet saws. Specifically, hybrid 
saws have the energy requirements, weight, and mobility of 
contractor saws with the structure, accuracy, and dust control 
features of cabinet saws. This product type typically operates in 
single phase with a voltage range of 110-240 volts, generating 1.75 
to two horsepower, depending on the model. There are also sliding 
saws that are similar to cabinet saws in that they are belt driven, 
but they are typically equipped with an extension and greater rip- 
and cross-cutting capacity that allows for cutting large panels. 
This type of saw can be wired for either single-phase or three-phase 
operation; however, three-phase wiring is a more common feature for 
sliding table saws. Sliding saws operate in the 220-440 volt range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bench saws are intended to be transportable, so they tend to be 
small, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. In recent years, bench 
saw designs have evolved to include saws with larger and heavier-duty 
table surfaces, with some attached to a folding stand with wheels to 
maintain mobility. These larger portable saws on wheeled stands are 
called ``jobsite'' saws because they are capable of heavier-duty work, 
but they are still portable enough to move to work sites.
    Bench saws generally run on standard house voltage (110-120 volts), 
use universal motors,\4\ drive the saw blade

[[Page 22192]]

through gears, and range in weight from 34 pounds to 133 pounds. The 
universal motor and gear drive produce the high decibel noise and 
vibration that are distinctive characteristics of bench saws. Prices 
for bench saws range from $129 per model, to as much as $1,499 for a 
high-end model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A universal motor runs on AC or DC power, has high starting 
torque, can run at high speed, and is lightweight and compact. For 
these reasons, universal motors are commonly used in portable power 
tools and equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contractor saws used to be considered portable table saws, but 
designs have progressed with larger motors and heavier table tops to 
the point that most contractor saws are considered non-portable. 
Although a mobile base can be added to the frame to make contractor 
saws mobile, they are often found in home workshops as non-portable 
saws that are a less expensive alternative to cabinet saws. Contractor 
saws generally run on standard house voltage, use induction motors, are 
belt driven, and range in weight from around 200 pounds to 400 pounds. 
The induction motor and belt drive result in a table saw that produces 
less vibration, is quieter, is more accurate, is able to cut thicker 
pieces of wood, and is more durable than a bench saw. Prices for 
contractor saws range from around $500 to $2,000.
    Cabinet saws are larger, heavier, and more powerful than contractor 
saws, and their motors are enclosed in a solid base. These saws are 
typically the highest grade saw found in the home woodworking shop. 
Cabinet saws generally run on 220-240 volts, use a 1.75-5 hp or 
stronger motor, are belt driven, and weigh from around 300 pounds to 
1,000 pounds. Components in cabinet saws are designed for heavy use and 
durability, and the greater weight further reduces vibration so that 
cuts are smoother and more accurate. Cabinet saws are expected to last 
a lifetime (with an average product life of 24 years), and prices range 
from around $1,200 to $5,000.

B. Standard Safety Devices

    Common safety devices on table saws are designed to reduce contact 
between the saw blade and the operator and to reduce kickback, a 
phenomenon in which the saw blade imparts its kinetic energy to the 
workpiece and ejects the workpiece back towards the operator. The 
configuration and specific design of these safety devices vary from 
manufacturer to manufacturer, but the safety devices generally fall 
into two basic categories: (1) Blade guards, and (2) kickback-
prevention devices.
    Blade guards surround the exposed blade and function as a physical 
barrier between the blade and the operator. Blade guards generally are 
designed either as a single-piece unit that covers the saw blade, as 
shown in Figure 1, or as a modular system with a fixed-top barrier and 
independent side barriers.
    Kickback-prevention devices include splitters, riving knives, and 
anti-kickback pawls. A splitter, also commonly called a ``spreader,'' 
is typically a flat piece of metal, aligned directly behind the saw 
blade that rides within the cut, or kerf, of a workpiece already fed 
through the blade. This prevents the workpiece from closing up on 
itself after it passes the blade and pinching the blade, which can 
cause the workpiece to be thrown upwards and back toward the operator. 
Before 2009, most table saws were designed with a splitter located 
behind the blade that was attached to the blade guard. If a cut 
required removal of the splitter or guard, they were removed together.
    Riving knives are curved metal plates that are similar to, and 
perform the same function as, splitters, but are often located closer 
to the blade, rise no higher than the top of the blade, and attach to 
the arbor assembly so that they are raised and lowered with the 
blade.\5\ Like splitters, riving knives physically prevent the two 
halves of the cut workpiece from moving back towards each other and 
pinching the spinning blade. However, unlike splitters, the riving 
knife can be left on for non-through cuts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The arbor assembly includes the arbor, which is the metal 
shaft that holds the saw blade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anti-kickback pawls are another device designed to help reduce 
kickback. The pawls are mounted on both sides of the splitter and 
consist of a pair of spring-loaded pieces of metal with barbed teeth on 
the bottom edge that allow passage of the workpiece but will dig into 
it if it begins to move back toward the operator.
    The riving knife and modular blade guard represent the latest 
progression in table saw safety design that have been incorporated into 
the voluntary standards for table saws. As discussed in section VI of 
the preamble, under UL 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools, the 
voluntary standard effective dates for riving knives and modular blade 
guards were January 31, 2014, and January 31, 2010, respectively. 
However, the industry accelerated compliance with the voluntary 
standard, and the new guarding system with modular blade guards and 
riving knives became widely available on table saws in 2008. By 2012, 
table saw manufacturers introduced more than 900,000 table saws with 
riving knives and modular blade guards.

C. AIM Technology

    An active injury mitigation (AIM) system uses technology to 
actively mitigate or prevent injury of a human body part resulting from 
contact with a rotating saw blade (e.g. by braking, removing, and/or 
retracting the blade). Thus, any device that detects imminent or actual 
human contact with the table saw blade and then performs an action that 
mitigates the severity of the injury is considered to be an AIM system. 
An AIM system is active because it reacts to a blade contact in a way 
that minimizes the injury. A blade guard is a passive system because 
the guard does not react to a blade contact, but rather, provides a 
passive barrier between the blade and the user.
    CPSC staff considers AIM to be a viable approach to address blade-
contact injury in conjunction with existing passive safety strategies 
(blade guard and riving knife) to prevent blade contact on table saws. 
AIM systems can provide a layer of safety that can mitigate a blade-
contact injury if the blade guard or riving knife are removed or fail 
to function properly. AIM systems can also protect against blade-
contact injuries that can occur when a blade guard and riving knife are 
in place and functioning properly, but blade contact occurs 
nonetheless.
    An AIM system performs two functions: (1) Detects contact between 
the rotating table saw blade and a human body part, and (2) reacts to 
mitigate injury. In a research report issued in March 2015, UL 
researched developing performance requirements for table saw safety 
standards to help address finger injuries due to contact with the 
blade.\6\ The report examined performance requirements that consisted 
of a defined relationship between approach velocity (speed of finger at 
a specified angle relative to saw blade) and depth of cut to the 
finger/hand. In addition, the report focused on the use of a surrogate 
finger. The report determined that, in addition to the proper trigger 
attributes, the surrogate finger must possess physical properties that 
allow it to be cut such that representative, repeatable and reliable 
measurements of the depth of cut can be recorded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Jiang, H., Tabaddor, M., and He, F. (2015). General 
Characteristics of a Surrogate Finger for Table Saw Safety Testing. 
UL Research Report. Available at: http://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/12/UL-Research-Report-on-Finger-Surrogate-Characteristics-for-Table-Saw-Testing-2015.pdf.

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

[[Page 22193]]

    CPSC staff's review of UL's literature research indicates that 
detection can be achieved by: (1) Sensing electrical properties of the 
human body/finger; (2) sensing thermal properties of the human body/
finger; (3) visual sensing and tracking of the human body/finger; or 
(4) other methods. Current AIM technologies on the market rely on the 
first type of detection: Electrical sensing of the human body. CPSC 
staff based its testing of the AIM system on existing technology.
    Reaction systems must perform some type of action to limit the 
severity of injury upon human body/finger contact with the table saw 
blade. Removing either the spinning blade or the human body/finger from 
the point of contact is the most logical method to achieve this goal. 
Current AIM technologies on the market remove the spinning blade from 
the point of contact quickly enough, within milliseconds, to reduce 
significantly the severity of injury.
1. Electrical Detection of Human Body
    Current AIM technologies available on table saws in the U.S. market 
rely on electrical detection of contact between a table saw operator 
and the rotating saw blade to activate the AIM system. One means of 
detecting body contact is with circuitry that generates a detection 
signal with defined electrical characteristics (see Figure 2). The 
signal can then be coupled onto the saw blade through various means, 
such as conductive, magnetic, or capacitive coupling devices. 
Additional circuitry continuously monitors the characteristics of the 
detection signal. The detection signal changes when a human body part 
comes into contact with the saw blade and the monitoring circuit senses 
the change in the signal. If the change is beyond a certain limit, the 
monitoring circuit then activates a reaction mechanism.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY17.001

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

[[Page 22194]]

     When a person contacts the blade, the signal changes 
because the human body is conductive.
     The change to the signal activates the safety system.
    2. Blade Retraction
     A combustion reaction is triggered in a cylindrical 
cartridge, which fires a piston at a high rate of speed (this action is 
similar to the deployment of an air bag in an automobile).
     The piston pushes against a linkage to rapidly rotate the 
saw blade assembly below the table surface away from the operator.
     The blade assembly remains locked under the table after 
activation, while the blade coasts to a stop after power to the motor 
is cut off automatically.
    3. The AIM system must then be reset by:
     Shutting off the saw.
     Inserting a fresh/new activation cartridge (two cartridges 
are paired together, so the unactivated side of the same dual-action 
cartridge may be used).
     Unlocking the blade assembly and raising it back into 
place.
    Neither the SawStop, nor Bosch AIM technologies, can be used when 
cutting conductive materials (that allow the flow of an electrical 
current) because both systems rely on electrical detection of the human 
body. A person touching the conductive material being cut would allow 
the detection signal to pass through the conductive material and into 
the person, activating the system as soon as the material touches the 
saw blade. For this reason, each product has a bypass mode to allow the 
user to cut conductive materials. In addition, cutting wet wood that is 
moist enough to conduct enough electricity to activate the AIM system 
can cause tripping of the safety system. Accordingly, the AIM system 
generally must be deactivated while cutting wet wood. The table saw 
automatically exits the bypass mode and resets to normal mode after the 
saw is turned off and the blade comes to a complete stop.
    The Bosch REAXX\TM\ has been the only non-SawStop model with AIM 
technology available in the United States. Both the SawStop bench model 
and the Bosch model with the AIM technology are at the upper end of the 
bench saw price range. The SawStop bench saw model (which was first 
marketed in 2015) retails for about $1,300 to $1,400 per unit. The 
Bosch REAXX\TM\ model has a retail price of $1,300 to 1,500. However, 
the future of the Bosch model is unclear. On July 16, 2015, SawStop 
filed a complaint against Bosch for patent infringement and requested 
that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) order U.S. Customs 
to exclude the Bosch REAXX\TM\ saws from entering the U.S. market.\7\ 
On September 9, 2016, an administrative law judge (ALJ) made an initial 
determination that the Bosch model does infringe on several SawStop 
patents.\8\ Subsequently, on November 10, 2016, the ITC decided not to 
review the ALJ's initial determination and requested that the 
interested parties provide written submissions on the issues related to 
remedies, the public interest, and bonding. On January 27, 2017, the 
ITC issued remedial orders including a limited exclusion order and 
cease and desist order against Bosch effective March 29, 2017. On April 
6, 2017, Bosch filed an appeal of the ITC determination in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In the Matter of Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active 
Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, Investigation 
No. 337-TA-965.
    \8\ Specially, infringement was found in U.S. Patent No. 
7,895,927 ('927 Patent), titled, ``Power Equipment with Detection 
and Reaction Systems''; and U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279 ('279 Patent) 
titled, ``Power Equipment with Systems to Mitigate or Prevent 
Injury.''
    \9\ On July 16, 2015, SawStop also filed a complaint against 
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Oregon (Sawstop, LLC v. Bosch, CV No. 3:15-cv-1320) (D. 
Or. filed on July 16, 2015). On September 28, 2015, the Oregon 
District Court stayed the proceeding in federal court pending final 
resolution of the ITC's investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incident Data

    CPSC staff's incident data are based on data from the National 
Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). NEISS is a national 
stratified probability sample of approximately 100 U.S. hospitals 
having 24-hour emergency departments (EDs) and more than six beds. 
Coders in each hospital code data from the ED record for consumer 
product-related records, and then the data are transmitted 
electronically to the CPSC. Because NEISS is a probability sample, each 
case collected represents a number of injuries (the case's weight) in 
the total estimate of injuries in the United States. Different 
hospitals carry different weights.
    There are five strata in the NEISS: Children's hospitals, small 
hospitals, medium hospitals, large hospitals, and very large hospitals. 
Within each stratum is a sample of hospitals that make up the primary 
sampling units of the NEISS. For each hospital in the sample, every 
first-time emergency department visit for an injury associated with a 
consumer product is recorded.\10\ To facilitate injury estimates 
associated with a product or product group, each injury has a product 
code that identifies the type of product involved. Other product-
specific information, such as the product manufacturer or events 
leading to the incident, is not recorded in the NEISS. However, 
information that is recorded for each injury includes sex, age, 
diagnosis, disposition, and body part. Additional information about the 
NEISS can be found online at: http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ NEISS does not record return visits to the emergency 
department or other follow-up medical visits for the same injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the injury estimates in the proposed rule, CPSC staff reviewed 
all the incident data abstracted from NEISS hospital records for 
injuries related to product code 0841 (table or bench saws) for 2015. 
CPSC staff compared the distributions of table saw injury 
characteristics against all other workshop product-related injuries and 
consumer product-related injuries for 2015. Staff performed an injury 
trend analysis, as well as a risk trend analysis for blade-contact 
injuries from 2004 to 2015. In addition, CPSC staff reviewed all of the 
incidents in the CPSC's Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System 
(CPSRMS) database between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015. 
Finally, in addition to reviewing incident data, to obtain additional 
information regarding consumer modular blade guard use, in 2015, CPSC 
conducted a survey of consumers who own table saws with a modular blade 
guard system (modular blade guard survey).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016). Table Saw Blade 
Guard Survey. Available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Regulations-Laws-and-Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Voluntary-Standards-Reports/EurekaFactsTableSawBladeGuardSurveyReport(Final6bcleared)updatedcover
page.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. NEISS Data Methodology

    The NEISS provides product information associated with each case, 
by recording up to two product codes associated with a case. CPSC 
staff's methodology and NEISS estimates are detailed in TAB B of the 
staff briefing package. Starting with all the NEISS cases associated 
with product code 0841 (this is, all injuries recorded in the NEISS as 
associated with a table or bench saw), CPSC staff reviewed and 
categorized the data, removing any cases that were not related to an 
operational table saw, and also classified whether the injury could 
have been due to blade contact. This analysis was completed on every 
case associated with the product code 0841, with date of treatments 
recorded as January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2015, resulting in a 
review of 9,300 NEISS cases.

[[Page 22195]]

    For each of the 9,300 cases associated with the table saw product 
code (0841), with treatment years 2004 through 2015, the first level of 
review involved removing any cases where the injuries were not related 
to an operational table saw. Thus, cases not saying ``table saw'' were 
excluded (e.g., cases that only use the word ``saw'' not ``table saw,'' 
cases where the injury was related to a park bench, or cases where the 
saw was a homemade table saw). Cases indicating a ``circular table 
saw'' were removed. Cases where it was unclear that the injury was from 
a table saw were removed (e.g., cases using wording like ``table saw 
vs. chain saw,'' where it is not absolutely certain that the saw was a 
table saw). Cases were removed when a victim tripped over, fell into, 
or ran into a table saw and the table saw was not operational. Cases 
were removed when the injury was related to the table saw being 
transported, such as the table saw being carried or lifted. Finally, 
cases were omitted that were related to using the product for an 
extended period of time (overuse injuries), such as sore knees, elbows, 
backs, and shoulders. There are cases where it is possible that 
although ``table saw'' was used to describe the type of saw, narratives 
also included descriptions such as ``table saw which slipped,'' which 
might indicate a circular saw, instead of a table saw; however, because 
``table saw'' is used to identify the saw type, these are included in 
the table saw category.
    Different types of injuries can occur when using a table saw, some 
of which do not include blade contact, such as injuries related to only 
kickback of the stock. Thus, the next level of review for each case was 
to determine whether the case involved blade contact or not. First, 
diagnoses of lacerations, fractures, amputations, and avulsions \12\ 
that were for body parts below the elbow (not including the elbow), 
were all classified as blade contact, then staff reviewed the NEISS 
narratives to determine if any were described as not blade contact. 
Unless otherwise stated in the NEISS narrative, staff considered these 
combinations of diagnosis and body part to involve blade contact. CPSC 
staff reviewed the cases for the remaining combinations of diagnosis 
and body part for any that could be blade contact. Cases were included 
from this group only if the NEISS narrative indicated a hazard pattern 
of blade contact while using a table saw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Given the limited amount of descriptive information related to the 
incidents available within the NEISS, staff believes that some cases 
could have been included that did not involve blade contact within the 
0841 product code, leading to overestimates in blade-contact injuries. 
On the other hand, staff also believes that table saw blade contact 
cases may have been excluded within product codes 0845 (saws, not 
specified) and 0895 (power saws, other or not specified), leading to an 
underestimate of table saw blade-contact injuries. CPSC staff does not 
know to what extent either of these caveats affects the results. 
However, these caveats have been applied to CPSC staff's analysis for 
both the 2015 injury data and trend analysis results from 2004 through 
2015.

B. Emergency Department-Treated, Table Saw Blade-Contact Injury 
Analysis Results for 2015

    In 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency 
department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 
(92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the 
saw blade. Of the 30,800 emergency department-treated, blade-contact 
injuries, an estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) involved the 
finger. The most common diagnoses in blade-contact injuries in 2015, 
are as follows:
     An estimated 18,100 laceration injuries (58.8 percent),
     an estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 percent),
     an estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 percent), and
     an estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 percent).
    An estimated 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact injury 
victims were hospitalized. Table 1 provides the emergency department-
treated, blade-contact injury estimates for the NEISS variables for age 
(provided in age groups in the table), sex, body part injured, 
diagnosis, disposition, and locale. Males represent the majority of 
victims with blade-contact injuries (96.4 percent); and an estimated 45 
percent of injuries 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% confidence ---------------
                                                     Estimate       CV [dagger]      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:

[[Page 22196]]

 
    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.
[dagger] 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 Versus Other Product-Related 
Injuries for 2015

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

       Table 2--Comparison of Victim Characteristics for Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Versus All Other Consumer Product-Related Injuries, 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Domain
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Table saws                All consumer products  (excluding table
                                                           ---------------------------------------                   saws)                    Rao-Scott
                                                                                                  ------------------------------------------   x\2\ p-
                                                                                          % of                                    % of          value
                                                                 n        Estimate *     30,800     n [dagger]   Estimate *    14,098,700
                                                                                                                                [Dagger]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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  ...........

[[Page 22197]]

 
    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 comparisons. 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.
[dagger] 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.
[Dagger] 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 differences in the injury distributions 
of age groups when comparing table saw blade-contact injuries to all 
other consumer product-related injuries. Older age groups represent 
larger proportions in table saw injuries than with all other products. 
Approximately 75 percent of the estimated table saw blade-contact 
injuries occur to people within the age range of 41 through 80. The 
proportion of all other consumer product-related injuries for the 41 
through 80 age groups is approximately 30 percent. Almost all injuries 
involving table saw blade contact involve males; whereas, with all 
consumer products, there is only a slightly larger male proportion.
    CPSC staff also compared table saw blade-contact injuries and all 
other woodworking workshop, product-related injury estimates to 
identify any demographic groups and hazard patterns that are specific 
to table saw blade-contact injuries within groups that are more likely 
to have been exposed to table saws. Table saws, in particular, table 
saw blade-contact injuries, represented a larger proportion of injuries 
to fingers than all other workshop products (which include tools such 
as radial arm saws, miter saws, circular saws, band saws, and routers, 
along with other power and manual woodworking tools). In addition, 
table saw blade-contact injuries have significantly larger proportions 
of diagnoses for lacerations, fractures, and amputations, than injuries 
associated with all other workshop products. CPSC staff's review showed 
that table saws account for an estimated 52.4 percent of all 
amputations related to workshop products.
    Table 3 compares table saw blade-contact, emergency department-
treated injuries from the 2015 NEISS to all other workshop product-
related, emergency department-treated injuries in the same timeframe 
(January 1, 2015 through 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  (excluding table   Rao-Scott
                                                           ---------------------------------------                   saws)                     x\2\ p-
                                                                                                  ------------------------------------------    value
                                                                 n        Estimate *  % of 30,800                             % of 270,500
                                                                                        [dagger]        n        Estimate *     [dagger]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:

[[Page 22198]]

 
    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 [Dagger].................................           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.
[dagger] Percentages are calculated prior to rounding.
[Dagger] Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted.

    When table saw blade-contact injuries were compared to all other 
workshop product-related injuries, CPSC staff identified differences in 
the distributions of age groups. Older age groups represented larger 
proportions of table saw blade-contact injuries than for other workshop 
products. Approximately 45 percent of the estimated table saw blade-
contact injuries occurred to people within the age range of 61 through 
80. In comparison, the proportion of all other workshop product-related 
injuries for the 61 through 80 age groups was approximately 18 percent. 
Accordingly, the mean age for table saw blade-contact injuries was 55.6 
years, in comparison to 42.7 years for all other workshop product-
related injuries. This approximate 13-year difference in the mean age 
of people sustaining injuries is a statistically significant difference 
(p-value < 0.0001), indicating that table saw blade-contact injuries 
involve older victims compared to injuries related to all other 
workshop products.

D. Trend Analysis for Table Saw Injuries

    CPSC staff estimated the yearly injuries associated with table saw 
blade-contact injuries from 2004 to 2015, using estimates from NEISS. 
As mentioned in section III.B. of the preamble, UL 987 Stationary and 
Fixed Electric Tools includes provisions requiring a riving knife and 
modular blade guard. The voluntary standard effective dates for riving 
knives and modular blade guards was January 31, 2014, and January 31, 
2010, respectively. The date range for the trend analysis includes a 
timespan before the voluntary standard required table saws to be 
equipped with a riving knife and modular blade guard (2004 to 2009) and 
a timespan after the voluntary standard requirements became effective 
on most table saws (2010 to 2015). Table saws manufactured before the 
current voluntary standard remain in use throughout this entire period. 
However, in more recent years, after the current voluntary standard 
became effective, an increasing proportion of table saws in use conform 
to the current voluntary standard. Thus, if the voluntary standard was 
having an impact on the number or severity of injuries, there would be 
a steady decrease in the number of injuries or severity of injuries as 
the proportion of table saws compliant with the new standard increased. 
However, CPSC staff's analysis shows that the addition of the riving 
knife and modular blade guard in the voluntary standard has not reduced 
the number or severity of blade-contact injuries.
    CPSC staff performed trend analyses for blade-contact injuries, as 
well as blade contact amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand 
injuries. CPSC staff concludes that there is no discernible change in 
the number of blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to 
table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. Furthermore, CPSC staff 
concludes that there is no discernible change in the number of blade-
contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade 
contact from the timespan before the voluntary standard was implemented 
(2004-2009) to the time span after the implementation of the voluntary 
standard requiring the riving knife and modular blade guard on all 
table saws (2010-2015). The estimated number of table saw blade-
contact, emergency department-treated injuries from 2004 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

[[Page 22199]]

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

             Table 5--NEISS Injury Estimates for Table Saw Blade-Contact Amputations, Hospitalizations, and Finger/Hand Injuries, 2004-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Amputations                  Hospitalizations                Finger/hand injuries
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Year                                           % of  blade-                    % of  blade-                         % of blade-
                                                      Estimate  (95%      contact     Estimate  (95%      contact     Estimate  (95% CI)      contact
                                                            CI)          injuries           CI)          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 analysis to include the rate of 
injury (that is, the rate of injury, measured by the numerator as the 
estimated number of injuries and the denominator as the exposure 
estimate). Based on the information available, CPSC staff analyzed the 
risk of blade-contact injury using the estimated number of table saws 
in use for each year from 2004 to 2015. Table 6 provides the risk of 
blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in use for each year in the 
analysis. The estimated numbers of table saws in use yearly is provided 
in TAB C of the staff briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 22200]]



           Table 6-Estimated Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries per 10,000 Table Saws in Use, 2004-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Table saw blade-contact injury      Estimated       Estimates ** of table saw
                                            estimates                number of       blade-contact injury per
                               ----------------------------------  table saws in     10,000 table saws in use
                                                                      use (in    -------------------------------
             Year                                                   10,000s) *
                                 Blade-contact   95% Confidence  ----------------
                                    injury          interval       Table saws in   Estimate \14\  95% Confidence
                                   estimate                        use estimate                      interval
                                                                       \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 was no discernible change in 
the risk of injury associated with blade contact related to table saws 
from 2004 to 2015. Furthermore, staff concludes that there is no 
discernible change in the risk of injury associated with blade contact 
related to table saws from the timespan before the voluntary standard 
was implemented (2004-2009) to the time span after the voluntary 
standard's implementation (2010-2015), which required the riving knife 
and modular blade guard on all table saws.

E. Other Table Saw-Related Injuries

    Table saw-related incidents are not commonly reported to CPSC 
through means other than the NEISS. However, the CPSC received a small 
number of reports of table saw-related injuries through other means, 
such as news articles, consumer-submitted reports, attorney-submitted 
reports, and manufacturer and retailer reports. Reported incidents 
through means other than the NEISS are entered into the CPSC's CPSRMS 
database. The CPSRMS database is not a representative sample of all 
blade-contact injuries, and only injury estimates from the NEISS are 
used for nationally representative estimates of table saw and/or blade-
contact injuries. These are anecdotal reports of blade-contact 
injuries, and the reports are not intended to be used to understand 
trends or the magnitude of the number of blade-contact injuries.
    CPSC staff reviewed this data to understand the scenarios and the 
injuries associated with table saw blade-contact injuries, information 
not typically captured within a NEISS report. CPSC staff reviewed all 
reports in the CPSRMS associated with the product code 0841 (table 
saws) with incident dates from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 
2015. The incident dates chosen match the trend analysis performed on 
the NEISS for table saws.
    CPSC staff identified 53 incidents in the CPSRMS database that 
involved blade-contact injury on table saws that occurred between 
January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015, and the injuries were reported 
to CPSC by March 1, 2016. The data collection is ongoing for the years 
2013, 2014, and 2015, and it is possible for CPSC staff to receive 
additional reports of blade-contact injuries that occurred during this 
timeframe. Of the 53 reported blade-contact injuries, 26 were 
attributable to bench saws, 22 to contractor saws, 2 to cabinet saws, 
and 3 were unknown.
    CPSC staff reviewed whether there were any incidents with 
unexpected workpiece movement, such as kickback of the workpiece. Table 
7 summarizes incidents by unexpected workpiece movement. For the 
majority of incidents, it is unknown whether unexpected workpiece 
movement was involved in the blade contact, thus making conclusions 
difficult. However, of the incidents where information about the 
contribution of workpiece movement was known, most blade-contact 
injuries involved some type of unexpected workpiece movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 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.


[[Page 22201]]

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

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

    Table 8--Type of Blade Guard by Blade Guard Use for Reported Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2004-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Frequency (row percent)                                    Blade guard in use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type of blade guard              Yes             No            Unknown        N/A \16\          Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 are large proportions of 
unknowns for the blade guard use, making conclusions difficult, out of 
the 53 reported blade-contact injuries, 36 are associated with a 
traditional blade guard. Of those 36, seven were reported to be using 
the blade guard at the time of injury, seven were reported to not be 
using the blade guard, 19 had an unknown guard use status, and three 
were not able to use the blade guard. Of the 53 reported blade-contact 
injuries, 11 are associated with a modular blade guard as part of the 
original equipment on the table saw. Of those 11, one was reported to 
be using the blade guard at the time of injury, one was reported to not 
be using the blade guard, and nine have unknown guard use status. Table 
9 shows the frequency of the scenarios for the type of blade guard by 
injury type.

              Table 9--Injury Description for Reported Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2004-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Type of blade guard *
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                     Injury                                                       Other/ unknown/
                                                      Modular       Traditional         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 is unknown whether the blade 
guard was in use at the time of the injury, CPSC staff's review of the 
reports indicates that the incident scenarios for table saws with 
modular blade guards are similar to the incidents for table saws with 
traditional blade guards, in terms of incidents (amputations and 
lacerations) occurring with and without the use of blade guards, and 
incidents occurring with and without unexpected stock movement from 
kickback of the material.

F. Modular Blade Guard Survey

    To obtain additional information regarding modular blade guard use, 
in 2015, CPSC contracted EurekaFacts, LLC (EurekaFacts) to conduct a 
survey of consumers who own table saws with a modular blade guard 
system.\18\ The survey instrument was designed to identify the 
potential reasons that may affect how a consumer uses the blade guard. 
EurekaFacts completed 200 surveys of respondents who owned a table saw 
manufactured after 2009, or later, that included a modular blade guard. 
The survey was based on a convenience sample of participants recruited 
by various advertisement strategies; therefore, no results from the 
survey are generalized to the population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016), supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results of the survey indicate that, of the 200 respondents, a 
majority of respondents (80%) reported that there are circumstances 
that require the blade guard to be removed, and a majority of 
respondents did not use the blade guard ``sometimes'' (28%), ``often'' 
(17%) or ``always'' (14%). The results of the survey demonstrate that 
for woodworkers who participated in the survey, removal of the blade 
guard,

[[Page 22202]]

traditional or modular, is a necessary and proper action when making 
certain cuts on table saws. In addition, many respondents in the survey 
stated that they chose not to use the modular blade guard at all or 
only some of the time. CPSC staff believes that any situation in which 
the blade guard is not used eliminates the effectiveness of the blade 
guard in preventing blade-contact injuries. Accordingly, use of the 
blade guard cannot be relied upon to prevent injury.

G. Summary of Incident Data

    Based on CPSC staff's review of the existing data, the Commission 
does not believe that currently available safety devices, such as the 
modular blade guard and riving knife, will adequately address the 
unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. In 2015, 
there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated 
injuries. Of these, staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely 
related to the victim making contact with the saw blade. Of the 30,800 
emergency department-treated blade-contact injuries in 2015, an 
estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) involved the finger. The most 
common diagnoses in blade-contact injuries are: an estimated 18,100 
laceration injuries (58.8 percent); an estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 
percent); an estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 percent); and an 
estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 percent). An estimated 3,800 (12.3 
percent) of the blade-contact injury victims in 2015 were hospitalized.
    Thousands of amputations occur each year on table saws; an 
estimated 4,700 amputation injuries occurred in 2015, alone. Compared 
to all other types of consumer products, table saw-related amputations 
are estimated to account for 18.6 percent of all amputations in the 
NEISS in 2015. When compared to all other workshop products, table saws 
accounted for an estimated 52.4 percent of all amputations related to 
workshop products in 2015. The estimated mean age for table saw blade-
contact injuries is 55.6; whereas, all other workshop product-related 
injuries have an estimated mean age of 42.7. This approximate 13-year 
difference in the mean age of injuries is a statistically significant 
difference (p-value < 0.0001), indicating that table saw blade-contact 
injuries involve older victims in comparison to injuries related to all 
other workshop products.
    CPSC staff also reviewed table saw-related reported incidents in 
the CPSRMS database. Staff identified 53 incidents in the CPSRMS 
database that involve blade-contact injury on a table saw that occurred 
between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015, and were reported to 
CPSC by March 1, 2016. Of the 53 reported incidents related to table 
saw blade contact, 36 incidents involved table saws that came equipped 
with a traditional blade guard, and 11 incidents involved table saws 
that came equipped with a modular blade guard. Laceration and 
amputation injuries occurred on table saws equipped with traditional 
guards and on table saws equipped with modular blade guards. In 
addition, CPSC staff's review of the reports indicates that the 
incident scenarios for table saws with modular blade guards are similar 
to table saws with traditional blade guards in terms of incidents 
occurring with and without the use of blade guards and incidents 
occurring with and without unexpected workpiece movement from kickback 
of the material.
    Finally, CPSC staff' review of the modular blade guard survey shows 
that, for woodworkers who responded to the survey, removal of the blade 
guard, traditional or modular, is a necessary and proper action when 
making certain cuts on table saws. In addition, many woodworkers 
selected in the survey chose not to use the modular blade guard at all 
or only some of the time.
    Based on CPSC staff's review of the incident data, the Commission 
believes that operator finger/hand contact with the table saw blade is 
a dominant hazard pattern that presents an unreasonable risk of injury 
that can be addressed by a performance requirement to reduce the 
frequency and severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws. The 
proposed performance requirement is discussed in section VII of the 
preamble.

H. Special Studies

    As discussed in the ANPR, in 2001, CPSC performed a NEISS special 
study for stationary power saw-related injuries.\19\ The purpose of the 
survey was to collect more specific and accurate information about the 
type of table saw involved and also to collect more in-depth 
information about the hazard pattern and contributing factors to the 
injuries. The results were published in a memorandum, ``Injuries 
Associated with Stationary Power Saws, 2001.'' \20\ In 2007, CPSC staff 
conducted, through a contractor, another stationary power saw special 
study, running through 2008. The report, ``Survey of Injuries Involving 
Stationary Saws: Table and Bench Saws, 2007-2008,'' presented estimates 
of the numbers and types of emergency department-treated injuries 
related to table saws in this 2-year study, which was published in 
March 2011.\21\ In October 2011, the ANPR used the 2007-2008 special 
study estimates as the analytical support for the discussion of table 
saw-related injuries.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 76 FR 62680-81.
    \20\ https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/powersaw.pdf.
    \21\ http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/118311/statsaws.pdf.
    \22\ 76 FR 62681.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the public comments submitted to the CPSC in response to 
the ANPR called attention to a contradiction between the estimated 
numbers for each type of table saw and the estimated injuries of 
direct-drive and indirect-drive table saws in the 2007-2008 special 
study.\23\ As a result of these comments, CPSC staff reanalyzed the 
saw-type and drive-type responses provided by the injury victims in the 
2007-2008 special study. CPSC published the results of the reanalysis 
in June 2014.\24\ CPSC staff found that the estimated number of 
injuries based on the type of saw were inconsistent with the estimated 
injuries associated with respondent-declared drive type, which 
indicated that bench saws may be associated with a much larger 
proportion of the estimated injuries than initially reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Staff's economic analysis in the ANPR briefing package 
first noted that there was an apparent inconsistency between some 
study participants' responses to the type of saw used and their 
responses about the type of drive system used in the saw.
    \24\ http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Home%20Maintenance%20and%20Construction/CoverpageandMemoofStaffAnalysisofTableSawTypeinNEISSSpecialStudy.pdf.

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

    To address the inconsistencies about the distribution of type of 
table saw in table saw-related injuries in the 2007-2008 special study, 
CPSC staff conducted a second special study on table saws in 2014-2015. 
This study, performed by contractors, collected computer-aided 
telephone interview (CATI) responses from 275 individuals treated for 
injuries related to stationary saws (this category includes table saws) 
and to unidentified types of saws in emergency departments of NEISS 
member hospitals between July 2014 and December 2015. For injuries 
determined to be table saw-related, interviewers read definitions to 
the participants regarding each table saw type, and interviewers asked 
additional questions when the participant identified a saw and drive 
type that were not compatible.
    As explained in TAB F of the staff briefing package, after the 
contractors completed the 2014-2015 special study,

[[Page 22203]]

CPSC staff identified patterns in participant response data across the 
275 completed survey responses that indicated that the interviewer may 
have affected the participants' responses, a phenomenon known as 
``interviewer effect.'' Ninety-four percent (259) of the completed 
surveys were conducted by two interviewers from one company. 
Statistically significant differences between responses collected by 
the two interviewers existed for critical questions, such as the type 
of table saw involved in the injury, use of safety features, and 
activities preceding the injury. Because the integrity of the responses 
was indeterminable, CPSC staff did not use the 2014-2015 special study 
results as a basis for the proposed rule.
    In addition, contractor interviewer information from the 2007 to 
2008 special study was not available, so CPSC staff was unable to prove 
or disprove whether interviewer effect impacted that study's responses. 
Accordingly, CPSC staff did not use the data from either of the prior 
special studies to inform recommendations in the proposed rule for a 
performance requirement to address table saw blade-contact injuries.

V. Risk of Injury

A. Description of Hazard

    CPSC staff reviewed analyses of finger injuries on table saws 
conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in a study 
titled, ``Table Saw Injuries: Epidemiology and a proposal for 
preventive measures,'' which was commissioned by UL.\25\ UL extracted 
sections from that study, with some modifications, for its report, 
``Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact.'' 
\26\ The UL report indicated that lacerations to the finger or hand of 
varying severity are the most common injury associated with table saw 
operator blade contact. The severity of injury ranges from minor cuts 
to severe cuts and injuries resulting in amputation. Finger lacerations 
can be classified into two categories by the extent of damage to the 
structures of the finger:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Chung, K. and Shauver, M. 2014. Table saw injuries: 
Epidemiology and a proposal for preventive measures. Available at: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154236/.
    \26\ Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade 
Contact, UL Research Report, Jan. 2014. Available at: http://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WhitePapers_Tablesaw_V11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Simple lacerations involving damage only from the skin surface 
to a depth of approximately 2 mm to 4 mm, and
    (2) complex lacerations involving cuts deeper than 4 mm that cause 
damage to tendons, nerves, and blood vessels.
    Simple lacerations can be managed at emergency departments with 
little expertise or by simple at-home care because these cuts generally 
heal without complications. Conversely, complex lacerations may require 
skilled microsurgery to repair damaged tendons, nerves, and vessels, 
and such care often requires hospital stays, transfer to a hospital 
with the required expertise, and extensive occupational therapy.
    According to the UL report, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 
show that critical tissues are deepest at the proximal phalanx of the 
long finger (base of the middle finger) and most shallow at the distal 
phalanx of the little finger. The neurovascular bundle, which contains 
the nerves and arteries, is the structure closest to the skin's 
surface. The mean distance from the surface of the skin to the 
neurovascular bundle on the tip of the little finger is 4.3 mm.\27\ 
Therefore, UL determined that, based on measurements from the study, a 
depth of 4 mm is the maximum depth of cut to a finger before serious 
injury is sustained.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Staff's analysis of cadaverous tissue data indicates that 
the measurements presented in UL's research report are relative to 
the volar (palmar) surface of the skin.
    \28\ UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26 at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of Operator Behavior in Blade-Contact Injuries

    CPSC staff reviewed operator behavior in blade-contact injuries 
(TAB E of the staff briefing package). The most basic and common 
cutting operations performed on a table saw are ripping, which involves 
narrowing the width of a piece of wood or other ``workpiece'' by sawing 
along its length, and crosscutting, which involves shortening the 
length of a workpiece by sawing across its width. Anecdotally, ripping 
appears to be the more common of these two operations in the context of 
table saw use.
1. Ripping Scenarios
    Blade contact may be more likely to occur while the consumer is 
ripping a workpiece, rather than crosscutting, because consumers often 
use just their hands to feed the workpiece into the blade while 
ripping, except when ripping narrow workpieces. Additionally, ripping 
has greater potential to result in kickback, compared to crosscutting. 
``Kickback'' can be defined as the binding of a workpiece in the blade 
and the consequent thrusting of that workpiece back toward the 
consumer. Ripping involves the cut workpiece passing between the 
spinning blade and a rip fence, which forms a fixed boundary that 
constrains the movement of the workpiece. Thus, any lateral movements 
or rotation of the workpiece (or misalignment of the fence) may cause 
the workpiece to bind and be thrown or propelled at the consumer. The 
sudden movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the consumer 
to lose control of the workpiece and lead to blade contact in a number 
of ways. For example:
     The consumer's hand or push stick can slip off the 
workpiece, causing the hand to move into the blade.
     The workpiece can strike the consumer's arm or hand, 
sending the hand into the blade.
     The consumer can reflexively reach for the workpiece to 
regain control and inadvertently move the hand into the blade.
     The consumer's hand, if positioned behind the blade to 
hold, support, or remove the workpiece or cutoff, can be ``pulled'' 
into the blade with the workpiece.

    Many of the scenarios may be possible even when a blade guard is in 
use, because blade guard systems generally are designed to allow free 
passage of the workpiece into the blade from the front; therefore, 
other objects, such as hands and fingers also can move into the blade 
from this direction. Thus, although blade guard systems can reduce the 
likelihood of blade contact from certain angles and certain approaches, 
the potential for contact remains. In addition, hand or finger contact 
with the blade can occur even without kickback. Possible blade contact 
scenarios during ripping, unrelated to kickback, include the following:
     The consumer's hand gets too close to the blade while 
feeding the workpiece, particularly small workpieces, and the fingers 
contact the blade. In some cases, the consumer may be wearing gloves 
for protection, or because of cool temperatures, and the blade catches 
the glove and pulls the hand into the blade.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For example, IDI nos. 121018CNE1304.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The consumer reaches near or past the blade to regain 
control of a workpiece that is slipping, lifting up, falling off the 
table, or otherwise moving in an unexpected way, and the hand contacts 
the blade.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ For example, IDI nos. 080415CCC2550 and 141120CNE0001. Note 
that in IDI no. 141120CNE0001, a blade guard was in use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The consumer reaches for a cutoff or brushes debris from 
the table while

[[Page 22204]]

the blade is still spinning and the hand contacts the blade. Saw blades 
can continue spinning for some time after a table saw has been switched 
off. Accordingly, some consumers might contact the blade after having 
already switched off the table saw but before the blade has come to a 
complete stop. Furthermore, consumers who are aware of the potential 
for kickback might be motivated to remove a cutoff immediately to 
prevent a cut piece from kicking back or being thrown in some other 
way.
     The consumer gets distracted and turns or looks away, 
causing his or her hand to move into the blade. Such a distraction may 
not be merely daydreaming, but can include cases in which someone 
enters the room and the operator diverts their attention to make sure 
the other person is not placing themselves in a hazardous situation. 
This may be especially likely if the other person is someone for whom 
the consumer is responsible, such as a child.
     The consumer slips, stumbles, or otherwise loses balance 
and inadvertently moves a hand into the blade, possibly as a natural 
motor response to regain balance. Similarly, if a consumer is startled 
by something or someone, the consumer may move reflexively or jerk a 
hand toward the blade.
     The consumer's hand or push stick slips off the workpiece, 
causing the hand to move into the blade. This scenario is similar to 
the one cited earlier in the context of kickback, but it is not 
necessarily preceded by a sudden movement of the workpiece.
    Many of these scenarios may be more likely to occur if the consumer 
is tired, or if the view of the blade or cut is impaired somehow. 
Working with a table saw for long periods likely would contribute to 
fatigue, which in turn, can degrade a consumer's decision-making 
abilities, judgment, reaction time, and vigilance.\31\ Even devices and 
equipment that are intended to protect consumers may adversely affect 
consumers' ability to monitor a cutting operation with a table saw, and 
potentially increase the risk of injury. Blade guard systems might 
contribute to difficulties in seeing where a cut is being made, and 
consumers sometimes report this as a reason for removing blade guard 
systems. Staff also notes that consumers typically are instructed to 
wear eye protection when operating a table saw.\32\ Although proper eye 
gear can provide important protection from projectiles striking the 
eye, the eye protection may affect one's ability to see a cut clearly, 
particularly if the eyewear is scratched or partially covered in 
debris, such as sawdust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Sharit, J. (2006). Human Error. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), 
Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 3rd ed. at 708-760. 
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Staff also notes that, when ripping, consumers 
must make sure the workpiece maintains contact with the rip fence 
for the entire cut. Thus, a consumer's attention is likely to be 
where the workpiece meets the fence, rather than the blade, for at 
least part of the cut. This necessarily means that adequate 
attention cannot be given to the position of the hands relative to 
the blade. If attention is focused, instead, on the fingers relative 
to the blade, the workpiece may move off the rip fence and lead to 
kickback, which also can cause the fingers to contact the blade.
    \32\ For example, general safety instructions for all power 
tools, published by the Power Tool Institute (PTI), states that one 
should ``[a]lways wear eye protection,'' and the section of the 
document that is specific to table saws states, in part: ``Always 
wear safety goggles or safety glasses with side shields.'' See, 
http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-includes/pdfs/Tool-Specific-Files/Table-Saws.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Crosscutting Scenarios
    Blade contact scenarios involving crosscutting are likely similar 
to those involving ripping because many of the same potential issues 
can arise, such as the consumer feeding the workpiece with their hand 
too close to the blade, reaching past the blade for a cutoff, or 
becoming distracted. Although the potential for kickback seems less 
likely for crosscutting than for ripping, kickback still occurs, and 
the consequent loss of workpiece control can result in the hand 
contacting the blade. In addition, during a crosscut, the workpiece may 
become ``jammed'' in the blade guard or anti-kickback device. This may 
be more likely if the workpiece shifts position or rotates from against 
the miter gauge. In such a scenario, the consumer may reach toward the 
blade to adjust the workpiece position or attempt to move the offending 
portion of the guard system, and inadvertently contact the blade with 
the fingers.
3. Adult Aging Issues
    As discussed in section IV of the preamble and TAB B of the staff 
briefing package, approximately 45 percent of all estimated table saw-
related, emergency department-treated injuries that likely related to 
the victim making contact with the blade involved consumers older than 
60 years of age. Although CPSC staff does not know if older consumers 
have greater exposure to these products, adult aging is associated with 
declines in many perceptual, cognitive, and physical abilities, as 
discussed in TAB E of the staff briefing package. Some of these age-
related deficits likely contribute to blade contact incidents with 
table saws.
    CPSC staff identified differences in the distribution of age groups 
when comparing table saw blade-contact injuries to all other workshop 
product-related injuries. Staff analysis of injuries in 2015 indicates 
that the mean age for table saw blade-contact injuries is 55.6 years, 
compared to 42.7 years for all other workshop product-related injuries. 
This approximately 13-year difference in the mean age of victims of 
table saw blade-contact injuries is a statistically significant 
difference and indicates that table saw blade-contact injuries involve 
older victims compared to victims of injuries from all other workshop 
products.

VI. Relevant Existing Standards

A. Voluntary Standards

1. History
    In 1971, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) published the first 
edition of UL 987, Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools. UL 987 included 
requirements for table saws that specified the following safety 
devices: A single-piece blade guard, a spreader, and anti-kickback 
pawls. In 2005, UL published the sixth edition of UL 987, which added 
riving knives to the general requirements for table saws. The effective 
date for the riving knife requirements for products already listed with 
UL was January 2014. In 2007, UL published the seventh edition of UL 
987, which expanded the table saw guarding requirements to include a 
new modular blade guard design developed by a joint venture of the 
leading table saw manufacturers. The effective date for the modular 
blade guard requirements was January 2010. The revised standard 
specified that the blade guard shall not consist of a hood, but 
comprise 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, offering easier methods to remove and install the guard, 
and incorporating a permanent riving knife design. In 2011, UL 
published the eighth edition of UL 987, which clarified requirements 
for table saws. The eighth edition remains the current edition of UL 
987.
    In February 2016, UL balloted a proposal to adopt the first edition 
of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62841-3-1, Standard 
for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and 
Lawn and Garden Machinery--Safety--Part 3-1: Particular Requirements 
for Transportable Table Saws as the first edition of UL 62841-3-1. This 
effort is

[[Page 22205]]

part of UL's international harmonization goal to adopt international 
standards, such as one published by the IEC (International 
Electrotechnical Commission) or ISO (International Organization for 
Standardization), into one UL standard that is based on the IEC/ISO 
standard, with appropriate national differences.\33\ The proposal 
passed, and in August 2016, UL published the first edition of UL 62841-
3-1, Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and 
Lawn and Garden Machinery Part 3-1: Particular Requirements for 
Transportable Table Saws. UL 62841-3-1 is recognized as an American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard and includes requirements 
for a modular blade guard, riving knife, and anti-kickback pawls. The 
effective date for UL 62841-3-1 is August 29, 2019. Until that date, UL 
987 remains in effect, and table saw manufacturers can list their 
products to UL 987 or UL 62841-3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See http://ulstandards.ul.com/about/harmonizing-standards/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, UL 987 (Section 43.2.2) and UL 62841-3-1 (Section 
19.101) specify that table saws shall be provided with a modular blade 
guard. UL 987 (Section 43.2.3) and UL 62841-3-1 (Section 19.103) 
specify that table saws shall be equipped with a riving knife. Both 
voluntary standards include: (1) Similar performance requirements to 
ensure that the modular blade guard prevents incidental contact from 
the top and from both sides of the saw blade; and (2) similar 
specifications for the location and rigidity of the riving knife.
2. Recent Developments
    In June 2011, UL announced its intention to create a standard that 
addresses the performance characteristics needed to reduce blade-
contact injuries associated with table saws, and UL invited CPSC staff 
to participate in developing blade-to-skin performance requirements for 
UL 987. UL formed a working group that met regularly during 2011 to 
2015 to develop performance requirements for table saws to address 
flesh-to-blade-contact injuries. The UL working group developed the 
term ``active injury mitigation'' (AIM) to describe any type of safety 
system that detects an imminent or actual human contact with the table 
saw blade and then performs an action that mitigates the severity of 
the injury.
    In January 2014, UL published a report titled, Table Saw Hazard 
Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact.\34\ The report provides 
an in-depth study with hazard analyses, injury classification, and 
approach speed experiments. The intent of the research was to 
understand the circumstances that lead to hand/finger contact injuries 
for table saw operators and to help identify critical parameters to 
define the hazard level. The report identified the quantitative 
threshold between a simple and complex laceration of a finger at about 
4 mm from the surface of the skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2015, UL balloted a proposal to add AIM requirements 
for table saws to the Standard for Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools, 
UL 987. The performance requirements were based on a defined 
relationship between approach velocity of a finger to a rotating table 
saw blade and the depth of cut to the finger once contact has been 
made. The ballot proposed a performance requirement that introduced a 
surrogate test finger that demonstrates the proper triggering 
characteristics particular to the AIM technology to the table saw 
blade, at an approach rate of 1 m/s, and that limits the depth of cut 
to 4 mm or less, upon contact with the blade.
    CPSC staff sent a letter to UL dated March 24, 2015, expressing 
staff's support of AIM requirements in the voluntary standard.\35\ 
Staff also provided in-depth investigations (IDIs) of five incidents 
that occurred on table saws that met the UL standard for table saws at 
the time (and had a riving knife and modular blade guard). In April 
2015, the ballot failed to reach consensus; the ballot received 14 
votes against (versus 7 votes for) the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL, 
dated March 24, 2015. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMSproposalwenclosures.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March 2015, UL published a report titled, General 
Characteristics of a Surrogate Finger for Table Saw Safety Testing.\36\ 
The report discusses the attributes of a human finger that could be 
used as the basis for triggering an AIM system and identified three 
primary methods to detect a human finger: Visual, electrical, and 
thermal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ UL Research Report, 2015, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2016, UL balloted two proposals: (1) To adopt the first 
edition of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62841-3-1, 
Standard for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable 
Tools and Lawn and Garden Machinery--Safety--Part 3-1: Particular 
Requirements for Transportable Table Saws as the first edition of UL 
62841-3-1; and (2) to add AIM system requirements for table saws as 
part of the adoption of IEC or as part of UL 987 (since UL 987 will be 
merged with IEC 62841-3-1).
    Under the proposal, manufacturers were allowed the maximum latitude 
to design table saws to meet the requirements. The ballot proposed a 
performance requirement that introduces a conductive test probe, 
connected to a circuit, which mimics the electrical properties of a 
human body, to the table saw blade, at an approach rate of 1 m/s, and 
limited the depth of cut upon contact with the blade to 4 mm or less. 
The performance requirement also permitted other test probes to be used 
for AIM technology that depend on visual or thermal detection of finger 
contact to the blade.
    CPSC staff sent a letter of comment to UL, dated March 11, 2016, 
expressing staff's support of AIM requirements in the voluntary 
standard for table saws.\37\ In April 2016, the UL proposal for 
adoption of IEC 62841-3-1 reached consensus when the ballot received 15 
votes in favor of (versus 2 votes against) the proposal. However, the 
proposal to add an AIM requirement did not reach consensus; the ballot 
received 12 votes against (versus 5 votes in favor of) the proposal. 
The ballots failed, in part, because the table saw industry objected to 
making AIM requirements part of the UL standard, and because they 
believed that the proposed requirements were not sufficiently 
developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL, 
dated March 11, 2016. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Voluntary Standards and Patent Policy

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has a patent 
policy \38\ that is included in the ANSI Essential Requirements: Due 
process requirements for American National Standards (ANSI 
Requirements). This policy sets forth requirements that apply to 
situations in which a proposed voluntary standard may require the use 
of an essential patent claim. UL's Standards Patent Policy \39\ 
contains requirements that are consistent with ANSI's policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See Section 3.1, ANSI Patent Policy--Inclusion of Patents 
in American National Standards of the ANSI Essential Requirements: 
Due process requirements for American National Standards (January 
2017) available at: https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2017_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf.
    \39\ See UL Patent Policy (March 1, 2017) available at: http://ulstandards.ul.com/develop-standards/stps/ul-patentpolicy/?_ga=l.154860536.1359786552.1492183496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 3.1 of the ANSI Requirements states that if an ANSI-
Accredited

[[Page 22206]]

Standards Developer (ASD) of a proposed American National Standard is 
informed that the standard may require the use of an essential patent 
claim, the ASD shall receive from the patent holder (or its authorized 
representative) written or electronic:
    (a) Assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect 
that such party does not hold and does not currently intend holding any 
essential patent claim(s); or
    (b) assurance that a license to such essential patent claim(s) will 
be made available to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the 
purpose of implementing the standard either: \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The assurances under subsection (b) above are commonly 
referred to as FRAND Commitments (or fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably 
free of any unfair discrimination; or
    (ii) without compensation and under reasonable terms and conditions 
that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
    According to these policies, it appears that a voluntary standard 
on table saws that may require the use of an essential patent claim 
might not be adopted if the ASD did not obtain one of the listed 
assurances from any essential patent holders.

C. Adequacy of the Voluntary Standards in Addressing Injuries

    Currently, no voluntary standard contains any requirements for AIM 
technology. CPSC staff does not believe the existing requirements for a 
riving knife and modular blade guard will adequately reduce the number 
or severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws because table saws 
have been equipped with these safety devices since 2009, and these 
safety devices have not been effective in reducing or mitigating blade-
contact injuries. In 2011, staff evaluated the modular blade guard 
system and concluded that it is an improvement over the single hood 
guard design, but its effectiveness is still limited by users' 
willingness to use the guard.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 76 FR 62683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV of the preamble, since the ANPR, CPSC 
staff has conducted a modular blade guard survey among owners of table 
saws with modular blade guards in 2015, reviewed incidents from the 
CPSRMS database to identify incidents involving table saws equipped 
with modular blade guard systems, and performed a trend analysis of the 
annual estimated number of emergency department-treated injuries 
associated with table saws from 2004 to 2015.
    The modular blade guard survey assessed table saw users who own, or 
are familiar with, a table saw with the modular guard system.\42\ 
Results of the survey indicate that a majority of respondents (80%) 
reported that there are circumstances that require the blade guard to 
be removed, and a majority of respondents did not use the blade guard 
``sometimes'' (28%), ``often'' (17%), or ``always'' (14%). The results 
of the survey demonstrate that removal of the blade guard, traditional 
or modular, is a necessary and proper action when making certain cuts 
on table saws. In addition, many users choose not to use the modular 
blade guard at all. CPSC staff believes that any situation where the 
blade guard is not used eliminates the effectiveness of the blade guard 
in preventing blade-contact injuries. Accordingly, staff's review shows 
that reliance on the blade guard for injury prevention is insufficient 
because consumers have legitimate reasons for removing the guard or do 
not use it at all or only some of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016), supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff is also aware of at least 11 incidents from the CPSRMS 
database that involve table saws that meet the current voluntary 
standard requirements for riving knives and modular blade guards. Of 
those 11 incidents, four incidents involved amputation, two incidents 
involved laceration, and one incident involved laceration and fracture. 
These incidents show that blade-contact injuries continue to occur on 
table saws equipped with riving knives and modular blade guards, with 
and without the blade guard in use.
    Moreover, as discussed above in section IV of the preamble and in 
TAB B of the staff briefing package, CPSC staff performed a trend 
analysis of the annual estimated number of emergency department-treated 
injuries associated with table saws from 2004 to 2015. This trend 
analysis includes the timespan before the voluntary standard 
implemented the requirement for riving knives and modular blade guards 
on table saws (2004 to 2009) and the timespan after the requirements 
were implemented (2010 to 2015). Staff concludes that there is no 
discernible change in the number of injuries or types of injuries 
related to table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff also 
performed a trend analysis for the risk of blade-contact injury per 
10,000 table saws and concludes that there is no discernible change in 
the risk of injury associated with table saw blade contact from 2004 to 
2015. Accordingly, the implementation of the riving knives and modular 
blade guards requirements in the voluntary standards does not appear to 
have had an impact on the number or extent of blade-contact injuries on 
table saws.
    Based on CPSC staff's evaluation of the data, the Commission 
concludes that the existing voluntary standard requirements for riving 
knives or modular blade guards will not prevent or adequately mitigate 
blade-contact injuries on table saws.

D. OSHA Regulations

    In addition to the voluntary standard, several Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) regulations apply to table saws that are 
used in the workplace. Under section 3(a)(5) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 
2052, a ``consumer product'' means, with certain exceptions, any 
article or component part thereof, produced or distributed for sale to, 
or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer for use in or 
around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in 
recreation, or otherwise. Section 31 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2080, 
provides that the Commission shall have no authority to regulate any 
risk of injury associated with a consumer product if such risk could be 
eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under 
OSHA. However, if the risk to consumers cannot be sufficiently reduced 
or eliminated by OSHA's actions, the CPSC has the authority to address 
that risk of injury associated with the consumer product.
    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)&(d). 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. 29 CFR 1910.213(s). The existing OSHA regulations for table 
saws do not reflect the latest revisions to 8th edition of UL 987, 
which require riving knives and modular blade guards.
    As discussed in the ANPR, CPSC staff found that the primary 
differences between consumer and professional

[[Page 22207]]

users of table saws are environment and training/experience.\43\ In 
many work production environments where a specific cut is performed 
continuously, guards and safety cut-off switches are custom designed 
for that operation. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 76 FR 62682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, as the ANPR further discussed, amateur woodworkers 
generally have little or no safety training, nor training in the proper 
use of the table saw.\44\ They may take woodworking classes or obtain a 
training video, but there is no mechanism to encourage the home 
woodworker to use a table saw as safely as possible. 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 consumer woodworker also 
does not have the same OSHA-regulated protections in the home wood 
shop. The focus on a safe environment in a consumer setting depends on 
the knowledge and initiative of the home woodworker. For example, in a 
workplace, regulations require that unsafe saws be removed from service 
immediately, push sticks or push blocks be provided at the work place 
for guiding or pushing material past the blade, and emphasis 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue to believe that OSHA regulations may not adequately 
reduce the risk of operator blade-contact injuries to consumers because 
OSHA's regulations are intended primarily 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, including training 
and outreach, as well as mandatory safety standards and enforcement. 
These safeguards are not available to consumers operating table saws in 
a home woodworking environment.
    Although the safety requirements provided in OSHA regulations would 
not address the home woodworking environment, we note that there is no 
clear dividing line between consumer and professional saws, except at 
the very highest levels of price and performance. We have little 
information on the proportion of occupational purchasers for contractor 
saws and cabinet saws. However, CPSC staff's review shows that, based 
on discussions with industry representatives, electrical requirements 
and power appear to provide the best distinction between table saws 
typically used by consumers and those used most often in industrial 
settings. Tables saws operating at 1.75 horsepower or greater likely 
cannot be run on typical household wiring. Most consumers do not have 
the necessary electrical wiring, specifically the specialized outlets 
and adapters, to accommodate power tools with horsepower ratings 
greater than 1.75 or requiring 220-240 volt power. Sliding table saws 
and many other cabinet saws require such electrical capabilities and, 
therefore, are less likely to be used by consumers. However, CPSC staff 
is aware of the development of a sliding saw aimed at the high-end do-
it-yourself (DIY) market, and some serious woodworking hobbyists may 
wire their home workshops to accommodate the more powerful saws.
    Although some of the more expensive, high voltage table saws are 
used in construction work or by professional wood workers, many of 
these same saws may also be used in the home, in schools, and in 
recreation (woodworking workshops and clubs). Therefore, the CPSC staff 
believes that these types of saws may be used more than occasionally by 
consumers. We note that the incident data reviewed by staff, as 
discussed in TAB B of the staff briefing package, excludes occupational 
injuries from the NEISS data, and are not included in the injury data 
estimates.
    Based on CPSC staff's review, the Commission concludes that current 
OSHA regulations do not adequately address the unreasonable risk of 
blade-contact injuries associated with table saws used by consumers, 
which include cabinet and contractor saws. However, the Commission 
seeks comment regarding whether the scope of the rule should be 
modified to exclude certain types of table saws that are primarily used 
for commercial or industrial use.

VII. Overview and Basis for Proposed Requirements

    As discussed in section V of the preamble, CPSC staff reviewed data 
analyses of finger injuries on table saws conducted by researchers at 
the University of Michigan in a study titled, ``Table saw injuries: 
epidemiology and a proposal for preventive measures,'' \45\ and by UL 
in a report titled, ``Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to 
Blade Contact,'' \46\ to assess the extent and severity of lacerations 
to the finger or hand from table saw operator bade contact. UL 
determined that, based on measurements from the study, a depth of 4 mm 
is the maximum depth of cut to a finger before serious injury is 
sustained.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Chung, K. and Shauver, M., 2014, supra note 25.
    \46\ UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26.
    \47\ Id. at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After conducting a range of tests on sample table saws with AIM 
technology, CPSC staff developed a proposed performance requirement to 
reduce the severity of operator blade-contact injuries on table saws. 
The proposed requirement would require table saws to limit the depth of 
cut to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a 
human finger, contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 
1 meter per second (m/s).

A. CPSC Test Results on Existing AIM Technology

    CPSC staff purchased samples of table saws with AIM technology and 
developed test protocols to evaluate the performance of the existing 
technology. UL report ``Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due 
to Blade Contact'' identified critical parameters that would define the 
hazard associated with a human finger/hand coming into contact with a 
spinning table saw blade.\48\ The two critical parameters identified 
are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Approach velocity of the hand/finger when making contact with 
the table saw blade.
    (2) Maximum depth of cut to the hand/finger that would distinguish 
between simple and complex lacerations.
    Due to ethical considerations which prohibit the use of human 
subjects to

[[Page 22208]]

test the AIM capability of a table saw to mitigate blade-contact 
injury, CPSC staff developed a performance test using a suitable test 
probe to serve as a surrogate for the human finger/hand. In the case of 
an AIM system that relies on electrical detection, staff developed an 
electric circuit mimicking human contact to trigger the AIM system. 
CPSC staff determined that effective injury mitigation can be defined 
by a maximum depth of cut to the test probe when it is introduced to 
the table saw blade at a prescribed approach rate. The allowable depth 
of cut in the probe represents the quantitative threshold between a 
simple and complex laceration, which is the difference between a minor 
injury and a severe injury to arteries, nerves, or tendons that 
requires microsurgery to repair. This threshold is 4 mm from the 
surface of the skin.
    CPSC staff focused on test protocols that introduced a probe, as a 
substitute for a human finger, into the rotating saw blade and measured 
the resulting depth of cut on the probe after activation of the table 
saw's AIM system. Staff determined that an AIM system based on 
electrical detection can be triggered by a conductive test probe that 
is coupled to an electric circuit that mimics the human body, hereafter 
referred to as the human body network (HBN).
    The test probe requires two properties: (1) Electrical 
conductivity, and (2) volumetric and mechanical properties that allow 
depth of cut to be measured. The probe is electrically coupled to the 
HBN, which is a network of resistors and capacitors that approximate 
how the body would respond to an electrical signal. The body's response 
is the result of two physical properties of the human body: (1) Body 
resistance, which is a physical property of the human body that limits 
the flow of electrical current into the body when a voltage source is 
contacted, and (2) body capacitance, which is a physical property of 
the human body that allows the body to store electrical charge from a 
voltage source. A detailed description of staff's development of the 
HBN for these tests is available in TAB A of the staff briefing 
package.
    CPSC staff used a cuboid-shaped test probe made of conductive 
silicone rubber because the probe had already been developed by UL in 
its own testing of AIM technology and the probe was readily available. 
The test probe, shown in Figure 3, is made of low resistance, 
conductive silicone rubber measuring 12.5 mm x 12.5 mm x 60 mm. Staff 
determined that a layer of less conductive material to represent the 
epidermis (outer layer of skin) of a human finger is not necessary for 
AIM testing because the system is triggered by contact with conductive 
``flesh'' once the epidermal layer has been broken. Therefore, for test 
triggering purposes, staff used a test probe that represents the 
conductive layer of human flesh once the epidermis has been cut by a 
table saw blade.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY17.002

The quantitative threshold between a simple and complex laceration of a 
human finger is a 4.0 mm cut from the surface of the skin, and the mean 
epidermal thickness for a fingertip is 0.369 mm  0.112 mm, 
or a maximum thickness of approximately 0.5 mm.\49\ Because the test 
probe represents human flesh beneath the epidermis, staff subtracted 
the 0.5 mm thickness of the epidermal layer of skin from the 4.0 mm 
threshold value to arrive at a 3.5 mm value for the maximum allowable 
depth of cut to the test probe. This 3.5 mm value represents the 
quantitative threshold between a simple and complex laceration of a 
human finger, as measured by the test probe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Judi Whitton and J.D. Everall, ``The Thickness of the 
Epidermis,'' British Journal of Dermatology, Vol. 89, Issue 5 (Nov. 
1973) at 467-476.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff coupled the test probe to the HBN with a wire lead, fixed the 
probe in a holder attached to a computer-controlled linear actuator, 
and fastened the actuator to the table saw surface. This test protocol 
allowed staff to control the approach of the test probe to a rotating 
saw blade and to measure the depth of cut to the test probe after 
activation of the table saw's AIM system.
    The approach rate of the test probe to the saw blade represents the 
rate of speed at which a human finger moves toward the saw blade during 
a blade contact incident on a table saw. However, there is no standard 
body of data that quantifies finger/hand approach rate to the saw blade 
in a table saw incident, and CPSC staff analysis of blade contact 
incidents indicates that there are many scenarios in which an 
operator's finger/hand can contact a table saw blade. These scenarios 
are described in detail in TAB E of the staff briefing package. Sudden 
movement from kickback can cause the operator to lose control of the 
workpiece and cause his/her hand to fall into or be ``pulled'' into the 
blade. Hand/finger contact is

[[Page 22209]]

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

    \50\ Gass, S. (2012). Comments and Information Responsive to the 
ANPR for Table Saw Blade-contact injuries by SawStop, LLC. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2011-0074-1106.
    \51\ UL Research Report, 2014, supra note 26 at 22.
    \52\ Id. at 5.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY17.003
    
    CPSC staff's analysis of operator behavior in table saw blade-
contact injuries indicates that blade-contact injuries occur at 
approach rates that range from slow feeding of the workpiece when the 
operator's hand is close to the blade and inadvertent contact is made, 
to faster approach rates that occur when kickback of the workpiece 
causes the operator's hand to make contact with the blade. Staff 
concludes that a radial approach rate of 1 m/s is appropriate for a 
performance test because this is a high rate of speed for the radial 
component of the hand's approach rate to the saw blade. In addition, 
this radial approach rate is more than twice as fast as the highest 
radial approach rate calculated by SawStop in more than a thousand 
blade-contact injuries that activated their AIM system. Therefore, 
staff conducted all tests at an approach rate of 1 m/s.
    CPSC staff developed a test method to evaluate various existing AIM 
systems to compare them to the performance standard limiting the depth 
of cut after triggering, using a test probe that can be used to 
evaluate the depth of cut when the probe makes contact with the 
rotating saw blade while approaching the blade at 1 m/s. Staff has used 
this test method on currently available AIM systems that use electrical 
sensing to detect finger contact and injury mitigation after contact. 
The test method may work if a system were designed using visual 
tracking, or other means of detection, to mitigate injury after 
detection. However, the test probe used to test AIM systems based on 
other methods of detection should have the appropriate properties to 
trigger the system.
    CPSC staff tested a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite table saw and a Bosch 
REAXXTM jobsite table saw for AIM technology performance in 
accordance with the above test protocol. Both saws have 10-inch 
diameter blades, and the manufacturer's blades were used in all test 
runs. Staff ran tests with the probe connected to the HBN which was 
connected to the table saw's ground wire. Staff tested 11 HBN settings/
configurations to represent the effect of mutual capacitance between 
the human body and its surroundings that increases the capacitance of 
the human body beyond its minimum self-capacitance of 50 pF in 50 pF 
steps up to 500 pF plus an additional short circuit test.\53\ The HBN 
settings reflect a stepped increase in increments of 50 pF to cover a 
reasonable range of body capacitance. CPSC staff tested both table saws 
with 11 test probe activations at an approach rate of 1 m/s, and 
determined the probe depth of cut for each test run. For all 
capacitance values, both the SawStop and Bosch table saws produced cuts 
that were under the 3.5 mm threshold for allowable depth of cut into 
the probe. The depth of cut for the SawStop table saw tests ranged from 
1.5 mm to 2.8 mm and the depth of cut for the Bosch table saw tests 
ranged from 1.9 mm to 2.5 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ The units for electrical capacitance is the farad (F). For 
most applications, the capacitance value is very small so the 
picofarad (pF) is used to denote one trillionth (10-12) 
of a farad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff's test results indicate that table saws with AIM systems 
that rely on electrical detection were able to mitigate injury to a 
test probe, approaching toward the center of the rotating saw blade at 
a rate of 1 m/s, upon contact with the blade by limiting the depth of 
cut to 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm. These table saws limited the depth of cut well 
below the 3.5 mm threshold between a simple and complex laceration in a 
human finger, as measured by the test probe.

B. Proposed Requirement

    CPSC staff's testing of the current AIM technology available on 
table saws in the U.S. market demonstrates that blade-contact injuries 
on table saws would be reduced if table saw manufacturers are required 
to meet a performance requirement for table saws that limits the depth 
of cut to the specified test probe, upon making contact with the

[[Page 22210]]

saw blade at an approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to 3.5 mm. The proposed rule 
would require a test probe to act as surrogate for the human body/
finger contact with the saw blade and to allow accurate measurement of 
the depth of cut.
    Although the test probe and test method described in TAB A of the 
staff briefing package, are appropriate for the evaluation of AIM 
systems using an electrical detection system, other test probes and 
test methods using a different detection system may be developed to 
detect human body/finger contact with the saw blade and to measure 
depth of cut. There are many possible methods to detect human contact 
with a saw blade that range from electrical, optical, thermal, 
electromagnetic, to ultrasound and others. For example, a detection 
system could be developed that uses thermal sensing properties of the 
human body/finger or visual sensing and tracking of the human body/
finger. The Commission believes that AIM systems using a different 
detection approach than what is currently on the market may be 
developed, based on sound material science and engineering knowledge.
    Likewise, there are many different methods to limit the depth of 
cut to a probe. SawStop removes the blade from contact with the finger 
by stopping the blade and allowing angular momentum to retract the 
blade. The Bosch REAXXTM retracts the blade with an 
explosive discharge. Other ways of retracting the blade could include 
pneumatic (using high pressure air), or hydraulic (high pressure oil) 
systems. Another method to minimize blade contact could involve moving 
the finger or hand away from the blade by projecting the blade away 
from the hand or projecting the table upwards rather than retracting 
the blade. The Commission seeks comments on the feasibility of 
developing new AIM technology on table saws and whether different 
detection methods may be applied as part of an AIM system.
    The proposed rule would establish a performance requirement, but it 
does not dictate how table saw manufacturers would meet those 
requirements. Rather, firms would have the flexibility to determine the 
appropriate technology to meet the specified performance requirement. 
In the staff's briefing package, CPSC staff has explained the test 
procedure and equipment that staff would use to assess compliance with 
an AIM system that uses electrical sensing technology. However, 
manufacturers need not use this particular test procedure, so long as 
the test method they use effectively assesses compliance with the 
standard.
    The Commission is aware that, currently, there are only two AIMs 
systems currently capable of mitigating a blade-contact injury, those 
used by SawStop and Bosch REAXXTM, which operate by sensing 
electrical properties of the human body/finger and then retracting the 
blade. Although the Commission believes that new AIM technologies can 
be developed in addition to the existing AIM technologies to meet the 
performance requirements, if such new technologies cannot be developed, 
the Commission has considered the economic impacts on manufacturers who 
may be required to license the existing technologies. That discussion 
appears in section XI of the preamble and in TAB C of the staff 
briefing package.

VIII. Stockpiling

    In accordance with Section 9 of CPSA, the proposed rule contains a 
provision that would prohibit a manufacturer from ``stockpiling,'' or 
substantially increasing the manufacture or importation of noncomplying 
table saws between the date that the proposed rule may be promulgated 
as a final rule and the final rule's effective date. The proposed rule 
would prohibit the manufacture or importation of noncomplying table 
saws in any period of 12 consecutive months between the date of 
promulgation of the final rule and the effective date, at a rate that 
is greater than 120% of the rate at which they manufactured or imported 
table saws during the base period for the manufacturer. The base period 
is any period of 365 consecutive days, chosen by the manufacturer or 
importer, in the 5-year period immediately preceding promulgation of 
the rule.
    Assuming a promulgation date in 2018, the sales period from 2013-
2017 (shipments were 600,000 in 2013 and 625,000 in 2014) would allow 
manufacturers to produce more than 720,000 saws (600,000 x120 percent), 
assuming sales in years 2015 to 2017 are stable. In the longer term of 
2002 to 2014, annual shipments averaged 675,000 table saws. The 
stockpiling limit would thus allow the industry to meet any foreseeable 
increase in the demand for table saws without allowing large quantities 
of table saws to be stockpiled.

IX. Response to Comments

    In this section, we describe and respond to comments to the table 
saw ANPR. We present a summary of comments by topic, followed by the 
Commission's response. The Commission received over 1,600 comments in 
response to the ANPR. The comments can be viewed on www.regulations.gov 
by searching under the docket number of the ANPR, CPSC-2011-0074. 
Approximately 134 commenters supported developing regulatory standards 
for table saws. The other commenters generally opposed the rulemaking 
proceeding. These comments are addressed below.

A. Mandatory Standard Would Create Monopoly

    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that table saw performance 
requirements that mitigate blade-contact injuries would force all 
manufacturers to use the SawStop patented technology. Many commenters 
stated that mandating the use of the SawStop technology will result in 
a monopoly and stifle innovation, granting an unfair advantage to one 
company. Commenters stated that table saw performance requirements 
would be ``a design standard'' because SawStop's parent company (SD3, 
LLC) owns a number of U.S. patents for sensing technology and blade 
braking and blade retracting technology. Some commenters stated that if 
the CPSC did not mandate a particular technology, other companies could 
introduce their own safety technologies, some of which may prove to be 
better than SawStop's technology. Some commenters predicted that if 
CPSC did not mandate the SawStop AIM technology, other injury 
mitigation technologies would be developed and the competition among 
the technologies would eventually bring down the prices associated with 
these new technologies.
    Response: The proposed performance requirements would not require 
manufacturers to use the SawStop patented technology. The proposed rule 
does not mandate a particular detection method or test method to 
mitigate blade-contact injury. The proposed performance requirement for 
table saws limits the depth of cut to a test probe, upon making contact 
with the saw blade at a radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to 3.5 mm. Any 
test probe that is used must act as a surrogate for a human body/finger 
to ensure that the depth of the cut can be measured properly upon 
contact with the saw blade. There are many methods to detect human 
contact with a saw blade that range from electrical, optical, thermal, 
electromagnetic, to ultrasound and others. Likewise, there are many 
methods to limit the depth of cut to a probe that would not require 
retraction of the saw blade. Although all of these different systems do 
not yet exist, such AIM systems may be developed.

[[Page 22211]]

    Although the proposed rule does not require a particular AIM 
technology, the Commission is aware that, currently, there are only two 
AIMs systems capable of mitigating a blade-contact injury, those used 
by SawStop and Bosch REAXXTM. Both of these systems operate 
by sensing electrical properties of the human body/finger and limiting 
the depth of cut by retraction of the blade.
    The Commission is also aware of ongoing litigation between SawStop 
and other table saw manufacturers, including Bosch. For example, on 
July 16, 2015, SawStop filed a complaint against Bosch at the ITC, 
requesting an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 
1930, to limit entry into the United States of the Bosch 
REAXXTM table saws that allegedly infringed on several 
SawStop patents. In the Matter of Certain Table Saws Incorporating 
Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, 
Investigation No. 337-TA-965. The status of litigation between Bosch 
and SawStop is ongoing and has not been resolved. We note that some of 
the allegedly infringed upon patents may expire in 2020, and 2022, 
which may resolve the patent issues in the ITC investigation. However, 
we do not know what other SawStop patents may be impacted by companies 
that attempt alternative AIM technologies, nor do we know the 
expiration dates of the other existing SawStop patents given that 
SawStop filed more than 100 patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office related to SawStop's woodworking safety systems. Therefore, it 
is possible that any injury mitigation system on a table saw that 
relies on sensing electrical properties, or other properties of the 
human body and finger, and engages a reaction system may potentially 
infringe on a SawStop patent.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ SawStop has also filed antitrust claims alleging that 
several major table saws manufacturers conspired to boycott 
SawStop's safety technology and manipulate safety standards. See 
SawStop LLC v. Black & Decker, et. al, 801 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2015); 
SawStop LLC v. Black & Decker, et. al, CV No. 1:14-cv-00191, 2016 WL 
6093488 (E.D.Va. Oct. 18, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The outcome of ongoing lawsuits involving the SawStop technology 
will determine some of the impacts that may result from a mandatory 
rule requiring AIM technology for table saws. If the courts determine 
that the patents covering the SawStop technology allow for companies to 
manufacture their own saws with alternative AIM technologies (such as 
the Bosch REAXXTM saw), then some manufacturers may choose 
to try to develop their own proprietary technology or license the Bosch 
technology (if available) as an alternative to the SawStop technology.
    Alternatively, if the courts decide that other technologies do, in 
fact, infringe upon SawStop patents, then SawStop may effectively have 
a monopoly on the technology needed to comply with a mandatory rule, 
until SawStop's patents expire. However, even if the patents expire, if 
new AIM technology is not developed, other manufacturers likely would 
be required to work with SawStop and/or Bosch to license the SawStop or 
Bosch technologies for use in their saws. Even if all of the relevant 
patents eventually become public, many manufacturers may not be able to 
develop their own AIM system, and will either have to license the 
technology or exit the table saw market. As discussed in section XI of 
the preamble and in TAB C of the staff briefing package, the level at 
which the royalty payments are set will play a significant role in 
determining the economic impacts that CPSC's rule could have on table 
saw manufacturers.

B. Voluntary Standard Process

    1. Comment: Numerous commenters stated that CPSC staff should work 
with the table saw industry to offer solutions. The commenters stated 
that the voluntary standards process is working and has resulted in the 
addition of a permanent riving knife on all table saws. In addition, 
other commenters stated that the industry has also required the modular 
blade guard on all table saws, which has improved the safety of table 
saws.
    Numerous commenters also stated that current table saws (some 
referring to older table saws with traditional blade guards, and some 
referring to newer table saws with riving knives and modular blade 
guards) are safe, if used properly. Many commenters cited their own 
personal experiences with table saw use and claimed that because they 
have not had an injury this proves that current table saws are safe.
    Response: CPSC staff performed a trend analysis of the annual 
estimated number of emergency department-treated table saw blade-
contact injuries from 2004 to 2015. This trend analysis includes the 
timespan before the voluntary standard required riving knives and 
modular blade guards on table saws (2004 to 2009) and the timespan 
after the requirements were implemented (2010 to 2015). Staff's review 
shows that there is no discernible change in the number of injuries or 
types of injuries related to table saws from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff 
then analyzed the risk of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in 
use for each year in the analysis. CPSC staff performed a trend 
analysis on the risk of blade-contact injuries and found that there is 
no discernible change in the risk of blade-contact injury associated 
with table saws from 2004 to 2015.
    In addition, staff is aware of at least 11 incidents from the 
CPSRMS database (2004-2015) that involve table saws that meet the 
current voluntary standard requirements for a riving knife and modular 
blade guard. A riving knife may reduce the occurrence of kickback (that 
can lead to unexpected stock movement and finger/hand contact with the 
blade) on a table saw, but kickback can still occur on table saws 
equipped with a riving knife. Furthermore, reducing kickback will not 
eliminate blade-contact injuries because blade-contact injuries can 
occur without kickback of the stock.
    The new modular blade guard system is a significant improvement 
over the old guard design; however, the effectiveness of any blade 
guard system depends upon an operator's willingness to use it. Results 
of the modular blade guard survey in 2015 of table saw owners with 
modular blade guards indicate that a majority of respondents (80%) 
reported that there are circumstances that require the blade guard to 
be removed and a majority of respondents removed the blade guard 
``sometimes'' (28%), ``often'' (17%) or ``always'' (14%).\55\ The 
results of the user survey demonstrate that removal of the blade guard 
is a necessary and proper action when making certain cuts on table 
saws. In addition, many users choose not to use the modular blade guard 
at all or only some of the time. Any situation where the blade guard is 
not used eliminates the effectiveness of the blade guard in preventing 
blade-contact injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016), supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the trend analysis of blade-contact injuries and risk of 
blade-contact injuries from 2004 to 2015, the CPSRMS incidents, and 
staff's review of responses to the modular blade guard survey, the 
Commission does not see evidence that the voluntary standard 
requirements have reduced or changed blade-contact injuries on table 
saws. In addition, CPSC staff has participated with the table saw 
industry and other stakeholders in UL working groups since September 
2011 to develop safety standards for table saws. UL proposed AIM system 
performance requirements for table saws in February 2015 and February 
2016, which indicates that the voluntary standards governing body 
believes that table saws should exhibit

[[Page 22212]]

active injury mitigation performance. However, despite these efforts, 
the AIM requirements have not been adopted in the UL standard. 
Therefore, the Commission believes that the voluntary standard 
activities have not been effective at addressing blade-contact injuries 
on table saws.

C. Consumer Choice

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

D. Table Saw Incident Data Analysis

    1. Comment: Numerous commenters stated that CPSC staff injury data 
analysis was faulty because it did not include the effects of the 
modular blade guard system. Specifically, the commenters argued that a 
meaningful analysis cannot be completed based on the 2007-2008 Injury 
Report because it includes data only related to old guard designs 
rather than the new modular blade guarding system. The Power Tool 
Industry (PTI) estimated that, in 2012, more than 900,000 table saws 
had been sold since 2007 that use the modular

[[Page 22213]]

blade guard. Some commenters stated that CPSC staff failed to estimate 
the risk of injury associated with table saw use, and that this data is 
needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary standard 
requirements for a riving knife and modular guard on table saws.
    Response: For the proposed rule, CPSC staff estimated the yearly 
table saw blade-contact injuries from 2004 to 2015 by using estimates 
from NEISS. The date range for the trend analysis includes a timespan 
before the voluntary standard required table saws to be equipped with a 
riving knife and modular blade guard (2004 to 2009) and a timespan 
after the voluntary standard requirements became effective on most 
table saws (2010 to 2015). A proportion of table saws manufactured 
before the current voluntary standard became effective is expected to 
remain in use throughout this whole period. However, in more recent 
years, after the current voluntary standard became effective, an 
increasing proportion of table saws in use conforms to the current 
voluntary standard. Thus, if the voluntary standard was positively 
impacting the number or severity of injuries, there would be a steady 
decrease in the number of injuries or severity of injuries as the 
proportion of compliant table saws increased. However, the data 
reviewed by CPSC staff do not indicate that requirements in the 
voluntary standard have had any impact in reducing the number or 
severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws.
    CPSC staff performed trend analyses for blade-contact injuries, as 
well as blade contact amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand 
injuries from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff concludes that there is no 
discernible change in the number of blade-contact injuries or types of 
injuries related to table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. CPSC 
staff also performed a trend analysis for the risk of blade-contact 
injury per 10,000 table saws and, likewise, concludes that there is no 
discernible change in the risk of injury associated with table saws 
from 2004 to 2015.
    CPSC staff has also reviewed incidents reported through means other 
than the NEISS, which are entered in the CPSC's CPSRMS database. Of the 
53 incidents identified in the CPSRMS database that were reported in 
the period from 2004 to 2015, 36 involved table saws with a traditional 
blade guard and 11 involved table saws with a modular blade guard. A 
review of the reports indicates that the incident scenarios for table 
saws with modular blade guards are similar to incidents involving table 
saws with traditional blade guards in terms of their use with and 
without blade guards and accidents occurring with and without 
unexpected stock movement from kickback of the material. In addition, 
the modular blade guard survey conducted by the CPSC in 2015 indicates 
that consumers frequently remove the modular blade guard to perform 
certain cuts, or do not use the modular blade guard at all or only some 
of the time.
    Based on the trend analysis of blade-contact injuries and risk of 
blade-contact injuries dating from 2004 to 2015 conducted by staff, 
plus anecdotal evidence from CPSRMS that blade-contact injuries 
continue to occur on table saws that meet the current voluntary 
standards requirements, and results from the modular blade guard 
survey, the Commission does not see evidence that the voluntary 
standard requirements for riving knives or modular blade guards have 
reduced or mitigated blade-contact injuries on table saws. Accordingly, 
the Commission believes that the proposed performance requirement is 
necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries 
associated with table saws.
    2. Comment: One commenter questioned the results of the 2007-2008 
NEISS special study indicating that 68.7 percent of saws involved in 
incidents were fixed cabinet saws, 18.3 percent were semi-portable 
contractor saws, and 10.5 percent were portable bench saws. The 
commenter stated the results were inconsistent with other data in the 
survey regarding the table saws' characteristics.
    Response: CPSC staff conducted a re-analysis of the saw type and 
drive type responses provided by the injury victims in the 2007-2008 
special study and published the results of the re-analysis in June 
2014. CPSC staff stated that consideration should be given to staff's 
finding that the distribution of injuries for different types of saws 
cannot be based on how respondents answered questions about the type of 
saw.\56\ However, as discussed in section IV of the preamble, the 
Commission is not relying on any data used in the 2007-2008 special 
study for the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See http://www.cpsc.gov//Global/Research-and-Statistics/Injury-Statistics/Home%20Maintenance%20and%20Construction/CoverpageandMemoofStaffAnalysisofTableSawTypeinNEISSSpecialStudy.pdf.

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

    3. Comment: Several commenters stated that most table saw injuries 
are caused by kickback of the workpiece and the SawStop system does not 
prevent kickback. Others stated that riving knives will eliminate 
kickback and therefore reduce most injuries.
    Response: Based on CPSC staff's review of the data, the Commission 
believes that while the proposed rule would not eliminate kickback, the 
proposed performance requirement would reduce injuries that occur when 
kickback results in blade contact. CPSC staff's analysis of blade 
contact incidents indicates that there are many scenarios in which an 
operator's finger/hand can contact a table saw blade and there are 
certain cuts on table saws that require removal of the blade guard. 
Sudden movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the operator 
to lose control of the workpiece and cause his/her hand to fall into or 
be ``pulled'' into the blade. However, hand/finger contact is also 
possible without kickback when the operator's hand gets too close to 
the blade while feeding the workpiece, or when the operator is 
distracted and inadvertently contacts the saw blade.
    CPSC staff identified 53 incidents in the CPSRMS database that 
involve blade-contact injury on a table saw that occurred between 
January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015, and were reported to CPSC by 
March 1, 2016. For the majority of incidents, it is unknown whether 
unexpected workpiece movement was involved in the blade contact. 
However, of the incidents where information about the contribution of 
workpiece movement was known, most blade-contact injuries involved some 
type of unexpected workpiece movement. In addition, 11 of the 53 
incidents involved table saws that meet the current voluntary standard 
requirements for a riving knife and modular blade guard. CPSC staff 
believes that the data show that blade-contact injuries continue to 
occur on table saws equipped with a riving knife and modular blade 
guard.
    4. Comment: One commenter claimed that the full NEISS sample 
overestimated the number of table saw blade-contact injuries in 2007-
2008 based on estimates from the National Electronic Injury 
Surveillance System--All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP). More specifically, 
the commenter argued that because the proportion of NEISS-AIP 
amputations (52%) treated in hospital emergency department(s) (ED) was 
statistically less than the proportion of ED amputations from the full 
NEISS estimate, NEISS-AIP is the appropriate and preferable sample to 
use when making national estimates of table saw ED injuries.
    Response: In the proposed rule, CPSC staff has reviewed updated 
incident data based on estimates from NEISS hospital

[[Page 22214]]

records for injuries related to product code 0841 (table or bench saws) 
for 2015. For the ANPR, staff's estimate of ED-treated blade-contact 
injuries for table saws, including the estimate of ED-treated 
amputations, was based on the weighted national estimate of actual 
blade-contact injuries reported through the full NEISS sample of 
hospitals during 2007-2008. NEISS is a stratified national probability 
sample of approximately 100 U.S. hospital EDs that allows the CPSC to 
make statistically valid national estimates of product-related injuries 
treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP is a statistical subsample 
of the full NEISS sample that is administered by the CDC and consists 
of approximately two-thirds of the NEISS hospitals in each stratum. 
This subsample collects information on injuries outside CPSC's 
jurisdiction, including occupational, motor vehicle, boating, and other 
injuries.
    For table saw injuries (product code = 0841) in 2007-2008, 
approximately 62 percent of the weighted national estimate comes from 
the hospitals in the NEISS-AIP subsample. Although the commenter 
estimated that amputations from the NEISS-AIP subsample accounted for 
only about 52 percent of amputations from the total NEISS sample and 
reported that the difference was statistically significant, contrary to 
the commenter's assertions, the proportion of amputations coming from 
NEISS-AIP was not, in fact, statistically different than the overall 
national estimate of table saw injuries that came from the full NEISS 
sample.

E. Economic Issues

    1. Comment: One commenter stated that CPSC staff gives no basis for 
projecting injury estimates derived from NEISS onto other medically 
treated injuries to obtain a national injury rate for table saws. The 
commenter noted that other estimates of table saw-related injuries 
differ from CPSC's; using the NIOSH hospital sample, the average total 
number of work-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms for 
table saws was below the CPSC estimate. The commenter asserted that, to 
the extent that more serious injuries are likely to be treated in 
emergency rooms, the mix of injury severity based on the NEISS data 
overstates the severity mix once the injury total is multiplied by a 
set factor.
    Response: The CPSC staff uses the CPSC's ICM to project the number 
of medically treated injuries treated outside of hospital emergency 
departments (e.g., non-ED office visits, including medical treatment in 
doctor's offices, emergency clinics, ambulatory care centers, 
etc.).\57\ As described more fully in section XI of the preamble and 
TAB C of the staff briefing package, estimates were derived from 
empirical relationships between ED-treated injuries and injuries 
treated in other settings, based on National Health Interview Survey 
records (which provided detailed information on where the injuries were 
treated) stretching over 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Miller, Lawrence, Jensen, Waehrer, Spicer, Lestina, Cohen, 
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's Revised Injury Cost Model 
(Dec. 2000), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF. Since the table saw ANPR was published, the 
methodology for projecting the number of non-ED-treated injuries has 
been updated. It is described in: Revised Incidence Estimates for 
Non-Fatal, Non-Hospitalized Consumer Product Injuries Treated 
Outside Emergency Departments, Bruce Lawrence, Pacific Institute for 
Research and Evaluation, Calverton, MD, (April 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of occupational table saw injuries treated in hospital 
EDs is not relevant for the table saw analysis. The CPSC excludes 
occupational injuries from the CPSC estimate of consumer injuries 
whenever possible. Moreover, the NIOSH estimates mentioned by the 
commenter were not based on a ``NIOSH hospital sample.'' Rather they 
were based on the NEISS-AIP, a subsample of NEISS hospitals 
administered by the CDC. The AIP subsample covers a much broader range 
of injuries, i.e. occupational, motor vehicle, boating and other 
injuries, in addition to injuries that are consumer product related, so 
the number of records collected is much higher for the AIP subsample. 
Thus, the results for the CPSC estimate of consumer injuries and the 
NIOSH estimate of occupational injuries are not inconsistent.
    Finally, the mix of injury severities from the NEISS ED injury 
sample was not simply projected onto the estimate of injuries treated 
outside of hospital EDs. Rather, the estimates were based on the 
characteristics of injuries and victims treated outside of hospital 
EDs. For example, based on information from the National Health 
Interview Survey, a 40-year-old woman is almost twice as likely to be 
treated in a doctor's office (or some other non-ED settings) with a 
fractured clavicle than would a 10-year-old boy.\58\ Consequently, for 
this example, the ICM would estimate more injuries treated outside the 
emergency room for 40-year-old women and fewer injuries treated outside 
of hospital EDs for 10-year-old boys. The more serious and life 
threatening injuries are more likely to be treated in hospital 
emergency rooms, and this is reflected in the CPSC injury estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Miller et al., 2000, supra note 57, Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Comment: Two commenters focused on several aspects of the 
economic value of injury risks used by the CPSC in its 2011 analysis. 
One commenter suggested that the CPSC did not provide any supporting 
data for any of the four cost components of the ICM: Medical treatment, 
lost time from work, product liability costs, and pain and suffering. 
The commenter suggested that counting product liability costs as well 
as pain and suffering may lead to double counting. Furthermore, the 
commenter asserted that the appropriate method for assessing the 
benefits from public programs is society's willingness to pay to avert 
small risks, an ex ante amount, as opposed to a retrospective piecemeal 
approach adopted by the CPSC. Finally, this commenter noted that even 
if jury awards for pain and suffering corresponded to willingness to 
pay values, there is no justification for applying these rates to all 
table saw injuries. Another commenter stated that the pain and 
suffering portion of the ICM injury cost estimates are overstated and 
inappropriate.
    Response: The methodology and data supporting the various 
components in the ICM are described in section XI of the preamble and 
in TAB C of the staff briefing package. The societal costs of blade-
contact injuries represent the pool from which the benefits of a blade 
contact rule are derived. The societal costs of these injuries are 
quantified with the ICM. The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS, and, 
in addition to providing estimates of the societal costs of injuries 
reported through NEISS, it also estimates the costs of medically 
treated injuries that are treated outside of hospital EDs. The major 
aggregated societal cost components provided by the ICM include medical 
costs, work losses, and the intangible costs associated with lost 
quality of life or pain and suffering. In recent years, CPSC staff has 
excluded the product liability costs from ICM cost estimates. Although 
this component was intended to represent the costs of administering the 
product liability system in the United States, there was the 
possibility of some double counting, as suggested by the commenter. 
Accordingly, product liability costs administration costs are not 
included in the proposed rule.
    The commenter also promotes the concept of willingness-to-pay over 
the method used by CPSC staff to estimate the likely benefits of 
regulation. CPSC does use willingness-to-pay estimates in valuing fatal 
injuries. However, such estimates do not generally exist for

[[Page 22215]]

nonfatal injuries, such as blade-contact injuries on table saws.
    3. Comment: One commenter asserted that the injury data used by 
CPSC's staff to estimate societal costs in its 2011 analysis were based 
on extrapolations that were imprecise and resulted in greatly 
overstated societal costs. The commenter based this statement on two 
factors. First, the commenter asserted that injury costs should be 
limited to blade-contact injuries reported through hospital emergency 
rooms. Second, because only about 11 percent of ED-treated injuries 
resulted in hospitalization, the commenter suggested that inclusion of 
the ED-treated and released injuries greatly exaggerated the CPSC 
estimate of societal costs.
    Response: CPSC staff uses the ICM to project the number of 
medically treated injuries treated outside of hospital emergency 
departments, and the costs of those injuries. Estimates were derived 
from empirical relationships between ED-treated injuries and injuries 
treated in other settings, and based on National Health Interview 
Survey records (which provided detailed information on where the 
injuries were treated) stretching over 10 years.\59\ Cost estimates for 
the injuries treated outside of hospital emergency departments are 
generally less than the costs of injuries initially treated in 
emergency rooms. To exclude injuries treated outside of hospital 
emergency departments would severely underestimate the types and costs 
of injuries associated with table saw use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Miller et al., 2000, supra note 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, while it is true that costs associated with injuries that 
were treated and released from emergency departments are substantially 
less than hospitalized injuries, the costs associated with treated and 
released injuries can still be substantial. To exclude the treated and 
released injuries, which typically account for about 90 percent to 95 
percent of table saw injuries presenting at hospital EDs, would 
substantially underestimate the cost of table saw injuries.
    4. Comment: One commenter asserted that the methodology CPSC uses 
to extrapolate from ED-treated injuries to all medically treated 
injuries does not acknowledge that table saw injuries are likely to be 
more serious, and thus, more likely to require treatment in a hospital 
ED, than injuries involving fingers, wrists, hands, and lower arms that 
are associated with other consumer products. Accordingly, the commenter 
contended that the ICM overstates the annual number of blade-contact 
injuries treated during non-ED office visits. The commenter suggested 
that this purported error would be corrected by reducing CPSC's 
estimate of non-ED office visits (based on ratios involving rates of 
hospitalization). The commenter concluded that there were about 42,800 
medically attended blade-contact injuries involving table saws annually 
during 2007-2008, about 36 percent less than CPSC's estimate of 67,300.
    Response: CPSC staff's review of 2015 data, based on estimates from 
NEISS and the CPSC's ICM, shows that the draft proposed rule would 
address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries 
annually. As described in more detail in section XI of the preamble, 
and TAB C of the staff briefing package, the ICM uses empirically 
derived relationships between ED-treated injuries and injuries treated 
in other settings to estimate the number of injuries treated outside of 
hospital EDs. The methodology does not use a single 1 to 1 
extrapolation factor, as suggested by the commenter. Nor does it 
estimate non-ED table saw blade-contact injuries by assuming ``that the 
average injury severity (and thus the likelihood of seeking ED 
treatment) is comparable to that for other types of products,'' as 
suggested by the commenter. Rather, based on national survey data from 
the National Health Interview Survey, the ICM uses information on the 
age, sex, diagnosis (e.g., fracture, amputation), body part, and injury 
disposition to estimate injuries treated in non-ED settings. For 
example, according to national survey data (from the National Health 
Interview Survey), a 40-year-old woman is almost twice as likely to go 
to a doctor's office, an emergency clinic, or some other non-ED office 
setting with a fractured clavicle as a 10-year-old boy. Consequently, 
as suggested by this example, the ICM estimates more injuries treated 
outside the emergency room for certain combinations of injury and 
victim characteristics. For other types of injuries, a greater 
proportion would be treated in hospital emergency rooms.
    The ICM uses a classification tree that takes into account age, 
gender, body part, and injury diagnosis in determining the ratios of 
non-ED office visits to ED-treated injuries. Thus, for example, 
estimates of non-ED doctor-treated finger amputations involving table 
saws are not product specific, but rather, are based on general ratios 
of finger amputations involving all consumer products in each of the 
medical treatment settings (i.e., the ratio of finger amputations 
treated in the EDs to amputations treated in non-ED office visits), 
with adjustments for the other factors noted above. At the time of the 
ANPR, these estimates were based on an analysis of 10 years of data 
from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, 1987 to 1996) which 
provided information on the proportion of finger amputations initially 
treated in the ED relative to the proportion of finger amputations 
initially treated outside of the ED during non-ED office visits. The 
current version of the ICM uses data from the 1996-2007 Medical 
Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) using the same classification tree 
methodology to estimate the proportion of injuries treated outside the 
ED.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Lawrence, 2013, supra note 57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hospital admitted injuries that the commenter discussed are 
used by the ICM only to estimate the injuries that bypass the emergency 
room and are admitted directly to the hospital. Injuries that bypass 
the ED, but result in hospitalization would, for example, include cases 
in which an injury is initially treated in a doctor's office, but the 
doctor decides that the victim should be hospitalized immediately. One 
medical facility, the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services 
Systems (MIEMSS) also directly admits trauma victims. The ratio used 
for estimating these direct admissions was computed with data from the 
National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and the National Hospital 
Discharge Survey.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Since the ANPR was published, the methodology for 
projecting the number of admitted injuries bypassing the emergency 
room has been updated and is described in Bhattachara, S., Lawrence, 
B., Miller, T.R., Zaloshnja, E., Jones, P.R., Ratios for Computing 
Medically Treated Injury Incidence and Its Standard Error from NEISS 
Data (Contract CPSC-D-05-0006, Task Order 8). Calverton, MD: Pacific 
Institute for Research and Evaluation, (Aug. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter points out that, when compared to injuries involving 
other products, a higher proportion of table saw blade-contact injuries 
that are treated initially in hospital EDs result in hospital 
admission. Based on NEISS estimates, this statement is correct. It may 
also suggest that, relative to other product-related hazards, a higher 
proportion of blade-contact injuries is likely to be treated initially 
in hospital EDs as opposed to non-ED settings (a conclusion that is 
fully consistent with the staff's ICM estimates of table saw blade-
contact injuries). However, this conclusion is not sufficient to allow 
us to quantify directly the proportion of blade-contact injuries 
treated outside the ED. Nor does it imply, by itself, that the ICM has 
overestimated the number of table saw injuries initially treated in 
non-ED office visits or that the number of injuries treated outside of 
hospital

[[Page 22216]]

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

    \62\ See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
    \63\ Id. at 3-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inadequate or asymmetric information. Many of the risks associated 
with the use of table saws, as well as the potential severity of 
injuries when users come into contact with a moving blade, are obvious. 
However, some risks associated with the use of table saws may be poorly 
understood by consumers, such as sudden movement

[[Page 22217]]

of the workpiece from kickback which can cause the operator to lose 
control of the workpiece and cause his/her hand to fall into or be 
``pulled'' into the blade. Saw blades are jagged and rotate rapidly, 
and because the blades are used to cut wood their impact on fingers or 
hands is readily imaginable. Table saws also come with extensive 
warnings and safety devices (such as blade guards, riving knives, and 
anti-kickback pawls) that are intended to reduce the risk of blade 
contact. Hence, it would be difficult to argue that the risks of table 
saws use are unknown or somehow hidden from the consumer.
    On the other hand, it is possible that some of those injured have 
not been trained in proper table saw use or have not paid close 
attention to product warnings. Non-occupational users may use table 
saws only sporadically and forget or simply neglect safety procedures. 
Fatigue is known to have played a role in some incidents, and the risk 
of fatigue due to extended periods of cutting may not be obvious to all 
consumers. Some of those injured may be adolescents or seniors who are 
either undergoing cognitive development or cognitive decline and may 
not fully appreciate the dangers posed by table saws. This is not to 
suggest that users are unaware of the obvious risks. However, casual 
users may be unaware of how quickly and how violently an injury can 
occur, if, for example, a cut results in kickback. Consequently, some 
consumers could underestimate the actual risks they face. It also may 
be difficult for occasional users to interpret or process the risk 
information in a way that allows them to take the appropriate level of 
safety precautions.
    Externalities. Externalities exist when one party's actions impose 
uncompensated benefits or costs on another party. In the case of table 
saws, the externalities would generally be financial. If, for example, 
medical treatment costs are not borne by the injured party, but rather 
shifted to the public at large, there is a financial externality that 
the purchaser may not take into account when buying or using a table 
saw. Based on the injury cost data reviewed by staff for the proposed 
rule, medical costs and lost wages amounted to roughly $160 million and 
$1,040 million, respectively. Some proportion of these medical costs 
and work losses are shifted to the public at large by means of 
insurance premiums and unemployment compensation.
    Market Power. Market power exists when one or more firms can exert 
some control over the price of the product (by limiting production), or 
create barriers that prevent other firms from entering the market. For 
table saws, patents acquired by one firm (i.e., SawStop) regarding 
their AIM technology, combined with efforts to prevent patent 
infringement, appear to have provided that firm with sufficient market 
power to exert some control over the price of the technology (by means 
of licensing agreements) and to limit the ability of other firms to 
develop and market similar technology. The emergence of a second firm 
(i.e., Bosch) that began producing and selling a table saw model with 
the AIM technology in 2016 does not preclude or negate the existence of 
market power for one or both of these firms. Moreover, litigation over 
the alleged patent infringement of the second firm is ongoing.
    In summary, there could be several market impediments to a more 
widespread adoption of the AIM system technology by table saw 
purchasers. These impediments are discussed further in section XI of 
the preamble and at TAB C of the staff briefing package.
    8. Comment: Based on an evaluation of information provided in the 
ANPR, and the methodology used in Dr. John Graham's economic analysis 
of AIM technology,\64\ one commenter concluded that mandating the 
SawStop technology for the bench-top category of table saws is not 
economically justifiable. Numerous other commenters also stated that 
the costs of regulation to increase table saw safety are not justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Graham, John D., and Chang, Joice, 2014. Reducing the risk 
of injury from table saw use: The potential benefits and costs of 
automatic protection. Risk Analysis, 35(2) at 307-317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The proposed rule would not mandate the SawStop 
technology for the table saw industry. However, the economic impact of 
the proposed rule, including potential royalty payments and licensing 
fees, is addressed in section XI of the preamble and in TAB C of the 
staff briefing package. Staff's review of the potential benefits and 
costs of the proposed rule shows that the proposed rule would address 
roughly 54,850 medically treated blade-contact injuries annually. The 
societal costs of these injuries amount to about $4.06 billion 
annually. Based on CPSC staff's benefit and cost estimates, the net 
benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs) of the proposed rule would amount 
to an average of $1,500 to $4,000 per saw for the market as a whole.
    9. Comment: Some commenters asserted that a standard mandating the 
AIM technology will increase the price of table saws and will make 
table saws unaffordable for many individuals and small businesses. 
Similarly, some said that mandating the AIM technology would increase 
the price of table saws to the point that it prohibits people from 
purchasing a table saw for home hobby use or for starting a small 
business. One commenter equated the increased cost of buying a table 
saw with AIM technology with having to pay for someone else's 
stupidity. Another commenter opposed mandating the AIM technology 
because requiring automatic detection and blade retraction in the case 
of body-contact would eliminate the sub-$1,000 saw segment.
    Response: The Commission is aware that the proposed rule would be 
costly and would result in disruption of the table saw market. In 
addition, the Commission has to balance the number and severity of 
blade-contact injuries and the impact of the proposed rule on the 
product's utility, cost and availability to the consumer. While the 
proposed rule would substantially reduce blade-contact injuries and the 
societal costs associated with those injuries, CPSC staff's review 
showed that the impact of increasing table saw production costs on 
consumers also would be considerable. The prices for the least 
expensive bench saws now available are expected to more than double, to 
$300 or more. In general, the retail prices of bench saws could 
increase by as much as $200 to $500 per unit, and the retail prices of 
contractor and cabinet saws could rise by as much as $350 to $1,000 per 
unit. These higher prices may be mitigated in the longer run, but the 
extent of any future price reductions is unknown. However, given that 
the least expensive bench saws currently cost about $129, and the least 
expensive contractor saws are priced at about $529, CPSC staff expects 
that some bench and contractor saws will retail for under $1,000.
    In addition, because of the likely decline in sales following the 
promulgation of a rule, consumers who choose not to purchase a new saw 
due to the higher price will experience a loss in utility by forgoing 
the use of table saws, or because they continue to use older saws which 
they would have preferred to replace.
    There also may be some other utility impacts. The inclusion of the 
AIM technology may, for example, increase the weight and (potentially) 
the size of table saws to accommodate the new technology, to allow 
access to change the brake cartridge, and to mitigate the effects of 
the force associated with the activation of the brake cartridge. 
Although this factor may have a relatively small impact on the heavier 
and larger contractor and cabinet saws,

[[Page 22218]]

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

[[Page 22219]]

F. Unintended Consequences

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

G. Training and Warnings

    1. Comment: Several commenters stated that table saw injuries are 
best reduced by training and educating users on safe practices and 
operation of table saws. Many believed mandatory training in the form 
of certification is needed while others believed that instructional 
videos should be provided with every table saw purchase. Other 
commenters stated that only warnings or instruction labels are required 
to reduce injuries.
    Response: As discussed in TAB E of the staff briefing package, CPSC 
staff agrees that warnings, instructions, and other methods of 
educating consumers about the proper use of table saws are important. 
However, the effectiveness of such approaches is known to be limited. 
For example, safety and warnings literature consistently identify a 
classic hierarchy of approaches that should be followed to control 
hazards. The use of warnings is viewed universally as less effective at 
eliminating or reducing exposure to hazards than designing the hazard 
out of a product or guarding the consumer from the hazard. Therefore, 
the use of warnings is lower in the hazard control hierarchy than these 
other two approaches. Warnings are less effective because they do not 
prevent consumer exposure to the hazard, and instead, they rely on 
educating consumers about the hazard and persuading consumers to alter 
behavior to avoid the hazard. In addition, to be effective, warnings 
rely on consumers behaving consistently, regardless of situational or 
contextual factors that influence precautionary behavior, including 
fatigue, stress, or social influences. Thus, CPSC staff believes that 
warnings should be viewed as ``last resort'' measures that supplement,

[[Page 22220]]

rather than replace, redesign or guarding, unless these higher level 
hazard-control efforts are not feasible.
    Educational programs may offer more opportunities to present hazard 
information in varied ways and in greater detail than is possible on a 
warning label. However, CPSC staff believes that educational programs 
suffer from limitations similar to those associated with warnings 
because, like all hazard communications, the effectiveness of such 
programs depends on affected consumers not only receiving and 
understanding the message, but also being persuaded to heed the 
message. Mere knowledge or awareness of a hazard is not necessarily 
enough. Some versions of the hazard control hierarchy, particularly 
those in the context of industrial or organizational settings, include 
training as a separate approach at the same approximate level as 
warnings because training also involves educating consumers about 
potential hazards and proper actions or procedures to avoid those 
hazards. In fact, instructional materials that accompany products can 
be viewed as a form of training. Thus, warnings, instructions, 
educational programs, and training serve similar functions and have 
similar weaknesses.
    Although CPSC staff supports the use of these approaches, including 
providing consumers with instructional videos, human error is 
inevitable, even among expert woodworkers. Even consumers who are fully 
aware of the hazards and how to avoid them may suffer from slips or 
lapses that could lead to blade contact and injury despite the 
consumer's best intentions to use a product safely. A performance 
requirement that can detect and react to blade contact in a way that 
lessens the consequences makes the table saw more forgiving of such 
errors and expected behaviors, so that the results are not 
catastrophic. Moreover, mandating a performance requirement for table 
saws would not preclude manufacturers from encouraging table saw 
purchasers to become trained on safe table saw practices. Manufacturers 
can provide additional instruction videos on safe table saw practices 
or provide free training.

H. Other Comments

    1. Comment: Several commenters stated that CPSC should mandate AIM 
technology on table saws only in industrial or workshop settings or 
schools.
    Response: As discussed in section VI.C. of the preamble, the 
Commission does not have authority to regulate any risk of injury 
associated with a consumer product if such risk could be eliminated or 
reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken by OSHA. However, if the 
risk to consumers cannot be sufficiently reduced or eliminated by 
OSHA's actions, the CPSC has the authority to address that risk of 
injury associated with the consumer product. As discussed in that 
section, the Commission believes that OSHA regulations do not 
sufficiently reduce the risk of blade-contact injuries to the consumer. 
Moreover, the Commission believes that there is no clear dividing line 
between consumer and professional saws, except at the very highest 
levels of price and performance. Although some of the more expensive, 
high voltage table saws may be used in construction work or by 
professional wood workers, many of these same saws may be also be used 
in the home, in schools, and in recreation (woodworking workshops, 
schools and clubs). Therefore, the Commission believes that these types 
of saws may be used more than occasionally by consumers and fall within 
the scope of the proposed rule. However, the Commission seeks comment 
regarding whether the scope of the rule should be modified to exclude 
certain types of table saws used primarily for commercial or industrial 
use.
    2. Comment: Some commenters stated that the CPSC should provide an 
``open license'' for AIM technology, offer a retrofit option for 
existing table saws, and encourage AIM technology through tax policy.
    Response: The Commission has no authority under the CPSA to mandate 
an open license for AIM technology, require retrofits on existing table 
saws, or implement tax policies.

X. Description of the Proposed Requirement

A. Scope, Purpose and Effective Date--Sec.  1245.1

    The proposed rule would apply to all table saws, as defined, 
including bench saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws. The proposed 
rule would include a requirement to mitigate the risk of blade-contact 
injuries on table saws. Specifically, the proposed rule would establish 
a performance standard such that table saws, when powered on, must 
limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a 
surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts a spinning blade at a 
radial approach of 1.0 m/s.
    Under the CPSA, the effective date for a consumer product safety 
standard must not exceed 180 days from the date the final rule is 
published, unless the Commission finds, for good cause, that a later 
effective date is in the public interest. As discussed in section XI of 
the preamble, and TAB C of the staff briefing package, to meet the 
proposed performance requirements, it is likely that table saw 
manufacturers will have to develop new technology or redesign virtually 
all table saw models, retool production facilities, and enter into 
licensing arrangements. Because the Commission believes 180 days may 
not be adequate time to allow for such modifications, it is instead 
proposing an effective date of three years following publication of a 
final rule, at which time all table saws would be required to comply 
with the applicable requirements of the rule.

B. Definitions--Sec.  1245.2

    The proposed rule would provide that the definitions in section 3 
of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2051) apply. In addition, the proposed rule 
would include the following definition:
     Table saw--a woodworking tool that has a motor-driven 
circular saw blade, which protrudes through the surface of a table. 
Table saws include bench saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether the definition of a table 
saw should be revised or whether additional definitions are necessary.

C. Requirements for Table Saw Blade Contact--Sec. Sec.  1245.3 and 
1245.4

1. Description of Requirement
    The proposal would require table saws, when powered on, to limit 
the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe, acting as a surrogate for 
a human body/finger, makes contact with a spinning saw blade at a 
radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s. The proposal would require that the 
test probe allow for the accurate measurement of the depth of cut from 
contact with the saw blade to assess compliance with the proposed 
requirement. Any test probe that is used should have the appropriate 
properties (such as electrical, optical, thermal, electromagnetic, 
ultrasound, etc.) to indicate human body/finger contact with the saw 
blade and the appropriate physical properties to accurately measure 
depth of cut. The test probe and test method described in TAB A of 
staff briefing package, (Appendix A), are considered appropriate for 
the evaluation of AIM systems using an electrical detection system. 
This test method may be used for such systems and will be used by CPSC 
staff in evaluating such systems. However, the Commission does not 
propose to make this test method mandatory because

[[Page 22221]]

other AIMS systems may use a different detection approach. For AIM 
systems using a different detection approach, the method should be 
modified based on sound material science and engineering knowledge to 
accurately assess compliance with the proposed requirement.
2. Rationale
    The Commission believes that an AIM system can be used to reduce or 
limit the severity of a table saw blade-contact injury in conjunction 
with existing table saw voluntary standard requirements for a blade 
guard and riving knife. AIM systems provide a layer of safety that can 
mitigate a blade-contact injury if the blade guard or riving knife are 
removed or fail to function properly, as well as those blade-contact 
injuries that can occur when a blade guard or riving knife are in place 
and functioning properly, but where blade contact occurs nonetheless.
    A performance requirement that limits the depth of cut to a test 
probe that contacts a saw blade to 3.5 mm will significantly reduce the 
severe lacerations, fractures, amputations, and avulsions associated 
with operator blade contact incidents on table saws because the probe 
will have the appropriate properties to indicate human body/finger 
contact with the saw blade and the equivalent injury mitigation on a 
real human finger will avoid most microsurgery. Most microsurgery will 
be avoided because the neurovascular bundle in a human little finger, 
which contains nerves and arteries, is at a depth of approximately 3.5 
mm below the 0.5 mm thick epidermal layer of the skin. CPSC staff has 
determined that a 3.5 mm depth of cut into a conductive test probe is 
an appropriate surrogate for a 4mm depth of cut into a finger with 
insulating epidermis over conductive tissue. Additionally, incidents 
that occur under conditions that increase AIM performance (such as 
slower approach rate of the hand/finger to the saw blade and/or 
circumstances that increase detection) may result in minimal injuries.
    The Commission recognizes there may be some scenarios, such as 
kickback, which can cause the operator's hand to be ``pulled'' into the 
blade at a high rate of speed or lead the operator to reach as fast as 
possible for a falling workpiece. There are other scenarios where the 
radial velocity of the hand/finger may exceed 1 m/s when it contacts 
the saw blade. At approach speeds greater than 1 m/s, AIM system 
performance may result in injury severity that requires extensive 
medical attention. Such incidents may include the microsurgical repair 
of nerves, blood vessels, and tendons for an incident that might 
otherwise have resulted in an amputation or could involve injury to 
several digits or a wider area. Although some incidents may occur under 
conditions so demanding that AIM performance is unable to prevent a 
severe injury from occurring, available data on radial approach rates 
during kickback and non-kickback-related table saw blade contact 
incidents reviewed by staff indicate that the approach rate does not 
exceed 0.368 m/s.\65\ Thus, CPSC staff's testing and research indicate 
that the majority of operator blade-contact injuries from table saws 
can be reduced or mitigated by the proposed performance requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Gass, S. (2012), supra note 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Prohibited Stockpiling--Sec.  1245.5

    In accordance with Section 9 of the CPSA, the proposed rule 
contains a provision that would prohibit a manufacturer from 
``stockpiling'' or substantially increasing the manufacture or 
importation of noncomplying table saws between the date of the final 
rule and its effective date. The rule would prohibit the manufacture or 
importation of noncomplying table saws in any period of 12 consecutive 
months between the date of promulgation of the final rule and the 
effective date, at a rate that is greater than 120 percent of the rate 
at which they manufactured or imported table saws during the base 
period for the manufacturer. The base period is any period of 365 
consecutive days, chosen by the manufacturer or importer, in the 5-year 
period immediately preceding promulgation of the rule.
    The 5-year period in the anti-stockpiling provision is intended to 
allow manufacturers and importers sufficient flexibility to meet normal 
changes in demand that may occur in the period between the promulgation 
of a rule and its effective date while limiting their ability to 
stockpile noncomplying table saws for sale after that date. The 
Commission seeks comments on the proposed product manufacture or import 
limits and the base period with respect to the anti-stockpiling 
provision.

E. Findings--Sec.  1245.6

    In accordance with the requirements of the CPSA, we are proposing 
to make the findings required by section 9 of the CPSA. The proposed 
findings are discussed in section XVIII of the preamble.

XI. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission is proposing to issue a rule under sections 7 and 9 
of the CPSA. The CPSA requires that the Commission prepare a 
preliminary regulatory analysis and that the preliminary regulatory 
analysis be published with the text of the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(c).

A. Introduction

    The CPSC is issuing a proposed rule to address the unreasonable 
risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. This 
rulemaking proceeding was initiated by an ANPR published in the Federal 
Register on October 11, 2016. In 2015, to enhance CPSC's understanding 
of the market for table saws, CPSC staff entered into two contracts 
with Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) to conduct market research and 
cost impact analysis on table saws. One report, titled ``Revised Final 
Table Saws Market Research Report'' (March 28, 2016) (referred to as 
IEc, 2016a), updates information relied upon in the ANPR and provided 
in public comments concerning the market for table saws. The report 
uses publically available information and limited outreach to 
potentially affected entities. The other report, titled ``Final Table 
Saws Cost Impact Analysis'' (June 9, 2016) (referred to as IEc, 2016b), 
estimates the manufacturing and other costs of possible requirements 
intended to mitigate table saw blade-contact injuries based on previous 
information collected by the CPSC in the ANPR, public comments, limited 
interviews with table saw manufacturers, additional research, and the 
results of IEc, 2016a. In addition to CPSC staff's analysis of existing 
data, studies, and reports, staff relies on the IEc reports for 
additional data and information to support the staff's preliminary 
regulatory analysis (TAB C of the staff briefing package) and initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (TAB D of the staff briefing package). 
These reports are available on the CPSC's Web site at https://www.cpsc.gov/research-statistics/other-technical-reports.

B. Market Information

1. Manufacturers
    A total of 22 firms are known to supply table saws to the U.S. 
market. This does not include manufacturers of miniature table saws 
used for constructing doll houses and other hobby products, or tile-
cutting table saws. In addition, the 22 firms do not include a number 
of Asian table saw manufacturers who may have some limited U.S. 
distribution.

[[Page 22222]]

    The Power Tool Institute (PTI) estimates that its member companies 
account for 80 percent of all table saws sold in the United States. 
Most of these companies are large, diversified international 
corporations with billions of dollars in sales, such as Stanley Black 
and Decker, Robert Bosch, Makita, and Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. 
These four large, diversified firms are currently supplying table saws 
to the U.S. market, but table saws make up a relatively small part of 
their revenues, probably less than one percent. PTI tends to represent 
the mass market bench table saw manufacturers, while many of the 
smaller suppliers are primarily in the cabinet and contractor saw 
market segments.
    With the exception of two firms that sell only table saws or multi-
purpose tools incorporating table saws (i.e., SawStop and Shopsmith, 
respectively), anecdotal information provided to CPSC staff suggests 
that, for the smaller, more specialized firms supplying table saws to 
the U.S. market, table saws are generally not a large percentage of 
firms' sales. One company reported that table saw sales contribute a 
negligible fraction of its $15 million annual revenue. Another company 
with an annual revenue of $20 to $40 million stated that table saws 
represent approximately five percent of total sales. Similarly, a third 
company indicated that only seven to eight percent of total revenue is 
attributable to table saw sales.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ IEc, 2016a at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Retail Prices of Table Saws
    The range of prices for table saws generally overlaps for three 
products: Bench, contractor, and hybrid saws. Bench saws are the least 
expensive, ranging in price from $129 to $975, with a few exceptions. 
Prices for contractor saws range from $529 to $2,049, and prices for 
hybrid saws range from $675-$1,595. Generally, cabinet and sliding saws 
are more expensive. Prices for cabinet saws range from $1,199 to 
$5,349. The price range for sliding table saws ($2,850-$24,995) 
overlaps with the range for cabinet saws, but sliding saws are 
typically more expensive.
    The SawStop models containing the AIM technology are consistently 
priced at the upper end of the price range in each of the three primary 
table saw categories (bench, contractor, and cabinet). Aside from a 
couple of bench saws priced at just under $1,500, the SawStop bench saw 
is next most expensive in the bench saw category at $1,299-$1,399, 
depending on the distributor. Similarly, the three SawStop contractor 
saws, ranging in price from $1,599-$2,049, represent some of the most 
expensive models in that product category, including the highest-priced 
offering. The SawStop cabinet models range in price from $2,299-$5,349, 
depending on power and performance. The SawStop model priced at $5,349 
represents the highest priced cabinet saw. The Bosch REAXXTM 
saw ranges in price from $1,299-$1,499.
3. Types of Table Saws Commonly Used By Consumers
    There are three primary categories of table saws: Bench, 
contractor, and cabinet. Bench saws tend to be lightweight, portable, 
and with several exceptions, generally are priced from about $150 to 
$1,000. Bench saws generally are intended for consumer use, but also 
are used at work-sites. Contractor saws are larger, heavier, and more 
powerful than bench saws, and generally are priced from $500 to $2,000. 
Cabinet saws (also referred to as stationary saws) weigh from about 300 
to 1,000 pounds, are not portable, and generally are priced from about 
$1,200 to $5,000. Although these saws all are used by consumers to some 
extent, contractor and cabinet saws are more likely to be used by 
professional and occupational users.
    Based on staff discussions with industry representatives, 
electrical requirements and power appear to provide the best 
distinction between table saws typically used by consumers and those 
used most often in industrial settings. Two industry representatives 
indicated to staff that saws operating at 1.75 horsepower or greater 
likely cannot be run on typical household wiring. Most consumers do not 
have the necessary electrical wiring, specifically the specialized 
outlets and adapters, to accommodate power tools with horsepower 
ratings greater than 1.75 or requiring 220-240 volt power. Sliding 
table saws and many other cabinet saws require such electrical 
capabilities and, therefore, are less likely to be used by consumers. 
However, one manufacturer indicated the firm has begun development of a 
sliding saw aimed at the high-end do-it-yourself (DIY) market, and a 
representative from another firm indicated that some serious 
woodworking hobbyists may wire their home workshops to accommodate the 
more powerful saws. CPSC staff's review showed that 89 cabinet, hybrid, 
and sliding models run solely on 220-240 volts. Given wiring 
requirements, these 89 higher-voltage models are less likely to be used 
by typical consumers than industrial users.
4. Sales and Numbers in Use
    Although the design and engineering of table saws may occur in the 
United States, most table saws are currently manufactured overseas; 
several firms staff contacted indicated that their saws are 
manufactured in Taiwan. For example, one company indicated that it 
operates quality control offices in Taiwan and China, and imports saws 
from Asia. This is supported by data from the ITC, which indicates that 
in 2014 approximately 99 percent of imported table saw units were built 
in Taiwan and China.\67\ Additionally, a small volume of expensive saws 
most likely intended for industrial use and not intended for consumer 
use were imported from European and Canadian manufacturers.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Data compiled from tariff and trade data from the U.S. 
Department of Commerce and the ITC for Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
classification numbers 8465910036 (Tilting arbor table saw, 
woodworking) and 8465910078 (Sawing machines, woodworking, NESOI). 
See https://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/user_set.asp.
    \68\ For example, a $25,000 computerized numerically controlled 
(CNC) panel saw designed to cut large pieces of wood, like sheets of 
plywood is likely only to be used industrially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The annual number of table saws in use, a measure of risk exposure, 
was estimated with the CPSC's Product Population Model (PPM), a 
computer model that projects the number of products in use given 
estimates of annual product sales and product failure rates.\69\ 
According to PTI, total annual shipments of all table saws to the U.S. 
market from 2002 to 2014 have ranged from 429,000 to 850,000. Estimates 
of sales value are not readily available industry-wide. CPSC staff 
estimated that bench saws account for about 75 percent of the units 
sold. Staff assumed further that contractor saws (including hybrids) 
and cabinet saws account for 20 percent and 5 percent, respectively. 
The failure rate used by staff (i.e., the rate at which table saws go 
out of use) follows a gamma distribution, a commonly used distribution 
for the failure of products. That showed an average product life of 10 
years for bench saws, 17 years for contractor saws, and 24 years for 
cabinet saws. Using these parameters, CPSC staff projected a total of 
about 8.2 million table saws in use in the United States in 2015, 
including about 5.1 million bench saws, 2.3 million contractor saws, 
and 0.8 million cabinet saws. Thus, staff estimated that bench, 
contractor, and cabinet saws account for about 62 percent, 28 percent, 
and 10

[[Page 22223]]

percent of the table saw population, respectively. The Commission seeks 
comments concerning the proportion of table saw sales by table saw 
type, or any additional information on the expected product life of 
table saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Lahr, M.L., Gordon, B.B., 1980. Product life model 
feasibility and development study. Contract CPSC-C-79-009, Task 6, 
Subtasks 6.01-6.06). Columbus, OH: Battelle Laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Benefit-Cost Analysis

    This section of the analysis consists of a comparison of the 
benefits and costs of the proposed rule. The analysis is conducted from 
a societal perspective, considering all of the significant costs and 
health outcomes. CPSC staff reviewed the characteristics and societal 
costs of table saw blade-contact injuries. The benefits of the proposed 
rule are measured as the estimated reduction in the societal costs of 
injuries resulting from the use of saws containing the AIM technology. 
The costs of the proposed rule are defined as the added costs 
associated with the incorporation of the AIM technology in the table 
saws. Staff calculates the benefits and costs of the proposed rule on a 
per product in use basis.
    Because of the differences in the physical characteristics, the use 
patterns, and the likely population of users of each of the table saw 
types (i.e., bench, contractor, and cabinet saws), an independent 
evaluation of the benefits and costs for each table saw type could be 
useful. For example, the costs of the proposed rule could exceed the 
benefits for one or more saw types, even though, in aggregate, benefits 
could exceed costs for the market as a whole. However, because staff 
did not have information on the types of saws involved in the injuries, 
we did not assess the societal costs or benefits of the proposed rule 
by saw type. Nevertheless, staff has sufficient information on the 
potential costs of the proposed rule to conduct a breakeven analysis 
for the various saw types--an analysis that allows us to estimate the 
number of injuries for each of the saw types that would need to be 
prevented for the benefits of the proposed rule to equal or exceed the 
costs. Aggregated estimates of the benefits and cost on an annual basis 
can be readily calculated given projections of annual table saw sales. 
CPSC staff also compared breakeven estimates for the various saw types 
to possible hypothetical distributions of injuries to estimate the 
number of injuries for each of the saw types that would need to be 
prevented for the benefits of the proposed rule to equal or exceed the 
costs.
1. Blade-Contact Injuries
    The proposed rule is intended to address table saw injuries 
resulting from blade contact. As discussed in section IV of the 
preamble and TAB B of the staff briefing package, an estimated 30,800 
injuries reported through NEISS during 2015 were likely to have 
involved blade contact.
    In addition to injuries initially treated in hospital EDs, many 
product-related injuries are treated in other medical settings, such 
as, among others, physicians' offices, clinics, and ambulatory surgery 
centers. Some injuries also result in direct hospital admission, 
bypassing the hospital ED entirely. The number of table saw injuries 
treated outside of hospital EDs are estimated with the CPSC's ICM, 
which uses empirical relationships between the characteristics of 
injuries (diagnosis and body part) and victims (age and sex) initially 
treated in hospital EDs and the characteristics those initially treated 
in other settings.\70\ The ICM estimate of injuries treated outside of 
hospitals or hospital EDs (e.g., in doctors' offices, clinics, etc.) is 
based on data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Miller et al., 2000, Lawrence, B., 2013, supra note 57; 
Bhattachara, S., et al., 2012, supra note 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MEPS is a nationally representative survey of the civilian, 
non-institutionalized population that quantifies individuals' use of 
health services and corresponding medical expenditures. It combines 
data from a panel of participants interviewed quarterly over a two-year 
time period with data from the respondents' medical providers. The MEPS 
is administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 
(AHRQ). The ICM uses the MEPS data, in combination with a 
classification tree analysis technique, to project the number and 
characteristics of injuries treated outside of hospitals.
    To project the number of direct hospital admissions which bypass 
hospital EDs, the ICM uses data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample of 
the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP-NIS), which was also 
analyzed using a classification tree analysis technique. HCUP is a 
family of healthcare databases and related software tools and products 
developed through a federal-state-industry partnership and sponsored by 
AHRQ. The HCUP-NIS provides information annually on approximately 3 to 
4 million inpatient stays from about a thousand hospitals.
    The classification tree analysis technique (also called decision 
tree) is a statistical tool that divides and sorts data into smaller 
and smaller groups for estimating the ED share of injuries until no 
further gains in predictive power can be obtained. This technique 
allows for more precise estimates of injuries treated in doctor visits 
or injuries admitted directly to the hospital than other regression 
techniques. For example, where data is available, the age and sex of 
the victim can have an influence on the estimates of the number of 
injuries treated outside the emergency department. When we combine the 
national estimates of the NEISS with the non-ED estimates from the ICM 
using classification tree techniques, we obtain a total of medically 
treated injuries.
    Based on the annual estimate of about 30,800 blade-contact injuries 
initially treated in hospital EDs, the ICM projects approximately 
24,050 blade-contact injuries treated in other treatment settings. 
Combined with the ED-treated injuries, there were an estimated annual 
total of about 54,850 medically treated blade-contact injuries. About 
13.7 percent of the medically treated injuries involved amputations, 
56.9 percent involved lacerations, 22.8 percent involved fractures, and 
6.1 percent involved avulsions.\71\ About 27.5 percent of the 
amputations resulted in hospital admission, compared to about 4.0 
percent of lacerations and 12.1 percent of fractures. About 31.5 
percent of the amputations were treated in the doctors' offices/clinics 
and other non-hospital settings, compared with about 41.0 percent of 
lacerations, 50.3 percent of fractures, and 38.7 percent of avulsions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Medically treated table saw injuries, by injury diagnosis, 
differ from the NEISS estimates because the NEISS cases are limited 
to those initially treated in hospital emergency departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The blade-contact injury rate per 100,000 saws is calculated by 
dividing medically treated injuries by the estimated number of table 
saws in use. Overall, the blade-contact injury rate for table saws 
amounted to about 670 medically treated injuries per 100,000 saws. An 
approximate 95 percent confidence interval for medically treated 
injuries, based on estimates of the coefficient of variation (CV) from 
the NEISS injury estimates, ranges from about 550 to 790 medically 
treated injuries per 100,000 saws in use.
2. Injury Costs of Blade-Contact Injuries
    The societal costs of blade-contact injuries represent the pool 
from which the benefits of a blade contact rule are derived. The 
societal costs of these injuries are quantified with the ICM. The ICM 
is fully integrated with NEISS, and, in addition to providing estimates 
of the societal costs of injuries reported through NEISS, it also 
estimates the costs of medically treated injuries that

[[Page 22224]]

are initially treated outside of hospital emergency departments. The 
major aggregated societal cost components provided by the ICM include 
medical costs, work losses, and the intangible costs associated with 
lost quality of life or pain and suffering.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Miller et al., 2000, Lawrence, B., 2013 supra note 57; see 
also, Lawrence, Bruce, Impact of alternative discount rates on 
injury cost model estimates (Contract CPSC-D-05-0006, Task Order 7). 
Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (Nov. 
2008); Lawrence, Bruce, Updated price indexes for the Injury Cost 
Model (Contract CPSC-D-0003, Task Order 3, Subtask 4). Calverton, 
MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (Aug. 2015); 
Lawrence, Bruce, Update medical costs for ED-treated injuries 
(Contract CPSC-D-0003, Task Order 3, Subtask 1). Calverton, MD: 
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (Jan. 2015); Lawrence, 
Bruce, Update medical costs hospital-admitted injuries (Contract 
CPSC-D-0003, Task Order 3, Subtask 2). Calverton, MD: Pacific 
Institute for Research and Evaluation (Jan. 2015); Lawrence, Bruce, 
Updated survival probabilities for the Injury Cost Model (Contract 
CPSC-D-0003, Task Order 3, Subtask 3). Calverton, MD: Pacific 
Institute for Research and Evaluation (Aug. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Medical costs include three categories of expenditures: (1) Medical 
and hospital costs associated with treating the injury victim during 
the initial recovery period and in the long run, including the costs 
associated with corrective surgery, the treatment of chronic injuries, 
and rehabilitation services; (2) ancillary costs, such as costs for 
prescriptions, medical equipment, and ambulance transport; and (3) 
costs of health insurance claims processing. Cost estimates for these 
expenditure categories were derived from a number of national and state 
databases, including the MEPS, the HCUP-NIS, the Nationwide Emergency 
Department Sample (NEDS), the National Nursing Home Survey (NNHS), 
MarketScan[supreg] claims data, and a variety of other federal, state, 
and private databases.
    Work loss estimates include: (1) The forgone earnings of the 
victim, including lost wage work and household work, (2) the forgone 
earnings of parents and visitors, including lost wage work and 
household work, (3) imputed long term work losses of the victim that 
would be associated with permanent impairment, and (4) employer 
productivity losses, such as the costs incurred when employers spend 
time juggling schedules or training replacement workers. Estimates are 
based on information from HCUP-NIS, NEDS, Detailed Claims Information 
(a workers' compensation database), the National Health Interview 
Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other sources.
    The intangible, or non-economic, costs of injury reflect the 
physical and emotional trauma of injury as well as the mental anguish 
of victims and caregivers. Intangible costs are difficult to quantify 
because they do not represent products or resources traded in the 
marketplace. Nevertheless, they typically represent the largest 
component of injury cost and need to be accounted for in any benefit-
cost analysis involving health outcomes.\73\ The ICM develops a 
monetary estimate of these intangible costs from jury awards for pain 
and suffering. Although these awards can vary widely on a case-by-case 
basis, studies have shown them to be systematically related to a number 
of factors, including economic losses, the type and severity of injury, 
and the age of the victim.\74\ Estimates for the ICM were derived from 
regression analysis of jury awards in nonfatal product liability cases 
involving consumer products compiled by Jury Verdicts Research, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Rice, Dorothy P., MacKenzie, Ellen J., and Associates, 
1989. Cost of injury in the United States: A report to Congress. San 
Francisco, CA: Institute for Health & Aging, University of 
California and Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins 
University; Haddix, Anne C., Teutsch, Steven M., Corso, Phaedra S., 
2003. Prevention effectiveness: A guide to decision and economic 
evaluation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press; Cohen, Mark 
A., Miller, Ted R., 2003. ``Willingness to award'' nonmonetary 
damages and implied value of life from jury awards. International 
Journal of Law and Economics, 23 at 165-184; Neumann, Peter J., 
Sanders, Gillian D,, Russell, Louise B., Siegel, Joanna E. Ganiats, 
Theodore G., 2016. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: Second 
Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
    \74\ Viscusi, W. Kip, 1988. The determinants of the disposition 
of product liability cases: Systematic compensation or capricious 
awards? International Review of Law and Economics, 8, at 203-220; 
Rodgers, Gregory B., 1993. Estimating jury compensation for pain and 
suffering in product liability cases involving nonfatal personal 
injury. Journal of Forensic Economics 6(3), at 251-262; Cohen, Mark 
A., Miller, Ted R. (2003). ``Willingness to award'' nonmonetary 
damages and implied value of life from jury awards. International 
Journal of Law and Economics, 23, at 165-184.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on ICM estimates, the aggregate present value of the injury 
costs associated with the estimated 54,843 medically-treated table saw 
injuries amounted to about $4.06 billion (in 2014 dollars) when future 
injury losses (primarily those associated with long term work loss) 
were discounted at 3 percent. This suggests injury costs of about 
$74,050 per injury (i.e., $4.06 billion / 54,843 injuries). When future 
losses were discounted at 7 percent, the aggregated present value 
amounted to about $3.65 billion, or about $66,650 per injury (i.e., 
$3.65 billion / 54,843 injuries).
    OMB (2003) recommends discounting future benefits (or costs) using 
both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. The 7 percent discount 
rate is intended to reflect the rate of return to private capital in 
the U.S. economy. The 3 percent rate is intended to represent what is 
sometimes called the ``social rate of time preference,'' which is more 
consistent with the rate which ``society'' discounts future consumption 
flows to their present value.\75\ Using the lower social discount rate 
means that future benefits are valued somewhat more highly than they 
would be with the a higher discount rate. Most sources suggest that the 
social rate of time preference is more appropriate when evaluating 
health-related interventions,\76\ which is the intended purpose of the 
proposed rule. Consequently, the 3 percent discount rate is probably 
the more appropriate discount rate for evaluating the benefits and 
costs of the proposed rule. Presenting most results using both the 3 
percent and 7 percent, as recommended by OMB, shows the sensitivity of 
the results to variations in the discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ OMB, 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory analysis. Washington, 
DC: Office of Management and Budget. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
    \76\ Gold, Marthe R., Siegel, Joanna E. Russell, Louise B., 
Weinstein, Milton C., 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and 
medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; Haddix, Anne C., 
Teutsch, Steven M., Corso, Phaedra S., 2003. Prevention 
effectiveness: A guide to decision and economic evaluation (2nd 
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press; Neumann, Peter J., Sanders, 
Gillian D., Russell, Louise B., Siegel, Joanna E., Ganiats, 
Theodore, G., 2016. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine: 
Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The distribution of injury costs, by medical treatment setting 
(using the 3 percent discount rate) showed that overall, medical costs 
and work losses accounted for roughly 30 percent of the total, while 
the non-economic losses associated with pain and suffering accounted 
for 70 percent. Injury cost estimates for non-hospitalized injuries 
ranged from about $28,000 for blade-contact injuries treated outside of 
hospitals and EDs, to about $42,000 for injuries initially treated in 
hospital EDs (but not admitted). Injury costs for hospitalized 
injuries, in contrast, averaged about $450,000 per injury.
    While amputations accounted for about 13.7 percent of the medically 
treated blade-contact injuries, they accounted for almost 64 percent of 
the annual estimate of $4.06 billion in societal costs resulting from 
blade contact. The average imputed cost per amputation injury amounted 
to about $345,000, and ranged from $120,000 to $195,000 for non-
hospitalized amputations to about $825,000 per hospitalized 
amputation.\77\ If

[[Page 22225]]

amputations were excluded from the injury cost estimates, the injury 
costs would have been reduced from about $74,050 per injury to about 
$31,200 per injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ About 29.3 percent of the amputation injury costs were 
attributed to medical costs and work loss; 70.7 percent were 
attributed to pain and suffering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Table 10--Present Value of Societal Costs per Table Saw in Use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Discount rate
                                         -------------------------------
                                             3 percent       7 percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Aggregate Annual Societal Costs                $4.06           $3.65
 (Billions $)...........................
(b) Table Saws in Use (Millions)........             8.2             8.2
(c) Societal Costs per Table Saw [(a) /             $495            $445
 (b)]...................................
(d) Expected Useful Product Life (years)            13.3            13.3
(e) Present Value of Societal Costs, per          $5,366          $3,772
 Table Saw..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 22226]]

change the cartridge and, if necessary, the blade, and to withstand the 
force of the AIM system being triggered.
     Materials costs. The combination of the addition of a 
brake cartridge, or other means of stopping or retracting the blade 
after contact with flesh, and the redesign of the table saw to 
accommodate the additional electronic components and wiring, the 
required clearances, and the weight and dimensions of the AIM 
technology, would result in increased material costs.
a. Costs To Develop AIM Technology
    The proposed performance requirement for table saws would limit the 
depth of cut to a test probe, upon making contact with the saw blade at 
a radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to 3.5 mm. Although the proposed 
rule would allow for a variety of detection methods (such as 
electrical, optical, thermal, electromagnetic, ultrasound) to comply 
with the proposed requirements, the Commission is aware that, 
currently, only two manufacturers have developed an AIM technology 
using an electric detection system that is available on the market: 
SawStop and Bosch REAXXTM table saws.\78\ If manufacturers 
are unable to develop their own AIM system, or if their AIM technology 
infringes on SawStop patents, we believe that ongoing patent 
infringement litigation initiated by SawStop may have a bearing on 
SawStop or other companies' willingness to license their AIM 
technologies. Various stakeholders have expressed concern that a 
mandatory rule could impose a monopoly for SawStop technology given the 
numerous patents that have been filed on its behalf. PTI reports that 
SawStop has filed more than 140 patent applications, and has over 100 
issued patents pertaining to SawStop technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ A third company, Whirlwind Tool Company, has developed a 
``Black Box flesh-sensing prototype,'' which does not involve a 
blade retraction system, but uses a fixed protective guard and a 
very rapid, non-destructive motor-braking to stop the saw blade when 
the operator's hand is too close to the spinning blade. However, the 
Whirlwind system is not yet available in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 16, 2015, SawStop filed a complaint in the U.S. District 
Court in Oregon for patent infringement against Bosch. On the same date 
SawStop also filed a complaint against Bosch with the ITC requesting a 
permanent order excluding from entry into the United States certain 
table saws incorporating AIM technology and components that infringe on 
SawStop's patent claims. The complaint filed in the District Court in 
Oregon is on hold pending the final decision of the ITC. In the ITC 
proceeding, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an initial 
determination in September 2016 that the Bosch REAXXTM bench 
saw infringes on several SawStop patents.\79\ Specifically, the ALJ 
found that Bosch infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927 
(`927 Patent),\80\ titled ``Power Equipment with Detection and Reaction 
Systems''; and U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279 (`279 Patent) titled ``Power 
Equipment with Systems to Mitigate or Prevent Injury.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation 
Technology and Components Thereof, USITC, Inv. No. 337-TA-965 (ALJ 
Thomas B. Pender, Sept. 9, 2016).
    \80\ As described in ID, the `927 patent generally describes 
woodworking machine safety systems that include reaction systems 
designed to retract a cutting tool below a working system with 
approximately 14 milliseconds after the detection of a dangerous 
condition. Id. at 5-6.
    \81\ As described in the ID, the `279 patent generally describe 
woodworking safety systems that include an actuator designed to move 
a moveable component in order to mitigate injury in response to 
detection of a dangerous condition. Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 10, 2016, the ITC decided not to review the ALJ's 
initial determination, and requested that interested parties provide 
written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and 
bonding by November 22, 2016, with reply submissions due December 2, 
2016. On January 27, 2017, the ITC issued remedial orders including a 
limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against Bosch 
effective March 29, 2017. On April 6, 2017, Bosch filed an appeal of 
the ITC determination in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit.
    The outcome of the ongoing lawsuit involving the SawStop technology 
will determine some of the impacts that may result from a mandatory 
rule requiring AIM technology in table saws. If the court determines 
that the patents covering the SawStop technology allow for companies to 
manufacture their own saws with alternative AIM technologies (such as 
the Bosch REAXXTM saw), then some manufacturers may choose 
to try to develop their own proprietary technology or license the Bosch 
technology (if available) as an alternative to the SawStop technology.
    Alternatively, if the court decides that alternative technologies 
do in fact infringe upon SawStop patents, then SawStop may effectively 
have a monopoly on the technology needed to comply with a mandatory 
rule until the patents expire. Other manufacturers likely would be 
required to work with SawStop to license the SawStop technology for use 
in their saws, or leave the table saw market. PTI and SawStop agree 
that this is the case. The level at which the royalty payments are set 
will play a significant role in determining the economic impacts the 
CPSC's proposed rule would have on table saw manufacturers. We note 
that some of the allegedly infringed upon patents may expire in 2020 
(`927), and 2022 (`279). However, given the extensive number and reach 
of the SawStop patents, we do not know how, and to what extent, the 
SawStop patents may impact companies who attempt to introduce 
alternative AIM technologies. Nor do we know when the other SawStop 
patents expire or whether SawStop will file additional patents.
    The royalty fee for licensing the AIM technology from SawStop is 
uncertain. Although Dr. Gass has indicated that SawStop would accept 
royalty payments of 8 percent of a saw's wholesale price if all table 
saws are required to use SawStop's AIM technology,\82\ there is no 
certainty that SawStop would actually license the technology under 
terms that would be acceptable to other manufacturers. Indeed, with the 
exception of one company,\83\ several companies that have attempted to 
license the SawStop technology thus far have not been successful.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ IEc, 2016a at 19.
    \83\ SawStop and Griggio, an Italian manufacturer collaborated 
to develop a sliding table saw. IEc, 2016a at 18.
    \84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff believes that in addition to the direct manufacturing 
and replacement parts costs and the lost consumer surplus discussed 
below, approximately $30 million to $35 million annual royalty fees for 
the AIM technology could accrue to patent holders. This estimate is 
based on the assumption that royalty fees will amount to about 8 
percent of the wholesale costs of table saws when a rule would become 
effective. However, because royalties represent transfers from 
manufacturers to a patent holder, they are not included as costs for 
purposes in the benefit-cost analysis.\85\ The rationale for not 
including royalties is based on the premise that royalty fees represent 
a transfer from one market segment to another (i.e., from table saw 
manufacturers to patent holders) and remain available (by a different 
party) for productive use. Nevertheless, from the point of view of an 
individual manufacturer who pays the royalty, the payment represents a 
cost. Table saw manufacturers who would be paying royalties to a 
competitor would, in

[[Page 22227]]

effect, be reducing their competitiveness relative to the patent holder 
receiving the royalties. Consequently, the royalty transfers represent 
an impact of the proposed rule that needs to be considered, and staff 
has evaluated the potential costs of royalties as discussed in Table 
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ OMB, 2003. Circular A-4, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Redesign Costs
    Interviews with several manufacturers, as well as a review of 
public comments provided by PTI to the ANPR, revealed general agreement 
that implementing a rule requiring AIM technology would necessitate a 
complete redesign of all saws that do not currently incorporate the AIM 
technology. More specifically, the trunnion system would have to be 
redesigned, and the cabinet/interior of the saw would need to be 
modified to incorporate the technology and allow access to change out 
the brake cartridge or to allow clearance for blade retraction.\86\ The 
support structure, such as the stand, would also likely need to be 
redesigned to bear the extra weight of the AIM system and to absorb the 
force applied by the triggering of the AIM mechanism. PTI estimates 
that the cost to redesign and retool existing table saws would range 
from $2 million to $10 million per company.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ A trunnion is an assembly that holds a saw's arbor to the 
underside of the saw table.
    \87\ Graham, J. 2010. Expert report of Dr. John D. Graham. 
(April 27). Submitted with the PTI public comments (2012) CPSC-2011-
0074-1106, available at: regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SawStop has indicated that SawStop's tooling costs were 
approximately $200,000 for its first cast iron (i.e., contractor/
cabinet) table saw, and were approximately $700,000 for its first 
benchtop table saw.\88\ SawStop's estimates are within the range of 
estimates provided by other firms. In interviews with manufacturers, 
several companies indicated the cost to redesign saws could be 
approximately $500,000 per saw.\89\ One company indicated that 
retooling could cost $100,000 to $200,000. An additional cost of 
several hundred thousand dollars may be necessary depending on the 
level of engineering required for the redesign. For example, according 
to one company, a redesign of the trunnion system alone may cost 
$200,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ SawStop Comment to the ANPR, supra note 50.
    \89\ IEc, 2016a at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several companies suggested that the redesign and retooling of 
table saws would, at least on the initial models, be expected to take 
one to three years. However, redesigning and retooling subsequent 
models would require a shorter period and cost less. Four small firms 
interviewed indicated that the cost of redesigning their saws to 
incorporate AIM technology may be too great, relative to their sales 
volume, to support such a redesign. They indicated that they might 
respond by reducing or eliminating their offerings of table saws to the 
U.S. market.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Material Costs
    In addition to the redesign and tooling costs, additional costs 
would result from the additional components and the increased use of 
raw materials associated with inclusion of the AIM system. For SawStop 
models, the additional costs associated with the AIM system is 
approximately $58 (including brake cartridge, cartridge key, cartridge 
cable, cartridge bracket, insulation on arbor, electrode shell 
assembly, and power supply/motor control). An estimate from another 
firm suggested $74 (including cartridge, electronics, and mechanical 
parts).
    The AIM technology also will affect the weight of the table saws, 
adding to material costs. Although the added weight is applicable to 
all table saws equipped with the AIM technology, the added weight will 
particularly affect the bench saws, which typically can be transported 
by a single person. Currently, the lightest bench saws weigh 35 to 40 
pounds. While the various components needed for AIM compliance may only 
weigh a few pounds, the structure of some saws may need to be 
strengthened to be stable and to withstand the shock of blade braking 
and/or retraction if those methods are used. This need for strength may 
contribute substantially to the added weight of some complying saws. 
Adding the AIM technology effectively could double the weight of some 
of the lightest saws, reducing the portability and utility of 
lightweight bench saws.

D. Unit Manufacturing Cost Impact

1. Low-End Manufacturing Costs
    For bench saws, SawStop has indicated that retail prices for bench 
saws would increase by no more than $150 per unit as result of the 
rule.\91\ Dr. Gass estimates that in the short-term (i.e., within the 
first five years following the promulgation of the rule), the cheapest 
saws available (i.e., inexpensive bench saws that currently cost about 
$150) will have a price of approximately $299. Thus, SawStop projects a 
short term cost increase of about $150. In the absence of more specific 
information about manufacturing costs, CPSC staff uses this figure as 
the basis for the low-end estimate of manufacturing cost increases for 
bench saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ SawStop, LLC. 2009. Presentation to CPSC, December 8 & 9. 
See also, Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc., 659 F.3d 81, 83 
(1st Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For contractor and cabinet saws, the low-end expected cost impacts 
were based on discussions with other industry members. One manufacturer 
estimated that the retail price of the single table saw model that they 
produce would increase by about 30 percent as a result of the rule, 
including the cost of royalties. Excluding royalties, this estimate 
suggested a cost increase associated with redesign, retooling, and 
materials of about $256.\92\ For this analysis, we assume that this 
$256 low-end cost increase can be applied to all contractor and cabinet 
saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ IEc, 2016b at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. High-End Manufacturing Costs
    For bench saws, the high-end cost increase is based on information 
provided by PTI, whose members produce primarily bench saws. PTI 
estimates that the increase would be $100 to $800 per saw, excluding 
royalties.\93\ In the absence of more specific estimates, CPSC staff 
uses the midpoint of this range, $450 per saw, as the short-term high-
end estimate for bench saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For contractor and cabinet saw models, we apply the high-end of the 
range estimated by PTI and other manufacturers. One table saw 
manufacturer provided an estimate ranging from $500 to $800 for 
``larger saws,'' excluding royalties. Another manufacturer estimated 
that the retail price of saws would increase 20 percent, excluding the 
cost of royalties.\94\ Applying this percentage to the company's 
cabinet saw models results in added costs of about $260 to $800. 
Consequently, CPSC staff assumes the high-end incremental cost increase 
is $800, the upper bound of each range suggested by PTI and these two 
manufacturers. In the longer term, after about five years, we would 
expect that the incremental cost would decrease, though the magnitude 
of such a decrease is uncertain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Replacement Part Costs
    In addition to the direct costs of the rule just described, there 
also will be the added costs of replacement parts related to the AIM 
system. For purposes of our analysis, we base the cost of replacement 
parts on the SawStop system, which requires replacement of the brake 
cartridge and blade after an

[[Page 22228]]

activation of the system. Replacement part prices are estimated to 
include $69 for a replacement brake cartridge (based on current online 
prices), and $30 to $90 for a replacement blade. Based on sales of 
replacement brake cartridges, SawStop estimates that the AIM system may 
activate about once every nine years of use.\95\ At a replacement rate 
of once every nine years (and assuming $60 per replacement blade), this 
results in an annual per-unit replacement part cost of approximately 
$14 [($69 + $60) / 9]. However, because blades depreciate and would 
require periodic replacement even in the absence of an AIM activation, 
we assume that the need for replacement blades due to an activation 
costs an average of about $30 every nine years (rather than $60), for 
an average of about $11 annually [($69 + $30) / 9]. The present value 
of this expected annual cost of $11 over the life of a typical table 
saw, and discounted at a rate of 3 percent, would amount to about $94 
for bench saws (with a 10-year expected product life), $145 for 
contractor saws (with an estimated 17-year product life), and $186 of 
cabinet saws (with an expected 24-year product life). With a discount 
rate of 7 percent, the present value of expected costs would amount to 
about $77, $107, and $126 for bench, contractor, and cabinet saws, 
respectively. For purposes of this cost analysis, we use the midpoint 
of this range. Hence, we estimate that replacement parts costs for the 
AIM system would amount to about $86 for bench saws, $126 for 
contractor saws, and $156 for cabinet saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Id. at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Bosch REAXXTM bench saws, introduced 
on June 1, 2016, use a $100 cartridge that lasts for two activations. 
Since the blade is not destroyed by the activation, the Bosch system 
has lower replacement part costs. However, staff does not have any 
information on how frequently the cartridge will be activated. If, 
however, the Bosch cartridge activates once every nine years, based on 
the SawStop experience, and the cost is $100 for two activations, then 
the expected annual per-unit replacement cost would be about $5.55 
annually (($100/2) / 9). The present value of this expected annual cost 
of $5.55 over an average product life of 10 years for a bench saw 
(discounted at a rate of 3 percent) would amount to about $47 per saw, 
about half the expected costs of the SawStop system. Additionally, the 
Bosch system does not require any additional dado hardware related to 
the AIM system. Consequently, if the Bosch REAXXTM stays in 
the market, our baseline estimates of replacement costs might be 
reduced.
    The direct manufacturing and replacement costs are presented in 
Table 11, and rely on the low- and high-end direct manufacturing costs 
and the SawStop replacement costs as described.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The SawStop AIM system has optional hardware to perform 
dado cuts which includes an $89 dado brake cartridge. This dado 
brake system is not included in Table 11.

                              Table 11--Direct Manufacturing and Replacement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Direct manufacturing costs                      Total direct + 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, there is considerable 
uncertainty concerning the per unit manufacturing cost impact of a rule 
requiring the use of AIM technology on table saws. Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks any comments that would allow us to make more precise 
estimates or narrow the range we present regarding the unit 
manufacturing cost impact of a rule requiring the use of AIM technology 
on table saws.
4. Impact on Product Usability
    The AIM technology will also affect the weight of the table saws, 
adding to material costs. While the added weight is applicable to all 
table saws equipped with the AIM technology, the added weight will 
particularly affect bench saws, which, as currently configured, 
typically can be transported by a single person. Currently, the 
lightest bench saws weigh 35 to 40 pounds. While the various components 
needed for AIM compliance may only weigh a few pounds, the structure of 
some saws may need to be strengthened to be stable and to withstand the 
shock of blade braking and/or retraction if those methods are used. 
This need for strength may contribute substantially to the added weight 
of some complying saws, perhaps as much as an 18 pound increase.
    An additional four or five pounds is not a major weight penalty on 
a forty pound bench saw, but an 18 pound increase would reduce 
portability. An additional 20 pounds (on top of the 18 pounds) for a 
more substantial jobsite saw type structure, if necessary, would 
further decrease portability. For contractor saws, with wheels and 
stands, the weight penalty would not be substantial. Cabinet saws are 
not portable at all, so the weight penalty may make no real difference. 
However, adding the AIM technology could effectively double the weight 
of some of the lightest saws, reducing the portability and utility of 
lightweight bench saws. The Commission seeks public comments on the 
impact of the AIM technology on the utility of table saws, and possible 
methods of quantifying these impacts.

E. Impact of Higher Prices on Sales and Lost Consumer Surplus

    The increasing retail prices of table saws, as costs are passed on 
to consumers, will result in a reduction in table saw sales. As a 
consequence, and in addition to the price impacts on consumers who 
continue to purchase saws, consumers who decide not to purchase table 
saws because of the higher prices will experience a loss in consumer 
surplus. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that cost increases 
as well as royalties are pushed forward to consumers. Table 12 provides 
baseline sales and median retail price estimates,\97\ along with the 
total per

[[Page 22229]]

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

    \97\ Retail price information was collected for all of the table 
saw models available. However, we were unable to calculate a 
weighted average retail price for each category of saw because we do 
not have sales information for the various models. Consequently, we 
apply the median price advertised for each category as baseline pre-
regulatory retail prices.
    \98\ IEc, 2016b at 14. Staff also spoke with Dr. Gass on 
November 26, 2015, who indicated that SawStop would accept royalty 
payments of 8 percent of a saw's wholesale value if a rule is 
mandated requiring AIM technology on all table saws.

                  Table 12--Baseline Annual Table Saw Shipments, Retail Prices, and Per Unit Compliance Cost Estimates and Royalty Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Pre-regulatory baseline        Per unit cost estimates *         Per unit royalty fees
                                                                     estimates           ---------------------------------------------------------------
                     Table saw type                      --------------------------------     Low-end        High-end
                                                                           Median price    estimates (%    estimates (%    Low-end cost    High-end cost
                                                           Shipments **     (per unit)     of baseline)    of baseline)      estimates       estimates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 reduction in annual sales as well as 
the expected lost consumer surplus. Reduced sales could range from 
93,400 table saws under the low-end cost estimates (column a) to about 
251,700 under the high-end cost estimates (column d), a sales reduction 
of about 14.0 percent to 37.8 percent, respectively. The annual loss in 
consumer surplus ranges from about $10.0 million under the low cost 
estimates (column c), to about $72.3 million, under the high cost 
estimates (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 lost                                  Aggregate lost
                     Table saw type                       Expected sales  Expected post-     consumer     Expected sales  Expected 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 table saw, including both the 
direct manufacturing costs, replacement part costs, and the lost 
consumer surplus. The lost consumer surplus, per table saw, is 
calculated as the aggregate lost consumer surplus (from Table 13, 
columns c and f) divided by the post-regulatory estimate of sales 
(Table 13, columns b and e). Total per unit costs range from roughly 
$253 to $725 per bench saw to roughly $400 to $1,000 per unit for 
contractor and cabinet saws.

                               Table 14--Total Costs of the Proposed Rule, per Table Saw, by Cost Level and Table Saw Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Low-end cost estimates, per table saw          High-end cost estimates, per table saw
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Table saw type                          Direct +                                        Direct +
                                                            replacement    Lost consumer    Total (a) +     replacement    Lost consumer    Total (d) +
                                                               costs          surplus           (b)            costs          surplus           (e)
                                                                     (a)             (b)             (c)             (d)             (e)             (f)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench...................................................            $236             $17            $253            $536            $189            $725
Contractor..............................................             382              19             401             926             162           1,088

[[Page 22230]]

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

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

   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 costs                                  Per unit costs
                                                           Annual post-    (direct costs     Aggregate     Annual post-    (direct costs     Aggregate
                     Table saw type                         regulatory     + replacement       costs        regulatory    +  replacement       costs
                                                             table saw     costs + lost    (millions $)      table saw     costs + lost    (millions $)
                                                               sales         consumer        (a) x (b)         sales         consumer        (d) x (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 of the AIM technology to 
decrease. If, for example, we assume that the annual aggregate costs 
remain constant for years 1 through 5, but decline by about one-third 
in years 6 through 10, the present value of the aggregate costs over 10 
years (using a 3 percent discount rate) would range from about $1,200 
million to $2,500 million; on an annualized basis, this would amount to 
about $140 million to $290 million annually. Alternatively, if annual 
aggregate costs remain constant for years 1 through 5, but decline by 
about two-thirds in years 6 through 10, the present value of the 
aggregate costs over 10 years (using a 3 percent discount rate) would 
range from about $990 million to $2,000 million; on an annualized 
basis, this would amount to about $120 million to $240 million.

F. Benefit-Cost Findings

    The expected benefits and costs of the proposed rule, are presented 
and compared in Table 16. The estimated benefits per table saw are 
provided in rows (a) and (b). The estimated costs per table saw are 
shown in rows (c) and (d). Cost estimates were developed from Table 15; 
they represent the average lower and upper bound cost estimates, 
weighted by projected sales. Net benefits per table saw are estimated 
in rows (e) and (f), and range from about $2,500 to $4,000 with a 3 
percent discount rate and about $1,500 to $2,700 at 7 percent.

                      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

[[Page 22231]]

 
    (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) x (g)................................................            $168             $168              (k)
                                                                           to               to
    (d) x (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, shown in rows (g) and (h) of Table 
16, we can provide aggregate annual estimates of the benefits and costs 
of the proposed rule. As shown in rows (i) and (j), estimates of 
aggregate annual benefits range from about $970 million to $2,450 
million, and aggregate costs, shown in rows (m) and (n), range from 
about $170 million to about $345 million. Aggregate net benefits, from 
rows (m) and (n), range from about $1,030 million to $2,280 million 
with a 3 percent discount rate, and from about $630 million to $1,560 
million at 7 percent.

G. Sensitivity Analysis

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

[[Page 22232]]



                            Table 17--Sensitivity Analysis: Expected Net Benefits Associated With Variations in Input Values
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Range of expected net benefits per table saw, by discount rate
            Row                           Input value              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    3 Percent                                  7 Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Part A: Reference Case Results.*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a.........................  Reference Case Analysis * (Rows (i)     $2,502 to $3,995.........................  $1,512 to $2,722.
                             and (j) from Table 16).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Part B: Alternative Inputs for Sensitivity Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row                         Input variable and value(s) used in                        Range of expected net benefits by discount rate
                             sensitivity analysis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    3 Percent................................  7 Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Expected Product Life (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b.........................  Lower expected product life: 10.8       2,817 to 4,400...........................  1,834 to 3,136.
                             years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c.........................  Higher expected product life: 16.2      2,502 to 3,995...........................  1,414 to 2,596.
                             years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       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,     279 to 1,136.............................  -52 to 711.
                             excluding imputed costs of 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 medically treated injuries 
(rows f and g), were based on the lower and upper bounds of an 
approximate 95 percent confidence interval, based on estimates the 
coefficient of variation (CV) from the NEISS injury estimates. The 
upper bound estimates increased net benefits substantially, as would be 
expected, while the lower bound estimates lowered them.
    Finally, net benefits were significantly reduced when benefits were 
limited to the reduction in economic losses associated with medical 
costs and work losses, excluding the intangible costs associated with 
pain and suffering (Table 17, Part B, row h). Reductions in pain and 
suffering accounted for about 70 percent of the societal costs 
associated with blade-contact injuries. Nevertheless, although net 
benefits appear to have remained positive using a 3 percent discount 
rate, benefits were generally comparable to costs when a 7 percent 
discount rate was applied.

H. Breakeven Analysis

    The preceding analysis evaluated the expected benefits and costs of 
the proposed rule over the table saw market as a whole, combining all 
of the saw types into a single category. However, because we had no 
information on the distribution of injuries by saw type, we were unable 
to evaluate the relationship between benefits and costs for each of the 
three major saw categories: Bench saws, contractor saws, and cabinet 
saws.
    Such a detailed analysis of benefits and costs, by saw type, is 
useful because the saw types have different physical characteristics 
and different patterns of usage. Contractor saws, in general, are 
heavier, less mobile, and more expensive than bench saws; similarly, 
cabinet saws are heavier, less mobile, and more expensive than 
contractor saws. Some types of table saws may be used more frequently 
or more intensively than others. Contractor and cabinet saws may be 
more likely to be used by hobbyists or occupational users who may, 
relative to bench saw users, have more expertise or experience in the 
safe use of table saws.
    On the other hand, many consumers use table saws only occasionally. 
These types of consumers may be less likely to fully understand table 
saw risks (e.g., how quickly and unexpectedly kickback injuries can 
occur) or to remember safety procedures; they are also probably more 
likely to purchase the inexpensive bench saw models. Consequently, 
because of the different characteristics and potentially varying use 
patterns associated with the various saw types, it is possible that the 
costs of the proposed rule might exceed the benefits for one or more 
table saw types, even though, in aggregate (as shown above), benefits 
exceed aggregate costs for the market as a whole.
    Although we cannot conduct a benefit-cost analysis of the 
individual saw types, we can evaluate the relationship between benefits 
and costs of the proposed rule by saw type. To do this, we will, for 
each saw type, estimate the number of injuries that would have to be 
prevented in order for benefits to equal or exceed the costs. This is 
called a breakeven analysis, and the number of injuries that would have 
to be prevented before benefits would equal costs can be called the 
breakeven estimate. We will then develop several hypothetical 
distributions of injuries across saw types, and compare the expected 
injury

[[Page 22233]]

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

  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      13,435-23,990......  6,451-10,567......  2,186-3,323.
                  Estimate.
f..............  Present Value of Expected Injury    8,330-19,192.......  4,000-8,454.......  1,355-2,818.
                  Reduction *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g..............  2. Equivalent risks for the saw
                  types, over expected 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      16,237-28,993......  4,586-7,512.......  1,101-1,774.
                  Estimate.
k..............  Present Value of Expected Injury    10,067-23,194......  2,843-6,010.......  682-1,419.
                  Reduction *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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      6,389-11,408.......  9,396-15,389......  6,628-10,679.
                  Estimate.
p..............  Present Value of Expected Injury    3,961-9,126........  5,825-12,311......  4,109-8,543.
                  Reduction *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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      2,070-3,696........  6,749-11,054......  13,687-22,053.
                  Estimate.
u..............  Present Value of Expected Injury    1,283-2,957........  4,184-8,843.......  8,486-17,642.
                  Reduction *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 Estimates
    Breakeven injury estimates are derived from: (1) The expected post-
regulatory sales, and (2) the aggregate cost estimates, by saw type, 
presented in Table 15. For example, to calculate the breakeven injury 
estimate for bench saws, we begin with the aggregate cost estimates of 
$106.4 million to $207.4 million. The $106.4 million was based on our 
lower bound cost estimate for bench saws (annual sales of 420,500 bench 
saws x $253 cost per bench saw) and $207.4 million was based on our 
upper bound cost estimate (annual sales of 286,000 bench saws x $725 
cost per bench saw).
    If we divide these aggregate cost estimates by the average cost per 
injury (i.e., $74,050 with a 3 percent discount rate and $66,550 at 7 
percent), we can estimate a range of injuries that would have to be 
prevented for benefits to equal or exceed costs. For bench saws, using 
a 3 percent discount rate, the breakeven estimates range from 1,437 
injuries ($106.4 million / $74,050) to 2,801 injuries ($207.4 million / 
$74,050). Using a 7 percent discount rate, the breakeven estimates 
range from about 1,599 injuries ($106.4 million / $66,550) to about 
3,116 ($207.4 million / $66,550). If, for simplicity, we combine these 
ranges, we have an overall breakeven range from about 1,437 (based on 
the lower bound cost estimate injury costs discounted at 3 percent) to 
3,116 injuries (based on the upper bound cost estimate and injury costs 
discounted at 7 percent).
    This breakeven estimate means that if the proposed rule could 
prevent at least 1,437 to 3,116 bench saw injuries over the expected 
product life of one years' production and sale of bench saws, then the 
benefits of the proposed rule would equal or exceed the costs for that 
saw type. Using the same methodology, the breakeven injury estimate for 
contractor saws ranges from 650 to 1,615, and the breakeven estimate 
for cabinet saws ranges from 178 to 445. CPSC staff notes that 
throughout this breakeven analysis, we are implicitly assuming that the 
types of injuries experienced, and hence the societal costs, are the 
same across the three types of table saws. However, in reality, the 
distribution of injuries and the resulting societal costs, by saw type, 
are likely to vary.
2. Hypothetical Blade-Contact Injury Distributions
    Because we have no information on the actual distribution of blade-
contact injuries across saw types, CPSC staff considered four 
hypothetical distributions. The first assumes that injuries are 
proportional to saws in use, and that every table saw has an equal 
likelihood of injury on an annual basis. Thus, the risk for a bench 
saw, over the course of a year, is equal to the risk for

[[Page 22234]]

contractor and cabinet saws. Because the present value of the expected 
injury reduction for bench saws (8,330 to 19,192; row f) exceeds the 
breakeven range (1,437 to 3,116; row a), we can say that the benefits 
are very likely to exceed the costs for bench saws for this 
hypothetical injury distribution. Additionally, the present value of 
prevented injuries ranges from 4,000 to 8,454 injuries for contractor 
saws and 1,355 to 2,818 injuries for cabinet saws. Because the present 
value of each of these ranges exceeds the breakeven range (650-1,615 
for contractor saws and 178-445 for cabinet saws), we can say that, for 
this distribution of injuries, the estimated benefits of the proposed 
rule are likely to exceed the costs for all three table saw types.
    The second hypothetical injury distribution assumes that the risks 
for the saw types are equal to one another over their expected product 
lives. Consequently, given the expected product life of about 10 years 
for bench saws, 17 years for contractor saws, and 24 years for cabinet 
saws, the annual risk for contractor saws would, on an annual basis, be 
about 59 percent (10 years / 17 years) of the risk for bench saws, and 
the risk for cabinet saws would be about 42 percent (10 years / 24 
years) of the risk for bench saws. Given the distribution of an 
estimated 8.2 million table saws currently in use by saw type, this 
hypothetical injury distribution would suggest that about 75.2 percent 
of the 54,843 blade-contact injuries in 2015 involved bench saws, 19.9 
percent involved contractor saws, and 4.9 percent involved cabinet 
saws. This injury distribution suggests increased injury risk for bench 
saws but lower risks for contractor and cabinet saws (row h). 
Nevertheless, the present value of injuries prevented (row k) would 
continue to exceed the breakeven levels (row a).
    Our third hypothetical injury distribution assumes that the blade 
contact risk for the three table saw types is proportional to their 
median retail prices. Given the median retail prices (i.e., $400 per 
bench saw, $1,225 per contractor saw, and $2,550 per cabinet saw), the 
annual risk on a contractor saw would be about 3.06 times the risk for 
a bench saw (i.e., $1,225 / $400) and the annual risk on a cabinet saw 
would be about 6.37 times the risk for a bench saw (i.e., $2,550 / 
$400). Given the distribution of the estimated 8.2 million table saws 
currently in use by saw type, this hypothetical injury distribution 
would suggest that about 29.6 percent of the 54,843 blade-contact 
injuries in 2015 involved bench saws, 40.8 percent involved contractor 
saws, and 29.6 percent involved cabinet saws. Relative to the first two 
hypothetical injury distributions, this injury distribution would 
suggest that injury risks are lower on bench saws, but higher on 
contractor and cabinet saws (row m). The results suggest that the 
present value of injuries prevented (row p) would exceed the breakeven 
levels.
    Whereas the third hypothetical injury distribution suggested that 
injury risks were proportional to median prices, our fourth 
hypothetical injury distribution assumes that estimated blade-contact 
injuries, by table saw type, are proportional to the median retail 
prices. Consequently, the annual number of blade-contact injuries on 
contractor saws would be about 3.06 times the number on bench saw 
injuries, and the number of injuries on cabinet saws would be about 
6.37 times the number on bench saws. Given the distribution of the 
estimated 8.2 million table saws currently in use by saw type, this 
hypothetical injury distribution would suggest that about 9.6 percent 
of the 54,843 blade-contact injuries in 2015 involved bench saws, 29.3 
percent involved contractor saws, and 61.1 percent involved cabinet 
saws. Comparing the present value of the expected injury reduction (row 
u) with the breakeven injury estimates (row a) suggests that the 
expected injury reduction would exceed the breakeven level. However, 
for bench saws, the present value of injury reduction (1,283 to 2,957) 
appears to be generally comparable to, or slightly lower than, the 
breakeven level (1,437 to 3,116).
3. Sensitivity Analysis of Breakeven Results
    The breakeven analysis evaluated four hypothetical injury 
distributions, and found (for the most part) that the expected injury 
reduction for each of the saw types substantially exceeded the 
breakeven estimates, regardless of the hypothesized injury 
distribution. The CPSC staff also conducted a sensitivity analysis of 
the breakeven results by allowing variation in some key parameters and 
assumptions underlying the analysis, including variations in the number 
of table saws in use, the national estimate of medically treated 
injuries, and estimates of injury costs. Results are presented in Table 
19, which shows the present value of the expected injury reduction for 
the four injury distributions presented in Table 18, when estimates of 
the number of Tables saws (by type) were either 25 percent lower or 25 
percent higher than in the base analysis and when estimates of 
medically treated injury estimates were set equal to the lower and 
higher bounds of an approximate 95 percent confidence interval, based 
on the coefficient of variation from the NEISS blade-contact injury 
estimates.
    As suggested by rows (b) through (p) of Table 19, the present value 
of the expected injury reductions from the first three hypothetical 
injury distributions remain uniformly higher than the breakeven 
estimates (row a), as do the projected injury reductions for contractor 
and cabinet saws from the fourth hypothesized injury distribution (rows 
q through u). However, considering bench saws from the fourth injury 
distribution, the present value injury estimates appear to be generally 
comparable, or marginally lower, than the breakeven injury estimates 
when: (1) The estimate of bench saws in use was assumed to be 25 
percent higher than the reference case (row s); and (2) when bench saw 
injuries were estimated at the lower bound of an approximate 95 percent 
confidence interval for 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              6,860-15,806        3,294-6,962        1,117-2,320
                          Medically Treated Injuries.

[[Page 22235]]

 
f......................  Upper bound Estimate of              9,799-22,578        4,705-9,945        1,595-3,315
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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              8,291-19,104        2,342-4,950          562-1,169
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
k......................  Upper bound Estimate of             11,843-27,287        3,346-7,070          803-1,670
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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               3,262-7,517       4,798-10,139        3,384-7,036
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
p......................  Upper bound Estimate of              4,660-10,736       6,853-14,482       4,834-10,050
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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               1,057-2,435        3,446-7,283       6,989-14,530
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
u......................  Upper bound Estimate of                1509-3,477       4,922-10,402       9,982-20,754
                          Medically Treated Injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPSC staff also considered the sensitivity of the results to 
the exclusion of the intangible costs associated with the pain and 
suffering. The staff is not suggesting that the intangible costs are 
unimportant; rather the analysis simply shows the impact of limiting 
the costs to the economic losses associated with medical costs and work 
losses. By implicitly reducing injury costs, we are in effect changing 
the breakeven estimates which, were estimated as the quotient of 
aggregate injury costs for each type of saw divided by the average 
injury cost. Using a 3 percent discount rate, and excluding the pain 
and suffering component, the average injury cost would be reduced from 
about $74,050 to $21,900; using a 7 percent discount rate, the average 
injury cost would be reduced from about $66,550 to $17,300. 
Consequently, following the bench saw example discussed earlier, the 
breakeven estimate, excluding the intangible costs associated with pain 
and suffering, would range from 4,854 injuries (106.4 million / 
$21,900) to 9,461 injuries ($207.4 million / $21,900) when discounted 
at 3 percent. When discounted at 7 percent, the breakeven estimate 
would range from 6,150 injuries ($106.4 million / $17,300) to 11,994 
injuries ($207.4 million / $17,300). Thus, for bench saws, the overall 
range for the breakeven injury estimate is 4,854 to 11,994 injuries. 
Using the same methodology, the breakeven injury estimate for 
contractor and cabinet saws would range from 2,194 to 6,217 and 602 to 
1,711, injuries respectively.
    The breakeven injury estimates for the three types of saws, 
excluding pain and suffering, are presented in Table 20 and compared to 
the present value of the expected injury reductions developed in 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            8,330-19,192        4,000-8,454        1,255-2,818
                          Injury Reduction.
d......................  2. Equivalent Risks for the
                          Saw Types, Over Expected
                          Product Life.
e......................  Present Value of Expected           10,067-23,194        2,843-6,010          682-1,419
                          Injury Reduction.
f......................  3. Injury Risks Proportional
                          to the Median Saw Price.
g......................  Present Value of Expected             3,961-9,126       5,825-12,311        4,109-8,543
                          Injury Reduction.
h......................  4. Injuries are Proportional
                          to Median Saw Price.
i......................  Present Value of Expected             1,283-2,957        4,184-8,843       8,486-17,642
                          Injury Reduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 22236]]

under the third hypothetical injury distribution (row g). And third, 
the present value estimates were lower than the breakeven estimates for 
bench saws under the fourth hypothetical injury distribution (row i).
    Staff's analysis shows, that, for the most part, the sensitivity 
analysis of the breakeven estimates indicated that estimates of the 
present value of the expected injury reduction were either comparable 
to or substantially exceeded the breakeven injury estimates for the 
various saw types and across all of the hypothetical injury 
distributions. The primary exception involved bench saws under the 
fourth hypothetical injury distribution, in which the relative risk on 
cabinet saws was roughly 40 times the risk on a bench saw.

I. Summary of the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

    Based on CPSC staff's analysis, the proposed rule would address 
approximately 54,800 medically treated table saw blade-contact injuries 
that occur annually. The societal cost of these injuries, on the order 
of about $3.65 billion to $4.06 billion annually, represents the pool 
from which the benefits would be derived. Medical costs and work 
losses, the economic losses associated with these injuries, account for 
about 30 percent of the total; the intangible, or non-economic, costs 
associated with pain and suffering account for the remaining 70 percent 
of the total. We expect the proposed rule would prevent or 
substantially mitigate 70 percent to 90 percent of the medically 
treated blade-contact injuries.
    CPSC staff's review also shows substantial net benefits (i.e., 
benefits--costs) for the proposed rule. Estimates of net benefits, 
across all saw types, averaged about $1,500 to $4,000 per saw over its 
expected product life. Aggregate net benefits over approximately one 
year's production and sale of table saws could amount to about $625 
million to about $2,300 million. Net benefits varied but generally 
remained positive in our sensitivity analysis.
    Because we had no information on the distribution of injuries 
across saw types (i.e., bench, contractor, and cabinet saws), CPSC 
staff was unable to compare directly the benefits and costs for each 
saw type. However, based on several assumptions discussed above and in 
TAB C of the staff briefing package, staff was able to conduct a 
breakeven analysis by estimating the approximate number of injuries 
that would have to be substantially mitigated for each type of saw for 
the benefits to equal or exceed the costs. This analysis suggested 
that, under most plausible injury distributions, the benefits likely 
would exceed the costs for each saw type.
    Notwithstanding the high level of expected net benefits, the 
proposed rule also would be costly and would result in disruption of 
the table saw market. Under the rule, table saw manufacturers would 
need to develop their own AIM technology, without impinging on existing 
patents or license the patented AIM technology that already exists. 
Most, if not all, table saw models not already incorporating the AIM 
technology would require major design changes and the retooling of 
production facilities, a process that likely would take two or more 
years to accomplish. The cost impact of the proposed rule on market 
sales might also be substantial, potentially reducing aggregate sales 
by about 14 percent to 38 percent annually. In discussions between 
staff and manufacturers, several firms indicated that the cost of 
redesigning their saws to incorporate the AIM technology may be too 
great, relative to their sales volume, to support such a redesign. 
These firms indicated that they might respond by reducing or 
eliminating their offerings of table saws to the U.S. market.
    Although the proposed rule would substantially reduce blade-contact 
injuries and the societal costs associated with those injuries, the 
impact of increasing table saw production costs on consumers also would 
be considerable. Staff expects that the prices for the least expensive 
bench saws now available could more than double, to $300 or more. In 
general, the retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as 
$200 to $500 per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet 
saws could rise by as much as $350 to $1,000 per unit.\99\ These higher 
prices may be mitigated in the longer run, but the extent of any future 
price reductions is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The current retail prices of the SawStop models and the 
Bosch REAXX\TM\ model currently marketed are consistent with the 
upper end of these possible price increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, because of the likely decline in sales following the 
promulgation of a rule, consumers who choose not to purchase a new saw 
due to the higher price will experience a loss in utility by forgoing 
the use of table saws, or because they continue to use older saws which 
they would have preferred to replace. There may also be some other 
utility impacts. The inclusion of the AIM technology will, for example, 
increase the weight and (potentially) the size of table saws to 
accommodate the new technology, to allow access to change the brake 
cartridge, and to mitigate the effects of the force associated with the 
activation of the brake cartridge. While this factor may have a 
relatively small impact on the heavier and larger contractor and 
cabinet saws, the impact on some of the smaller and lighter bench saws 
could markedly reduce their portability.
    As discussed further below, the Commission also considered several 
alternatives to the proposed rule. These alternatives would mitigate 
the proposed rule's costs and potential disruptions in the marketplace. 
In particular, they could, individually or in combination, reduce the 
adverse impacts of the proposed rule on manufacturers (including small 
manufacturers), allow for greater choice in the types and safety 
characteristics of the table saws that consumers can purchase, reduce 
the impact of the proposed rule on table saws intended for commercial 
or professional use, and address the market failures resulting in the 
need for a product safety rule in the first place. However, these 
alternatives would reduce the expected benefits of the proposed rule. 
These alternatives are the same alternatives as those considered in the 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis in section XII of the preamble, 
and TAB D of the staff briefing package. Accordingly, any potential 
impacts of alternatives on small manufacturers are also addressed here 
in section XI.J.

J. Regulatory Alternatives

1. No Action Alternative
    Under this alternative, the Commission would take no regulatory 
action and the status quo would be maintained, at least in the short 
term. This option acknowledges that passive safety devices, such as 
blade guards, riving knives, and pawls, are already provided to 
purchasers of new table saws and can be used by consumers to prevent 
many types of blade-contact injury. Additionally, the option recognizes 
that table saws with the AIM technology are already available for 
consumers who want and can afford them.
    Over the longer term, changes in the voluntary standard may 
increase the level of safety with table saws. Sales of table saws with 
the AIM technology may also gradually increase as consumers become more 
familiar with the improved safety characteristics of these table saws. 
Table saws with AIM systems are now available for purchase by consumers 
in all table saw categories, including the introductions of the SawStop 
bench saw model in March 2015 and the introduction of the Bosch

[[Page 22237]]

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

[[Page 22238]]

years. It would also address the potential market failure associated 
with one firm's market power over the AIM technology through patents, 
effectively eliminating competition, while at the same time allowing 
consumers to choose table saws without AIM technology if they prefer. 
Consequently, consumers who place a great value on safety or who face 
greater than average risks will find the safer table saws more 
desirable and will be more likely to buy them. Consumers who do not 
want the safer but more expensive saws can decide to purchase saws 
without the AIM technology. In this way, consumer preferences might be 
better matched with the products they wish to purchase.
    If licensing agreements satisfactory to all parties could be 
arranged, this alternative would also alleviate (though not eliminate) 
the burden of the proposed rule on some manufacturers, including small 
manufacturers, because it would not require that all of their saws 
contain the AIM technology. However if licensing arrangements could not 
be agreed upon, then small manufacturers might be faced with an even 
greater burden and potentially face even higher prices. If patent 
holders are not willing to license their technology under reasonable 
terms, the impact on small manufacturers could be greater because they 
would need either to incur greater costs to develop their own 
technology or exit the table saw market.
    Moreover, this alternative would address only a portion of blade-
contact injuries. If, for example, the requirement led to about 50 
percent of table saws being equipped with the AIM technology, the 
expected benefits would be on the order of about 50 percent of the 
benefits described in the reference case analysis (or somewhat higher 
if consumers with the greater risks were more likely to purchase the 
safer table saws).\100\ Accordingly, this alternative would not 
mitigate the large number of blade-contact injuries associated with 
table saws, and would reduce the net benefits associated with the 
proposed rule. The Commission seeks comment on what impact limiting the 
requirement for the AIM technology to a subset of table saws would have 
on manufacturers, including small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ We cannot predict what proportion of table saw sales would 
ultimately contain the AIM technology under this alternative. If 
consumers place a high value on safety, and prices are reduced or 
moderated over time, the proportion might be high. If, however, 
consumers would generally prefer saws without the AIM technology 
because of the lower prices or for other reasons, the proportion 
would be lower. Product liability concerns on the part of 
manufacturers would probably increase the proportion of table saws 
with the AIM technology. Once the table saws with AIM technology 
become more commonplace, table saws without the technology would be 
more likely to be challenged in product liability suits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Information and Education Campaign
    The Commission could conduct an information and education campaign 
informing consumers about blade contact hazards and blade-contact 
injuries, and the benefits of the AIM technology. This alternative 
could be implemented on its own, in the absence of other regulatory 
options, or it could be implemented in combination with any of the 
alternative options.
    As discussed in section IX of the preamble and in TAB E of the 
staff briefing package, the effectiveness of warnings and instructions 
is limited. Although educational programs offer more opportunities to 
present hazard information in varied ways, and in greater detail than 
warning labels, the effectiveness of such programs is also limited 
because they depend on consumers not only receiving and understanding 
the message, but also being persuaded to heed the message. Although the 
Commission believes that such a campaign could help inform consumers, 
based on the severity of injuries and recurring hazard patterns of 
blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high societal costs of these 
injuries, the Commission believes that a performance requirement is 
necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on 
table saws.

XII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This section provides an analysis of the impact the proposed rule 
would have on small businesses. Whenever an agency is required to 
publish a proposed rule, section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA) requires that the agency prepare an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact that the rule 
would have on small businesses and other entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. An 
IRFA is not required if the head of an agency certifies that the 
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must 
contain:
    (1) A description of why action by the agency is being considered;
    (2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    (3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    (4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record; and
    (5) identification to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the 
proposed rule.
    An IRFA must also contain a description of any significant 
alternatives that would accomplish the stated objectives of the 
applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant economic 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities. According to the IRFA, 
alternatives could include: (1) Differing compliance or reporting 
requirements that take into account the resources available to small 
businesses; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements for small entities; (3) use of 
performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part of the rule thereof, for small 
entities. The alternatives the Commission considered are discussed in 
section XI(J) of the preamble and TAB D of the staff briefing package.

A. Reason for Agency Action

    The proposed rule for table saws would reduce an unreasonable risk 
of injury associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws. CPSC 
staff estimates that there are approximately 54,800 medically treated 
blade-contact injuries annually based on 2015 injury data and estimates 
from the ICM. Almost 23 percent of the injuries involved fractures, 
amputations accounted for 14 percent of the injuries, and lacerations 
accounted for about 57 percent. AIM technology has been shown to 
effectively mitigate the severity of injuries caused by a victim's hand 
or other body part contacting the blade while the table saw is in 
operation. Accordingly, the proposed rule would establish a performance 
requirement to address the risk of injuries associated with blade-
contact injuries on table saws.

B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule

    The objective of the proposed rule is to mitigate operator injuries 
resulting from blade contact on table saws. The Commission published an 
ANPR in October 2011, which initiated this proceeding to evaluate 
regulatory options and potentially develop a mandatory standard to 
address the risks of blade-contact injuries associated with the use of 
table saws. The proposed rule

[[Page 22239]]

is being promulgated under the authority of the CPSA.

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    The proposed rule would apply to manufacturers, importers, and 
private labelers of table saws that are sold in the United States. As 
of February 2016, CPSC is aware of 22 firms that supply table saws to 
the U.S. market. Of these 22 firms, at least 8, and possibly 10, are 
small according to criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).\101\ According to the SBA criteria, a table saw 
manufacturer is considered small if it has fewer than 500 employees, 
and a table saw importer is considered small if it has fewer than 100 
employees. Private labelers of table saws are considered ``small'' if 
their annual revenue exceeds $38.5 million in the case of home centers, 
$32.5 million in the case of department stores, and $7.5 million in the 
case of hardware stores.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ IEc, 2016a at 9.
    \102\ Under the North American Industrial Classification System 
(NAICS) manufacturers of table saws are classified in category 
333243 (Sawmill, Woodworking, and Paper Machinery Manufacturing). 
Importers or private labelers of table saws include some department 
stores (NAICS category 4452111, home centers (NAICS category 
444110), and some hardware stores (NAICS category 444130).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small table saw manufacturers supply mostly contractor and cabinet 
saws, which are typically more expensive and heavier than bench saws. 
Contractor saws generally retail for between $529 to $2,049 and weigh 
between about 198 and 414 pounds. Cabinet saws typically retail for 
$1,199 to $5,349 and weigh between about 321 and 1,040 pounds. One 
small company sells a multipurpose machine that includes a table saw, 
lathe, drill press, sander, and router, among other tools. The cost of 
this multipurpose machine starts at about $3,379. As of March 2016, 
only three bench saw models were being offered by small manufacturers. 
One of these was a bench saw that was much heavier (233 pounds) and 
more expensive ($1,499) than most other bench saws. Another bench saw, 
offered by SawStop, already incorporates an AIM technology and retails 
for around $1,300. The size and weight of the third bench is more 
typical of the bench table saws offered by the larger 
manufacturers.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ IEc, 2016a, Table Saw Models, February 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Compliance, Reporting, and Record Keeping Requirements of Proposed 
Rule

    The proposed rule would establish a performance requirement 
limiting the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe contacts the 
spinning saw blade at a radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s. Section 14 of 
the CPSA requires manufacturers, importers, or private labelers of a 
consumer product subject to a consumer product safety rule to certify, 
based on a test of each product or a reasonable testing program, that 
the product complies with all rules, bans or standards applicable to 
the product. The proposed rule does not specify a test procedure that 
the Commission would use to determine compliance with the standard. Any 
test procedure that will accurately determine compliance with the 
proposed performance requirements may be used. However, if a final rule 
is issued, manufacturers must certify that the product conforms to the 
standard, based on either a test of each product, or any reasonable 
method to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the standard. 
For products that manufacturers certify, manufacturers would issue a 
general certificate of conformity (GCC).
    Section 14 of the CPSA sets forth the requirements for GCCs. Among 
other requirements, each certificate must identify the manufacturer or 
private labeler issuing the certificate and any third party conformity 
assessment body, on whose testing the certificate depends, the place of 
manufacture, the date and place where the product was tested, each 
party's name, full mailing address, telephone number, and contact 
information for the individual responsible for maintaining records of 
test results. The certificates must be in English. The certificates 
must be furnished to each distributor or retailer of the product and to 
the CPSC, if requested.
1. Costs of Proposed Rule That Would Be Incurred by Small Manufacturers
    To comply with the proposed rule, table saw manufacturers would 
need to license or develop an AIM technology. To license a technology, 
manufacturers will have to pay a royalty to the owner of the patents on 
the technology. The royalty cost for licensing an AIM technology is 
uncertain. Dr. Gass of SawStop has indicated that SawStop would be 
willing to license the SawStop AIM technology for a royalty payment of 
8 percent of the wholesale price of the saw, but only if the Commission 
establishes a mandatory standard requiring AIM technology. There is no 
certainty that SawStop actually would license its technology under 
terms that would be acceptable to other manufacturers even if a 
mandatory standard were established. Several companies have asserted 
that they had attempted to license the SawStop technology without 
success. Bosch uses an AIM technology on its REAXXTM bench 
saw that was developed, in part, through a joint venture of several 
members of the PTI. The terms under which this technology may be 
available for license are not known and may be affected by ongoing 
patent infringement litigation.
    To avoid royalty or licensing fees, the manufacturer would have the 
challenge of developing its own AIM technology that did not infringe on 
an existing patent. At a minimum, developing an AIM system would likely 
cost at least several hundred thousand dollars, and perhaps several 
million dollars, based on the estimated costs of developing the 
existing technologies. However, the extent and scope of the SawStop 
patents that could impact future AIM technological developments is 
unknown. It is possible that new AIM technologies that are developed 
could also infringe on existing SawStop patents that have been filed or 
are pending.
    After acquiring an AIM technology, manufacturers will need to 
redesign their table saws and retool their manufacturing facilities to 
incorporate the technology. According to several manufacturers, 
incorporating an AIM technology would require a redesign of each table 
saw including possibly, the trunnion, the cabinet, and interior of the 
saw. In addition, the support structure of the table saw, including the 
stand, might have to be strengthened to bear the added weight of the 
system and to absorb the force that could result from the system being 
triggered.
    Estimates of the redesign and retooling costs ranged from a low of 
about $100,000 per model to $700,000. The redesign and retool process 
would be expected to take 1 to 3 years depending upon the problems 
encountered in the process. The redesign and retooling costs for 
subsequent models might be somewhat less than the costs associated with 
the first model.
    There is some uncertainty as to how the redesign and retooling 
costs would affect manufacturers. One manufacturer noted that the 
redesign and retooling costs have to be paid upfront and manufacturers 
generally desire to amortize these costs over three years. However, 
most table saw brand owners contract with Chinese or Taiwanese 
manufacturers to actually manufacture the table saws. In some cases, 
these manufacturers may produce table saws for more than one firm and 
may be willing to absorb some of the costs in order to remain in the 
market.

[[Page 22240]]

    In addition to the redesign and retooling costs, there will be 
added costs due to the additional components required on saws that 
incorporate an AIM technology. Depending upon the specific system used, 
the additional parts may include a brake cartridge, cables, additional 
parts or brackets to secure the brake cartridge, electrodes and 
assemblies and a power supply or motor control. These additional 
components are expected to add between $58 and $74 to the manufacturing 
cost of a table saw.
2. Impacts on Small Businesses
    To comply with the proposed rule, most small manufacturers are 
expected to license an AIM technology instead of developing their own 
technology. The costs of attempting to develop their own AIM technology 
would probably be too high for most small manufacturers. However, there 
is no certainty that small manufacturers would be able to negotiate 
acceptable licensing agreements with SawStop or another patent holder. 
If small manufacturers are unable to negotiate acceptable licensing 
agreements for AIM technology, it is likely that all small table saw 
manufacturers, with the exception of SawStop, will exit the U.S. table 
saw market.
    If small table saw manufacturers are able to license AIM 
technology, they would be expected to evaluate the sales volume of each 
table saw model and the likely cost of redesigning and retooling the 
model and decide whether to continue offering the model in the United 
States. If the manufacturer does not believe that the sales volume 
would be sufficient to recoup these costs in a reasonable amount of 
time, it is likely that the manufacturer would discontinue the sale of 
the model (at least in the United States).\104\ The fact that some 
small table saw manufacturers might license the AIM technology from 
SawStop would mean that these manufacturers would be paying royalties 
to a competitor. This would be expected to reduce their competitiveness 
in the table saw market. Four firms indicated to CPSC staff that they 
would likely reduce or eliminate the table saws that they currently 
offer in the United States if AIM technology is mandated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ One small manufacturer indicated to staff in a telephone 
call on November 30, 2015, that they would want to be able to 
amortize the redesign and retooling costs over a 3-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the exception of SawStop and one other firm, most small table 
saw manufacturers also supply other types of woodworking or metal 
working equipment. Anecdotal information suggests that U.S. sales of 
table saws account for a small percentage of the total revenue of most 
small firms. Information supplied by one manufacturer suggests that 
U.S. table saw sales accounted for about 1 percent of the firm's total 
revenue. Two other firms estimated that U.S. table saw sales accounted 
for between 5 and 8 percent of their total revenue. Actions that impact 
a firm's revenue by more than 1 percent are potentially significant. 
Therefore, given that it is likely that small table saw manufacturers 
would drop one or more table saws from the U.S. market if the proposed 
rule were adopted, and may leave the market entirely if they are unable 
to license an AIM technology, the proposed rule could have a 
significant impact on small manufacturers. However, the proposed rule 
is not likely to cause most small manufacturers to fail completely. One 
small manufacturer, SawStop, would significantly benefit from the 
promulgation of the proposed rule because it already manufactures table 
saws with AIM technology and owns multiple patents that cover AIM 
technology.

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    OSHA has established standards that cover woodworking equipment 
used in workplace settings. These standards are codified at 29 CFR 
1910.213. Generally, these requirements cover workplace safety and the 
use of safety devices such as blade guards and hoods. Currently, OSHA 
standards do not mandate performance requirements that would use AIM 
technology on table saws that are used by consumers. Accordingly, the 
Commission has not identified any federal rules that duplicate or 
conflict with the proposed rule.

F. Alternatives Considered To Reduce the Burden on Small Entities

    Under section 603(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis should ``contain a description of any 
significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the 
stated objectives of the applicable statutes and which minimize any 
significant impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' CPSC 
examined several alternatives to the proposed rule that could reduce 
the impact on small entities. These include: (1) No regulatory action; 
(2) defer to voluntary standard activities for table saws; (3) 
establish alternative effective dates; (4) exempt or limit certain 
categories of table saws from the rule. These alternatives are 
discussed in more detail in section XI.J. of the preamble. The 
Commission invites comments on this IRFA and the potential impact of 
the proposed rule on small entities, especially small businesses. Small 
businesses that believe they will be affected by the proposed rule are 
especially encouraged to submit comments. The comments should be 
specific and describe the potential impact, magnitude, and alternatives 
that could reduce the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses.

XIII. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether CPSC is required to 
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). 16 CFR 1021.5. Those regulations state CPSC's actions 
that ordinarily have ``little or no potential for affecting the human 
environment,'' and therefore, are categorically excluded from the need 
to prepare and EA or EIS. Among those actions are rules, such as the 
proposed rule addressing blade-contact injuries on table saws, which 
provide performance standards for products. Id. 1021.5(c)(1).

XIV. Executive Order 12988 (Preemption)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), the 
CPSC states the preemptive effect of the proposed rule, as follows:
    The regulation for addressing blade-contact injuries on table saws 
is proposed under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. Section 
26 of the CPSA provides that ``whenever a consumer product safety 
standard under this Act is in effect and applies to a risk of injury 
associated with a consumer product, no State or political subdivision 
of a State shall have any authority either to establish or to continue 
in effect any provision of a safety standard or regulation which 
prescribes any requirements as to the performance, composition, 
contents, design, finish, construction, packaging or labeling of such 
product which are designed to deal with the same risk of injury 
associated with such consumer product, unless such requirements are 
identical to the requirements of the Federal Standard.'' 15 U.S.C. 
2075(a). Upon application to the Commission, a state or local standard 
may be excepted from this preemptive effect if the state or local 
standard: (1) Provides a higher degree of protection from the risk of 
injury or illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) does not unduly 
burden interstate commerce. In addition, the federal government, or a

[[Page 22241]]

state or local government, may establish or continue in effect a non-
identical requirement for its own use that is designed to protect 
against the same risk of injury as the CPSC standard if the federal, 
state, or local requirement provides a higher degree of protection than 
the CPSA requirement. 15 U.S.C. 2075(b).
    Thus, the table saw requirement proposed in today's Federal 
Register would (if finalized) preempt non-identical state or local 
requirements for table saws designed to protect against the same risk 
of injury from blade-contact injuries on table saws.

XV. Certification

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a 
consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, 
standard or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, 
must be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC-enforced 
requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). A final rule addressing blade-contact 
injuries on table saws would subject table saws to this certification 
requirement.

XVI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed rule does not require manufacturers (including 
importers) to maintain records beyond those necessary to comply with 16 
CFR part 1110. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not contain 
collection of information requirements as defined under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

XVII. Effective Date

    The CPSA requires that consumer product safety rules take effect 
not later than 180 days from their promulgation unless the Commission 
finds there is good cause for a later date. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). The 
Commission proposes that the rule would take effect 3 years from the 
date of publication of the final rule for table saws.
    Given the complexities and costs that would be associated with 
developing or licensing the AIM technology, redesigning virtually all 
table saw models, and retooling production facilities, the Commission 
believes that this later effective date could reduce the impact of the 
rule on manufacturers, including small manufacturers. This later date 
would allow manufacturers to spread the costs of developing or 
negotiating for the rights to use an AIM technology, modify the design 
of their table saws to incorporate the AIM technology, and retool their 
factories for the production of table saws with the new technology. For 
manufacturers who might choose to exit the table saw market, perhaps 
because their volume of table saw sales does not justify the cost of 
redesigning the table saws, the additional delay might also provide 
them with more time to consider alternative business opportunities.

XVIII. Proposed Findings

    The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain findings when 
issuing a consumer product safety standard. Specifically, the CPSA 
requires that the Commission consider and make findings about:
     The degree and nature of the risk of injury;
     the number of consumer products subject to the rule;
     the need of the public for the product and the probable 
effect on utility, cost, and availability of the product; and
     other means to achieve the objective of the rule, while 
minimizing the impact on competition, manufacturing, and commercial 
practices.

15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1).
    The CPSA also requires that the Commission find that the rule is 
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with the product and that issuing the rule is in the 
public interest. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).
    In addition, the Commission must find that:
     If an applicable voluntary standard has been adopted and 
implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely 
to reduce adequately the risk of injury, or compliance with the 
voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial;
     that benefits expected from the regulation bear a 
reasonable relationship to its costs; and
     that the regulation imposes the least burdensome 
requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury. 
Id.
    These findings are discussed below.

A. Degree and Nature of the Risk of Injury

    In 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency 
department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 
(92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the 
saw blade. Of the 30,800 emergency department-treated, blade-contact 
injuries, an estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) involved the 
finger. The most common diagnosis in blade-contact injuries is an 
estimated 18,100 laceration injuries (58.8 percent), followed by an 
estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 percent), an estimated 4,700 
amputations (15.2 percent), and an estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 
percent). An estimated 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact injury 
victims were hospitalized.
    An estimated 4,700 amputation injuries on table saws occurred in 
2015, alone. Compared to all other types of consumer products, CPSC 
estimates that table saw-related amputations account for 18.6 percent 
of all amputations in the NEISS in 2015. When compared to all other 
workshop products, table saws account for an estimated 52.4 percent of 
all amputations related to workshop products in 2015. Based on NEISS 
estimates, the trend analysis for yearly blade-contact injuries 
associated with table saws showed no discernible change in the number 
of injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact 
from 2004 to 2015. In addition, the trend analysis for the risk of 
blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in use yearly showed no 
discernible change in the risk of injury associated with table saw 
blade contact from 2004 to 2015.

B. Number of Consumer Products Subject to the Proposed Rule

    The annual shipments of all table saws to the U.S. market from 2002 
to 2014 have ranged from 429,000 to 850,000. Estimates of sales value 
are not readily available industry-wide. However, staff estimates that:
     Bench saws account for about 75 percent of the units sold 
and have an average product life estimated at 10 years;
     contractor saws (including hybrids) account for 20 percent 
of the units sold and have an average product life of 17 years;
     cabinet saws account for 5 percent of the units sold and 
have an average product life of 24 years;
     the annual number of table saws in use in the United 
States is 8.2 million table saws, including about 5.1 million bench 
saws, 2.3 million contractor saws, and 0.8 million cabinet saws.
    Thus, bench, contractor, and cabinet saws account for about 62 
percent, 28 percent, and 10 percent of the table saw population, 
respectively.

C. The Need of the Public for Table Saws and the Effects of the 
Proposed Rule on Their Utility, Cost, and Availability

    Consumers commonly purchase table saws for the straight sawing of 
wood and other materials, and more specifically, to perform rip cuts, 
cross cuts, and non-through cuts. Because operator finger/hand contact 
with the table saw blade is a dominant hazard

[[Page 22242]]

pattern, the Commission proposes a performance requirement that would 
limit the depth of cut and significantly reduce the frequency and 
severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws.
    The proposed rule would increase table saw production costs. CPSC 
expects that the prices for the least expensive bench saws now 
available would more than double, to $300 or more. In general, the 
retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as $200 to $500 
per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet saws could 
rise by as much as $350 to $1,000 per unit. These higher prices may be 
mitigated in the longer run, but the extent of any future price 
reductions is unknown.
    Because of the likely decline in sales following the promulgation 
of a rule, consumers who choose not to purchase a new saw, due to the 
higher price, will experience a loss in utility by forgoing the use of 
table saws, or because they continue to use older saws that they would 
have preferred to replace. There may also be some other impacts on 
utility, such as an increase in the weight and (potentially) size of 
table saws. This factor may have a relatively small impact on the 
heavier and larger contractor and cabinet saws, but could markedly 
reduce the portability of some of the smaller and lighter bench saws.

D. Other Means To Achieve the Objective of the Proposed Rule, While 
Minimizing Adverse Effects on Competition and Manufacturing

    The Commission considered alternatives to the proposed rule. For 
example, the Commission considered not taking regulatory action, 
deferring to the voluntary standard development process, exempting or 
limiting certain table saws from regulation, and information and 
education campaigns. However, as explained further in these proposed 
findings (section XVIII.I. of the preamble), the Commission finds that 
these alternatives would not adequately mitigate the unreasonable risk 
of injuries that is associated with table saw blade contact.

E. Unreasonable Risk

    CPSC estimates that 30,800 table saw-related injuries involving 
blade contact were treated in hospital emergency departments (ED) in 
2015. An estimated 93.8 percent of these injuries involved the finger. 
The most common diagnoses in blade-contact injuries are laceration 
injuries, fractures, amputations, and avulsion. Thousands of 
amputations (an estimated 4,700 amputation injuries in 2015 alone) 
occur each year on table saws. When compared to all other workshop 
products, table saws account for an estimated 52.4 percent of all 
amputations related to workshop products in 2015.
    Existing safety devices, such as the blade guard and riving knife, 
do not adequately reduce the number or severity of blade-contact 
injuries on table saws. Table saws have been equipped with these 
passive safety devices since 2009 and there is no evidence of the 
effectiveness of these safety devices in reducing or mitigating blade-
contact injuries. In CPSC's 2015 modular blade guard survey, a majority 
of respondents (80%) reported that there are circumstances that require 
the blade guard to be removed, and a majority of respondents reported 
they did not use the blade guard ``sometimes'' (28%), ``often'' (17%) 
or ``always'' (14%). Any situation where the blade guard is not used 
eliminates the effectiveness of the blade guard in preventing blade-
contact injuries. In addition, a review of CPSRMS database found 11 
incidents involving table saws that meet the current voluntary standard 
requirements for riving knives and modular blade guards. These 
incidents show that blade-contact injuries continue to occur on table 
saws equipped with riving knives and modular blade guards.
    CPSC's trend analysis of the annual estimated number of emergency 
department-treated injuries associated with table saws covered the 
timespan before the voluntary standard implemented the requirement for 
riving knives and modular blade guards on table saws (2004 to 2009) and 
the timespan after the requirements were implemented (2010 to 2015). 
The data showed that there is no discernible change in the number of 
injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact from 
2004 to 2015. A trend analysis to assess the risk of injury per 10,000 
table saws in use showed there is no discernible change in the risk of 
injury associated with table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015.
    CPSC staff's review shows substantial net benefits for the proposed 
rule. Estimates of net benefits, across all table saw types, averaged 
about $1,500 to $4,000 per saw over its expected product life. 
Aggregate net benefits over approximately 1 year's production and sale 
of table saws could amount to about $625 million to about $2,300 
million. The Commission concludes preliminarily that there is an 
unreasonable risk of injury associated with blade-contact injuries on 
table saws and finds that the proposed rule is reasonably necessary to 
reduce that unreasonable risk of injury.

F. Public Interest

    This proposed rule is intended to address an unreasonable risk of 
blade-contact injuries on table saws. As explained in this preamble, 
adherence to the requirements of the proposed rule would reduce and 
mitigate severe blade-contact injuries on table saws in the future; 
thus, the rule is in the public interest.

G. Voluntary Standards

    The current voluntary standard for table saws is Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. (UL) 987, Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools. In 
August 2016, UL published the first edition of UL 62841-3-1, Electric 
Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden 
Machinery Part 3-1: Particular Requirements for Transportable Table 
Saws. UL 62841-3-1. The effective date for UL 62841-3-1 is August 29, 
2019. Until that date, UL 987 remains in effect, and table saw 
manufacturers can list their products to either UL 987 or UL 62841-3-1. 
Both standards specify that table saws shall be provided with a modular 
blade guard and riving knife.
    The Commission does not believe that the voluntary standards 
adequately address blade-contact injuries on table saws. Existing 
safety devices, such as the blade guard and riving knife, which have 
been provided on table saws since 2009, do not adequately reduce the 
number or severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws. In CPSC's 
2015 modular blade guard survey, 80 percent of respondents indicated 
that there are circumstances that require the blade guard to be 
removed. Clearly, removal of the blade guard eliminates its ability to 
prevent or reduce injuries. CPSC's review of incidents from the CPSRMS 
database identified 11 incidents involving table saws that were 
equipped with riving knives and modular blade guard systems. These 
incidents show that blade-contact injuries continue to occur on table 
saws equipped with riving knives and modular blade guards. Finally, 
CPSC's trend analysis of the annual estimated number of emergency 
department-treated injuries associated with table saws from 2004 to 
2015 shows that there is no discernible change in the number of 
injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact from 
2004 (when table saws did not have riving knives and modular blade 
guards) to 2015 (when table saws did have these features).
    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the voluntary 
standard will not adequately address an unreasonable

[[Page 22243]]

risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws.

H. Relationship of Benefits to Costs

    Based on estimates from NEISS and the ICM, the Commission finds 
that the proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically 
treated blade-contact injuries annually. The societal costs of these 
injuries (in 2014 dollars and using a 3 percent discount rate) amounted 
to about $4.06 billion in 2015. Amputations accounted for about 14 
percent of the medically treated blade-contact injuries and almost two-
thirds of the injury costs. Overall, medical costs and work losses 
account for about 30 percent of these costs, or about $1.2 billion. The 
intangible costs associated with pain and suffering account for the 
remaining 70 percent of injury costs.
    Because of the substantial societal costs attributable to Blade-
contact injuries (about $4 billion annually), and the expected high 
rate of effectiveness of the proposed requirements in preventing blade-
contact injuries, the estimated gross benefits of the proposed rule 
(i.e., the expected reduction in societal costs) could amount to an 
average of about $2,300 to $4,300 per saw. Based on 1 year's production 
and sale of table saws, aggregate gross benefits could range from about 
$970 million to $2,450 million annually.
    Staff estimates showed that increased manufacturing cost, as well 
as the expected costs of replacement parts for the AIM system, would 
range from about $230 to $540 per bench saw, to about $375 to $925 per 
contractor saw, and to about $400 to $950 per cabinet saw. These costs 
likely would be mitigated somewhat over time, but the extent of any 
future cost reduction is unknown. Based on 1 year's production and sale 
of table saws, aggregate gross costs could range from about $170 
million to $340 million annually. In addition to the direct 
manufacturing and replacement parts costs, firms may need to pay 
approximately $30 million to $35 million annually in royalty fees to 
patent holders for the AIM technology.
    Additionally, some consumers who would have purchased table saws at 
the lower pre-regulatory prices will choose not to purchase new table 
saws. The cost impact of the proposed rule on market sales may reduce 
aggregate sales by as much as 14 percent to 38 percent annually. The 
decline in sales will result in lost utility to consumers who choose 
not to purchase table saws because of the higher prices. Further, more 
reductions in consumer utility may result from the added weight, and 
hence, reduced portability associated with adding the AIM technology to 
the table saws.
    Based on our benefit and cost estimates, the Commission estimates 
that net benefits (i.e., benefits minus costs) for the market as a 
whole (i.e., combining the three types of table saws together) amount 
to an average of about $1,500 to $4,000 per saw. Aggregate net benefits 
on an annual basis could amount to about $625 million to about $2,300 
million.

I. Least Burdensome Requirement That Would Adequately Reduce the Risk 
of Injury

    The Commission considered less burdensome alternatives to the 
proposed rule addressing blade-contact injuries on table saws and 
concluded preliminarily that none of these alternatives would 
adequately reduce the risk of injury.
    No Action Alternative. The Commission considered not taking any 
regulatory action. Under this alternative table saws would continue to 
use existing passive safety devices, such as blade guards, riving 
knives, and anti-kickback pawls. Additionally, table saws with the AIM 
technology are already available for consumers who want and can afford 
them. However, not taking any action would leave the unreasonable risk 
of blade-contact injuries on table saws unaddressed. Based on the 
severity of injuries and recurring hazard patterns of Blade-contact 
injuries, coupled with the high societal costs of these injuries, the 
Commission believes that a performance requirement is necessary to 
reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on all table 
saws.
    Defer to the Voluntary Standard for Table Saws. The Commission 
considered deferring action to allow the voluntary standard for table 
saws, UL 987, to develop AIM technology. Although the CPSC has 
supported recent changes in the voluntary standard with requirements 
for newer blade guard systems and riving knives and considers these to 
be a significant improvement over earlier systems, there is little 
evidence that improvements in these passive safety devices have 
effectively reduced injuries. Additionally, voluntary standards 
committees have twice rejected initiatives by UL to adopt provisions 
that would require AIM systems. Consequently, it does not appear that 
the voluntary standards process is likely to lead to a requirement for 
the AIM technology in the near future.
    Later Effective Dates. The proposed rule would require an effective 
date that is 3 years after the final rule is published in the Federal 
Register. The Commission considered a later effective date. An 
effective date later than 3 years could further reduce the impact of 
the rule on small manufacturers because it would allow them additional 
time to spread the costs of developing or negotiating for the rights to 
use an AIM technology, modify the design of their table saws to 
incorporate the AIM technology, and retool their factories for the 
production. For manufacturers that might choose to exit the table saw 
market, the additional delay might provide them with more time to 
consider alternative business opportunities.
    However, later effective dates could also delay the introduction of 
table saws with AIM technology into the market and discourage 
manufacturers from introducing table saws with AIM technology earlier 
than the effective date, and possibly, put those manufacturers at a 
competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, the Commission believes that a 
3-year effective date from the issuance of a final rule is an 
appropriate length of time.
    Exempt Contractor and Cabinet Saws from a Product Safety Rule. The 
Commission considered whether to exempt cabinet and/or contractor saws 
used by professional, commercial, or industrial users, or based on 
certain size, weight, power, and electrical specifications of the table 
saw. However, based on the severity of injuries and recurring hazard 
patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high societal 
costs of these injuries, the Commission believes that a performance 
requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-
contact injuries on all table saws. Moreover, there is no clear 
dividing line between consumer and professional saws, except at the 
very highest levels of price and performances.
    Limit the Applicability of the Performance Requirements to Some, 
but Not All, Table Saws. The Commission also considered limiting the 
scope of the rule to a subset of table saws to allow manufacturers to 
produce both table saw models with AIM technology, and models without 
AIM technology. However, based on the severity of injuries and 
recurring hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the 
high societal costs of these injuries, the Commission believes that a 
performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of 
blade-contact injuries on all table saws.

[[Page 22244]]

Information and Education Campaign

    The Commission also considered whether to conduct an information 
and education campaign informing consumers about the dangers of blade-
contact hazards, and the benefits of the AIM technology. Although such 
a campaign could help inform consumers, without a performance 
requirement, that approach would not be sufficient to address the 
unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws.

XIX. Request for Comments

    We invite all interested persons to submit comments on any aspect 
of the proposed rule. Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on 
the following:

Scope

     Information on whether certain types of table saws should 
be excluded from the scope of the rule, such as mini or micro tables 
saws, or table saws that are used primarily for commercial or 
industrial use.
     Information on whether the scope of the rule should be 
expanded to include types of saws other than table saws (e.g., tile 
saws).
     Information on whether the definition of table saws should 
be revised, or whether other definitions are necessary.
     Information on home-made table saws or other dangerous 
alternatives consumers may pursue if they are not willing or are unable 
to purchase a table saw (with AIM capabilities).

Market Information

     Information on table saw sales, by table saw type (bench, 
contractor, cabinet), and information on the expected product lives of 
each type of table saw.

Patents

     Information on the effects of the pending expiration of 
certain SawStop patents in 2020 and 2022.
     Information on barriers to licensing technology that is 
patented.
     Information on the role of patents in standard business 
practice, and how this does or does not relate to table saw safety.

Binding RAND Commitment

     Information on the applicability of the American National 
Standards Institute's (ANSI) patent policy to any voluntary standard 
for table saws incorporating AIM technology. The patent policy requires 
that ANSI-Accredited Standards Developers who receive notice that a 
proposed standard may require the use of an essential patent claim 
shall ``receive from the patent holder or a party authorized to make 
assurances on its behalf, in written or electronic form, either:
    (a) Assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect 
that such party does not hold and does not currently intend holding any 
essential patent claim(s); or
    (b) assurance that a license to such essential patent claim(s) will 
be made available to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the 
purpose of implementing the standard either: (i) Under reasonable terms 
and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination; 
or (ii) without compensation and under reasonable terms and conditions 
that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.'' (RAND 
Commitment)
     Information on whether the refusal of a potential 
essential-patent holder of the AIM technology to give the required 
assurances set forth in the ANSI patent policy would prohibit a 
voluntary standard requiring such technology.
     Information on the effect that a RAND Commitment covering 
potentially essential patent claims would have on the proposed rule's 
economic impact, including, but not limited to, its impact on 
competition, small businesses, and the cost and availability of table 
saws.
     Information on whether, as a matter of policy, CPSC should 
finalize a mandatory rule implicating potential essential patents 
absent a RAND Commitment covering such patents.
     Information on other government agencies that have 
proposed or adopted regulations implicating potential essential 
patents, including whether the holders of those patents had entered 
into RAND Commitments prior to the finalization of such regulations.

Utility

     Information on what impacts AIM technology may have on the 
utility of table saw use by consumers.

Effectiveness

     Information on effectiveness of AIM technologies. The CPSC 
staff's regulatory analysis estimated that the requirements of the 
proposed rule would reduce the risk of blade-contact injury by 70 
percent to 90 percent. The Commission seeks comments from the public 
that either support these effectiveness estimates or that help the 
Commission adjust them appropriately.
     Information concerning the extent to which table saws are 
used for cutting wet wood and conductive materials, such as non-ferrous 
metals, and the extent to which the AIM technology may be deactivated 
during use.
     Information on whether consumers will use more unsafe 
methods to cut wood as an alternative to table saws that are equipped 
with AIM technology.

Manufacturing Costs

     Information on manufacturing costs. Based on the available 
information, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the per unit 
manufacturing cost impact on a table saw that would meet the 
requirements of the proposed rule. The Commission seeks any comments 
that would allow us to make more precise estimates or narrow the range 
we present regarding the unit manufacturing cost impact of a rule 
requiring the use of AIM technology on table saws.
     Information on the feasibility of incorporating AIM 
technology on small bench top table saws.

Test Requirements

     Information on how different detection methods may be 
applied as part of an AIM system and appropriate test methods to 
properly evaluate the triggering of AIM systems employing these 
detection methods.
     Studies or tests that have been conducted to evaluate AIM 
technology in table saws.
     Studies, research, or tests on the radial velocity of the 
human hand/finger in wordworking and, in particular, during actual 
blade contact incidents.

Regulatory Alternatives

     Information on whether a 36-month effective date is 
reasonable, and whether a longer or shorter effective date is 
warranted.
     Information on the feasibility of limiting or exempting a 
subset of table saws or certain types of table saws from the 
performance requirements.
     Information on the potential impact of the proposed rule 
on small entities, especially small businesses.

Anti-Stockpiling

     Information on the proposed product manufacture or import 
limits and the base period with respect to the anti-stockpiling 
provision.
    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

XX. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission proposes 
requirements to address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with 
table saws.

[[Page 22245]]

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1245

    Consumer protection, Imports, Information, Safety.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes 
to amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

0
1. Add part 1245 to read as follows:

PART 1245--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES ON TABLE SAWS

Sec.
1245.1 Scope, purpose and effective date.
1245.2 Definitions.
1245.3 Requirements.
1245.4 Test procedures.
1245.5 Prohibited stockpiling.
1245.6 Findings.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058 and 2076.


Sec.  1245.1  Scope, purpose and effective date.

    (a) This part 1245, a consumer product safety standard, establishes 
requirements for table saws, as defined in Sec.  1245.2(a). These 
requirements are intended to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws.
    (b) Any table saw manufactured or imported on or after [date that 
36 months after publication of a final rule] shall comply with the 
requirements stated in Sec.  1245.3.


Sec.  1245.2  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051), the following definition applies for 
purposes of this part 1245.
    (a) Table Saw means a woodworking tool that has a motor-driven 
circular saw blade, which protrudes through the surface of table. Table 
saws include bench saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws.
    (b) [Reserved].


Sec.  1245.3  Requirements.

    (a) General. All table saws covered by this standard shall meet the 
requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) Test. All table saws, when powered on, shall limit the depth of 
cut to 3.5 mm when a test probe contacts the spinning saw blade at a 
radial approach rate of 1.0 meter per second (m/s).
    (c) Test Probe. The test probe shall act as the surrogate for a 
human body/finger and allow for the accurate measurement of the depth 
of cut to assess compliance with paragraph (b) of this section.


Sec.  1245.4  Test procedures.

    Any test procedure that will accurately determine compliance with 
the standard may be used.


Sec.  1241.5  Prohibited stockpiling.

    (a) Base period. The base period for table saws is any period of 
365 consecutive days, chosen by the manufacturer or importer, in the 5-
year period immediately preceding the promulgation of the final rule.
    (b) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of table saws 
shall not manufacture or import table saws that do not comply with the 
requirements of this part in any 12-month period between (date of 
promulgation of the rule) and (effective date of the rule) at a rate 
that is greater than 120 percent of the rate at which they manufactured 
or imported table saws during the base period.


Sec.  1241.6  Findings.

    (a) General. To issue a consumer product safety standard under the 
Consumer Product Safety Act, the Commission must make certain findings 
and include them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). These findings are 
presented in this section.
    (b) Degree and nature of the risk of injury. (1) In 2015, there 
were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated 
injuries. Of these, CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) 
likely are related to the victim making contact with the saw blade. Of 
the 30,800 emergency department-treated, blade-contact injuries, an 
estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) involved the finger. The most 
common diagnosis in blade-contact injuries is an estimated 18,100 
laceration injuries (58.8 percent), followed by an estimated 5,900 
fractures (19.0 percent), an estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 
percent), and an estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 percent). An estimated 
3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact injury victims were 
hospitalized.
    (2) An estimated 4,700 amputation injuries on table saws occurred 
in 2015, alone. Compared to all other types of consumer products, CPSC 
staff estimates that table saw-related amputations account for 18.6 
percent of all amputations in the NEISS in 2015. When compared to all 
other workshop products, table saws account for an estimated 52.4 
percent of all amputations related to workshop products in 2015. Based 
on NEISS estimates, the trend analysis for yearly blade-contact 
injuries associated with table saws showed no discernible change in the 
number of injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade 
contact from 2004 to 2015. In addition, the trend analysis for the risk 
of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in use yearly showed no 
discernible change in the risk of injury associated with table saw 
blade contact from 2004 to 2015.
    (c) Number of consumer products subject to the rule.The annual 
shipments of all table saws to the U.S. market from 2002 to 2014 have 
ranged from 429,000 to 850,000. Estimates of sales value are not 
readily available industry-wide. However, staff estimates that bench 
saws account for about 75 percent of the units sold and have an average 
product life estimated at 10 years. Contractor saws (including hybrids 
account for 20 percent of the units sold and have an average product 
life of 17 years. Cabinet saws account for 5 percent of the units sold 
and have an average producat life of 24 years. The annual number of 
table saws in use in the United States is 8.2 million, including about 
5.1 million bench saws, 2.3 million contractor saws, and 0.8 million 
cabinet saws. Thus, bench, contractor, and cabinet saws account for 
about 62 percent, 28 percent, and 10 percent of the table saw 
population, respectively.
    (d) The need of the public for table saws and the effects of the 
rule on their utility, cost, and availability. Consumers commonly 
purchase table saws for the straight sawing of wood and other 
materials, and more specifically, to perform rip cuts, cross cuts, and 
non-through cuts. Because operator finger/hand contact with the table 
saw blade is a dominant hazard pattern, the performance requirement 
would limit the depth of cut and significantly reduce the frequency and 
severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws. However,the rule 
would increase table saw production costs. CPSC expects that the prices 
for the least expensive bench saws now available would more than 
double, to $300 or more. In general, the retail prices of bench saws 
could increase by as much as $200 to $500 per unit, and the retail 
prices of contractor and cabinet saws could rise by as much as $350 to 
$1,000 per unit. These higher prices may be mitigated in the longer 
run, but the extent of any future price reductions is unknown. Because 
of the likely decline in sales following the promulgation of a rule, 
consumers who choose not to purchase a new table saw, due to the higher 
price, will experience a loss in utility by forgoing the use of table 
saws, or because they continue to use older saws that they would have 
preferred to replace. There may also be some other impacts on utility, 
such as an increase in the weight and

[[Page 22246]]

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

[[Page 22247]]

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

Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-09098 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P