Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws, 74909-74939 [2023-23898]

Agencies

• Consumer Product Safety Commission

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74909-74939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23898]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1264

[CPSC Docket No. 2011-0074]


Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of 
opportunity for oral presentation of comments.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or 
CPSC) has determined preliminarily that there may be an unreasonable 
risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. To address 
this hazard, the Commission proposes a rule under the Consumer Product 
Safety Act (CPSA) that would establish a performance standard that 
requires table saws to limit the depth of cut to no more than 3.5 
millimeters when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human finger 
or other body part, approaches the spinning blade at a rate of 1 meter 
per second (m/s). The Commission is providing an opportunity for 
interested parties to present comments on this supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPR).

DATES: 
    Deadline for Written Comments: Written comments must be received by 
January 2, 2024.
    Deadline for Request to Present Oral Comments: Any person 
interested in making an oral presentation must send an email indicating 
this intent to the Office of the Secretary at [email protected] by 
December 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: 
    Written Comments: You may submit written comments in response to 
the proposed rule, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074, by any of 
the following methods:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit through this 
website: confidential business information, trade secret information, 
or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be 
available to the public. The Commission typically does not accept 
comments submitted by email, except as described below.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier/Written Submissions: CPSC encourages you 
to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal. 
You may, however, submit comments by mail/hand delivery/courier to: 
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 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 document. CPSC may post all comments without 
change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or 
other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. If 
you wish to submit confidential business information, trade secret 
information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do 
not want to be available to the public, you may submit such comments by 
mail, hand delivery, or courier, or you may email them to [email protected].
    Docket SNPR: For access to the docket to read background documents 
or comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, insert 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

[[Page 74910]]

Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 
telephone (301) 987-2225; fax (301) 869-0294; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 18, 2023, the Commission voted 3-1 to publish 
this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. Commissioners 
Feldman and Trumka issued statements in connection with their votes 
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Comm-Mtg-Min-TableSaws-SupplementalNPR-Decisional.pdf?VersionId=JizUyNt5p7KDR_svKn2O6ql9VkHIR2E8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 associated with 
contact with the blade of a table saw. The petitioners were associated 
with 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 
CPSA. The Commission received approximately 1,600 public comments.
    On May 12, 2017, the Commission published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPR) to address blade-contact injuries associated with 
table saws. 82 FR 22190. The proposed rule stated that it would limit 
the depth of cut of a table saw to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe, 
acting as surrogate for a human finger or other body part, contacts the 
spinning blade at an approach rate of 1 m/s. CPSC staff estimated that 
the proposed rule would prevent or mitigate the severity of 54,800 
medically treated blade-contact injuries annually, and that the 
proposed rule's aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could range 
from about $625 million to about $2.3 billion.\2\ The Commission 
received written comments and oral presentations concerning the 
proposed rule. The written comments are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC-2011-0074-1154/comment, and a video 
of the public hearing is available on the Commission's YouTube channel 
at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgPmKkGIILc. Section VIII of this 
preamble contains a summary of the significant issues raised by the 
comments submitted, and the Commission's assessment of those issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Commission Briefing Package: Proposed Rule: Safety 
Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws, available 
at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Commission-Briefing-Package-Proposed-Rule-Safety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the NPR, CPSC staff completed a Special 
Study of table saw injuries that occurred in 2017.\3\ On December 4, 
2018, the Commission announced the availability of and sought comment 
on the study. 83 FR 62561. The Commission received written comments on 
the study results from the public, which are available at 
regulations.gov, under docket number CPSC-2011-0074.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Special Study Report, 
available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Draft%20Notice%20of%20Availability%20Table%20Saw%20Blade%20Contact%20Injuries%20Special%20Study%20Report%20-%202017%20-%20November%2014%202018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2019, CPSC staff submitted a Table Saw Update to the 
Commission with staff's analysis of NEISS data through 2018, including 
a discussion of the 2017 Special Study.\4\ The results of the 2017 
Special Study indicated that there might be a lower risk of injury on 
table saws equipped with a modular blade guard system that met the 
latest voluntary standards, compared to older table saws equipped with 
a traditional blade guard system. However, a 15-year trend analysis 
(from 2004 to 2018) of table saw injuries reported in the September 
2019 update showed no reduction in table saw injuries from 2010 to 
2018, despite the fact that a voluntary standard that became effective 
in 2010 required new table saws to be equipped with modular blade guard 
systems.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Table%20Saw%20Update%202019.pdf.
    \5\ Id. at 27-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This SNPR analyzes updated incident data through 2021. The data 
confirm the 2019 analysis and suggest no reduction in table saw 
injuries despite the fact that the relevant voluntary standard has 
required table saws to include modular blade guards since 2010.
    Also since publication of the NPR in 2017, staff is aware of 
several changes to the table saw market that include:
     introduction of a compact table saw with active injury 
mitigation (AIM) capabilities;
     introduction of a Preventative Contact System (PCS) on a 
commercial sliding table panel saw;
     introduction of cordless, battery-powered bench saws by at 
least two manufacturers;
     change in ownership of patents related to SawStop AIM 
technology, with the acquisition of SawStop, LLC, by TTS Tooltechnic 
Systems Holding AG (TTS); and
     expiration of two patents related to SawStop AIM 
technology.
    The Commission is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking based on staff's analysis of newly available incident data, 
evaluation of newly available products, and other market information 
that did not exist at the time of the 2017 NPR. As discussed in greater 
detail in section VII of this preamble, the revised proposed rule is 
generally consistent with the rule proposed in the 2017 NPR, but 
includes an updated definition of the term ``table saw,'' a more 
precise description of the proposed performance requirement, and a 
revised anti-stockpiling provision.
    The Commission now expects that the proposed rule would prevent or 
mitigate the severity of an estimated 49,176 injuries treated in 
hospital emergency departments or other medical settings per year. The 
Commission further estimates that net benefits would range from 
approximately $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion per year.

II. Statutory Authority

    This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is authorized by 
the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051-2084. Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the 
Commission to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard 
that sets forth performance or labeling requirements for a consumer 
product if such requirements are reasonably necessary to prevent or 
reduce an unreasonable risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 2056(a). Section 9 of 
the CPSA specifies the procedure that the Commission must follow to 
issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7.
    Pursuant to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a 
consumer 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 the 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.

15 U.S.C. 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

[[Page 74911]]

with such product'' and that issuing the rule is in the public 
interest. 15 U.S.C. 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 
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely. 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 that prevent or adequately reduce the 
risk of injury for which the rule is being promulgated. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(f)(3)(D)-(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] TP01NO23.037

    Table saws generally fall into three product types: bench saws, 
contractor saws, and cabinet saws. Although there are no exact 
distinctions among these types of saws, the categories are generally 
based on size, weight, portability, power transmission, and price. Some 
industry participants use additional specialized descriptions, such as 
``jobsite saws,'' ``hybrid saws,'' and ``sliding saws.''
    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 
commonly called ``jobsite saws'' because they are capable of heavier-
duty work but still portable enough to move to work sites. Bench saws 
are generally powered using standard house voltage (110-120 volts), use 
universal motors,\6\ drive the saw blade 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 to 
as much as $1,499 for a high-end model. Based on available information, 
bench saws account for approximately 79 percent of the table saw market 
by volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A universal motor runs on AC or DC power and uses current 
and electromagnets to rotate a shaft. Universal motors are 
lightweight, compact, and cheaper to produce than induction motors. 
An induction motor runs on AC power, which is used to create a 
rotating magnetic field to induce torque on the output shaft. 
Induction motors are quieter and last longer, but are also more 
expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 2017 NPR was published, cordless battery-powered bench 
saws have been introduced widely to the table saw market. The first 
cordless table saw came to market in 2016, and at least three other 
brands have been introduced in the last few years. Cordless table saws 
typically run on lithium-ion batteries that range from 18 volts to 60 
volts and are equipped with 8.25-inch blades with thinner kerfs to 
reduce friction while cutting. Prices for battery-powered bench saws 
range from $299 to $599 for the tool only, and the accompanying battery 
prices range from $50 to $150.
    Contractor saws are larger and more powerful than bench saws, and 
range in weight from approximately 200 to 400 pounds. Although most 
contractor saws are stationary, a mobile base can be added to the 
frame. Contractor saws are often used in home workshops as a less 
expensive alternative to stationary cabinet saws. Contractor saws 
generally use a 10-inch blade, are powered using standard house 
voltage, use induction motors, and are belt driven. Compared to a bench 
saw, the induction motor and belt drive result in a table saw that 
produces less vibration and is quieter, more accurate, able to cut 
thicker pieces of wood, and more durable. Prices for contractor saws 
range from around $599 to $2,000, and contractor saws account for 
approximately 15 percent of the table saw market by volume of units 
sold.

[[Page 74912]]

    Cabinet saws--also referred to as stationary saws--are the largest, 
heaviest, and most powerful of the three table saw types, and are 
typically the highest grade saw found in home woodworking shops. 
Cabinet saws generally use a 10-inch blade, are powered using 220-240 
volts, use a 1.75-5 horsepower or stronger motor enclosed in a cabinet, 
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 have an average product life 
of more than 20 years, and prices range from approximately $1,399 to 
$5,000. Based on available information, cabinet saws account for 
approximately 6 percent of the table saw market by unit volume.

B. Standard Safety Devices

    In the 2017 NPR, the Commission described common safety devices on 
table saws that are designed to reduce contact between the saw blade 
and the operator. 82 FR at 22192. As described in the NPR, these 
devices generally fall into two categories: (1) blade guards, and (2) 
kickback-prevention devices including splitters, riving knives, and 
anti-kickback pawls.
    The riving knife and modular blade guard represent the latest 
safety measures that have been incorporated into the voluntary 
standards for table saws. Blade guards surround the exposed blade and 
function as a physical barrier between the blade and the operator. 
Riving knives are curved metal plates that physically prevent the two 
halves of a cut workpiece from moving back towards each other and 
punching the splitting blade, which could cause the operator to lose 
control of the workpiece. The Power Tool Institute (PTI), the industry 
trade group that represents manufacturers of consumer-grade table saws, 
has estimated that in 2017, 80 percent of bench saws, 33 percent of 
contractor saws, and 25 percent of cabinet table saws sold were 
equipped with modular blade guards and riving knives.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PTI comment (CPSC-2011-0074-1343) in response to 
notification of availability of 2017 Special Study. Retrieved from: 
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1343.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Active Injury Mitigation (AIM) Technology

    The 2017 NPR described an AIM system that detects imminent or 
actual human contact with the table saw blade and then performs an 
action to prevent or mitigate the severity of the injury. The NPR 
described two AIM systems available at the time: the SawStop system and 
the Bosch REAXX system. See 82 FR at 22193-94. On July 16, 2015, 
SawStop filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) a 
complaint against Bosch for patent infringement, and requested that the 
ITC order U.S. Customs to exclude Bosch REAXX saws from entering the 
U.S. market. On January 27, 2017, the ITC issued an order prohibiting 
Bosch from importing and selling Bosch REAXX saws, based on a 
determination that Bosch had infringed on two SawStop patents. See 82 
FR 9075.
    Since the 2017 NPR was published, CPSC staff has become aware of 
another AIM technology called the preventative contact system (PCS), 
developed by the Felder Group. The PCS detects motion by using a 
capacitive field around the blade, which can detect movement before a 
body part contacts the blade. Marketing of the system indicates that 
its detection system works for fast and slow body part movement and 
reacts to impending blade contact by retracting the blade below the 
table surface in milliseconds. Retraction of the blade is achieved by 
reversing the polarity of two strong electro-magnets that hold the 
blade arbor in place. Two magnets with the same magnetic poles will 
repel each other, and this action moves the saw blade below the 
tabletop fast enough to prevent injury to a body part that would 
otherwise contact the rotating saw blade. The PCS system is available 
as an option on Felder's most expensive sliding table saw.

IV. Risk of Injury

A. Description of Hazard

    In 2017, CPSC staff conducted a Special Study of emergency 
department-treated table saw blade-contact injuries, in order to 
collect data on saw types, incident details, and injury characteristics 
that are otherwise not available in the standard National Electronic 
Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data collections. The 2017 Study 
provided detailed information based on a snapshot of incidents that 
occurred in a single year. In 2017, there were an estimated 26,500 
table saw blade-contact, emergency department-treated injuries. Of 
these, an estimated 25,600 injuries (96.4 percent) involved the finger. 
The estimated number of injuries for each of the most common diagnoses 
in blade-contact injuries were: 16,100 lacerations (60.9 percent), 
5,500 fractures (20.6 percent), and 2,800 amputations (10.7 percent).

B. NEISS Trend Analysis

    In the 2017 NPR briefing package, CPSC staff assessed trends for 
table saw blade-contact injuries reported through NEISS and concluded 
that there was no discernible change in the number or types of blade-
contact injuries associated with table saws annually from 2004 to 2015. 
No statistically significant trend was detected in any of the analyses 
for the number of blade-contact injuries, amputations, 
hospitalizations, and finger/hand injuries. Staff also conducted a 
trend analysis to include the rate of injury per 10,000 table saws in 
use for each year in the analysis. The analysis again showed that there 
was no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with blade 
contact related to table saws from 2004 to 2015. See Staff NPR Briefing 
Package at 25-29.
    In the 2019 Status Update briefing package, CPSC staff updated the 
NEISS trend analyses. Staff assessed trends for table saw blade-contact 
injuries, amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand injuries, and 
concluded once more that there was no discernible change in the number 
of blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw 
blade contact, this time for the period 2004 to 2018.\8\ Trend analysis 
for the rate of injury per 10,000 table saws in use also showed that 
there was no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with 
blade contact related to table saws from 2004 to 2018, despite the 
increasing percentage of saws sold with modular blade guards and riving 
knives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Table Saw Update 2019. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Table%20Saw%20Update%202019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this supplemental NPR, staff performed trend analyses for 
blade-contact injuries, amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand 
injuries up to 2021. The voluntary standards in place have required 
modular blade guards since the publishing of UL 987, 7th edition, which 
had an effective date of January 2010. The date ranges for the trend 
analyses cover a timespan when an increasing proportion of table saws 
in use were equipped with modular blade guards (2010 to 2021), as well 
as the approximate period during which table saws equipped with 
traditional blade guards were no longer being produced (2015 to 2021). 
Table 1 provides the estimated number of emergency department-treated 
injuries associated

[[Page 74913]]

with table saw blade contact from 2010 through 2021.

                    Table 1--NEISS Estimates for Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2010-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Table saw blade contact injury estimates
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
                              Year                                                               95% Confidence
                                                                    N       Estimate      CV        interval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021...........................................................      655       30,000     0.10     24,100-35,900
2020...........................................................      689       34,600     0.10     27,800-41,300
2019...........................................................      627       30,300     0.09     24,900-35,700
2018...........................................................      649       31,300     0.09     25,500-37,100
2017...........................................................      654       31,300     0.09     25,800-36,700
2016...........................................................      646       30,000     0.09     25,000-35,000
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...........................................................      362       29,600     0.09     24,300-35,000
2010...........................................................      657       30,100     0.10     24,000-36,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. CPSC: NEISS.

    Figure 2 provides the estimated blade-contact injuries associated 
with table saws and the fitted trend line with a 95 percent confidence 
band for the fitted line from 2010 through 2021. The p-value associated 
with the slope of the fitted line is 0.44, which indicates that there 
is not a statistically significant trend in blade-contact injuries 
associated with table saws over this timeframe.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.038

    Figure 3 provides the estimated blade-contact injuries associated 
with table saws and the fitted trend line with a 95 percent confidence 
band for the fitted line from 2015 through 2021. The p-value associated 
with the slope of the fitted line is 0.79, which indicates that there 
is not a statistically significant trend in blade-contact injuries 
associated with table saws over this timeframe, despite the market 
shift during this time to table saws with modular blade guards and 
riving knives.

[[Page 74914]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.039

    To assess any changes over time in the severity of table saw blade-
contact injuries, CPSC staff performed trend analyses for blade-contact 
amputations, hospitalizations (including patients who were treated and 
admitted to the same hospital, as well as treated and transferred to a 
different hospital), and finger/hand injuries from 2010-2021 and 2015-
2021. No statistically significant trend was detected in any of these 
analyses. Table 2 provides the total estimated number of blade-contact 
injuries from 2010 through 2021 for amputations, hospitalizations, and 
finger/hand injuries from blade contact, and expresses those numbers as 
a percentage of all estimated blade-contact injuries.

[[Page 74915]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.040

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    Table 3 provides an estimate of blade-contact injuries per 10,000 
table saws in use for each year in the analysis. Figure 4 provides the 
trend analysis results for that data. The p-value associated with the 
slope of the fitted line is 0.86, which indicates that there is not a 
statistically significant trend. When limiting the trend analysis to 
the years 2015-2021, the p-value associated with the slope of the 
fitted line becomes 0.17, which also indicates the nonexistence of a 
statistically significant trend. Possible changes in usage patterns of 
table saws were not considered in these analyses.

[[Page 74916]]



                               Table 3--Estimated Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries per 10,000 Table Saws in Use, 2010-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Table saw blade contact injury     Estimated number of       Estimates ** of table saw blade
                                                                     estimates              table saws in use (in   contact injury per 10,000 table saws
                                                        ----------------------------------        10,000s) *                       in use
                          Year                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Blade contact    95% Confidence     Table saws in use                          95% Confidence
                                                         injury estimate      interval             estimate              Estimate           interval
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021...................................................           30,000    24,100-35,900                   1003.9               29.9          24.0-35.7
2020...................................................           34,600    27,800-41,300                    883.6               39.1          31.5-46.8
2019...................................................           30,300    24,900-35,700                    849.8               35.6          29.3-42.0
2018...................................................           31,300    25,500-37,100                    828.6               37.8          30.8-44.8
2017...................................................           31,300    25,800-36,700                    820.3               38.1          31.5-44.7
2016...................................................           30,000    25,000-35,000                    822.2               36.5          30.4-42.6
2015...................................................           30,800    25,100-36,500                    827.4               37.2          30.3-44.1
2014...................................................           30,300    25,300-35,300                    831.3               36.4          30.4-42.5
2013...................................................           29,500    24,500-34,500                    838.2               35.2          29.3-41.1
2012...................................................           29,500    24,100-34,900                    847.4               34.8          28.4-41.1
2011...................................................           29,600    24,300-35,000                    855.6               34.7          28.4-40.9
2010...................................................           30,100    24,000-36,200                    866.5               34.7          27.7-41.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.041

    Based on the foregoing analyses by CPSC staff, the Commission 
concludes that there has been no discernible change in the pattern of 
blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade 
contact, despite the transition of the market to modular blade guards 
and riving knives since 2010 and the phasing out of traditional blade 
guards since 2015.

V. Relevant Existing Standards

A. UL 987 and UL 62841-3-1

    Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) published the first edition of 
UL 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools in 1971. The UL 987 standard 
includes voluntary requirements for cord-connected and permanently 
connected stationary and light industrial electric tools. UL revised 
the standard several times, with the 6th edition in 2005 and the 7th 
edition in 2007 introducing significant changes to the requirements 
covering blade guard design. The latest 8th edition was published in 
2011, with revisions that clarified the requirements for table saws and 
defined terms specific to table saws.
    In 2016, as part of UL's international harmonization goal to adopt 
international standards, 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. In 2019, UL removed section 43 (Table Saws) 
from UL 987, leaving UL 62841-3-1 as the

[[Page 74917]]

current voluntary standard for table saws. UL 62841-3-1 is recognized 
as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard and 
contains essentially the same blade guard requirements as UL 987.
    Section 19.101 of UL 62841-3-1 specifies that a table saw shall 
provide ``either a saw blade guard mounted to an extended riving knife 
complying with 19.101.2 or an over-arm saw blade guard complying with 
19.101.3.'' Section 19.101.2 specifies that the guard may consist of 
independent side and top barriers and must have openings that provide 
visibility of the blade's cutting edge. This modular guard attaches to 
the riving knife and shall provide coverage over the saw blade as 
determined by a probe test. Section 19.103 specifies that a table saw 
shall be equipped with a riving knife that is located behind the blade 
at a height below the saw blade that allows the riving knife to pass 
freely through the cutting groove of the piece being cut. Section 
21.106.3 specifies that an antikickback device attached to the riving 
knife shall be easily removable and function independently from the 
blade guard.

B. Active Injury Mitigation

    Since 2004, table saws have been available in the U.S. market with 
AIM capabilities that mitigate injuries when a hand or finger makes 
contact with a rotating saw blade. In February 2015, UL defined an 
``active injury mitigation'' system as an active system that serves to 
mitigate or prevent injury from exposure to a rotating saw blade. At a 
basic level, an AIM system for table saws must perform two functions: 
detect contact or imminent contact between the rotating saw blade and a 
human body part, and react to mitigate injury. Detection can be 
achieved by sensing electrical or thermal properties of the human body, 
or visually sensing and tracking the human body.
    In 2015 and 2016, UL balloted proposals to add AIM system 
requirements for table saws to UL 987 and UL 62841-3-1, respectively. 
The ballots proposed performance requirements that limited the depth of 
cut to a probe simulating a human finger to 4 mm or less when 
introduced to an operating saw blade at an approach rate of 1 m/s. UL 
has identified a 4 mm cut from the surface of the skin as the 
quantitative threshold separating simple and complex lacerations in a 
human finger.\9\ Simple lacerations can be managed at emergency 
departments with little expertise or by simple home care because these 
cuts generally heal without complications, while complex lacerations 
require more significant medical attention. Although CPSC staff 
expressed support for both ballots,10 11 both ballots 
failed, and AIM requirements were not adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade 
Contact, UL Research Report, Jan. 2014. Available at: https://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WhitePapers_Tablesaw_V11.pdf.
    \10\ Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL, 
dated March 24, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMSproposalwenclosures.pdf.
    \11\ Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL, 
dated March 11, 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMS.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2017, UL announced the availability of its Recommended 
Practice for Determining the Depth of Cut on a Test Probe Contacting 
the Spinning Blade of a Table Saw, UL RP 3002. The Recommended Practice 
is available as a test procedure for manufacturers or independent third 
parties to evaluate AIM performance. UL stated in its comment to the 
2017 NPR that it chose to publish this Recommended Practice because it 
believes the addition of active technology on table saws will further 
reduce the incidence of blade-contact injuries and represent a marked 
increase in the safety of these devices.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Comment from Sarah Owen on behalf of UL in response to 2017 
NPR. Retrieved from: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1275.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Adequacy of Voluntary Standard in Addressing Injuries

    In January 2010, the voluntary standard's modular blade guard 
requirement took effect. Under this requirement, all table saws sold in 
the United States shall be equipped with a system consisting of a 
modular guard and antikickback device attached to a riving knife. In 
the NPR, the Commission noted staff's conclusion that, while the 
modular blade guard system was an improvement over the traditional 
blade guard system, a guard is only effective if used, and incident 
data and survey data indicate users remove modular blade guards for 
similar reasons (such as improved visibility or to make certain types 
of cuts) that they had removed traditional blade guards.
    In its comments on the 2017 NPR,\13\ PTI reported that its analysis 
of 299 table saw accidents from 2007 to 2015 indicated that 35 percent 
of the incidents involved table saws equipped with modular blade 
guards, and over 50 percent of those users had removed the blade guard 
prior to being injured. Similarly, staff conducted a Special Study of 
NEISS table saw incidents that occurred from January to December 2017. 
A summary of this 2017 Study was provided to the Commission in the 
Table Saw Update package in 2019. The 2017 Study confirmed that the 
majority of injuries occur on table saws without a blade guard 
installed, and that injured users of table saws equipped with modular 
blade guards removed the blade guard anecdotally at the same rate as 
injured users of table saws equipped with traditional blade guards. 
Further, as discussed in section IV of this preamble, CPSC staff 
assessed trends for table saw blade-contact injuries, amputations, 
hospitalizations, and finger or hand injuries since 2010, and concluded 
that there had been no statistically significant change over that time 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ PTI comment (CPSC-2011-0074-1288) in response to 2017 NPR. 
Retrieved from: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2011-0074-1288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. CPSC Staff Testing of AIM Since the 2017 NPR

    CPSC staff has conducted tests on table saws equipped with AIM 
technology, using the test probe and test method described in Appendix 
A of Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing package.\14\ Staff used a computer-
controlled electromechanical linear actuator to move a probe into the 
spinning blade of a table saw equipped with AIM technology. Staff 
conducted tests at varying blade heights and approach rates, tests with 
the ground of the power plug disconnected; and proof-of-concept 
evaluations of adding AIM technology to a battery-operated bench saw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/content/Commission-Briefing-Package-Proposed-Rule-Safety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section V of this preamble, UL identified the 
threshold between simple and severe lacerations to the finger as 4 mm 
from the surface of the skin. Because the test probe represents human 
flesh beneath the epidermis, staff subtracted the 0.5 mm thickness of 
the epidermal layer of skin from that 4 mm threshold value to arrive at 
a maximum allowable depth of cut to the test probe of 3.5 mm.

A. Prior Testing

    In Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing package, CPSC staff presented 
results of tests in which the test probe was introduced to an operating 
saw blade on a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite table saw and a Bosch REAXX 
jobsite table saw. Both saws were equipped with 10-inch blades and some 
type of AIM technology. As shown in table 4, the depth of cut for the 
SawStop table saw tests ranged from 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm,

[[Page 74918]]

and the depth of cut for the Bosch REAXX table saw tests ranged from 
1.8 mm to 2.5 mm.

      Table 4--Depth of Cut Values for SawStop and Bosch Table Saws
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Human body        Depth of cut (mm)
                                network (HBN)  -------------------------
           Test run              capacitance
                                     (pF)         SawStop       Bosch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................  50.............          2.3          2.2
2............................  100............          2.8          2.1
3............................  150............          2.5          1.9
4............................  200............          2.5          2.2
5............................  250............          2.7          2.1
6............................  300............          2.1          1.8
7............................  350............          1.5          2.4
8............................  400............          2.1          2.5
9............................  450............          2.7          2.5
10...........................  500............          2.6          2.5
11...........................  Short circuit..          2.6          2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional Tests at Varying Blade Heights

    Staff conducted tests at different blade heights on a SawStop JSS-
MCA jobsite saw. As shown in Figure 5, test results indicate a linear 
relationship between depth of cut to the test probe and blade height. 
Staff determined the greatest depth of cut occurred when the table saw 
blade was set at its highest setting. For this reason, the rule 
proposed in this SNPR specifies that performance must be measured with 
the saw blade set at its highest setting, with no bevel angle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.042

C. Additional Tests at Varying Approach Speeds

    The approach rate of the test probe to the saw blade represents the 
speed at which a human finger moves toward the saw blade during a 
blade-contact incident. Staff conducted tests at different approach 
rates of the probe to the blade on a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite saw. As 
shown in Figure 6, test results indicate a linear relationship between 
depth of cut to the test probe and approach speed. This linear 
relationship renders testing at multiple approach rates redundant, and 
the proposed rule in this SNPR thus requires that table saw performance 
be measured at an approach rate of 1 m/s.

[[Page 74919]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP01NO23.043

D. Additional Tests With Ground Disconnected

    CPSC staff conducted tests with the ground plug of the power cord 
on a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite saw disconnected. Test results showed no 
effect on AIM functionality.

E. Additional Tests of SawStop Compact Table Saw

    Comments to the ANPR and the 2017 NPR questioned whether AIM 
technology can be applied to small bench saws. Staff conducted tests 
with an approach rate of 1 m/s on a SawStop CTS compact table saw, with 
an HBN capacitance of 50 pF.\15\ This saw weighs 68 pounds, is equipped 
with a 10-inch blade, and is the smallest, most portable saw SawStop 
offers. Upon testing, the compact table saw equipped with AIM 
technology limited the depth of cut to a test probe, when approaching 
the blade at 1 m/s, to less than 3.5 mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 50 pF represents the body's minimum self-capacitance, and 
represents a worst-case scenario in which the table saw operator is 
located in such a way that the effective capacitance is the body's 
minimum self-capacitance. See Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing 
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Additional Tests Demonstrating AIM on Cordless Battery-Powered Bench 
Saws

    Since the 2017 NPR was published, cordless battery-powered table 
saws have been introduced to the table saw market. Cordless table saws 
typically are powered by lithium-ion batteries that range from 18 volts 
to 60 volts and are equipped with 8.25-inch blades with thinner kerfs 
compared to typical 10-inch blades for corded electric table saws. To 
evaluate the feasibility of applying AIM technology on a battery-
powered bench saw, staff modified a 33-pound battery-powered bench saw 
equipped with an 8.25-inch blade by adding lightweight aluminum 
framing. This modification allowed staff to position a standard SawStop 
10-inch brake cartridge at a distance that would stop the bench saw's 
blade if the brake cartridge was activated. The proof-of-concept 
testing was designed to evaluate the ability of a lightweight battery-
powered bench saw to withstand the energy of an AIM system activating, 
so the testing did not retract the blade; instead, all of the energy 
required for stopping the blade was absorbed by the brake cartridge and 
the bench saw's structure. With the table saw on and the blade spinning 
at full speed, staff remotely activated the brake cartridge and the 
bench saw's blade came to a complete stop. The bench saw moved 
approximately 1 inch vertically, but there was no damage to the saw or 
its table surface. Based on this testing, CPSC staff concluded that a 
battery-powered bench saw can withstand the reaction energy of an AIM 
system.
    In addition, applying a signal to the saw blade can be achieved by 
using the bench saw's battery and a voltage reducer to reduce the 
battery voltage to the voltage required to induce a detection signal on 
the saw blade. CPSC staff has noted that battery-powered bench saws 
already use a voltage regulator to maintain voltage within acceptable 
limits for the table saw to function; therefore, if there is enough 
voltage to operate the bench saw, there will also be enough voltage to 
induce a signal on the saw blade.

VII. Proposed Requirement and Changes From 2017 NPR

    Based on staff's evaluations of NEISS incident data, testing 
conducted prior to and subsequent to the publication of the 2017 NPR, 
and the comments received in response to the NPR and the Special Study 
as discussed in section VIII of this preamble, the Commission proposes 
the following revisions to the rule proposed in the 2017 NPR:
     Specifically reference jobsite saws, hybrid saws, sliding 
saws, and battery-powered saws in the definition of ``table saw,'' to 
better clarify the scope of the proposed rule and account for terms 
used by some industry participants;
     Remove the reference to ``radial approach rate'' from the 
rule's description of how the test probe must be introduced to the saw 
blade, and add descriptive language clarifying that movement of the 
test probe shall be parallel to the saw's table surface, with the 
center axis of the probe at a height of 15  2 mm above the 
saw's table surface, as discussed in Response 1 in section VIII of this 
preamble;
     Require that testing be conducted while the spinning saw 
blade is at its

[[Page 74920]]

maximum height setting, as discussed in section VI of this preamble.
     Revise the rule's anti-stockpiling provision to prohibit 
the manufacture or importation of noncompliant table saws at a rate 
greater than 115 percent of the rate at which table saws were 
manufactured or imported during the 12-month period prior to 
promulgation of the final rule, rather than 120 percent of the rate at 
which saws were manufactured during any 12-month period in the five 
years preceding promulgation, to more closely match the growth rate of 
the table saw market over the last three years.
    This SNPR also proposes to change the CFR part number to 1264.
    While the proposed rule establishes performance requirements 
intended to mitigate the risk of injury associated with contacting 
table saw blades, it does not dictate how table saw manufacturers must 
meet those requirements. There already are different methods to limit 
the depth of cut to a test probe or finger. SawStop stops the blade and 
allows angular momentum to retract it. The Bosch REAXX retracts the 
blade with an explosive discharge. Since the 2017 NPR was published, a 
system based on reverse polarity of electromagnets to retract the blade 
has also been introduced to the market. Furthermore, manufacturers need 
not use the particular test procedure described in this preamble and in 
Tab A of the 2017 NPR briefing package, so long as the test method they 
use effectively assesses compliance with the standard. Other test 
probes and test methods using a different detection system may be 
developed to detect human contact with the saw blade and to measure 
depth of cut.

VIII. Response to Comments

    The Commission published the 2017 NPR in the Federal Register on 
May 12, 2017. The public comment period ended on July 26, 2017. On 
August 9, 2017, the Commission held a public meeting to hear oral 
presentations concerning the NPR. CPSC received 437 comments, which can 
be found at regulations.gov, under docket number CPSC-2011-0074. 
Approximately 66 of the 437 NPR comments supported developing 
regulatory standards for table saws. The other commenters generally 
opposed the rulemaking proceeding. On December 4, 2018, the Commission 
published a notice of availability of the 2017 Special Study, with 
comment period ending February 4, 2019. CPSC received 4 comments to the 
2017 Special Study, which can also be found at regulations.gov, under 
docket number CPSC-2011-0074.
    In this section, we describe and respond to comments on the 2017 
NPR and the 2017 Special Study. We present a summary of comments by 
topic, followed by the Commission's response.

A. Performance Requirements and Testing Procedure

    Comment 1: Bosch and PTI commented on the use of the term 
``radial'' in section 1245.3(b) of the NPR's proposed rule text. Bosch 
commented that a literal interpretation of that term would allow 
manufacturers to introduce a probe toward the blade at an angle that is 
likely to result in a shallower depth of cut, or no cut at all, thus 
resulting in artificially positive testing results. PTI commented that 
for a typical 10'' diameter blade table saw, advancing the test probe 
along the tabletop at an approach velocity of 1 m/s would lead to 
slightly less than 900 mm/s in the radial direction towards the center 
of the blade.
    Response 1: CPSC staff agrees the descriptor ``radial'' can be 
misleading. For improved clarity, the rule proposed in this 
supplemental NPR omits that term from its performance requirement. The 
rulemaking instead describes a frontal approach to the saw blade, which 
is adjusted to its highest setting, with the center axis of the test 
probe parallel to the table saw top surface, 15  2 mm above 
the table saw top surface, and perpendicular to the direction of 
approach to the saw blade. See Appendix A to Tab A of the NPR briefing 
package for an illustrated example of this configuration.
    Comment 2: Bosch and PTI commented that the geometry of the test 
probe specified in rule proposed in the NPR may lead to inappropriately 
deep cut measurements because the contact area available for charge 
transfer is less on a square probe than on a cylindrical probe. This 
limited contact area may delay detection and lead to a deeper depth of 
cut on the test surrogate than would be experienced by a cylindrical 
probe that more closely resembles a finger.
    Response 2: 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 was readily available. 
Staff's tests using the square probe resulted in cuts less than 3 mm 
deep, and the commenter provided no evidence that a cylindrical probe 
will detect and trigger an AIM system faster than a square probe. In 
addition, body parts that may contact a saw blade, such as the 
fingertip, are not always cylindrical.
    However, under Sec. Sec.  1264.3 and 1264.4 of the proposed rule, 
testers may use a cylindrical probe as proposed by Bosch and PTI, 
rather than the square or cuboid probe used in UL's test methodology, 
as long as it possesses characteristics that render it a suitable 
surrogate for a human finger. The March 2015 UL Research Report 
referenced in PTI's comment recommends that a surrogate finger possess 
the following general characteristics:
     Triggering: An ability to trigger the selected safety 
mechanism upon finger contact with (or in very close proximity to) the 
blade;
     Clean Cut: Material properties that allow the surrogate 
finger to exhibit a clean cut upon contact with the blade; and
     Finger Setup Rigidity: The rigidity of the surrogate 
finger setup should minimize bending during blade contact with a 
minimum rigidity of 70 kN/m.
    Comment 3: Bosch commented that the test probe is not an accurate 
representation of the human body. Bosch stated that if a test probe 
were made from pure zinc or tin and connected to Earth through a low-
resistance cable, then it would transfer charge better than a 
connection made to a human being, which could lead to AIM technology 
performing better in the test lab than in real-world conditions.
    Response 3: The test method described in Tab A of the 2017 NPR 
briefing package is based on triggering a capacitance-based AIM system 
with a conductive test probe that is coupled to a human body network 
(HBN), which is a circuit that mimics the human body. The HBN uses a 
series of capacitors and resisters to replicate the human body's 
impedance, the property that triggers a capacitance-based AIM system. 
When the test probe, connected to the HBN, contacts the blade of a 
table saw equipped with a capacitance-based AIM, the HBN changes the 
signal on the saw blade and triggers the AIM system. Whether the probe 
is made from metal (as posited by this comment) or conductive rubber 
(as used in staff's testing) is not significant, because, based on CPSC 
staff's testing, the material of the probe has minimal effect on 
impedance compared to the series combinations of the HBN and especially 
the series capacitance.
    Comment 4: PTI commented that the rule proposed in the NPR is 
inconsistent with the February 2015 and February 2016 UL ballot 
proposals, which required testing at variable approach rates, including 
rates both above and below 1 m/s. PTI suggested that testing at higher 
approach rates is necessary

[[Page 74921]]

because higher approach rates result in more severe injuries.
    Response 4: As discussed in section VI of this preamble, the 
results of staff's testing indicate a linear relationship between 
approach rate and depth of cut. In fact, the UL ballot proposals 
included approach rates and maximum depth of cuts that had a linear 
relationship. This linear relationship renders testing at approach 
rates greater than or less than 1 m/s redundant, as it is expected that 
higher or lower rates will result in correspondingly more or less 
severe injuries.
    In addition, the available data on approach rates during both 
kickback and non-kickback-related table saw blade-contact incidents 
indicate the approach rate is unlikely to exceed 0.368 m/s.\16\ 
Likewise, victim response information from the 2017 Special Study 
indicates that in the majority of cases, approximately 57 percent, 
blade contact did not involve the victim's hand being pulled into the 
blade. Of those cases, 46 percent involved ``reaching to do, or for, 
something,'' and in 17 percent ``the victim's hand was fed into the 
blade.'' CPSC staff advises that these descriptors indicate that 
movement of the operator's hand during blade contact was below an 
approach rate of 1 m/s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Gass, S. (2012). Retrieved from: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2011-0074-1106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 5: PTI commented that the Commission's test protocol needs 
additional specifications to ensure repeatability and reliability.
    Response 5: CPSC has not received specific support for PTI's 
assertion that the test protocol is not repeatable or reliable. On the 
contrary, staff's testing of four different table saws equipped with 
AIM technology has shown that the protocols in the test method are 
sound and repeatable.
    Comment 6: PTI commented that the test procedure proposed in the 
NPR is incomplete because it does not specify the required distance 
between the probe holder and the plane of the saw blade and does not 
specify the required stiffness of the stabilizing strip supporting the 
probe. PTI also commented that, due to probe flexing, results are not 
repeatable.
    Response 6: The test procedure intentionally does not prevent 
testers from using a different probe or testing setup from the one 
described in Tab A of the NPR briefing package, but instead allows 
different setups that have a minimum rigidity of 70 kN/m. The tester is 
at liberty to design the probe holder attachment to the linear actuator 
to ensure that the probe remains secure within the holder and 
approaches the saw blade in accordance with the requirements of the 
rulemaking. Staff's testing has shown that results produced by the test 
method are repeatable.

B. Effectiveness of Proposed Rule

    Comment 7: Bosch commented that AIM-equipped table saws can require 
a properly grounded outlet, but properly grounded outlets may not be 
available on new jobsites or while working on sites with old electrical 
systems. Bosch suggests that this can affect the functioning of the AIM 
system and reduce its effectiveness in mitigating the risk of injury.
    Response 7: Staff conducted tests with AIM-equipped table saws, and 
the results showed that the AIM system was effective without being 
connected to a properly grounded outlet.
    Comment 8: PTI commented that UL and CPSC staff have recognized 
that there will be accidents where AIM technology cannot prevent severe 
injury. PTI questions how much the assumed effectiveness of AIM 
technology should be reduced in light of such accidents, and whether 
the Commission has taken this into account in its economic benefit-cost 
analysis.
    Response 8: A performance requirement limiting the depth of cut to 
a test probe that contacts a saw blade to 3.5 mm will significantly 
reduce the number of severe injuries associated with operator blade-
contact incidents on table saws. Lacerations less than 3.5 mm from the 
surface of the skin will not damage nerves or arteries, which would 
require surgery, and will not result in fractures, amputations, or 
avulsions. Consistent with the hazard patterns identified in the 2017 
Special Study and data provided by SawStop demonstrating that over 
7,000 activations of the SawStop AIM technology resulted in no severe 
injuries, CPSC assesses that nearly all severe injuries involving 
operator-blade contact from table saws can be mitigated by the proposed 
performance requirements. Accordingly, this supplemental NPR's 
preliminary regulatory analysis conservatively assumes AIM technology 
is 90 percent effective in reducing the societal costs of blade-contact 
injuries.
    Comment 9: Several commenters, including Robert Witte, Rob Degagne, 
and Kenny Smith, stated that most table saw injuries are caused by 
kickback of the workpiece, but the SawStop system does not prevent 
kickback. Others stated that riving knives eliminate kickback and 
therefore can prevent or mitigate most injuries.
    Response 9: The Commission's analysis of blade-contact incidents 
indicates that there are many scenarios in which an operator's finger 
or 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 the hand to fall into or be pulled into the 
blade. However, contact is also possible without kickback, for instance 
when the operator's hand gets too close to the blade while feeding a 
small workpiece, when the operator is distracted, when the blade 
catches the operator's glove and pulls the operator's hand into the 
blade, when the operator reaches to regain control of a workpiece, or 
when the operator brushes debris from the table while the blade is 
still spinning after shutoff.
    Based on incident information from the 2017 Special Study, PTI, and 
SawStop's activation data, CPSC staff assesses that most blade-contact 
injuries are not related to kickback, and in almost all instances AIM 
systems prevented serious injury, whether or not kickback was a factor.
    In addition, although riving knives can reduce the potential for 
kickback, they do not eliminate table saw injuries. Information from 
the 2017 Special Study indicated that when blade guards were in use, 28 
percent of the incidents occurred on table saws equipped with a riving 
knife. PTI's comments to the 2017 NPR indicate that only 17 percent of 
accidents reported to PTI members from 2007 to 2015 involved kickback. 
Finally, of the accidents reported to PTI, 49 percent of the table saws 
involved were equipped with riving knives.

C. Benefits and Costs

    Comment 10: Many commenters stated that the costs associated with 
the proposed rule are not justified because the cost to consumers 
outweighs the benefit of increased table saw safety.
    Response 10: As discussed in detail in section X of this preamble, 
the estimated benefits from the proposed rule far exceed the estimated 
costs. Using a 3 percent discount rate, aggregate net benefits range 
from approximately $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion.
    Comment 11: Many commenters, including hobbyist woodworkers and 
owners of small woodworking businesses, asserted that a standard 
mandating the inclusion of AIM technology in table saws will increase 
the price of table saws and make them unaffordable for many 
individuals,

[[Page 74922]]

small businesses, and other groups of concern.
    Response 11: As discussed in section X of this preamble, CPSC staff 
estimates that the prices for the least expensive bench saws now 
currently available will more than double to $400 or more. In general, 
the retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as $285 to 
$700 per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet saws 
could rise by as much as $450 to $1,000 per unit. In addition, 
potential adverse impacts on the utility of table saws could come in 
the form of consumers who choose not to purchase table saws due to 
price increases, and a loss of portability due to the increased weight 
and (potentially) size of table saws to accommodate AIM technology. The 
Commission seeks comment on all aspects of the SNPR's proposal, 
including the effects of the expected price increases on consumers 
generally, or specific groups of consumers.
    Comment 12: Some commenters, including hobbyist woodworkers, small 
business owners, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration, expressed concern with the potential effects 
of the proposed rule on small businesses, and in particular whether the 
proposed rule could dissuade the creation of small businesses.
    Response 12: While the proposed rule has no direct effect on 
regulations or laws concerning small business creation, the rulemaking 
would affect small businesses that produce table saws by prohibiting 
the sale of table saws without an AIM system. This prohibition could 
cause some businesses to exit the table saw market and could indirectly 
act as a barrier to market entry. Should the holders of patents for AIM 
technologies refuse to license the technologies, firms would either 
have to develop their own technology or leave the table saw market. 
This could raise the general cost to start a small business, possibly 
to a significant extent. However, there appear to be multiple, 
competing AIM technologies already available, and adoption of the 
proposed rule could speed the development of additional AIM technology 
options, leading to greater licensing opportunities for table saw 
manufacturers.
    Comment 13: Some commenters, including Nicholas Vanaria and Jarrett 
Maxwell, expressed concern that the proposed rule might incentivize 
U.S. table saw manufacturers to move their operations to other 
countries, resulting in domestic job loss.
    Response 13: CPSC is not aware of any specific information or data 
supporting the speculative possibility that manufacturers might 
relocate to other countries in response to the proposed rule. In 
addition, the proposed rule would apply to all table saws imported into 
the United States, regardless of their place of manufacture, and 
relocating manufacturing operations to a different country would thus 
not exempt them from the rule. The Commission therefore finds it 
unlikely that the proposed rule would incentivize foreign relocation of 
U.S. businesses to any significant extent.
    Comment 14: Several commenters, including Keith Nuttle, Scott 
Moore, Mark Strauch, and Christopher Fray, stated that the risk of 
injury as discussed in the 2017 NPR and the Special Study should have 
been expressed in terms of the number of cuts made or exposure to table 
saws, rather than the number of table saws. Commenters stated that 
millions of cuts are made every year without incident.
    Response 14: CPSC analyzed the risk of injury using the estimated 
number of table saws in use for each year because that is relevant data 
to which the Commission staff has access. Commenters did not provide 
sufficient data on risks per cut or exposure for staff to perform an 
analysis using those metrics.

D. Consumer Choice and User Behavior

    Comment 15: Numerous commenters, including hobbyists and 
professional woodworkers, stated that table saw users should apply 
common sense when operating a table saw and accept the risk of using 
the tool. The commenters stated that the federal government should not 
regulate consumer choice or behavior. While most of these commenters 
stated that they want table saws equipped with AIM technology to be 
available, and some even stated that they own a SawStop saw, they 
supported preserving consumers' ability to evaluate costs and benefits 
for themselves and choose between more expensive AIM-equipped table 
saws and less expensive table saws without AIM technology. The Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration suggested an 
alternative approach whereby manufacturers could continue to produce 
and sell table saws without AIM technology as long as they also sell a 
model equipped with AIM technology.
    Response 15: There are some situations in the workshop that require 
table saw operators to remove blade guards, and an operator's decision 
to use a table saw without all safety devices in operation does not 
necessarily reflect neglect or ignorance. There are also many 
situations in which an operator's finger or hand may contact a blade 
that do not result from operator irresponsibility or negligence. Sudden 
movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the operator to lose 
control of the workpiece and a hand to fall into or be pulled into the 
blade. An operator may become distracted by events outside their 
control and inadvertently contact the blade. Many scenarios leading to 
blade contact become more likely if the consumer is tired or if the 
consumer's view of the blade or cut is impaired in some way. In these 
cases, which the proposed rule would likely address, operator neglect 
or ignorance would not be the primary factor causing the injury.
    As discussed in more detail in section X of this preamble, the 
proposed rule is expected to reduce amputations and other serious 
blade-contact injuries with a net societal benefit exceeding $1 billion 
per year because it would not permit table saws on the market which are 
not equipped with AIM technology. While staff anticipates that some 
table saw models would be completely removed from the market as a 
result of the rule, the proposed rule would also substantially reduce 
the number of serious blade-contact injuries involving table saws, and 
their associated societal costs. In addressing the blade-contact risk, 
the CPSC considers the costs of blade-contact injuries, the utility of 
tables saws, and the impacts of limiting consumer choice. Further, the 
Commission has considered alternatives to the draft proposed rule that 
would not require all table saws to be produced with AIM technology. 
These alternatives are discussed in section X of this preamble.
    Comment 16: Several commenters, including Robert Witte, Steven 
Schneider, and Bret Jacobsen, stated that adding AIM technology to 
table saws will give users a false sense of security and therefore 
increase unsafe user behavior with table saws that will also translate 
to injuries on other power tools. These commenters expressed concern 
that users will not learn to respect the dangers of table saws and 
power tools in general.
    Response 16: While consumers who are aware that their table saws 
use AIM technology may react by taking less care to protect themselves 
from serious finger and hand injuries, people also tend to fear ``dread 
risks,'' which can be defined as ``low-probability, high-consequence 
events,'' and such risks have a substantial influence on risk 
perception. Severe injuries from blade contact on a table saw that 
employs an AIM system would fall under the

[[Page 74923]]

category of a ``dread risk'' because the consequences of such a system 
failing could be quite severe--involving possible amputation, which 
would likely evoke visceral feelings of dread or horror--even if the 
probability of such a failure is low. In addition, consumers likely 
would be motivated to avoid blade contact even if the consequences of 
such contact are not severe, because consumers are unlikely to be 
ambivalent about being cut by a spinning blade with sharp teeth, even 
if the resulting injury is minor.
    The Commission is not able to predict whether consumers will take 
less care when using a table saw with an AIM system, relative to 
current table saws--much less whether users' behavior with other power 
tools might change for the worse. However, even if this does come to 
pass, if the AIM system is effective then the severity of an injury 
resulting from blade contact will be lessened, which would reduce the 
overall number of severe injuries associated with table saws.
    Comment 17: Many commenters, including Douglas Allen and Robert 
Witte, suggested that, if AIM is required for all table saws, then some 
users might modify their saws to bypass the safety mechanism. In 
particular, commenters suggested that some users would engage in this 
behavior to avoid the nuisance of false activations.
    Response 17: Because AIM technology is not expected to interfere 
with normal use of the table saw, most consumers would have little or 
no reason to bypass the AIM system once it is already on the saw.
    Comment 18: Numerous commenters stated that, in order to avoid 
paying for a table saw with additional safety features, consumers will 
likely employ more dangerous methods to cut wood by using other tools 
such as circular saws, buying used table saws, or continuing to use 
older table saws that are less safe.
    Response 18: The proposed rule will increase the price of table 
saws, and this increase is likely to reduce sales. Some consumers may 
hire professionals instead of doing projects themselves. Others might 
borrow or rent table saws, or use older table saws that they would have 
preferred to replace. Some might attempt to use other tools in the 
place of AIM-equipped table saws, as the commenters suggest. If the 
other tools and strategies used by consumers are more dangerous than 
table saws equipped with AIM technology, the effectiveness and societal 
benefits of the proposed rule would be reduced. However, as discussed 
in section X of this preamble, even if the proposed rule is assumed to 
be only 70 percent effective at mitigating or preventing serious 
injuries, the proposed rule's benefits still substantially exceed its 
costs.

E. Availability of AIM Technology

    Comment 19: Several commenters, including businesses, trade 
associations, and individual table saw consumers, as well as the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, stated in 
response to the 2017 NPR that the proposed rule would effectively 
create a monopoly, because it would require table saw manufacturers to 
either license the only known effective AIM system or exit the table 
saw market. PTI relatedly commented that various theoretical detection 
systems for AIM have not yet been invented in a practical form that can 
be integrated into table saws.
    Response 19: The Commission is aware of three firms that supply, or 
have supplied, the U.S. market with table saws equipped with AIM 
technology. These are SawStop (now owned by TTS), which equips all of 
its table saw models with AIM technology; Bosch, which formerly sold 
one model that was equipped with AIM technology, but does not currently 
sell an AIM-equipped table saw in the United States; and the Felder 
Group, which offers a single AIM-equipped model.
    However, the proposed rule does not specify a particular detection 
system that must be used to meet the performance requirement; it 
instead allows manufacturers to use any detection system that meets 
that requirement. The implementation of a performance requirement 
instead of a technology requirement will encourage innovation in the 
development of new technologies. Indeed, in the time since the 2017 NPR 
was published, the Felder Group has developed its new technology called 
the preventative contact system (PCS), which detects motion by creating 
a capacitive field around the blade and reacts to impending blade 
contact by retracting the blade below the table surface in 
milliseconds. Retraction of the blade is achieved by reversing the 
polarity of two strong electro-magnets that hold the blade arbor in 
place.
    While we are mindful that the current suppliers of AIM technologies 
might be able to exert significant power in the U.S. table saw market 
for a period of time if the proposed rule is adopted, the unusually 
extended effective date proposed in this SNPR (36 months from 
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register), together with the 
encouragement of innovation in AIM that the rule should produce, 
sufficiently address this concern. We seek comment on this analysis.

F. Voluntary Standards and Other Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    Comment 20: Several commenters stated that table saw injuries are 
best reduced by training and educating users on safe practices and 
operation of table saws. Many commenters believed that mandatory 
training in the form of certification is needed.
    Response 20: Warnings are less effective at eliminating or reducing 
exposure to hazards than designing the hazard out of a product or 
guarding the consumer from the hazard.\17\ Warnings do not prevent 
consumer exposure to the hazard; they instead rely on educating 
consumers about the hazard and then persuading consumers to alter their 
behavior in some way to avoid the hazard. In addition, warnings rely on 
consumers behaving consistently, regardless of situational or 
contextual factors such as fatigue, stress, or social influences. Thus, 
warnings are most suitable to supplement, rather than replace, redesign 
or guarding, unless those higher-level hazard control efforts are not 
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Smith, Timothy P., 2016. Human factors assessment of blade-
contact scenarios and responses to ANPR public comments (Tab E of 
NPR Staff Briefing Package). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (November 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mandatory training for consumers who purchase or use table saws is 
not a solution the Commission would be able to implement under its 
current statutory authority.
    Comment 21: PTI stated that the 2017 Special Study should be 
understood as confirming that the voluntary standards process for table 
saws is working. PTI suggests that the Study underestimated the 
benefits of the modular blade guard system required by the voluntary 
standard, and PTI believes that the risk of injury on a table saw 
equipped with a modular blade guard system is lower than reported in 
the Study. PTI states that its own estimates of table saw sales and 
populations, modular blade guard market penetration, and table saw 
lifespan differ from the estimates used in the Study.
    Response 21: Since the 2017 Special Study was published, CPSC staff 
has conducted trend analyses of NEISS injuries associated with table 
saws. In every trend analysis, the latest of which spans from 2010 to 
2021, there is no indication that table saw injuries have declined, 
even though table saws equipped with modular blade guard systems have 
come to represent the majority of the table saw population.

[[Page 74924]]

This indicates that the voluntary standard's requirement that table 
saws be equipped with modular blade guards is not effective in reducing 
the number or severity of table saw injuries.
    Comment 22: In their comments in response to the 2017 Special 
Study, Stephen Gass and David Pittle questioned whether the Study's 
conclusion that the risk of a blade-contact injury is seven times 
greater on a table saw equipped with a traditional blade guard system 
than with a modular blade guard system is inconsistent with CPSC 
staff's conclusion that there has been no statistically significant 
reduction in blade-contact injuries over the time period when table 
saws equipped with modular blade guards have saturated the market.
    Response 22: If modular blade guard systems reduce the number or 
severity of blade-contact injuries in comparison to traditional blade 
guard systems, a detectable decreasing trend should exist within the 
NEISS data over the period during which table saws equipped with 
modular blade guards replaced in the market those equipped with 
traditional blade guards. In the 2017 NPR, the Commission preliminarily 
concluded that no such trend was detectable. This SNPR includes further 
trend analysis with data extending through 2021, and again identifies 
no statistically significant decreasing trend in the number or severity 
of blade-contact injuries. As discussed in section X of this preamble, 
the 2017 Special Study represents only a snapshot view of a single 
year, as opposed to the multiple trend analyses that were more 
comprehensive and longer-term, and there are other significant caveats 
to the Special Study's finding on this point. CPSC staff has determined 
that the voluntary standard has not effectively reduced the number or 
severity of blade-contact injuries, notwithstanding the results of the 
Special Study.
    Furthermore, even taking at face value the Special Study's 
conclusion that blade-contact injuries are roughly seven times more 
likely on table saws equipped with traditional blade guard systems, 
tens of thousands of blade-contact injuries continue to occur each 
year, more than a decade after modular blade guard requirements were 
incorporated into the voluntary standards. Thus, there remains an 
unreasonable risk of serious injury associated with table saw use, 
regardless of which type of blade guard system is used.
    We seek further comments on this issue.
    Comment 23: Several commenters stated that CPSC should mandate AIM 
technology on table saws only in industrial or workshop settings or 
schools, provide an open license for AIM technology, and/or ensure that 
the price of table saws with AIM technology decreases as costs for 
manufactures decrease with economies of scale.
    Response 23: The CPSA does not give the Commission authority to 
regulate the use of table saws in industrial settings, to license 
patents, or to control the cost of products.

IX. Description of the Proposed Rule

A. Scope, Purpose, and Effective Date--Sec.  1264.1

    The proposed rule would apply to all table saws that are consumer 
products, as defined in the proposed rule, 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.
    Under section 9(g)(1) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1), 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 XVI of this preamble, the 
Commission finds that 180 days is not adequate to allow for 
manufacturers to comply with the final rule, or for the rule to have 
its desired effect of promoting the development and commercial 
availability of additional AIM technologies. The Commission therefore 
proposes an effective date of 36 months following Federal Register 
publication of a final rule. The proposed rule clarifies that the rule 
would apply to all table saws manufactured after the effective date.

B. Definitions--Sec.  1264.2

    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 define ``table saw'' as: ``a woodworking tool that has a motor-
driven circular saw blade, which protrudes through the surface of a 
table.'' In order to more precisely define the scope of the rule and 
account for additional classifications used by some industry 
participants, the definition has been revised from the definition set 
out in Sec.  1245.2 of the rule proposed in the NPR to specify that 
``[t]able saws include bench saws, jobsite saws, contractor saws, 
hybrid saws, cabinet saws, and sliding saws,'' and that ``[t]able saws 
may be powered by alternating current from a wall outlet or direct 
current from a battery.'' The Commission seeks comment on this proposed 
definition of a table saw.

C. Requirements for Table Saw Blade Contact--Sec. Sec.  1264.3 and 
1264.4

    The proposed rule would require table saws, when powered on, to 
limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm when the center axis of the test 
probe, acting as a surrogate for a human finger or other body part, is 
moving parallel to, and is 15  2 mm above the table top at 
a rate of 1 m/s and contacts the spinning blade that is set at its 
maximum height setting. The rule would require that the test probe 
allow for the accurate measurement of the depth of cut to assess 
compliance with the proposed requirement.
    The composition and form of the test probe are not defined. 
However, 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. While the test probe and test method described in TAB A 
of staff's 2017 briefing package are considered appropriate for the 
evaluation of AIM systems using an electrical detection system, the 
Commission does not propose to make this test method mandatory, because 
other AIM systems may use a different detection approach. For AIM 
systems using a different detection approach, the method should be 
developed based on sound material science and engineering knowledge to 
accurately assess compliance with the proposed requirement.
    A performance requirement that limits the depth of cut to 3.5 mm at 
an approach rate of 1 m/s 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 contact with the saw 
blade and the equivalent injury mitigation on a real human finger will 
avoid most microsurgery.
    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. In these and other scenarios, the 
speed of the operator's hand or finger may exceed 1 m/s when it 
contacts the saw blade. At approach speeds greater than 1 m/s, AIM 
system performance may not be sufficient to prevent injuries that 
require extensive

[[Page 74925]]

medical attention. The use of AIM technology may, however, limit 
injuries where an incident otherwise would have resulted in an 
amputation or involved injury to several digits or a wider area, to 
permit instead microsurgical repair of nerves, blood vessels, and 
tendons. Thus, the Commission concludes that nearly all operator blade-
contact injuries from table saws would be eliminated or mitigated by 
the proposed performance requirement.

D. Prohibited Stockpiling--Sec.  1264.5

    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 noncompliant table saws between the promulgation of the 
final rule and its effective date. The provision would prohibit a firm 
from manufacturing or importing noncompliant table saws at a rate that 
is greater than 115 percent of the rate at which the firm manufactured 
and/or imported table saws during the base period. The base period is 
the 12-month period immediately preceding the promulgation of the final 
rule. The cap on manufacture or importation has been reduced from the 
120 percent cap proposed in the 2017 NPR to reflect the growth rate of 
the table saw market over recent years.
    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 in the Appendix to the Rule

    The findings required by section 9 of the CPSA are discussed 
throughout the preamble of this proposed rule and specifically set 
forth in the appendix to the rule.

X. Updated 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).
    The Commission's updated preliminary regulatory analysis is 
contained in TAB A of staff's briefing package,\18\ and is summarized 
in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Federal-Register-Notice-Safety-Standard-Addressing-Blade-Contact-Injuries-on-Table-Saws-SNPR.pdf?VersionId=Ce3FOVBmbG0_.8j.gd1h0k3VWHZZ.URw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 table saw market, 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. The report uses 
publicly 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 relied on the IEc reports for additional 
data and information to support the preliminary regulatory analysis 
(TAB C of the staff NPR briefing package) and initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (TAB D of the staff NPR briefing package). These 
reports are available on the CPSC website at https://www.cpsc.gov/research-statistics/other-technical-reports.

B. Market Information

1. Manufacturers
    The Commission has identified 23 firms that supply table saws to 
the U. S. market.\19\ PTI estimates that its member companies account 
for 80 percent of all table saws sold in the United States.\20\ Most of 
these companies are large, diversified international corporations with 
billions of dollars in sales, such as Stanley Black and Decker, Robert 
Bosch, Makita, TTS, and Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd. These five 
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 in each instance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See TAB A of Staff Briefing Package.
    \20\ PTI, 2012. Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power Tool 
Institute, Inc., on ``U.S. Consumer Product Commission [Docket No. 
CPSC-2011-0074] Table saw blade contact injuries: Advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking,'' (March 16, 2012). (Comment CPSC-2011-0074-
1081, available at: regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For smaller, more specialized firms, 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. IEc, 2016a. Another company with an annual revenue of $20 to 
$40 million stated that table saws represent approximately five percent 
of total sales. Id. A third business CPSC staff interviewed attributed 
seven to eight percent of total revenue to table saw sales. Id.
2. Types of Table Saws Commonly Used by Consumers
    As discussed in section III of this preamble, table saws are 
generally grouped into three categories: bench saws, contractor saws, 
and cabinet saws. Bench saws (which include saws sometimes referred to 
as jobsite saws) tend to be lightweight and portable, and are the least 
expensive of the three categories. Contractor saws are larger, heavier, 
more powerful, and more expensive than bench saws. Cabinet saws are the 
heaviest, most powerful, and most expensive of the categories. Some 
manufacturers also categorize table saws as ``hybrid saws'' or 
``sliding saws.'' Sliding saws are similar to cabinet saws, but 
typically are equipped with an extension that allows for the cutting of 
large panels, have advanced electronic features, and sometimes include 
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for operation. Nearly all sliding saws 
weigh more than 900 pounds and require equipment to move or relocate.
3. 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 $139 to $1,399. Prices for contractor 
saws range from $599 to $1,999, and prices for hybrid saws range from 
$895 to $4,279. Generally, cabinet and sliding saws are more expensive. 
Prices for cabinet saws range from $1,399 to $4,999. The price range 
for sliding table saws is wide, with models priced below $3,400 and 
above $25,000. SawStop models containing AIM technology are 
consistently priced at the upper end of the price range for each of the 
three primary table saw categories (bench, contractor, and cabinet). 
The least expensive saw available from SawStop is the compact table saw 
priced at $900. The SawStop bench saw is the most expensive in the 
bench saw category at $1,599 to $1,799, depending on the distributor. 
Similarly, SawStop

[[Page 74926]]

contractor saws, ranging in price from $1,999 to $2,398, represent some 
of the more expensive models in that product category. The SawStop 
cabinet models range in price from $2,899 to $5,949, depending on power 
and performance. The Felder Group model equipped with AIM technology is 
priced at the high end of the sliding saw price range, with prices 
exceeding $25,000 depending on model options/upgrades.
4. Sales and Numbers in Use
    Although the design and engineering of table saws may occur in the 
United States, most table saws currently are manufactured overseas. 
Data from the U.S. International Trade Commission indicates that from 
2014 to 2017 approximately 99 percent of imported table saw units were 
built in Taiwan and China. A small volume of expensive industrial saws 
was also imported from European and Canadian manufacturers.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 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://hts.usitc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff estimated the annual number of table saws in use with 
the CPSC's Product Population Model (PPM), a statistical model that 
projects the number of products in use given examples of annual product 
sales and product failure rates. Total annual shipments of all table 
saws to the U.S. market from 2002 to 2017 are estimated to have ranged 
from 429,000 to 825,000, and total annual shipments from 2018 to 2020 
are estimated to have ranged from 746,000 to 995,000. Estimates of 
industry-wide sales value are not readily available. CPSC staff 
estimated that bench saws account for about 79 percent of the units 
sold, with contractor saws (including hybrids) and cabinet saws 
accounting for approximately 12 percent and 9 percent, respectively.
    Staff calculated an average product life of 10 years for bench 
saws, 17 years for contractor saws, and 24 years for cabinet saws. 
Using these parameters, staff projected a total of about 8.2 million 
table saws in use in the United States in 2017, including about 5.35 
million bench saws (about 65 percent), 1.4 million contractor saws 
(about 17 percent), and 1.46 million cabinet saws (about 18 percent).

C. Benefit-Cost Analysis

    This section of the analysis consists of a comparison of the 
benefits and costs of the proposed rule and explains the Commission's 
preliminary conclusion that the expected benefits of the proposed rule 
exceeds its expected costs by a wide margin.\22\ 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 table 
saws, including the cost of the labor (at both the design and 
manufacturing stages) and materials required to manufacture table saws 
that comply with the rule. The rule would also have a cost to consumers 
in the form of consumer surplus loss resulting from higher prices on 
table saws. Staff calculated the benefits and costs of the proposed 
rule on a per-product-in-use basis. Benefits and costs are presented in 
2021 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See TAB A of Staff's Briefing Package for a detailed 
analysis of the expected benefits and costs of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Baseline Risk and Conflicting Data
    Beginning in 2010, the voluntary standards governing table saws (at 
that time UL 987; currently UL 62841-3-1) have required table saws to 
be equipped with modular blade guard systems, riving knives, and anti-
kickback devices. To quantify the hazards associated with blade-contact 
injuries and to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary standards, 
CPSC staff conducted the 2017 Special Study. Of the 26,501 blade-
contact injury cases analyzed for the Special Study, staff concluded 
that 12.2 percent involved saws that were compliant with the voluntary 
standard, 19.6 percent involved table saws with ``unknown'' blade guard 
types, and the remainder of incidents involved non-compliant saws. The 
Special Study found that the relative risk of a blade-contact injury 
was 7.19 times greater for a non-compliant saw than a complaint saw.
    However, there are significant caveats to this finding. First, the 
Special Study is a snapshot analysis based on only one year of 
incidents. Second, there is a significant proportion of injuries 
associated with ``unknown'' blade guard types. Third, the study does 
not account for characteristics of the study group. For example, the 
study did not reveal if the consumers who purchased compliant saws were 
more risk-averse or safety-conscious. If this was the case, members of 
that group would be less likely to be involved in a table saw-related 
injury regardless of the type of blade guard in use. Notably, as 
discussed in more detail in section IV of this preamble, the NEISS data 
trend indicates that the rate of table saw blade contact injuries has 
not declined in more than a decade after the introduction of the 
modular blade guard requirement. Given this data, CPSC assesses that 
the voluntary standards have not been effective in the long run at 
reducing blade contact injuries.
2. Blade-Contact Injuries
    The proposed rule is intended to address table saw injuries 
resulting from blade contact by requiring table saws to be equipped 
with AIM technology. According to the 2017 Special Study, there were an 
estimated 26,501 blade contact injuries initially treated in U.S. 
hospital emergency departments in 2017. The number of table saw 
injuries initially treated outside of hospital EDs is estimated with 
the CPSC's Injury Cost Model (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 of those initially treated in other settings.\23\ Based 
on the 2017 annual estimate of 26,501 blade contact injuries initially 
treated in hospital EDs, as determined in the 2017 Special Study, the 
ICM projects an additional 22,675 blade contact injuries treated in 
other treatment settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Lawrence, BA, Miller, TR, Waejrer, GM, Spicer, RS, Cohen, 
MA, Zamula, WW, 2018. The Consumer Product Safety Commission's 
Revised Injury Cost Model. Maryland: Pacific Institute for Research 
and Evaluation. (February 2018). Available at https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ICM-2018-Documentation.pdf?YWuW4Jn0eb2hExeA0z68B64cv6LIUYoE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, there was an estimated annual total of about 49,176 medically 
treated blade-contact injuries. About 60.9 percent of those injuries 
involved bench saws; 27.1 percent involved contractor saws; and 9.1 
percent involved cabinet saws. About 3 percent involved table saws of 
unknown type. Staff estimates that approximately 21,504 injuries (about 
43.7 percent) were treated in doctors' offices or clinics, and 1,171 
injuries (about 2.4 percent) resulted in direct hospital admission, 
bypassing the ED. Overall, about 9.8 percent of the medically treated 
injuries resulted in hospitalization, either directly or following 
treatment in an ED.
    An estimated 90.1 percent of the injuries involved fingers, with 
almost all of the remainder involving the hand. About 9.1 percent of 
the medically treated injuries involved amputations; 58.1 percent 
involved lacerations; and 23.5 percent involved fractures. About 33.4 
percent of the amputations resulted in hospital admission, compared to 
about 5.9 percent of lacerations and 14.2

[[Page 74927]]

percent of fractures. Only about 28.7 percent of the amputations were 
projected to be treated in doctors' offices, clinics, and other non-
hospital settings, compared with about 42.0 percent of lacerations and 
49.4 percent of fractures.
    The blade-contact injury rate per 100,000 saws is calculated by 
dividing the number of medically-treated injuries by the estimated 
number of table saws in use. Using the data from the 2017 Special 
Study, there were approximately 559 bench saw-related injuries per 
100,000 bench saws in use; 951 contractor saw-related injuries per 
100,000 contractor saws in use; and 306 cabinet saw-related injuries 
per 100,000 cabinet saws in use.
3. Injury Costs of Blade Contact Injuries
    The societal costs of blade-contact injuries are quantified using 
the ICM. The ICM's components for injury costs include medical costs, 
work losses, and the intangible costs associated with lost quality of 
life or pain and suffering.
    Medical costs include three categories of expenditures: (1) medical 
and hospital costs associated with treating the injured 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 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the National 
Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (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 rearranging 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, the 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 must be accounted for in any benefit-cost 
analysis involving health outcomes.\24\ The ICM develops a monetary 
estimate of these intangible costs from jury awards for pain and 
suffering. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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 Heath & Aging, University of California 
and Injury Prevention Center, The Johns Hopkins University; Haddix, 
Anne C., Teutch, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This regulatory analysis discounts future benefits and costs using 
a 3 percent discount rate. The 3 percent rate is intended to represent 
what is sometimes called the ``social rate of time preference,'' which 
is consistent with the rate at which society discounts future 
consumption flows to their present value.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ OMB, 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory analysis. Washington, 
DC: Office of Management and Budget. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf; Gold, 
Marthe R., Siegel, Joanna E., Russell, Louise B., Einsteinin, Milton 
C., 1996. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: 
Oxford University Press; Haddix, et al., supra note 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on ICM estimates and utilizing the 3 percent discount rate, 
the present value of total injury costs associated with the estimated 
49,176 medically treated table saw injuries amounted to $3.97 billion. 
This suggests injury costs of about $80,650 per injury (i.e., $3.97 
billion / 49,176 injuries). This high estimate is largely driven by the 
costs associated with amputations. While amputations accounted for 
approximately 9.1 percent of injuries, they accounted for almost 55.3 
percent of total estimated costs.
    The distribution of injury costs by medical treatment setting is 
provided in table 5. Overall, medical costs and work losses accounted 
for 31 percent of the total, while the non-economic losses associated 
with pain and suffering accounted for 69 percent.

  Table 5--Annual Societal Costs Associated With Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries, by Medical Treatment Setting
                                            and Injury Cost Component
                                        [2021 dollars; 3% discount rate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Average cost per injury, by cost component
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                  Medical treatment setting                                               Pain and
                                                                Medical     Work loss    suffering      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor/Clinic...............................................         $705       $1,982      $21,970      $24,657
Emergency Department (ED)...................................        2,206        1,894       30,211       34,311
Hospital, Admitted via ED...................................       18,548      197,213      308,001      523,761
Direct Hospital Admission...................................       18,999      208,590      333,386      560,975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of the present value of these societal costs from blade-
contact injuries, per table saw in use, and by saw type, are presented 
in table 6. Row (a) shows aggregate annual societal costs, by type of 
saw. Annual societal costs per saw are presented in row (c) and are 
calculated by dividing the aggregate annual societal costs, row (a), by 
table saws in use, row (b). The present value of annual societal costs 
at a 3 percent discount rate are presented

[[Page 74928]]

in row (e) and range from $3,503 per bench saw to $12,865 per cabinet 
saw. These present value figures represent the maximum benefits that 
could be derived from a rule addressing blade-contact injuries if such 
a rule prevented 100 percent of all such injuries.

  Table 6--Present Value of Societal Costs of Injuries per Table Saw in
                         Use, by Table Saw Type
                [Based on blade contact injuries in 2017]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Table saw type
                                  --------------------------------------
                                      Bench      Contractor    Cabinet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Aggregate Annual Societal       $2,198. 29     $612. 49   $1,099. 81
 Costs (Millions $)..............
(b) Table Saws in Use (Millions).        5. 35        1. 40        1. 45
(c) Annual Societal Costs per             $411         $437         $760
 Table Saw [(a) / (b)]...........
(d) Expected Useful Product Life            10           17           24
 (years).........................
(e) Present Value of Societal           $3,503       $5,750      $12,865
 Costs, Over Expected Product
 Life (3 percent discount rate)..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Effectiveness and Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    The effectiveness of AIM technology in preventing blade-contact 
injuries is expected to be high. However, not all injuries would be 
prevented, because the AIM system activates after the hand or finger 
comes into contact with an operating blade. Moreover, it will not 
mitigate all severe blade-contact injuries. For example, it will not 
mitigate potentially severe blade contact injuries that occur: (1) when 
the saw is not running; (2) when the blade is operating but the AIM 
system has been deactivated; (3) 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; or (4) when the AIM technology 
leads to complacency or reductions in safety efforts on the part of 
users that result in injuries the AIM technology is unable to prevent, 
which may or may not involve blade contact. An example of the fourth 
category might be an operator's decision to remove other safety 
equipment on the table saw, such as an anti-kickback pawl, which might 
increase the likelihood of an injury involving wood thrown back at the 
operator.
    While there is insufficient information to quantify the impact of 
these factors with precision, there is information to highlight their 
impact. The 2007-2008 table saw survey found that in 5.5 percent of 
table saw injuries, the motor was not running.\26\ The 2014-2015 NEISS 
special study found that about 2.4 percent of the blade contact 
injuries involved saw blades that were not in operation at the time of 
injury or had just been turned off.\27\ Additionally, the existing AIM 
technology cannot be used when cutting conductive materials, such as 
non-ferrous metals (e.g., aluminum) or wood that is wet enough to 
conduct sufficient electricity to activate the AIM system. 
Consequently, table saws with existing AIM systems have a bypass mode 
that temporarily deactivates the AIM system to prevent nuisance 
tripping. Although the SawStop saws automatically reset to safety mode 
whenever restarted, some consumers might deactivate the AIM system even 
when it is not necessary to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Chowdhury, Sadeq R., Paul, Caroleene, 2011. Survey of 
injuries involving stationary saws, table and bench saws, 2007-2008. 
Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    \27\ Garland, Sarah, 2016. Table Saw blade contact injury 
analysis. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 
(November 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the factors discussed in this section, we assume that AIM 
technology is 90 percent effective in reducing the societal costs of 
blade contact injuries. Table 7 recalculates benefits with a 90 percent 
effective rate to estimate the benefits from the proposed rule.

                      Table 7--Expected Benefits, per Table Saw, Assuming 90% Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        PV of societal costs, over         Benefits at 90%
                   Table saw type                       expected product life  (3      effectiveness, 3 percent
                                                          percent discount rate)            discount rate
                                                                                (a)                (b) = a x 90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench...............................................                         $3,503                       $3,153
Contractor..........................................                          5,750                        5,175
Cabinet.............................................                         12,865                       11,579
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed previously in this section of the preamble, there is 
inconsistent evidence whether table saws complying with the modular 
blade guard system requirement in UL 62841-3-1 are substantially less 
likely to cause severe injuries. If the voluntary standard is in fact 
effective in reducing the number or severity of blade-contact injuries, 
the proposed rule's expected reduction in societal costs would be 
reduced, because some of the injuries that an AIM system would be 
expected to prevent would already have been prevented by adherence to 
the voluntary standard. For an analysis of expected benefits under an 
assumption that the voluntary standard is in fact effective, see 
staff's revised preliminary regulatory analysis.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ TAB A of Staff's Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Costs To Meet Performance Requirements
    Table saw manufacturers are likely to incur three primary types of 
costs to incorporate AIM technology into their table saws:
    Costs of AIM technology. Manufacturers would have to either design 
and develop their own AIM technology or license an AIM technology 
developed and owned by

[[Page 74929]]

another party. As previously noted, there are currently at most three 
suppliers of AIM technology. The Commission considers the development 
of additional AIM technologies likely if the proposed rule is adopted, 
but additional competitive entry is not certain. While most 
manufacturers of table saws would likely continue production by 
licensing an AIM technology, some firms, especially smaller firms, 
would likely drop out of the market altogether, resulting in a loss of 
consumer surplus as well as increased prices due to lessened 
competition.
    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. For example, 
table saw models not currently incorporating AIM technology likely 
would require redesign to provide room for blade retraction, to allow 
access for users to change the cartridge and blade, and to withstand 
the force of the AIM system being triggered. PTI estimates that, on 
average, the cost to redesign and retool existing table saws would 
range from $2 million to $10 million per manufacturer.\29\ Dr. Gass, 
however, has said that SawStop's tooling costs were approximately 
$200,000 for its first contractor/cabinet table saw, and approximately 
$700,000 for its first bench saw. He also emphasized some table saw 
models are minor variations on one another and share the same basic 
structure, which reduces costs of redesign and retooling.\30\ 
Furthermore, foreign manufacturers may produce saws for multiple U.S. 
firms; the costs of retooling might be spread across several of their 
customers if the designs are similar enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Grahan, J. 2010. Expert report of Dr. John D. Graham. 
(April 27). Submitted with PTI public comments (2012) CPSC-2011-
0074-1106, available at: regulations.gov.
    \30\ IEc interview with Dr. Stephen Gass, Saw Stop, LLC, 
November 6, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Material and labor costs. The combination of adding a brake 
cartridge or other means of stopping or retracting the blade after 
contact with flesh, and redesigning 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 materials costs. For SawStop models in 2012, the additional 
cost associated with the AIM system was approximately $58.\31\ An 
estimate from another firm, also in 2012, suggested $74 (including 
cartridge, electronics, and mechanical parts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Gass, Stephen F., 2012. Comments and information responsive 
to ANPR for table saw blade contact injuries, by SawStop, LLC. (Mar. 
16, 2012). Comment CPSC-2011-0074-1106, available at: 
regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The structure of some bench saws may need to be strengthened to 
improve stability and withstand the shock of blade braking and/or 
retraction. This strengthening may increase the overall weight of some 
of the lightest saws, reducing their portability and utility.
    The commission seeks comments on the impact this proposed rule 
would have on existing firms.

D. Manufacturing Cost Impact

    To estimate the per-unit manufacturing cost of requiring AIM 
technology for table saws, CPSC staff assume that the costs associated 
with the rule are fully pushed forward to consumers, and that the 
expected price increases are reflective of all costs of production and 
supply. However, these cost impacts do not include royalty fees, which 
are payments that manufacturers would have to make if they license the 
AIM technology from other firms rather than developing their own AIM 
systems. From a societal perspective, royalties represent a transfer 
payment from one party or sector to another. Because royalties 
essentially move money from one party to another, and are not payments 
for goods or services, they are not costs for purposes of the benefit-
cost analysis.\32\ Nevertheless, the royalties will have distributional 
impacts on manufacturers and consumers that are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ OMB, 2003, supra note 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Manufacturing Costs
    In 2015, SawStop predicted that retail prices for bench saws would 
increase by no more than $150 per unit as result of the rule.\33\ 
Inflated to 2021 dollars, this results in an estimated increase of 
$193. In the absence of more specific information about manufacturing 
costs, CPSC staff used this figure as the basis for the low-end 
estimate of manufacturing cost increases for bench saws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ SawStop, LLC. 2009. Presentation to CPSC, December 8 & 9; 
Osorio v. One World Technologies, Inc., 659 F3d 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 a 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, and inflated to 
2021 dollars, this estimate suggests a cost increase associated with 
redesign, retooling, and materials of about $321. For this analysis, we 
assume that this $321 low-end cost increase can be applied to all 
contractor and cabinet saws.
    For bench saws, the high-end cost increase is based on information 
provided by PTI, whose members produce primarily bench saws. In 2012, 
PTI estimated that the increase would be $100 to $800 per saw, 
excluding royalties.\34\ Inflated to 2021 dollars, the midpoint of this 
range is $651.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ PTI, 2012. Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power Tool 
Institute, Inc., on ``U.S. Consumer Product Commission [Docket No. 
CPSC-2011-0074] Table saw blade contact injuries: Advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking,'' (March 16, 2012). (Comment CPSC-2011-0074-
1081, available at: regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 by 20 percent, excluding 
the cost of royalties. IEc, 2016b. Applying this percentage to the 
company's cabinet saw models results in added costs of about $260 to 
$800. CPSC assumes the high-end incremental cost increase is $1,002, 
which is the upper bound of each range suggested by PTI and these two 
manufacturers, inflated to 2021 dollars. These costs are for the first 
years following adoption of the proposed safety rule. In the longer 
term, after about 5 years, the incremental cost should decrease as AIM 
technology is better developed and deployed.
2. Replacement Parts Costs
    In addition to the manufacturing costs just described, there will 
also be the added costs of replacement parts related to the AIM system. 
For purposes of this analysis, we base the cost of replacement parts on 
the SawStop system, which requires replacement of the brake cartridge 
and blade after activation of the system. Replacement part prices are 
estimated to include $95 for a replacement brake cartridge, and $30 to 
$90 for a replacement blade.\35\ Based on sales of replacement brake 
cartridges, SawStop estimates that the AIM system may activate about 
once every 9 years of use.\36\ At a replacement

[[Page 74930]]

rate of once every 9 years (and assuming $95 per replacement blade), 
this results in an annual per-unit replacement part cost of 
approximately $17. However, because blades deteriorate and require 
periodic replacement even in the absence of an AIM activation, CPSC 
assumes that the need for replacement blades due to AIM activation 
costs an average of about $14 annually. The present value of this 
expected annual cost of $14 over the life of a typical table saw, and 
discounted at a rate of 3 percent, would amount to about $118 for bench 
saws (with a 10-year expected product life), $183 for contractor saws 
(with an estimated 17-year product life), and $235 for cabinet saws 
(with an expected 24-year product life).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ PTI, 2016. Table saw facts at a glance. Accessed June 20, 
2016. Available at: https://powertoolinstitute.com/pti-pages/it-table-saw-facts.asp.
    \36\ SawStop, March 2011, Information Package for Petition CP-
03-02. As cited in CPSC (2011). Table Saw Blade Contact Injuries; 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. September 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SawStop data, however, may overstate the costs of replacement 
parts. For instance, the AIM-equipped Bosch REAXX bench saw, which has 
since been withdrawn from the U.S. market, utilized a $100 cartridge 
that was usable for two activations. Because the blade was not 
destroyed by the activation, the Bosch system had lower replacement 
part costs.
    The direct manufacturing and replacement costs are presented in 
table 8 and rely on the low- and high-end direct manufacturing costs 
and the SawStop replacement costs just described.

                               Table 8--Direct Manufacturing and Replacement Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Direct manufacturing                         Total direct +
                                                        costs                               replacement costs
               Table saw type                --------------------------   Replacement  -------------------------
                                                Low-end      High-end      part cost      Low-end      High-end
                                               estimates    estimates                    estimates    estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench.......................................         $193         $651            $118         $311         $769
Contractor..................................          321        1,002             183          504        1,185
Cabinet.....................................          321        1,002             235          556        1,237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Lost Consumer Surplus

    The increased retail prices of table saws, as compliance costs are 
passed on to consumers, would result in a reduction in table saw sales. 
Consumers who decide not to purchase table saws because of the higher 
prices would experience a loss in consumer surplus. The assumptions 
used by Commission staff to estimate the lost consumer surplus are 
explained in TAB A of staff's briefing package. Applying those 
assumptions, table 9 shows the expected reduction in annual sales and 
the expected lost consumer surplus as a result of adopting the proposed 
rule. Reduced sales could range from about 110,800 table saws under the 
low-end cost estimates (column a), to about 329,900 under the high-end 
cost estimates (column d), representing a sales reduction of about 17 
percent to 50 percent, respectively. The annual loss in consumer 
surplus ranges from about $13.9 million under the low-end estimates 
(column c), to about $120 million under the high-end estimates (column 
f).

                               Table 9--Post-Regulatory Annual Table Saw Sales, Sales Reduction, and Lost Consumer Surplus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Low-end cost estimate                           High-end cost estimate
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             (a)                          (c) Aggregate       (d)                          (f) Aggregate
                                                           Expected   (b) Expected post-  lost consumer     Expected   (e) Expected post-  lost consumer
                                                            sales      regulatory sales      surplus         sales      regulatory sales      surplus
                                                          reduction                        (millions $)    reduction                       (millions $)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench..................................................       97,917            419,083          $11.02       297,231            219,769         $101.50
Contractor.............................................        9,098             69,902            1.91        23,885             55,115           13.14
Cabinet................................................        3,813             51,187            1.00         8,758             46,242            5.28
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................      110,827            540,173           13.92       329,874            321,126          119.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 10 presents the total costs per table saw, including the 
direct manufacturing costs, replacement part costs, and lost consumer 
surplus. The direct manufacturing and replacement part cost estimates, 
per table saw, are from table 8. The lost consumer surplus, per table 
saw, is calculated as the aggregate lost consumer surplus divided by 
the post-regulatory estimate of sales. Total per-unit costs range from 
roughly $388 to $1,210 per bench saw, from $531 to $1,376 per 
contractor saw, and from about $576 to $1,276 per cabinet saw.

                                                              Table 10--Total Costs per Saw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Low-end cost estimate                           High-end cost estimate
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Table saw type                                          Lost                                             Lost
                                                            Direct +       consumer          Total           Direct +       consumer         Total
                                                           replacement     surplus                          replacement     surplus
                                                                    (a)          (b)    (c) = (a) + (b)              (d)          (e)    (f) = (d) + (e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench..................................................            $311          $26               $338             $749         $462             $1,210
Contractor.............................................             504           27                531            1,138          238              1,376
Cabinet................................................             556           20                576            1,161          114              1,276
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 74931]]

    The annual aggregate costs of the rule are estimated in columns (c) 
and (f) of table 11, and range from about $208 million, based on the 
low-end cost estimates, to about $400 million, based on the high-end 
cost estimates. Bench saws account for about 68 percent of the total 
under the low-end estimates, and about 66 percent of the total under 
the high-end estimates.

   Table 11--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
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Table saw type            (a) Annual post-                                            (d) Annual post-
                                   regulatory table    (b) Per unit rule     (c) Aggregate     regulatory table    (e) Per unit rule     (f) Aggregate
                                       saw sales             cost         costs (millions $)  saw sales surplus)         cost         costs (millions $)
                                                                          (a x b)...........                                          (d x e)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench...........................  419,083...........  $338..............  $141.55...........  219,769...........  $1,210............  $266.01
Contractor......................  69,902............  531...............  37.13.............  55,115............  1,376.............  75.84
Cabinet.........................  51,187............  576...............  29.47.............  46,242............  1,276.............  58.98
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  540,173...........  ..................  208.15............  321,126...........  ..................  400.83
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Relationship Between Benefits and Costs

    Section 9(f)(3)(E) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3)(E), provides 
that before adopting a final rule under CPSA sections 7 and 9, the 
Commission must find ``that the benefits expected from the rule bear a 
reasonable relationship to its costs.'' Although this SNPR does not 
establish a final rule, we nevertheless address that issue here and 
preliminarily conclude that the expected benefits of the proposed rule 
comfortably exceed its expected costs. The expected benefits and costs 
of the proposed rule by table saw type are presented in table 12. The 
net benefit estimates suggest that the per-unit benefits exceed costs 
by a ratio of more than 3.5 to 1 using a 3 percent discount rate. Using 
a 3 percent discount rate, the estimated net benefits range from about 
$503 million to $1,326 million for bench saws, $241 million to $365 
million for contractor saws, and $536 million to $629 million for 
cabinet saws.

                                        Table 12--Estimated Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Cost per saw (low                                       Aggregate net
       Table saw type          Benefits     est--top, hi     Net benefit per     Est. annual        benefits
                               per saw     est.--bottom)           saw              sales        (millions, $)
                                    (a)                (b)      (c) = (a)-(b)             (d)    (e) = (c) x (d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bench.......................     $3,503               $338             $3,165         419,083             $1,327
                                                     1,210              2,293                                504
Contractor..................      5,750                531              5,218          69,902                365
                                                     1,376              4,374                                241
Cabinet.....................     12,865                576             12,289          51,187                629
                                                     1,276             11,590                                536
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This general relationship is not altered with variations in some of 
the key parameters of the analysis, including variations in the 
expected product life of table saws, table saw sales, injury rates, and 
significant variations in the estimated costs of injuries. Furthermore, 
even if the Commission were to assume that the voluntary standards have 
been effective in reducing the number and severity of injuries, based 
on the findings from the 2017 Special Study, benefits would not be 
strongly negative and could be positive. The Regulatory Analysis Memo 
contains a discussion of costs and benefits under this assumption.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ TAB A to Staff's Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Sensitivity Analysis

    The results of the regulatory analysis demonstrate that the 
benefits of AIM technology substantially exceed costs under most 
plausible scenarios. This sensitivity analysis varies several of the 
key parameters to show the impact on per-unit net benefits.
1. Lower AIM Effectiveness
    Net benefits decline modestly if it is assumed that AIM technology 
is only 70 percent effective at mitigating the societal costs of blade-
contact injuries, rather than 90 percent. Net benefits under this 
assumption are $272.92 per bench saw, $145.98 per contractor saw, and 
$357.45 per cabinet saw. Benefits remain substantially greater than 
costs.
2. Higher Replacement Parts Costs
    PTI's comments in response to the 2017 NPR stated that CPSC staff 
substantially underestimated replacement part costs (i.e., replacement 
of blade and brake cartridge following activation of an AIM system), 
and suggested that such costs were more likely to amount to about $36 
annually, as opposed to the $11 per year estimated in the NPR.\38\ The 
PTI estimates would increase the cost per table saw, and would also 
result in the costs of the proposed rule exceeding the benefits. 
Specifically, net benefits could result in amounts as low as -$270.24 
per bench saw, -$70.26 per contractor saw, and -$82.86 per cabinet saw. 
Nevertheless, given that estimated gross benefits per saw range from 
approximately $3,500 to nearly $13,000, even the higher replacement 
parts costs suggested by PTI--which are not consistent with CPSC 
staff's analysis--result in total costs that bear a reasonable 
relationship to total benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Comment by Susan M. Young for the Power Tool Institute, 
Inc., on U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Table saw blade 
contact injuries: Notice of proposed rulemaking, (July 26, 2017), 
available at: regulations.gov.

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

[[Page 74932]]

3. Variations in the Expected Product Life of Bench Saws
    PTI commented in response to the 2017 NPR that staff's estimate 
that the expected product life of bench saws was 10 years was an 
overestimate; PTI stated that bench saws' actual expected product life 
was 7.5 years. Id. However, a shorter product life reduces the 
estimated number of bench saws in use while the number and cost of 
injuries remain the same, thereby increasing the per-unit annual 
benefit of reduced social costs. The combined effect is a small 
increase in per-saw benefits and net benefits.

H. Regulatory Alternatives

    The Commission considered several alternatives to the proposed 
rule. These alternatives would mitigate the proposed rule's costs and 
potential disruptions in the marketplace. However, these alternatives 
would also reduce the expected benefits of the proposed rule.
1. Take No Regulatory Action
    The Commission could end the regulatory proceeding for table saws 
if it concludes that a mandatory rule is no longer needed to address an 
unreasonable risk. 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 would 
introduce new AIM-equipped table saws in the absence of a requirement 
that they do so, the prices of any such table saws, and the rate at 
which consumers would choose to purchase such table saws. However, 
because the rate at which AIM technology would be adopted in the 
absence of a mandatory rule would probably be substantially lower than 
the rate under a mandatory rule, both the benefits and the costs of 
this alternative would be much lower than estimated for the proposed 
rule.
2. Later Effective Dates
    The proposed rule includes an effective date of 36 months after the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register. This is a lengthy 
period of time, particularly given Congress's instruction that consumer 
product safety rules adopted under sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA 
ordinarily should take effect within 30 to 180 days. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(g)(1). Nevertheless, an effective date even later than 36 months 
could help reduce the impact of the rule on manufacturers by allowing 
them additional time to spread the costs of the redesign, and would 
also allow additional time for new entrants into the market. A later 
effective date might especially benefit manufacturers of bench saws 
because of the added technical difficulties in engineering small bench 
saws to incorporate AIM technology.
    Although later effective dates could mitigate the impact of the 
proposed rule for some manufacturers, it could also delay a market-wide 
distribution of table saws with AIM technology. Given the net benefits 
per unit expected from incorporating AIM technology, delaying the 
effective date of the proposed rule would also delay the expected 
benefits of the rule.
3. Exempt Contractor and Cabinet Saws From a Product Safety Rule
    The Commission could exempt cabinet and contractor saws on the 
grounds that, while widely purchased and used by consumers, they are 
generally intended for professional, commercial, or industrial users. 
Exempting cabinet and contractor saws could substantially reduce the 
adverse impact of the rule on small manufacturers because most small 
manufacturers market contractor and cabinet saws. Under this 
alternative, however, the benefits and costs would be limited to those 
associated with bench saws, which account for approximately 60.9 
percent of medically treated blade-contact injuries. Thus, more than a 
third of medically treated blade-contact injuries would remain 
unaddressed under this alternative.
4. Limiting Applicability of Performance Requirements to Some, But Not 
All, Table Saws
    Rather than requiring all table saws of each manufacturer to meet 
the requirements of the proposed standard, the Commission could require 
that only a subset of table saws do so. For example, 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. However, this option would 
only address a portion of total injuries. In addition, a rule of this 
sort might be somewhat more difficult to enforce than a requirement 
that all table saws contain the AIM technology.
5. 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 AIM technology. The Commission could also 
strongly encourage consumers to always use the passive safety devices 
required under the voluntary standard, especially if they choose not to 
purchase a table saw with 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.
    However, the effectiveness of warnings and instructions is limited, 
because they depend on consumers not only receiving and understanding 
the message, but also being persuaded to heed the message. Although 
such a campaign could help inform consumers, the Commission 
preliminarily concludes based on the severity of injuries and recurring 
hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high 
societal costs of these injuries, that a performance requirement is 
necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries.

XI. Updated 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

[[Page 74933]]

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 X of this preamble.
    The IRFA prepared by CPSA staff is contained in TAB B of staff's 
briefing package, and is summarized below.

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 estimate that there were an average of approximately 32,000 
emergency department-treated blade-contact injuries annually from 2004 
to 2020. AIM technology has been shown to significantly mitigate the 
severity of injuries caused by a victim's finger, hand, or other body 
part contacting the blade while the table saw is in operation. 
Accordingly, the proposed rule would establish a mandatory performance 
requirement to address the risk of injuries associated with blade-
contact injuries on table saws.

B. Objective of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule

    The objective of the proposed rule is to reduce the risk of serious 
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, and the Commission published an NPR in 2017. The 
proposed rule would be 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 March 2023, CPSC is aware of 23 firms that supply table saws to the 
U.S. market. Of these 23 firms, seven are small according to criteria 
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 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 does not exceed $41.5 
million in the case of home centers, $35 million in the case of 
department stores, and $8 million in the case of hardware stores.
    Although the design and engineering of table saws may occur in the 
United States, most U.S. based suppliers contract the production of 
table saws to foreign manufacturers, generally in Taiwan or China. 
Shopsmith, the manufacturer of a multipurpose machine that includes a 
table saw, is the only small business believed to manufacture its 
product in the United States.

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

    The proposed rule would require that all table saws incorporate an 
AIM technology that will reduce the risk of severe injury if the 
finger, hand, or other body part comes into contact with the blade 
while the saw is in operation. In particular, the rulemaking would 
require that a table saw cut no deeper than 3.5 mm into a test probe 
that approaches a spinning saw blade at a rate of 1 m/s before 
contacting the blade. The proposed rule sets out a performance 
requirement rather than a design standard; it does not specify the 
manner in which the table saw must meet this safety requirement. If a 
final rule is issued, manufacturers must certify pursuant to section 14 
of the CPSA 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 certificate must be in English. Certificates must be 
furnished to each distributor or retailer of the product and to the 
CPSC, if requested.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The regulations governing the content, form, and 
availability of the certificates of compliance are codified at 16 
CFR 1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 typically pay a royalty or license fee to the owner of 
the patents on the technology. At this time CPSC is not able to 
estimate the royalty cost for licensing an AIM technology.
    If a manufacturer wished to avoid fees, the manufacturer would have 
the challenge of developing its own AIM technology that does not 
infringe on an existing patent. At a minimum, such an effort would 
likely cost at least several hundred thousand dollars and perhaps 
several million dollars, based on the estimated costs of developing the 
existing technologies.
    According to several manufacturers, incorporating AIM technology 
would require a redesign of each table saw model. Estimates of the 
redesign and retooling costs ranged from about $100,000 to $700,000 per 
model. The redesign and retooling process would be expected to take 1 
to 3 years depending on the number and severity of problems encountered 
in the process. The redesign and retooling costs for subsequent models 
could be less than the costs associated with the first model.
    In addition to the redesign and retooling costs, there would be 
costs for the additional components needed to incorporate an AIM 
technology. Depending upon the specific system, additional parts may 
include a brake cartridge; cables, parts, or brackets to secure the 
brake cartridge; electrodes and assemblies; and a power supply or motor 
control. CPSC estimates that these additional components would increase 
the manufacturing cost of a table saw by between $58 and $74.
2. Impacts on Small Businesses
    Most small manufacturers are expected to license an AIM technology 
instead of developing their own technology. The costs of developing 
their own AIM technology would likely be too high for most small 
manufacturers, especially given the challenge of developing a 
technology that did not infringe upon an existing patent. However, 
there is no certainty that small manufacturers would be able to 
negotiate acceptable licensing agreements with TTS or another patent

[[Page 74934]]

holder. If small manufacturers are unable to negotiate acceptable 
licensing agreements for AIM technology, it is likely they would exit 
the U.S. table saw market.
    If a small table saw manufacturer is able to license AIM 
technology, it would have to determine whether each table saw model 
would remain profitable after redesigning it with AIM technology. 
Further, small table saw manufacturers that are able to license the AIM 
technology from TTS or another table saw manufacturer would pay 
royalties to a competitor. This could reduce their competitiveness in 
the table saw market.
    Most small manufacturers of table saws also supply other types of 
woodworking or metal working equipment. Information provided by firms 
suggests that U.S. sales of table saws account for a small percentage 
of the total revenue of most small firms. One manufacturer suggested 
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. IEc, 
2016a. Actions that impact a firm's revenue by more than 1 percent are 
potentially significant. Given that small table saw manufacturers have 
expressed they may drop one or more table saw models or leave the 
market entirely if the proposed rule is adopted, the proposed rule 
could have a significant impact on small manufacturers.

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

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has 
established standards that cover woodworking equipment used in 
workplace settings, rather than by consumers. These standards are 
codified at 29 CFR 1910. 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 must ``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 alternatives are discussed in 
section X of this preamble.

G. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA) in Response to 2017 NPR

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604, a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
contained in a final rule must include the agency's response to any 
comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA in response 
to a proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rule as a response to the comments. Although there is no such 
requirement for an IRFA, staff's separate regulatory flexibility 
analysis memorandum \40\ includes a summary of the significant issues 
raised in the Chief Counsel's comments on the 2017 NPR. None of the 
comments by SBAA resulted in CPSC staff recommending changes to the 
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ TAB B of Staff's Briefing Package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Environmental Considerations

    Generally, the Commission's regulations are considered to have 
little or no potential for affecting the human environment, and 
environmental assessments and impact statements are not usually 
required. See 16 CFR 1021.5(a). The final rule is not expected to have 
an adverse impact on the environment and is considered to fall within 
the ``categorical exclusion'' for purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act. 16 CFR 1021.5(c).

XIII. 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). Thus, this proposed rule would preempt non-identical 
state or local requirements for table saws that are designed to protect 
against the same risk of injury, i.e., injuries associated with blade 
contact.
    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 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).

XIV. 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.

XV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA). 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. We describe the provisions in this section 
of the document with an estimate of the annual reporting burden. Our 
estimate includes the time for gathering certificate data and creating 
General Certificates of Conformity (GCC), keeping and maintaining 
records associated with the GCCs, and disclosure of GCCs to third 
parties.
    CPSC particularly invites comments on: (1) whether the collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the CPSC's 
functions, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be

[[Page 74935]]

collected; (4) ways to reduce the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection 
techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information 
technology; and (5) estimated burden hours associated with label 
modification, including any alternative estimates.
    Title: Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table 
Saws.
    Description: The proposed rule would require table saws, when 
powered on, to limit the depth of cut to 3.5 millimeters when a test 
probe, acting as a surrogate for a human body part, contacts the 
spinning blade at an approach rate of 1 meter per second.
    Description of Respondents: Persons who manufacture or import table 
saws.
    Staff estimates the burden of this collection of information as 
follows in table 13:

                                                       Table 13--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of     Frequency of    Total annual     Minutes per    Total burden
                       Burden type                          respondents      response        responses       response          hours        Annual cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GCC Creation............................................              23               7             161               5           13.42         $921.28
Recordkeeping...........................................              23               7             161            1.25            3.35          105.36
Third Party Disclosure..................................              23               7             161              15           40.25        1,265.86
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Burden........................................              69  ..............             483  ..............           57.02        2,292.50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule would require that manufacturers certify that 
their products conform to the rule and issue a GCC. As of March 2023, 
CPSC is aware of 23 firms that supply table saws to the U.S. market. 
Accordingly, we estimate there are 23 respondents that will respond to 
the collection annually. On average, each respondent may gather 
certificate data and create 7 certificates for complying table saws in 
the market. The time required to issue a GCC is conservatively 
estimated as about 5 minutes (although the actual time required is 
often substantially less). Therefore, the estimated burden associated 
with issuance of GCCs is 13.42 hours (161 responses x 5 minutes per 
response = 805 minutes or 13.42 hours). Staff estimates the hourly 
compensation for the time required to issue GCCs is $68.65 (U.S. Bureau 
of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,'' 
March 2023, table 4, Private industry management, professional and 
related occupations: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated annual cost to industry 
associated with issuance of a GCC is $921.28 ($68.65 per hour x 13.42 
hours = $921.283).
    For purposes of this burden analysis, we assume that the records 
supporting GCC creation, including testing records, would be maintained 
for a five-year period. Staff estimates burden of 1.25 minutes per year 
in routine recordkeeping. This adds up to approximately 3.35 hours (161 
responses x 1.25 minutes per response = 201.25 minutes or 3.35 hours). 
Staff estimates the hourly compensation for the time required to 
maintain records is $31.45 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer 
Costs for Employee Compensation,'' March 2023, table 4, Private 
industry sales and office occupations: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated 
annual burden cost associated with recordkeeping of GCCs is $105.36 
($31.45 per hour x 3.35 hours = $105.3575).
    The rule would also require that GCCs be disclosed to third party 
retailers and distributors. Staff estimates another 161 third party 
disclosure responses, each one of which requires 15 minutes per year. 
This adds up to 2,415 minutes (161 responses x 15 minutes per response 
= 2,415 minutes) or 40.25 hours. Staff uses an hourly compensation for 
the time required to disclose certificates to third parties of $31.45 
(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation,'' March 2023, table 4, Private industry sales and office 
occupations: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162023.pdf). Therefore, the estimated annual burden cost 
associated with third party disclosure of GCCs is $1,265.86 ($31.45 per 
hour x 40.25 hours = $1,265.8625).
    Based on this analysis, CPSC estimates the annual PRA burden 
associated with the rule at 57.02 hours (13.42 hours + 3.35 hours + 
40.25 hours) with a total burden cost of $2,292.50 ($921.28 + $105.36 + 
$1,265.86). There are no operating, maintenance, or capital costs 
associated with the collection.
    As required under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), CPSC has submitted 
the information collection requirements of this proposed rule to the 
OMB for review. Interested persons are requested to submit comments 
regarding information collection by December 1, 2023, to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB as described under the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

XVI. Effective Date

    Section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA provides that a rule issued under 
sections 7 and 9, ``including its effective date,'' must be 
``reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk 
injury associated with such product.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3). Section 
9(g)(1) addresses effective dates in greater detail and requires that 
the effective date shall not exceed 180 days from the date the rule is 
promulgated, ``unless the Commission finds, for good cause shown, that 
a later effective date is in the public interest and publishes its 
reasons for such finding.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). Similarly, the 
effective date must not be less than 30 days after promulgation 
``unless the Commission for good cause shown determines that an earlier 
effective date is in the public interest.''
    The Commission here proposes to find good cause in the public 
interest to extend the effective date of this rulemaking beyond the 
statutory range of 30 to 180 days, and to make the rulemaking effective 
36 months from the date of publication of the final rule. The rule 
would apply to all table saws manufactured after the effective date. 15 
U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). This effective date is being proposed in light of 
the unusual market conditions presented here, where the proposed safety 
rule requires use of advanced technologies that are capable of being 
supplied competitively, but currently are dominated by a single 
supplier. The proposed effective date is intended to allow time for 
development of both existing and new AIM technologies and establishment 
of commercial arrangements for licensing those technologies. It thereby 
addresses the concerns about potential unavailability of AIM solutions 
at affordable cost that some commenters raised in response to the NPR. 
In addition, this extended effective date

[[Page 74936]]

would allow manufacturers to spread over a 36-month period the costs of 
modifying the design of their table saws to incorporate AIM technology, 
and retooling their factories to produce table saws with the new 
technology. Finally, it would allow additional time for new entrants 
into the U.S. table saw market.

XVII. Proposed Findings

    The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain findings when 
issuing a consumer product safety standard. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1), 
(f)(3). The proposed findings for this proposed rule are stated in the 
appendix for proposed part 1264 and are based on information provided 
throughout this preamble. While the proposed findings are largely 
similar to those proposed in the 2017 NPR, they reflect newly available 
information.

XVIII. Request for Comments

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

A. Scope

     Whether certain types of table saws, such as mini or micro 
tables saws, or table saws that are used primarily for commercial or 
industrial use, should be excluded from the scope of the rule;
     Whether the scope of the rule should be expanded to 
include types of saws other than table saws that may present a similar 
blade-contact hazard (e.g., tile saws);
     Whether the definition of table saws should be revised, or 
whether other definitions are necessary; and
     Home-made table saws or other dangerous alternatives 
consumers may pursue if they are unwilling or are unable to purchase a 
table saw with AIM capabilities.

B. Market Information

     Table saw sales by table saw type (bench, contractor, and 
cabinet), and information on the expected product life of each type of 
table saw;
     Opportunities to develop or otherwise obtain access to AIM 
technology for table saws, the time required to realize those 
opportunities, related barriers to access, and the anticipated cost of 
obtaining access to AIM technology; and
     The cost of AIM components, estimates of development and 
retooling costs, and expected time requirements to complete the 
development and retooling processes, including with respect to battery 
powered table saws.

C. Utility

     What impacts AIM technology may have on the utility of 
table saws for consumers.

D. Effectiveness

     The effectiveness of AIM technologies. CPSC estimates that 
the requirements of the proposed rule would reduce the societal costs 
of blade-contact injuries by approximately 90 percent. The Commission 
seeks comments from the public on this estimate;
     The extent to which table saws are used for cutting wet 
wood or conductive materials such as non-ferrous metals;
     The extent to which the AIM technology may be bypassed; 
and
     The extent to which consumers may switch to alternative, 
potentially unsafe methods to cut wood if table saws are required to be 
equipped with AIM technology.

E. Manufacturing Costs

     Information on manufacturing costs. The Commission seeks 
comments that would allow us to make more precise estimates with 
respect to the cost impact of a rule requiring the use of AIM 
technology on table saws; and
     The feasibility of incorporating AIM technology into the 
design of small benchtop table saws, including battery powered benchtop 
table saws.

F. Test Requirements

     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; and
     Studies, research, or tests on the speed of the human 
hand/finger while woodworking and during actual blade-contact 
incidents, in particular.

G. Regulatory Alternatives

     Whether a 36-month effective date for the proposed rule is 
reasonable, or whether a longer or shorter effective date is warranted;
     The feasibility of limiting or exempting a type or subset 
of table saws from the proposed rule; and
     The potential impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities, especially small businesses.

H. Anti-Stockpiling

     The limits on manufacturing or exporting contained in the 
proposed rule's anti-stockpiling provision; and
     The anti-stockpiling provision's base period.
    Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.

XIX. Notice of Opportunity for Oral Presentation

    Section 9 of the CPSA requires the Commission to provide interested 
parties ``an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or 
arguments.'' 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The Commission must keep a 
transcript of such oral presentations. Id. Any person interested in 
making an oral presentation must contact the Commission, as described 
under the DATES and ADDRESSES section of this document.

XX. Promulgation of a Final Rule

    Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires the Commission to promulgate a 
final consumer product safety rule within 60 days of publishing a 
proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the Commission must 
withdraw the proposed rule if it determines that the rule is not 
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with the product or is not in the public interest. 
Id. However, the Commission can extend the 60-day period, for good 
cause shown, if it publishes the reasons for doing so in the Federal 
Register. Id.
    The Commission finds that there is good cause to extend the 60-day 
period for this rulemaking. Under both the APA and the CPSA, the 
Commission must provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit 
written comments on a proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 553; 15 U.S.C. 
2058(d)(2). The Commission is providing 60 days for interested parties 
to submit written comments. A shorter comment period may limit the 
quality and utility of information CPSC receives in comments, 
particularly for areas where it seeks data and other detailed 
information that may take time for commenters to compile. Additionally, 
the CPSA requires the Commission to provide interested parties with an 
opportunity to make oral presentations of data, views, or arguments. 15 
U.S.C. 2058. This requires time for the Commission to arrange a public 
meeting for this purpose and provide notice to interested parties in 
advance of that meeting, if any interested party requests the 
opportunity to present such comments. After receiving written and oral 
comments, CPSC staff must have time to review and evaluate those 
comments.
    These factors make it impractical for the Commission to issue a 
final rule

[[Page 74937]]

within 60 days of this proposed rule. Moreover, issuing a final rule 
within 60 days of the NPR may limit commenters' ability to provide 
useful input on the rule, as well as CPSC's ability to evaluate and 
take that information into consideration in developing a final rule. 
Accordingly, the Commission finds that there is good cause to extend 
the 60-day period for promulgating the final rule after publication of 
the proposed rule.

XXI. Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1264

    Consumer protection, Imports, Information, Safety, Table saws.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes 
to add part 1264 to title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 1264--SAFETY STANDARD FOR BLADE-CONTACT INJURIES ON TABLE SAWS

Sec.
1264.1 Scope, purpose and effective date.
1264.2 Definitions.
1264.3 Requirements.
1264.4 Test procedures.
1264.5 Prohibited stockpiling.
Appendix to Part 1264--Findings Under the Consumer Product Safety 
Act

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


Sec.  1264.1  Scope, purpose and effective date.

    (a) This part, a consumer product safety standard, establishes 
requirements for table saws, as defined in Sec.  1264.2. These 
requirements are intended to reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws.
    (b) Any table saw manufactured after [effective date of final rule] 
shall comply with the requirements stated in Sec.  1264.3.


Sec.  1264.2  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:
    Table saw means a woodworking tool that has a motor-driven circular 
saw blade, which protrudes through the surface of a table. Table saws 
include bench saws, jobsite saws, contractor saws, hybrid saws, cabinet 
saws, and sliding saws. Table saws may be powered by alternating 
current from a wall outlet or direct current from a battery.


Sec.  1264.3  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, must limit the depth of 
cut to no more than 3.5 mm when the center axis of a test probe is 
moving parallel to, and 15  2 mm above, the tabletop at a 
rate of 1 meter per second, and contacts a spinning saw blade that is 
set at its maximum height setting.
    (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.  1264.4  Test procedures.

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


Sec.  1264.5  Prohibited stockpiling.

    (a) Base period. The base period for table saws is the 12-month 
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 final rule] and [effective date of the final rule] 
at a rate that is greater than 115 percent of the rate at which they 
manufactured or imported table saws during the base period.

Appendix to Part 1264--Findings Under the Consumer Product Safety Act

    The Consumer Product Safety Act requires that the Commission, in 
order to issue a standard, make the following findings and include 
them in the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(3).

(a) Degree and Nature of the Risk of Injury

    In 2017, there were an estimated 26,500 table saw blade-contact, 
emergency department treated injuries. Of these, an estimated 25,600 
injuries (96. 4 percent) involved the finger. The most common 
diagnoses in blade-contact injuries were lacerations (approximately 
16,100 injuries, or 60.9 percent of total injuries), fractures 
(approximately 5,500 injuries, or 20.6 percent), and amputations 
(approximately 2,800 injuries, or 10.7 percent).
    On a broader scale, NEISS data collected by CPSC staff indicates 
that, from 2010 to 2021, there were an average of approximately 
30,600 table saw blade-contact injuries per year. Staff determined 
that there was no discernible change in the pattern of blade-contact 
injuries or types of injuries over this period and detected no 
statistically significant downward trend over the period. Staff also 
conducted a trend analysis to include the rate of injury per 10,000 
table saws in use for each year in the analysis. The analysis 
suggested that there was no discernible change in the risk of injury 
associated with blade contact related to table saws over this 
period, despite the transition of the market to modular blade guards 
and riving knives to meet voluntary standard requirements intended 
to reduce blade-contact injuries.

(b) Number of Consumer Products Subject to the Rule

    The number of table saws in use was estimated with the CPSC's 
Product Population Model (PPM), a statistical model that projects 
the number of products in use given examples of annual product sales 
and product failure rates. Total annual shipments of all table saws 
to the U.S. market from 2002 to 2017 ranged from 429,000 to 825,000, 
and total annual shipments from 2018 to 2020 are estimated to have 
ranged from 746,000 to 995,000. CPSC staff estimated that bench saws 
account for about 79 percent of the units sold and have an average 
product life of 10 years; contractor saws (including hybrids) 
account for 12 percent of the units sold and have an average product 
life of 17 years; and cabinet saws account for approximately 9 
percent of the units sold and have an average product life of 24 
years. Based on this information, staff projected that a total of 
about 8.2 million table saws were in use in the United States in 
2017, including about 5.35 million bench saws (about 65.25 percent), 
1.4 million contractor saws (about 17.1 percent), and 1.46 million 
cabinet saws (about 17.65 percent).

(c) Need of the Public for the Product and Probable Effect on 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 will increase table saw production costs. CPSC 
expects that the prices for the least expensive bench saws now 
available would more than double, to $400 or more. In general, the 
retail prices of bench saws could increase by as much as $285 to 
$700 per unit, and the retail prices of contractor and cabinet saws 
could rise by as much as $450 to $1,080 per unit. These higher 
prices may be mitigated in the longer run, but the extent of any 
future mitigation 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 will 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) the

[[Page 74938]]

size of table saws. This factor may have a relatively small impact 
on the heavier and larger contractor and cabinet saws but could 
reduce the portability of some of the smaller and lighter bench 
saws.

(d) 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, extending the rule's effective 
date, and relying on 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.

(e) Rule and Effective Date are Reasonably Necessary To Eliminate or 
Reduce Unreasonable Risk of Injury

    CPSC estimates that 26,500 table saw-related injuries involving 
blade contact were treated in hospital emergency departments in 
2017. Based on this estimate of blade-contact injuries initially 
treated in hospital EDs, CPSC's injury cost model projects an 
additional 22,675 blade-contact injuries treated in other treatment 
settings. Thus, there was an estimated annual total of about 49,176 
medically treated blade-contact injuries in 2017. An estimated 96.4 
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 2,800 injuries in 2017 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 2010, and there is no evidence 
that these safety devices have adequately reduced or mitigated 
blade-contact injuries. In CPSC's 2017 Special Study, an analysis of 
each individual case provided anecdotal information on the usage of 
modular and traditional blade guards. Overall, of the estimated 
26,500 table saw blade-contact injuries treated in emergency 
departments in 2017, the blade guard was not in use in an estimated 
88.9 percent of injuries (23,600). Anecdotally, the blade guard was 
not in use for 89.2 percent of the cases (91 of 102 cases) involving 
table saws equipped with traditional blade guards, and the blade 
guard was not in use in 88.0 percent of the cases (22 of 25 cases) 
involving table saws equipped with modular blade guards.
    CPSC's trend analysis of the annual estimated number of 
emergency department-treated injuries associated with table saws 
covered two timespans after the voluntary standard implemented the 
requirement for riving knives and modular blade guards on table saws 
(2010 to 2021 and 2015 to 2021). The data showed that there was no 
discernible change in the number of injuries or types of injuries 
associated with table saw blade contact over either of the analyzed 
periods. A trend analysis to assess the risk of injury per 10,000 
table saws in use also showed there was no discernible change in the 
risk of injury associated with table saw blade contact over the 
analyzed time periods.
    The net benefits for the proposed rule would range from 
approximately $3,153 per bench saw to approximately $11,597 per 
cabinet saw over each unit's expected product life. Aggregate net 
benefits over approximately 1 year's production and sale of table 
saws could, across all categories of table saws, range from about 
$1.28 billion to $2.32 billion.
    The proposed rule includes an effective date of 36 months. The 
Commission considered a later effective date to mitigate the impact 
of the proposed rule for some manufacturers, but a later date could 
also delay a market-wide distribution of table saws with AIM 
technology. Given the net benefits expected from incorporating AIM 
technology, delaying the effective date of the proposed rule would 
also delay the expected benefits of the rule.
    The Commission concludes that there is an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with blade-contact injuries on table saws and 
finds that the rule and the effective date is reasonably necessary 
to reduce that unreasonable risk of injury.

(f) Public Interest

    This rule is intended to address an unreasonable risk of blade-
contact injuries on table saws. 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.

(g) Voluntary Standards

    The current voluntary standard for table saws is Underwriters 
Laboratories Inc. (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. This standard 
specifies that table saws shall be provided with a modular blade 
guard and riving knife.
    The voluntary standard does not adequately address blade-contact 
injuries on table saws. There has been no statistically significant 
reduction in the number or severity of blade-contact injuries from 
2008 to 2021. The relevant voluntary standards began requiring 
tables saws to include modular blade guard systems in 2010. In 
addition, available data indicates that a large percentage of table 
saw users encounter circumstances in which blade guards must be 
removed in order to effectively use their saws, and at least 100 
known blade-contact injuries involving table saws equipped with 
modular blade guard systems have occurred.

(h) Reasonable Relationship of Benefits to Costs

    Based on CPSC staff's analysis of NEISS data and the CPSC's 
Injury Cost Model (ICM), the Commission finds that the rule would 
address an estimated 49,176 medically treated blade-contact injuries 
annually. The societal costs of these injuries (in 2021 dollars and 
using a 3 percent discount rate) amounted to about $3.97 billion in 
2021. Overall, medical costs and work losses account for about 31 
percent of these costs, or about $1.2 billion. The intangible costs 
associated with pain and suffering account for the remaining 69 
percent of injury costs.
    Increased manufacturing costs, as well as the expected costs of 
replacement parts for the AIM system, would range from about $338 to 
$1,210 per bench saw, about $531 to $1,376 per contractor saw, and 
about $576 to $1,276 per cabinet saw. These costs likely would be 
mitigated somewhat over time, but the extent of any future 
mitigation is unknown. Based on one year's production and sale of 
table saws, aggregate gross costs could range from about $208 
million to $400 million annually. In addition to these direct 
manufacturing and replacement parts costs, many firms would likely 
need to pay royalty fees to patent holders for the AIM technology, 
which CPSC estimates could amount to approximately 8 percent of 
saws' wholesale price.
    Additionally, some consumers who would have purchased table saws 
at the lower pre- regulatory prices will likely choose not to 
purchase new table saws due to price increases. The cost impact of 
the proposed rule on market sales may reduce aggregate sales by as 
much as 17 percent to 50 percent annually. The decline in sales 
would result in lost utility to consumers who choose not to purchase 
table saws because of the higher prices. Further reductions in 
consumer utility may result from the added weight, and hence, 
reduced portability associated with addition the AIM technology on 
table saws.
    Nevertheless, because of the substantial societal costs 
attributable to blade-contact injuries (nearly $4 billion annually), 
and the expected high rate of effectiveness of the rule in 
preventing those injuries, the estimated aggregate net benefits are 
expected to range from about $1.28 billion to $2.32 billion 
annually. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the benefits 
expected from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs.

(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 that none of these alternatives would adequately reduce 
the risk of injury.
    (1) Take no regulatory action. 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, albeit to a limited extent. 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, 
the absence of any statistically significant decline in

[[Page 74939]]

those injuries over time, inaction by voluntary standards 
organizations to address the blade-contact hazard effectively, and 
the high societal costs of these injuries, the Commission believes a 
performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk 
of blade-contact injuries on all table saws.
    (2) Later effective date. The proposed rule would require an 
effective date that is 36 months after the final rule is published 
in the Federal Register. An effective date later than 36 months 
could further reduce the impact of the rule on manufacturers because 
it would allow them additional time to benefit from the development 
of new AIM technologies by diverse suppliers, spread the costs of 
developing or negotiating for the rights to use AIM technology, 
modify the design of their table saws to incorporate the AIM 
technology, and retool their factories for production. However, 
almost certainly, a later effective date would also delay the 
ubiquitous availability of table saws with AIM technology into the 
market. Because we anticipate that a longer period will not be 
necessary for commercial availability of AIM technologies from 
diverse suppliers, the Commission finds that a 36-month effective 
date from the issuance of a final rule is an appropriate length of 
time.
    (3) Exempt contractor and cabinet saws, or industrial saws, from 
a product safety rule. The Commission considered whether to exempt 
certain types of saws commonly used by professional, commercial, or 
industrial users, based on their size, weight, power, or electrical 
specifications. Based on the severity of injuries and recurring 
hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high 
societal costs of these injuries, though, 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.
    (4) Limit the applicability of the rule to some, but not all, 
table saws. The Commission 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 finds that a 
performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk 
of blade-contact injuries on all table saws.
    (5) Information and education campaign. The Commission 
considered whether to conduct an information and education campaign 
informing consumers about the dangers of blade-contact hazards, and 
the benefits of AIM technology. Although such a campaign could help 
inform consumers, without a performance requirement this approach 
would not be sufficient to address the unreasonable risk of blade-
contact injuries on table saws.

Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[FR Doc. 2023-23898 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P