Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; CPSC Table Saw User Survey, 7645-7648 [2014-02786]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
public memorandum, which is on file in
the Department’s Central Records Unit.
In addition, a complete version of the
Decision Memorandum can be accessed
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/
index.html. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
Almond Export Association, LLC
(‘‘CAEA’’).
The Office of Trade and
Economic Analysis (‘‘OTEA’’) of the
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, has received
an application to amend an Export
Trade Certificate of Review
Preliminary Results of Review
(‘‘Certificate’’). This notice summarizes
the proposed amendment and requests
We preliminarily determine that
comments relevant to whether the
revocation of the AD order on
amended Certificate should be issued.
lightweight thermal paper from
Germany would be likely to lead to
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
continuation or recurrence of dumping
Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade
at the following weighted-average
and Economic Analysis, International
margins:
Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131
(this is not a toll-free number) or email
Margin
at etca@trade.gov.
Manufacturer/exporter
(percent)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of
Koehler .......................................
6.50 the Export Trading Company Act of
All Others ....................................
6.50 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) (‘‘the Act’’)
authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to
issue Export Trade Certificates of
Interested parties may submit case
Review. The regulations implementing
briefs no later than 50 days after the
Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325
date of publication of the preliminary
(2014).
results of this full sunset review, in
OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant
accordance with 19 CFR
to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the
351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which
Secretary of Commerce to publish a
must be limited to issues raised in the
summary of the application in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than
Federal Register. Under 15 CFR
the five days after the time limit for
325.6(a), interested parties may, within
filing case briefs in accordance with 19
twenty days after the date of this notice,
CFR 351.309(d).
submit written comments to the
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of Secretary on the application.
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
Summary of the Application
351.310(c). A hearing, if requested, will
Applicant: California Almond Export
be held on a date to be determined.
Association, LLC (‘‘CAEA’’), 4800 Sisk
The Department intends to issue a
Road Modesto, CA 95356.
notice of final results of this full sunset
Contact: Bill Morecraft, Chairman,
review, which will include the results of
its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, Telephone: (916) 446–8537.
Application No.: 99–7A005.
no later than May 29, 2014.
Date Deemed Submitted: January 29,
We are issuing and publishing the
2014.
preliminary results and notice of this
Proposed Amendment: CAEA seeks to
full sunset review in accordance with
amend its Certificate to delete the
sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of
following company as a Member of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(1).
CAEA’s Certificate: Treehouse
Dated: February 4, 2014.
California Almonds, LLC, Los Angeles,
Paul Piquado,
CA.
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
CAEA’s proposed amendment of its
Compliance.
Export Trade Certificate of Review
[FR Doc. 2014–02838 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am]
would result in the following companies
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
as Members under the Certificate:
Almonds California Pride, Inc.,
Caruthers, CA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Baldwin-Minkler Farms, Orland, CA
Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, CA
International Trade Administration
Campos Brothers, Caruthers, CA
Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA
[Application No. 99–7A005]
Del Rio Nut Company, Inc., Livingston,
CA
Export Trade Certificate of Review
Fair Trade Corner, Inc., Chico, CA
ACTION: Notice of Application (99–
Fisher Nut Company, Modesto, CA
7A005) to amend the Export Trade
Hilltop Ranch, Inc., Ballico, CA
Certificate of Review held by California
Hughson Nut, Inc., Hughson, CA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Feb 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7645
Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA
Minturn Nut Company, Inc., LeGrand,
CA
Nutco, LLC d.b.a. Spycher Brothers,
Turlock, CA
Paramount Farms, Inc., Los Angeles, CA
P–R Farms, Inc., Clovis, CA
Roche Brothers International Family
Nut Co., Escalon, CA
South Valley Almond Company, LLC,
Wasco, CA
Sunny Gem, LLC, Wasco, CA
Western Nut Company, Chico, CA
Dated: February 4, 2014.
Joseph Flynn,
Director, Office of Trade and Economic
Analysis, International Trade Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–02733 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for Office of
Management and Budget Review;
Comment Request; CPSC Table Saw
User Survey
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC or Commission) is
announcing that a proposed collection
of information regarding a survey of
table saw users to determine the
effectiveness of modular blade guards
has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments on this
request for extension of approval of
information collection requirements
should be submitted by March 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: OMB recommends that
written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX:
202–395–6974, or emailed to oira_
submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified by
Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074. In
addition, written comments also should
be submitted at https://
www.regulations.gov, under Docket No.
CPSC–2011–0074, or by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD–
ROM submissions), preferably in five
copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Room 820, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)
504–7923. For access to the docket to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7646
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov. The draft survey
may be viewed under Docket No. CPSC–
2011–0074, Supporting and Related
Materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301)
504–7815, or by email to: rsquibb@
cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. Table Saw User Survey
The CPSC is considering whether a
new performance safety standard is
needed to address an unreasonable risk
of injury associated with table saws. On
October 11, 2011, the Commission
published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for table
saws, under the Consumer Product
Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051–
2084. (76 FR 62678). The ANPR
explained that under the current
voluntary standard, UL 987, Stationary
and Fixed Electric Tools, published in
November 2007, a new modular blade
guard design, developed by a joint
venture of table saw manufacturers,
expanded the table saw guarding
requirements. The new blade guard did
not consist of a hood, but rather, a topbarrier guarding element and two sidebarrier guarding elements. The new
modular guard design was intended by
UL to provide safety improvements over
traditional hood guard designs, by
providing better visibility, by being
easier to remove and install, and by
incorporating a permanent riving knife
design. The revised standard also
specified detailed design and
performance requirements for the
modular blade guard, riving knife, and
anti-kickback device(s). The effective
date for the new requirements in UL 987
was January 31, 2010.
In the ANPR, the Commission
expressed concern that the requirements
in the voluntary standard for table saws,
UL 987, which include a permanent
riving knife and the new modular blade
guard system, may not adequately
address the operator blade contact
injuries associated with table saw use.
The Commission stated that:
While we support the recent progress UL
has made in improving the voluntary
standard to address blade contact injuries by
focusing solely on prevention of skin-toblade contact, the standard requirements do
not appear to address adequately the number
or severity of blade contact injuries that
occur on table saws, nor do they address the
associated societal costs. In addition, while
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Feb 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
we believe that the new modular guard
design is a significant improvement over the
old guard design, the effectiveness of any
blade guard system depends upon an
operator’s willingness to use it. Safety
equipment that hinders the ability to operate
the product likely will result in consumers
bypassing, avoiding, or discarding the safety
equipment. In addition, of the 66,900 table
saw operator blade contact injuries in 2007
and 2008, approximately 20,700 (30.9%) of
the injuries occurred on table saws where the
blade guard was in use. The current
voluntary standard for table saws does not
appear to address those types of injuries.
Accordingly, we are particularly interested in
obtaining information regarding current or
developing voluntary standards that would
address table saw blade contact injuries.
76 FR 62683.
Currently, the CPSC does not have
information about actual use by
consumers of the new modular blade
guard. Because the usage patterns are
directly linked to the safety of the user,
additional data are needed to
understand how consumers use the
modular blade guard to determine how
effective the design will be in
preventing future injuries.
The data collected from this survey
will be used to help CPSC staff
understand better how consumers are
using the modular blade guard system,
such as when consumers install and
remove the blade guard, what type of
cuts are being made without the blade
guard, and/or what may be preventing
the use of the blade guard. With
additional information, the Commission
will be able to evaluate better the role
of modular blade guards on table saws.
The data, along with other available test
results and studies will be reviewed by
the Commission in its consideration of
whether a new performance safety
standard is needed to address an
unreasonable risk of injury associated
with table saws.
To gather the information, the CPSC
will conduct a survey of consumers who
own table saws with a modular blade
guard system. Because the population of
owners of table saws that were
purchased with a modular blade guard
is a specific and hard-to-reach
population, the survey will be based on
a convenience sample of participants
recruited by various advertisement
strategies. A convenience sample is a
non-probability sample, which is
collected by the most efficient means of
reaching a group of interest. No results
from the survey will be generalized to
the population or used to draw
statistical inferences.
To recruit respondents,
advertisements will be placed on
popular Web sites, in woodworking
magazines, and posted in woodworking
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
guilds with their cooperation.
Respondents will have the option of
going through a screening process,
either online, or via telephone.
Respondents meeting the criteria of the
survey—owners of table saws with the
modular blade guard system—will
participate in the follow-up, full-scale
Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing (CATI) survey about their
usage of, and opinions about, the
modular blade guard system.
CPSC staff anticipates that
approximately 200 eligible respondents
will complete the CATI interview
survey. After completion of the fullscale CATI survey, each respondent will
be sent a $50 check for completing the
survey. A final report will summarize
the data about modular blade use
collected from the surveyed table saw
owners. Any patterns that emerge may
also be used by CPSC staff to develop
future studies.
On May 28, 2013, the Commission
sought comments on the proposed
collection of information through a
survey to obtain information from
consumers (respondents) who own table
saws with a modular blade guard
system. 78 FR 31897.
B. Comments
The Commission received five
comments on the table saw survey. One
commenter generally supported the
survey. One commenter raised an issue
regarding the SawStop technology but
did not raise any issues related to the
survey. That comment is outside the
scope of the notice regarding the
proposed information collection and
will be treated as a comment to the
ANPR. Comments were also submitted
by Stephen Gass, the manufacturer of
SawStop table saws, and the Power Tool
Institute (PTI). PTI made two
submissions. On May 13, 2013, prior to
the publication of the May 28, 2013
notice, PTI submitted its own draft
survey to the Commission for
consideration. On July 26, 2013, PTI
submitted comments on the CPSC’s
proposed survey.
The Commission will continue to use
the survey sponsored by the CPSC,
which is tailored to address the CPSC
staff’s questions on table saw modular
blade guard use. However, several
changes have been made to the CPSC’s
survey, in response to comments from
Mr. Gass and PTI, as discussed below.
1. Injury Data
Comment: Mr. Gass states that to
understand usage of the modular blade
guard system, injured users should be
surveyed to determine whether the
injury occurred with the new modular
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices
blade guard system or an older guard.
According to Mr. Gass, if the new
guards are truly effective, there should
be a commensurate drop in the number
of table saw injuries in the National
Electronic Surveillance System (NEISS).
Response: A reduction in injuries is
the most direct way of assessing the
effectiveness of the new modular blade
guard. However, the currently available
injury data do not provide that
information. For example, NEISS data
on table saw-related injuries do not
indicate whether a blade guard was
used, what type of blade guard was
used, or how the blade guards were
used. The CPSC has conducted a special
study on injuries associated with table
saws in 2007 and 2008. However, the
addition of the revised modular blade
guard system is a recent development
and another special study is unlikely to
gather sufficient data to assess the
efficacy of the modular blade guard in
injury prevention. Through the
proposed survey, CPSC staff believes
that more information regarding the use
of the modular blade guard will become
available, will supplement existing
CPSC information and data, and will
assist the Commission in identifying
addressable hazards related to table saw
use.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2. Definitions
Comment: Both Mr. Gass and PTI
state that clear definitions must be
provided to all participants to identify
properly the table saw used by the
participant.
Response: To identify the
respondent’s saw better, the revised
survey provides that clear definitions of
table saws (bench top portable bench
saw, contractor saw, stationary saw) will
be provided to all participants.
3. Number of Respondents
Comment: Although PTI states that
some useful information may be
developed, PTI questions the utility of
a survey that has only 100 respondents,
if the information is intended for use in
developing a rule.
Response: The primary goal of the
survey is to help CPSC staff understand
if and how the modular blade guard
system is used by consumers. The
principal benefit of the survey is to
provide the Commission with important
information about table saw use that is
now lacking and would not be
obtainable other than through such a
survey. The survey now seeks two
hundred responses (up from the 100
respondents initially sought), which
will greatly expand the quantity and
scope of existing information and
significantly inform staff’s evaluation of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Feb 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
modular blade guard systems. To the
extent that other studies, tests, or
surveys have been performed to analyze
table saw blade contact injuries, the
Commission would review all available
data in its consideration of whether a
new performance safety standard is
needed to address an unreasonable risk
of injury associated with table saws.
The population sought in the survey
is a specific subset of all table saw users
and is a hard-to-reach population. The
survey seeks consumers who purchased
table saws with a modular blade guard
within the last 4 years (from 2009 and
the present). Table saws purchased
before 2009 do not meet the needs of the
study; and the consumers who
purchased table saws before 2009 will
constitute a significant portion of
current table saw owners. Accordingly,
this survey will be based on a
convenience sample of recruited
participants by various advertisement
strategies. No results from this study
will be generalized to the population.
4. Years Covered by the Survey
Comment: According to PTI, the
screener and survey should cover years
before 2009 because table saws with
modular guards were on the market as
of 2007.
Response: Due to the limited number
of table saws sold before 2009 with a
modular blade guard, the cost of
recruiting participants would increase
greatly if the survey were expanded to
add table saws purchased before 2009.
Few table saws had modular blade
guards before 2009, so significant
additional data are not likely to be
obtained from the period between 2007
and 2009. Because many more table
saws manufactured in 2009 and later
were sold with modular blade guards,
the survey covers 2009 to the present.
5. New vs. Old Table Saws
Comment: PTI states that the survey
should focus only on new table saws
purchased or received as a gift and that
all questions regarding used table saws
or table saws without modular blade
guards should be removed.
Response: The survey will not be
limited to new table saws because there
is a secondhand market for table saws.
The survey seeks to obtain information
on how table saw owners are using (or
not using) their modular blade guard
system. If table saw users are not using
their modular blade guard system
because they did not purchase, install,
or receive one, that information is useful
to CPSC staff. Similarly, if the lack of
instructions prevents the user from
installing and using the modular blade
guard system, that information also will
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7647
assist CPSC staff in understanding the
use patterns of the modular blade guard
system.
6. Screener Should Apply To All
Woodworkers
Comment: PTI states that the table
saw survey should not terminate if the
participant is using the saw only at
work or at wood working facilities.
According to PTI, the survey already
establishes that the table saw is owned
by the participant and not by the
participant’s employer or by a third
party.
Response: Many table saw owners are
consumers who may use the table saw
to perform work and for recreation.
These participants are invited to
complete the screener questions and
survey, if applicable. However, if the
table saw owner is using the table saw
for work purposes only, or in a
commercial woodworking facility, those
woodworkers fall outside the scope of
the survey, which is intended to assess
how consumers would use the modular
blade guard system.
7. Other Clarifications to the Screener/
Survey
Comment: PTI contends that the
survey questions regarding table saw
use and installation or removal of the
modular blade guard require additional
clarification or revision. PTI states that
a more accurate picture of the
traditional guarding system should be
used in the table saw screener. In
addition, PTI states that questions
comparing modular blade guards to
traditional blade guards should be
removed or clarified.
Response: In response to this
comment, many of the questions related
to the blade guard and certain types of
cuts have been revised. A new picture
of the traditional guard has been added,
as suggested by the commenter. The
questions have been clarified to specify
the use and removal of the blade guard
for both through or non-through cuts. In
addition, other questions have been
removed, including questions that were
ambiguous or unrelated to the use of the
modular blade guard system, such as
questions on kickback and riving knife
use. However, the survey does not
modify questions comparing the use of
the modular blade guard to the
traditional blade guard because these
questions ascertain overall attitudes for
general blade guard use, and there is no
need to distinguish between through
cuts or non-through cuts for these
questions.
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
7648
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices
B. Burden Hours
CPSC staff estimates that the
recruitment stage time required to verify
whether a respondent fits the study’s
target group of consumers will not
exceed 10 minutes, and the actual
survey will not exceed 25 minutes.
Thus, total time per eligible respondent
is estimated not to exceed 35 minutes.
For the 200 anticipated eligible
respondents, (which is up from the 100
respondents originally targeted) the total
time required in connection with the
survey would be estimated at
approximately 116 hours (200 x 0.58
hours) in the aggregate. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, September
2013 (updated from March 2013), the
average hourly compensation rate for all
workers is $29.23. The total cost burden
to respondents for this study is
estimated at $3,391.
The estimated cost under the federal
government contract is $276,585 for the
costs of recruiting respondents and
conducting the survey. In addition, one
full-time CPSC employee will spend an
estimated 600 hours of labor reviewing
responses for a total estimated cost of
$49,488, the equal to 600 hours at an
hourly compensation rate of $57.08 for
a GS–14 Step 5 employee, with an
additional 30.8 percent added for
benefits for a total hourly compensation
rate of $82.48. (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation,’’ December
2012, Table 1, percentage of wages and
salaries for all civilian management,
professional, and related employees,
https://www.bls.gov/ncs). Accordingly,
the total estimated cost to the federal
government is $326,073 ($276,585 plus
$49,488).
Dated: February 5, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014–02786 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0019]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of a
Computer Matching Program
Defense Manpower Data
Center, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of a computer matching
program.
AGENCY:
Subsection (e)(12) of the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended,
requires agencies to publish advance
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Feb 07, 2014
Jkt 232001
notice of any proposed or revised
computer matching program by the
matching agency for public comment.
The Department of Defense (DoD), as the
matching agency under the Privacy Act
is hereby giving notice to the record
subjects of a computer matching
program between the Department of
Defense (DoD) and the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) that their
records are being matched by computer.
The purpose of this agreement is to
establish the conditions, safeguards, and
procedures under which the OPM, as
the source agency, will disclose Federal
Employees Health Benefits (FEHB)
program eligibility and Federal
employment information to DoD, as the
recipient agency. This disclosure by
OPM will provide the DoD with the
FEHB program eligibility and Federal
employment information necessary to
either verify the eligibility to enroll or
verify the continuing eligibility of
enrolled Service members for premium
based TRICARE health plans such as the
TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) and the
TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR).
DATES: This proposed action will
become effective March 12, 2014 and
matching may commence unless
changes to the matching program are
required due to public comments or by
Congressional or by Office of
Management and Budget objections.
Public comments must be received
before March 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number and title,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive,
East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09,
Alexandria, VA 22350–3100.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name, docket
number and title for this Federal
Register document. The general policy
for comments and other submissions
from members of the public is to make
these submissions available for public
viewing on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Samuel P. Jenkins at telephone (703)
571–0070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), the
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC)
and OPM have concluded an agreement
to conduct a computer matching
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
program between the agencies. The
purpose of this match is for determining
the eligibility for the FEHB program and
the eligibility for enrollment in
premium based TRICARE health plans
for Reserve Component (RC) Service
members. The parties to this agreement
have determined that a computer
matching program is the most efficient,
expeditious, and effective means of
obtaining the information needed by the
OPM to identify individual’s ineligible
to continue the TRICARE Reserve Select
and TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR)
Programs. If this identification is not
accomplished by computer matching,
but is done manually, the cost would be
prohibitive and it is possible that not all
individuals would be identified. A copy
of the computer matching agreement
between OPM and DMDC is available
upon request to the public. Requests
should be submitted to Acting Director,
Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties
Office, 241 18th Street South, Suite 101,
Arlington, VA 22202 or to the Office of
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street
NW., Room 5415, Washington, DC
20415. Set forth below is the notice of
the establishment of a computer
matching program required by
paragraph 6.c. of the Office of
Management and Budget Guidelines on
computer matching published in the
Federal Register at 54 FR 25818 on June
19, 1989.
The matching agreement, as required
by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended, and an advance copy
of this notice was submitted on
February 3, 2014, to the House
Committee on Government Reform, the
Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, and the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget pursuant to paragraph 4d of
Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130,
‘‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for
Maintaining Records About
Individuals,’’ February 8, 1996
(February 20, 1996; 61 FR 6427).
Dated: February 5, 2014.
Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal
Register Liaison Officer, Department
of Defense.
Notice of a Computer Matching
Program Between the Department of
Defense (DOD), Defense Manpower
Data Center (DMDC)
A. Participating Agencies:
Participants in this computer matching
program are the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and the Defense
Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the
Department of Defense (DoD). The OPM
is the source agency, i.e., the activity
disclosing the records for the purpose of
E:\FR\FM\10FEN1.SGM
10FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7645-7648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02786]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
[Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; CPSC Table Saw User
Survey
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information regarding a survey
of table saw users to determine the effectiveness of modular blade
guards has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments on this request for extension of approval of
information collection requirements should be submitted by March 12,
2014.
ADDRESSES: OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer,
FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074. In
addition, written comments also should be submitted at https://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074, or by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably
in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814; telephone (301) 504-7923. For access to the docket to
[[Page 7646]]
read background documents or comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov. The draft survey may be viewed under Docket No.
CPSC-2011-0074, Supporting and Related Materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301)
504-7815, or by email to: rsquibb@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
A. Table Saw User Survey
The CPSC is considering whether a new performance safety standard
is needed to address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with
table saws. On October 11, 2011, the Commission published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for table saws, under the Consumer
Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. (76 FR 62678). The ANPR
explained that under the current voluntary standard, UL 987, Stationary
and Fixed Electric Tools, published in November 2007, a new modular
blade guard design, developed by a joint venture of table saw
manufacturers, expanded the table saw guarding requirements. The new
blade guard did not consist of a hood, but rather, a top-barrier
guarding element and two side-barrier guarding elements. The new
modular guard design was intended by UL to provide safety improvements
over traditional hood guard designs, by providing better visibility, by
being easier to remove and install, and by incorporating a permanent
riving knife design. The revised standard also specified detailed
design and performance requirements for the modular blade guard, riving
knife, and anti-kickback device(s). The effective date for the new
requirements in UL 987 was January 31, 2010.
In the ANPR, the Commission expressed concern that the requirements
in the voluntary standard for table saws, UL 987, which include a
permanent riving knife and the new modular blade guard system, may not
adequately address the operator blade contact injuries associated with
table saw use. The Commission stated that:
While we support the recent progress UL has made in improving
the voluntary standard to address blade contact injuries by focusing
solely on prevention of skin-to-blade contact, the standard
requirements do not appear to address adequately the number or
severity of blade contact injuries that occur on table saws, nor do
they address the associated societal costs. In addition, while we
believe that the new modular guard design is a significant
improvement over the old guard design, the effectiveness of any
blade guard system depends upon an operator's willingness to use it.
Safety equipment that hinders the ability to operate the product
likely will result in consumers bypassing, avoiding, or discarding
the safety equipment. In addition, of the 66,900 table saw operator
blade contact injuries in 2007 and 2008, approximately 20,700
(30.9%) of the injuries occurred on table saws where the blade guard
was in use. The current voluntary standard for table saws does not
appear to address those types of injuries. Accordingly, we are
particularly interested in obtaining information regarding current
or developing voluntary standards that would address table saw blade
contact injuries.
76 FR 62683.
Currently, the CPSC does not have information about actual use by
consumers of the new modular blade guard. Because the usage patterns
are directly linked to the safety of the user, additional data are
needed to understand how consumers use the modular blade guard to
determine how effective the design will be in preventing future
injuries.
The data collected from this survey will be used to help CPSC staff
understand better how consumers are using the modular blade guard
system, such as when consumers install and remove the blade guard, what
type of cuts are being made without the blade guard, and/or what may be
preventing the use of the blade guard. With additional information, the
Commission will be able to evaluate better the role of modular blade
guards on table saws. The data, along with other available test results
and studies will be reviewed by the Commission in its consideration of
whether a new performance safety standard is needed to address an
unreasonable risk of injury associated with table saws.
To gather the information, the CPSC will conduct a survey of
consumers who own table saws with a modular blade guard system. Because
the population of owners of table saws that were purchased with a
modular blade guard is a specific and hard-to-reach population, the
survey will be based on a convenience sample of participants recruited
by various advertisement strategies. A convenience sample is a non-
probability sample, which is collected by the most efficient means of
reaching a group of interest. No results from the survey will be
generalized to the population or used to draw statistical inferences.
To recruit respondents, advertisements will be placed on popular
Web sites, in woodworking magazines, and posted in woodworking guilds
with their cooperation. Respondents will have the option of going
through a screening process, either online, or via telephone.
Respondents meeting the criteria of the survey--owners of table saws
with the modular blade guard system--will participate in the follow-up,
full-scale Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) survey about
their usage of, and opinions about, the modular blade guard system.
CPSC staff anticipates that approximately 200 eligible respondents
will complete the CATI interview survey. After completion of the full-
scale CATI survey, each respondent will be sent a $50 check for
completing the survey. A final report will summarize the data about
modular blade use collected from the surveyed table saw owners. Any
patterns that emerge may also be used by CPSC staff to develop future
studies.
On May 28, 2013, the Commission sought comments on the proposed
collection of information through a survey to obtain information from
consumers (respondents) who own table saws with a modular blade guard
system. 78 FR 31897.
B. Comments
The Commission received five comments on the table saw survey. One
commenter generally supported the survey. One commenter raised an issue
regarding the SawStop technology but did not raise any issues related
to the survey. That comment is outside the scope of the notice
regarding the proposed information collection and will be treated as a
comment to the ANPR. Comments were also submitted by Stephen Gass, the
manufacturer of SawStop table saws, and the Power Tool Institute (PTI).
PTI made two submissions. On May 13, 2013, prior to the publication of
the May 28, 2013 notice, PTI submitted its own draft survey to the
Commission for consideration. On July 26, 2013, PTI submitted comments
on the CPSC's proposed survey.
The Commission will continue to use the survey sponsored by the
CPSC, which is tailored to address the CPSC staff's questions on table
saw modular blade guard use. However, several changes have been made to
the CPSC's survey, in response to comments from Mr. Gass and PTI, as
discussed below.
1. Injury Data
Comment: Mr. Gass states that to understand usage of the modular
blade guard system, injured users should be surveyed to determine
whether the injury occurred with the new modular
[[Page 7647]]
blade guard system or an older guard. According to Mr. Gass, if the new
guards are truly effective, there should be a commensurate drop in the
number of table saw injuries in the National Electronic Surveillance
System (NEISS).
Response: A reduction in injuries is the most direct way of
assessing the effectiveness of the new modular blade guard. However,
the currently available injury data do not provide that information.
For example, NEISS data on table saw-related injuries do not indicate
whether a blade guard was used, what type of blade guard was used, or
how the blade guards were used. The CPSC has conducted a special study
on injuries associated with table saws in 2007 and 2008. However, the
addition of the revised modular blade guard system is a recent
development and another special study is unlikely to gather sufficient
data to assess the efficacy of the modular blade guard in injury
prevention. Through the proposed survey, CPSC staff believes that more
information regarding the use of the modular blade guard will become
available, will supplement existing CPSC information and data, and will
assist the Commission in identifying addressable hazards related to
table saw use.
2. Definitions
Comment: Both Mr. Gass and PTI state that clear definitions must be
provided to all participants to identify properly the table saw used by
the participant.
Response: To identify the respondent's saw better, the revised
survey provides that clear definitions of table saws (bench top
portable bench saw, contractor saw, stationary saw) will be provided to
all participants.
3. Number of Respondents
Comment: Although PTI states that some useful information may be
developed, PTI questions the utility of a survey that has only 100
respondents, if the information is intended for use in developing a
rule.
Response: The primary goal of the survey is to help CPSC staff
understand if and how the modular blade guard system is used by
consumers. The principal benefit of the survey is to provide the
Commission with important information about table saw use that is now
lacking and would not be obtainable other than through such a survey.
The survey now seeks two hundred responses (up from the 100 respondents
initially sought), which will greatly expand the quantity and scope of
existing information and significantly inform staff's evaluation of
modular blade guard systems. To the extent that other studies, tests,
or surveys have been performed to analyze table saw blade contact
injuries, the Commission would review all available data in its
consideration of whether a new performance safety standard is needed to
address an unreasonable risk of injury associated with table saws.
The population sought in the survey is a specific subset of all
table saw users and is a hard-to-reach population. The survey seeks
consumers who purchased table saws with a modular blade guard within
the last 4 years (from 2009 and the present). Table saws purchased
before 2009 do not meet the needs of the study; and the consumers who
purchased table saws before 2009 will constitute a significant portion
of current table saw owners. Accordingly, this survey will be based on
a convenience sample of recruited participants by various advertisement
strategies. No results from this study will be generalized to the
population.
4. Years Covered by the Survey
Comment: According to PTI, the screener and survey should cover
years before 2009 because table saws with modular guards were on the
market as of 2007.
Response: Due to the limited number of table saws sold before 2009
with a modular blade guard, the cost of recruiting participants would
increase greatly if the survey were expanded to add table saws
purchased before 2009. Few table saws had modular blade guards before
2009, so significant additional data are not likely to be obtained from
the period between 2007 and 2009. Because many more table saws
manufactured in 2009 and later were sold with modular blade guards, the
survey covers 2009 to the present.
5. New vs. Old Table Saws
Comment: PTI states that the survey should focus only on new table
saws purchased or received as a gift and that all questions regarding
used table saws or table saws without modular blade guards should be
removed.
Response: The survey will not be limited to new table saws because
there is a secondhand market for table saws. The survey seeks to obtain
information on how table saw owners are using (or not using) their
modular blade guard system. If table saw users are not using their
modular blade guard system because they did not purchase, install, or
receive one, that information is useful to CPSC staff. Similarly, if
the lack of instructions prevents the user from installing and using
the modular blade guard system, that information also will assist CPSC
staff in understanding the use patterns of the modular blade guard
system.
6. Screener Should Apply To All Woodworkers
Comment: PTI states that the table saw survey should not terminate
if the participant is using the saw only at work or at wood working
facilities. According to PTI, the survey already establishes that the
table saw is owned by the participant and not by the participant's
employer or by a third party.
Response: Many table saw owners are consumers who may use the table
saw to perform work and for recreation. These participants are invited
to complete the screener questions and survey, if applicable. However,
if the table saw owner is using the table saw for work purposes only,
or in a commercial woodworking facility, those woodworkers fall outside
the scope of the survey, which is intended to assess how consumers
would use the modular blade guard system.
7. Other Clarifications to the Screener/Survey
Comment: PTI contends that the survey questions regarding table saw
use and installation or removal of the modular blade guard require
additional clarification or revision. PTI states that a more accurate
picture of the traditional guarding system should be used in the table
saw screener. In addition, PTI states that questions comparing modular
blade guards to traditional blade guards should be removed or
clarified.
Response: In response to this comment, many of the questions
related to the blade guard and certain types of cuts have been revised.
A new picture of the traditional guard has been added, as suggested by
the commenter. The questions have been clarified to specify the use and
removal of the blade guard for both through or non-through cuts. In
addition, other questions have been removed, including questions that
were ambiguous or unrelated to the use of the modular blade guard
system, such as questions on kickback and riving knife use. However,
the survey does not modify questions comparing the use of the modular
blade guard to the traditional blade guard because these questions
ascertain overall attitudes for general blade guard use, and there is
no need to distinguish between through cuts or non-through cuts for
these questions.
[[Page 7648]]
B. Burden Hours
CPSC staff estimates that the recruitment stage time required to
verify whether a respondent fits the study's target group of consumers
will not exceed 10 minutes, and the actual survey will not exceed 25
minutes. Thus, total time per eligible respondent is estimated not to
exceed 35 minutes. For the 200 anticipated eligible respondents, (which
is up from the 100 respondents originally targeted) the total time
required in connection with the survey would be estimated at
approximately 116 hours (200 x 0.58 hours) in the aggregate. According
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2013 (updated from March
2013), the average hourly compensation rate for all workers is $29.23.
The total cost burden to respondents for this study is estimated at
$3,391.
The estimated cost under the federal government contract is
$276,585 for the costs of recruiting respondents and conducting the
survey. In addition, one full-time CPSC employee will spend an
estimated 600 hours of labor reviewing responses for a total estimated
cost of $49,488, the equal to 600 hours at an hourly compensation rate
of $57.08 for a GS-14 Step 5 employee, with an additional 30.8 percent
added for benefits for a total hourly compensation rate of $82.48.
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation,'' December 2012, Table 1, percentage of wages and
salaries for all civilian management, professional, and related
employees, https://www.bls.gov/ncs). Accordingly, the total estimated
cost to the federal government is $326,073 ($276,585 plus $49,488).
Dated: February 5, 2014.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2014-02786 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
