Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws

Federal RegisterMay 12, 2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1245

RIN 3041-AC31

[Docket No. CPSC-2011-0074]

Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws

AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

Submit comments by July 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

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

Electronic Submissions:

Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through

www.regulations.gov.

The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

Written Submissions:

Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

Instructions:

All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to:

http://www.regulations.gov.

Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

Docket:

For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to:

http://www.regulations.gov,

and insert the docket number CPSC-2011-0074, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

cpaul@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On April 15, 2003, Stephen Gass, David Fanning, and James Fulmer,

et al.

(petitioners) requested that the CPSC require performance standards for a system to reduce or prevent injuries from contact with the blade of a table saw. The petitioners are members of SawStop, LLC, and its parent company, SD3, LLC (collectively, SawStop). On October 11, 2011, the Commission published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to consider whether there may be an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws. 76 FR 62678. The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). The Commission received approximately 1,600 public comments. The Commission is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) to address an unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws that would limit the depth of cut to 3.5 mm or less when a test probe, acting as surrogate for a human body/finger, contacts the spinning blade at a radial approach rate of 1 meter per second (m/s).

The information discussed in this preamble is derived from CPSC staff's briefing package for the NPR, which is available on CPSC's Web site at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule%20-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Blade-Contact%20Injuries%20on%20Table%20Saws%20-%20January%2017%202017.pdf.

The Commission voted 3-2 to publish this notice in the

Federal Register

. Commissioner Robert S. Adler, Commissioner Elliot F. Kaye, and Commissioner Marietta S. Robinson voted to approve publication of the proposed rule. Acting Chair Ann Marie Buerkle and Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic voted against publication of the proposed rule. The Commissioners' individual statements are available at

https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC.

II. Statutory Authority

Table saws are “consumer products” that can be regulated by the Commission under the authority of the CPSA.

See

15 U.S.C. 2052(a). Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to promulgate a mandatory consumer product safety standard that sets forth performance requirements for a consumer product or that sets forth requirements that a product be marked or accompanied by clear and adequate warnings or instructions. A performance, warning, or instruction standard must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk or injury.

Id.

Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure that the Commission must follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7. In accordance with section 9, the Commission may commence rulemaking by issuing an ANPR; as noted, the Commission issued an ANPR on table saws in October 2011. (76 FR 62678 (October 11, 2011)). Section 9 authorizes the Commission to issue an NPR, including the proposed rule and a preliminary regulatory analysis, in accordance with section 9(c) of the CPSA and request comments regarding the risk of injury identified by the Commission, the regulatory alternatives being considered, and other possible alternatives for addressing the risk.

Id.

2058(c). Next, the Commission will consider the comments received in response to the proposed rule and decide whether to issue a final rule, along with a final regulatory analysis.

Id.

2058(c)-(f). The Commission also must provide an opportunity for interested persons to make oral presentations of their data, views, or arguments, in accordance with section 9(d)(2) of the CPSA.

Id.

2058(d)(2).

According to section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a consumer

product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make appropriate findings to be included in the rule, on the following issues:

• The degree and nature of the risk of injury that the rule is designed to eliminate or reduce;

• the approximate number of consumer products subject to the rule;

• the need of the public for the products subject to the rule and the probable effect the rule will have on utility, cost, or availability of such products; and

• the means to achieve the objective of the rule while minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices.

Id.

2058(f)(1). Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, to issue a final rule, the Commission must find that the rule is “reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with such product” and that issuing the rule is in the public interest.

Id.

2058(f)(3)(A)&(B). Additionally, if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted and implemented, the Commission must find that:

• The voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury, or that

• substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is unlikely.

Id.

2058(f)(3(D).

The Commission also must find that expected benefits of the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs and that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirements which prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury for which the rule is being promulgated.

Id.

2058(f)(3)(E)&(F).

III. The Product

A. Types of Table Saws

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

EP12MY17.000

Table saws generally fall into three product types: Bench saws, contractor saws, and cabinet saws.

Although there is no exact dividing line, the distinction among these types of saws is generally based on size, weight, portability, power transmission, and price.

Cabinet saws also are referred to as stationary saws because they are not portable.

In addition to these three primary product types, there are also several hybrid saws in the market. This product type blends components of both contractor and cabinet saws. Specifically, hybrid saws have the energy requirements, weight, and mobility of contractor saws with the structure, accuracy, and dust control features of cabinet saws. This product type typically operates in single phase with a voltage range of 110-240 volts, generating 1.75 to two horsepower, depending on the model. There are also sliding saws that are similar to cabinet saws in that they are belt driven, but they are typically equipped with an extension and greater rip- and cross-cutting capacity that allows for cutting large panels. This type of saw can be wired for either single-phase or three-phase operation; however, three-phase wiring is a more common feature for sliding table saws. Sliding saws operate in the 220-440 volt range.

Bench saws are intended to be transportable, so they tend to be small, lightweight, and relatively inexpensive. In recent years, bench saw designs have evolved to include saws with larger and heavier-duty table surfaces, with some attached to a folding stand with wheels to maintain mobility. These larger portable saws on wheeled stands are called “jobsite” saws because they are capable of heavier-duty work, but they are still portable enough to move to work sites.

Bench saws generally run on standard house voltage (110-120 volts), use universal motors,

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 per model, to as much as $1,499 for a high-end model.

A universal motor runs on AC or DC power, has high starting torque, can run at high speed, and is

lightweight and compact. For these reasons, universal motors are commonly used in portable power tools and equipment.

Contractor saws used to be considered portable table saws, but designs have progressed with larger motors and heavier table tops to the point that most contractor saws are considered non-portable. Although a mobile base can be added to the frame to make contractor saws mobile, they are often found in home workshops as non-portable saws that are a less expensive alternative to cabinet saws. Contractor saws generally run on standard house voltage, use induction motors, are belt driven, and range in weight from around 200 pounds to 400 pounds. The induction motor and belt drive result in a table saw that produces less vibration, is quieter, is more accurate, is able to cut thicker pieces of wood, and is more durable than a bench saw. Prices for contractor saws range from around $500 to $2,000.

Cabinet saws are larger, heavier, and more powerful than contractor saws, and their motors are enclosed in a solid base. These saws are typically the highest grade saw found in the home woodworking shop. Cabinet saws generally run on 220-240 volts, use a 1.75-5 hp or stronger motor, are belt driven, and weigh from around 300 pounds to 1,000 pounds. Components in cabinet saws are designed for heavy use and durability, and the greater weight further reduces vibration so that cuts are smoother and more accurate. Cabinet saws are expected to last a lifetime (with an average product life of 24 years), and prices range from around $1,200 to $5,000.

B. Standard Safety Devices

Common safety devices on table saws are designed to reduce contact between the saw blade and the operator and to reduce kickback, a phenomenon in which the saw blade imparts its kinetic energy to the workpiece and ejects the workpiece back towards the operator. The configuration and specific design of these safety devices vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, but the safety devices generally fall into two basic categories: (1) Blade guards, and (2) kickback-prevention devices.

Blade guards surround the exposed blade and function as a physical barrier between the blade and the operator. Blade guards generally are designed either as a single-piece unit that covers the saw blade, as shown in Figure 1, or as a modular system with a fixed-top barrier and independent side barriers.

Kickback-prevention devices include splitters, riving knives, and anti-kickback pawls. A splitter, also commonly called a “spreader,” is typically a flat piece of metal, aligned directly behind the saw blade that rides within the cut, or kerf, of a workpiece already fed through the blade. This prevents the workpiece from closing up on itself after it passes the blade and pinching the blade, which can cause the workpiece to be thrown upwards and back toward the operator. Before 2009, most table saws were designed with a splitter located behind the blade that was attached to the blade guard. If a cut required removal of the splitter or guard, they were removed together.

Riving knives are curved metal plates that are similar to, and perform the same function as, splitters, but are often located closer to the blade, rise no higher than the top of the blade, and attach to the arbor assembly so that they are raised and lowered with the blade.

Like splitters, riving knives physically prevent the two halves of the cut workpiece from moving back towards each other and pinching the spinning blade. However, unlike splitters, the riving knife can be left on for non-through cuts.

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

Anti-kickback pawls are another device designed to help reduce kickback. The pawls are mounted on both sides of the splitter and consist of a pair of spring-loaded pieces of metal with barbed teeth on the bottom edge that allow passage of the workpiece but will dig into it if it begins to move back toward the operator.

The riving knife and modular blade guard represent the latest progression in table saw safety design that have been incorporated into the voluntary standards for table saws. As discussed in section VI of the preamble, under

UL 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools,

the voluntary standard effective dates for riving knives and modular blade guards were January 31, 2014, and January 31, 2010, respectively. However, the industry accelerated compliance with the voluntary standard, and the new guarding system with modular blade guards and riving knives became widely available on table saws in 2008. By 2012, table saw manufacturers introduced more than 900,000 table saws with riving knives and modular blade guards.

C. AIM Technology

An active injury mitigation (AIM) system uses technology to actively mitigate or prevent injury of a human body part resulting from contact with a rotating saw blade (

e.g.

by braking, removing, and/or retracting the blade). Thus, any device that detects imminent or actual human contact with the table saw blade and then performs an action that mitigates the severity of the injury is considered to be an AIM system. An AIM system is

active

because it reacts to a blade contact in a way that minimizes the injury. A blade guard is a

passive

system because the guard does not react to a blade contact, but rather, provides a passive barrier between the blade and the user.

CPSC staff considers AIM to be a viable approach to address blade-contact injury in conjunction with existing passive safety strategies (blade guard and riving knife) to prevent blade contact on table saws. AIM systems can provide a layer of safety that can mitigate a blade-contact injury if the blade guard or riving knife are removed or fail to function properly. AIM systems can also protect against blade-contact injuries that can occur when a blade guard and riving knife are in place and functioning properly, but blade contact occurs nonetheless.

An AIM system performs two functions: (1)

Detects

contact between the rotating table saw blade and a human body part, and (2)

reacts

to mitigate injury. In a research report issued in March 2015, UL researched developing performance requirements for table saw safety standards to help address finger injuries due to contact with the blade.

The report examined performance requirements that consisted of a defined relationship between approach velocity (speed of finger at a specified angle relative to saw blade) and depth of cut to the finger/hand. In addition, the report focused on the use of a surrogate finger. The report determined that, in addition to the proper trigger attributes, the surrogate finger must possess physical properties that allow it to be cut such that representative, repeatable and reliable measurements of the depth of cut can be recorded.

Jiang, H., Tabaddor, M., and He, F. (2015). General Characteristics of a Surrogate Finger for Table Saw Safety Testing.

UL Research Report.

Available at:

http://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/12/UL-Research-Report-on-Finger-Surrogate-Characteristics-for-Table-Saw-Testing-2015.pdf.

CPSC staff's review of UL's literature research indicates that detection can be achieved by: (1) Sensing electrical properties of the human body/finger; (2) sensing thermal properties of the human body/finger; (3) visual sensing and tracking of the human body/finger; or (4) other methods. Current AIM technologies on the market rely on the first type of detection: Electrical sensing of the human body. CPSC staff based its testing of the AIM system on existing technology.

Reaction systems must perform some type of action to limit the severity of injury upon human body/finger contact with the table saw blade. Removing either the spinning blade or the human body/finger from the point of contact is the most logical method to achieve this goal. Current AIM technologies on the market remove the spinning blade from the point of contact quickly enough, within milliseconds, to reduce significantly the severity of injury.

1. Electrical Detection of Human Body

Current AIM technologies available on table saws in the U.S. market rely on electrical detection of contact between a table saw operator and the rotating saw blade to activate the AIM system. One means of detecting body contact is with circuitry that generates a detection signal with defined electrical characteristics (see Figure 2). The signal can then be coupled onto the saw blade through various means, such as conductive, magnetic, or capacitive coupling devices. Additional circuitry continuously monitors the characteristics of the detection signal. The detection signal changes when a human body part comes into contact with the saw blade and the monitoring circuit senses the change in the signal. If the change is beyond a certain limit, the monitoring circuit then activates a reaction mechanism.

EP12MY17.001

2. Current Products in the Market With AIM Technology

In 2004, SawStop released an industrial table saw featuring AIM technology based on electrical detection of the human body, and a mechanical brake reaction that stops the blade from spinning and moves the saw blade assembly beneath the table top surface. Typically, the reaction occurs in less than 5 milliseconds after contact is detected. Subsequently, SawStop introduced to the market a professional cabinet saw, a contractor saw, and a bench (jobsite) saw with the same AIM technology. The SawStop AIM technology works in three steps:

1. Monitor and Detect

• The blade carries a small electrical signal.

• When a person contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive.

• The change to the signal activates the safety system.

2. Brake Activation

• An aluminum brake block is forced into the spinning blade by a spring released by an electric signal.

• The blade's angular momentum drives the blade assembly beneath the table top, removing the risk of further contact.

• Power to the motor is shut off.

3. The AIM system must then be reset by:

• Shutting off the saw.

• Removing the brake cartridge and embedded blade.

• Installing a new blade (if necessary) and brake cartridge.

In 2016, Robert Bosch, LLC (Bosch) released a jobsite table saw featuring AIM technology based on electrical detection of the human body and a combustion-based mechanical reaction that forces the saw blade assembly beneath the table top surface. The Bosch REAXX

with Active Response Technology

system (Bosch REAXX

) also works in three steps:

1. Monitor and Detect

• The blade carries a small low-voltage signal.

• When a person contacts the blade, the signal changes because the human body is conductive.

• The change to the signal activates the safety system.

2. Blade Retraction

• A combustion reaction is triggered in a cylindrical cartridge, which fires a piston at a high rate of speed (this action is similar to the deployment of an air bag in an automobile).

• The piston pushes against a linkage to rapidly rotate the saw blade assembly below the table surface away from the operator.

• The blade assembly remains locked under the table after activation, while the blade coasts to a stop after power to the motor is cut off automatically.

3. The AIM system must then be reset by:

• Shutting off the saw.

• Inserting a fresh/new activation cartridge (two cartridges are paired together, so the unactivated side of the same dual-action cartridge may be used).

• Unlocking the blade assembly and raising it back into place.

Neither the SawStop, nor Bosch AIM technologies, can be used when cutting conductive materials (that allow the flow of an electrical current) because both systems rely on electrical detection of the human body. A person touching the conductive material being cut would allow the detection signal to pass through the conductive material and into the person, activating the system as soon as the material touches the saw blade. For this reason, each product has a bypass mode to allow the user to cut conductive materials. In addition, cutting wet wood that is moist enough to conduct enough electricity to activate the AIM system can cause tripping of the safety system. Accordingly, the AIM system generally must be deactivated while cutting wet wood. The table saw automatically exits the bypass mode and resets to normal mode after the saw is turned off and the blade comes to a complete stop.

The Bosch REAXX

has been the only non-SawStop model with AIM technology available in the United States. Both the SawStop bench model and the Bosch model with the AIM technology are at the upper end of the bench saw price range. The SawStop bench saw model (which was first marketed in 2015) retails for about $1,300 to $1,400 per unit. The Bosch REAXX

model has a retail price of $1,300 to 1,500. However, the future of the Bosch model is unclear. On July 16, 2015, SawStop filed a complaint against Bosch for patent infringement and requested that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) order U.S. Customs to exclude the Bosch REAXX

saws from entering the U.S. market.

On September 9, 2016, an administrative law judge (ALJ) made an initial determination that the Bosch model does infringe on several SawStop patents.

Subsequently, on November 10, 2016, the ITC decided not to review the ALJ's initial determination and requested that the interested parties provide written submissions on the issues related to remedies, the public interest, and bonding. On January 27, 2017, the ITC issued remedial orders including a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order against Bosch effective March 29, 2017. On April 6, 2017, Bosch filed an appeal of the ITC determination in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In the Matter of Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof, Investigation No. 337-TA-965.

Specially, infringement was found in U.S. Patent No. 7,895,927 ('927 Patent), titled, “Power Equipment with Detection and Reaction Systems”; and U.S. Patent No. 8,011,279 ('279 Patent) titled, “Power Equipment with Systems to Mitigate or Prevent Injury.”

On July 16, 2015, SawStop also filed a complaint against Robert Bosch Tool Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (

Sawstop, LLC

Bosch,

CV No. 3:15-cv-1320) (D. Or. filed on July 16, 2015). On September 28, 2015, the Oregon District Court stayed the proceeding in federal court pending final resolution of the ITC's investigation.

IV. Incident Data

CPSC staff's incident data are based on data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). NEISS is a national stratified probability sample of approximately 100 U.S. hospitals having 24-hour emergency departments (EDs) and more than six beds. Coders in each hospital code data from the ED record for consumer product-related records, and then the data are transmitted electronically to the CPSC. Because NEISS is a probability sample, each case collected represents a number of injuries (the case's weight) in the total estimate of injuries in the United States. Different hospitals carry different weights.

There are five strata in the NEISS: Children's hospitals, small hospitals, medium hospitals, large hospitals, and very large hospitals. Within each stratum is a sample of hospitals that make up the primary sampling units of the NEISS. For each hospital in the sample, every first-time emergency department visit for an injury associated with a consumer product is recorded.

To facilitate injury estimates associated with a product or product group, each injury has a product code that identifies the type of product involved. Other product-specific information, such as the product manufacturer or events leading to the incident, is not recorded in the NEISS. However, information that is recorded for each injury includes sex, age, diagnosis, disposition, and body part. Additional information about the NEISS can be found online at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data.

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

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

Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016). Table Saw Blade Guard Survey. Available at:

http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Regulations-Laws-and-Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Voluntary-Standards-Reports/EurekaFactsTableSawBladeGuardSurveyReport(Final6bcleared)updatedcoverpage.pdf.

A. NEISS Data Methodology

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

For each of the 9,300 cases associated with the table saw product code (0841), with treatment years 2004 through 2015, the first level of review involved removing any cases where the injuries were not related to an operational table saw. Thus, cases not saying “table saw” were excluded (

e.g.,

cases that only use the word “saw” not “table saw,” cases where the injury was related to a park bench, or cases where the saw was a homemade table saw). Cases indicating a “circular table saw” were removed. Cases where it was unclear that the injury was from a table saw were removed (

e.g.,

cases using wording like “table saw vs. chain saw,” where it is not absolutely certain that the saw was a table saw). Cases were removed when a victim tripped over, fell into, or ran into a table saw and the table saw was not operational. Cases were removed when the injury was related to the table saw being transported, such as the table saw being carried or lifted. Finally, cases were omitted that were related to using the product for an extended period of time (overuse injuries), such as sore knees, elbows, backs, and shoulders. There are cases where it is possible that although “table saw” was used to describe the type of saw, narratives also included descriptions such as “table saw which slipped,” which might indicate a circular saw, instead of a table saw; however, because “table saw” is used to identify the saw type, these are included in the table saw category.

Different types of injuries can occur when using a table saw, some of which do not include blade contact, such as injuries related to only kickback of the stock. Thus, the next level of review for each case was to determine whether the case involved blade contact or not. First, diagnoses of lacerations, fractures, amputations, and avulsions

that were for body parts below the elbow (not including the elbow), were all classified as blade contact, then staff reviewed the NEISS narratives to determine if any were described as not blade contact. Unless otherwise stated in the NEISS narrative, staff considered these combinations of diagnosis and body part to involve blade contact. CPSC staff reviewed the cases for the remaining combinations of diagnosis and body part for any that could be blade contact. Cases were included from this group only if the NEISS narrative indicated a hazard pattern of blade contact while using a table saw.

Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “avulsion” as “a tearing away of a body part accidentally or surgically.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/avulsion.

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

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

In 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, CPSC staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the saw blade. Of the 30,800 emergency department-treated, blade-contact injuries, an estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) involved the finger. The most common diagnoses in blade-contact injuries in 2015, are as follows:

• An estimated 18,100 laceration injuries (58.8 percent),

• an estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 percent),

• an estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 percent), and

• an estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 percent).

An estimated 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact injury victims were hospitalized. Table 1 provides the emergency department-treated, blade-contact injury estimates for the NEISS variables for age (provided in age groups in the table), sex, body part injured, diagnosis, disposition, and locale. Males represent the majority of victims with blade-contact injuries (96.4 percent); and an estimated 45 percent of injuries occurred to victims over age 61.

Table 1—Victim and Injury Characteristics of Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2015

Injury estimate

Estimate

CV †

95%

confidence

interval

Percent

of total

Estimate

Total

642

30,800

0.09

25,400-36,200

100%

Age Group:

≤20

21-30

2,200

0.16

1,500-2,800

7.0

31-40

3,800

0.18

2,500-5,200

12.5

41-50

4,100

0.15

2,900-5,300

13.2

51-60

133

6,400

0.14

4,600-8,100

20.7

61-70

153

8,200

0.14

5,900-10,400

26.6

71-80

4,300

0.16

3,000-5,600

14.0

81+

1,300

0.20

800-1,800

4.1

Sex:

Male

622

29,700

0.09

24,400-34,900

96.4

Female

Body Part:

Finger

592

28,900

0.10

23,200-34,500

93.8

Hand

1,600

0.18

1,100-2,200

5.3

Other

Diagnosis:

Laceration

372

18,100

0.11

14,200-22,000

58.8

Fracture

112

5,900

0.17

3,900-7,800

19.0

Amputation

119

4,700

0.18

3,000-6,300

15.2

Avulsion

2,000

0.24

1,100-2,900

6.5

Other

Disposition:

Treated and Released

537

26,800

0.10

21,600-32,100

87.1

Hospitalized **

3,800

0.20

2,300-5,300

12.3

Other

Locale Where Injury Occurred:

Home

416

20,600

0.11

16,200-25,100

67.0

Unknown

223

10,100

0.19

6,400-13,900

32.9

Other

Cells marked by “*” indicate an estimate that does not meet CPSC reporting limits.

** Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted.

† Coefficient of variation (CV) is a measure of the dispersion of the data as a ratio of the standard deviation to the estimate. The higher the CV, the larger the dispersion; for estimates derived from the NEISS, a CV over 0.33 is high.

C. Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Versus Other Product-Related Injuries for 2015

CPSC staff compared emergency department-treated injuries from table saw blade- contact against all other consumer product-related emergency department-treated injuries, to identify demographic groups and hazard patterns that are specific to table saw blade-contact, emergency department-treated injuries.

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

Table 2—Comparison of Victim Characteristics for Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Versus All Other Consumer Product-Related Injuries, 2015

Domain

Table saws

Estimate *

% of

30,800

All consumer products

(excluding table saws)

n †

Estimate *

% of 14,098,700 ‡

Rao-Scott

p-value

Total

642

30,800

100%

358,425

14,098,700

100%

N/A

Age Group ***:

≤20

168,496

5,513,200

39.1

<0.0001

21-30

2,200

7.0

40,098

1,709,000

12.1

31-40

3,800

12.5

30,973

1,384,500

9.8

41-50

4,100

13.2

27,878

1,257,700

8.9

51-60

133

6,400

20.7

29,082

1,290,600

9.2

61-70

153

8,200

26.6

22,123

1,039,900

7.4

71-80

4,300

14.0

17,817

860,200

6.1

81+

1,300

4.1

21,923

1,042,900

7.4

Sex **:

Male

622

29,700

96.4

195,134

7,438,000

52.8

<0.0001

Female

163,291

6,660,800

47.2

Locale:

Home

416

20,600

67.0

161,190

6,564,100

46.6

<0.0001

Unknown

223

10,100

32.9

98,418

3,820,100

27.1

Other

98,817

3,714,600

26.3

Body Part:

Finger

592

28,900

93.8

29,987

1,209,800

8.6

<0.0001

Hand

1,600

5.3

17,089

732,000

5.2

Other

311,349

12,157,000

86.2

Diagnosis:

Laceration

372

18,100

58.8

63,727

2,510,600

17.8

<0.0001

Fracture

112

5,900

19.0

54,210

2,037,500

14.5

Amputation

119

4,700

15.2

584

20,400

0.1

Other

2,200

7.0

239,904

9,530,200

67.6

Disposition:

Treated and Released

537

26,800

87.1

323,369

12,768,300

90.6

0.0095

Hospitalized#

3,800

12.3

29,203

1,120,300

7.9

Other

5,853

210,100

1.5

* CVs for the table saws for reported estimates range from 0.09 to 0.24. CVs for estimates for the other products range from 0.07 to 0.25.

** Two observations are classified as “unknown sex” in the NEISS in the timeframe. These two observations were omitted to facilitate comparisons. This does not affect any conclusions or comparisons.

*** To facilitate comparisons, 35 observations with unknown ages are not used in the age group analysis; thus, the statistics provided for age group do not necessarily sum exactly to totals. This does not affect any conclusions.

† This “n” is smaller than all of the NEISS, due to cases omitted from the product code 0841 (see Methodology section) as not related to a table saw or blade contact.

‡ Percentages are calculated prior to rounding.

# Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted.

CPSC staff's review showed differences in the injury distributions of age groups when comparing table saw blade-contact injuries to all other consumer product-related injuries. Older age groups represent larger proportions in table saw injuries than with all other products. Approximately 75 percent of the estimated table saw blade-contact injuries occur to people within the age range of 41 through 80. The proportion of all other consumer product-related injuries for the 41 through 80 age groups is approximately 30 percent. Almost all injuries involving table saw blade contact involve males; whereas, with all consumer products, there is only a slightly larger male proportion.

CPSC staff also compared table saw blade-contact injuries and all other woodworking workshop, product-related injury estimates to identify any demographic groups and hazard patterns that are specific to table saw blade-contact injuries within groups that are more likely to have been exposed to table saws. Table saws, in particular, table saw blade-contact injuries, represented a larger proportion of injuries to fingers than all other workshop products (which include tools such as radial arm saws, miter saws, circular saws, band saws, and routers, along with other power and manual woodworking tools). In addition, table saw blade-contact injuries have significantly larger proportions of diagnoses for lacerations, fractures, and amputations, than injuries associated with all other workshop products. CPSC staff's review showed that table saws account for an estimated 52.4 percent of all amputations related to workshop products.

Table 3 compares table saw blade-contact, emergency department-treated injuries from the 2015 NEISS to all other workshop product-related, emergency department-treated injuries in the same timeframe (January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015).

Table 3—Comparison of Victim Characteristics for Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries Versus All Other Workshop Product-Related Injuries, 2015

Domain

Table saws

Estimate *

% of 30,800 †

All workshop products

(excluding table saws)

Estimate *

% of 270,500 †

Rao-Scott

p-value

Total

642

30,800

100%

5,313

270,500

100%

Age Group:

≤20

702

29,500

10.9

<0.0001

21-30

2,200

7.0

943

46,300

17.1

31-40

3,800

12.5

952

50,400

18.6

41-50

4,100

13.2

979

50,400

18.6

51-60

133

6,400

20.7

887

46,000

17.0

61-70

153

8,200

26.6

536

30,000

11.1

71-80

4,300

14.0

243

13,800

5.1

81+

1,300

4.1

4,100

1.5

Sex:

Male

622

29,700

96.4

4,582

234,600

86.7

<0.0001

Female

731

35,900

13.3

Locale:

Home

416

20,600

67.0

2,976

158,900

58.8

0.0049

Unknown

223

10,100

32.9

2,152

103,300

38.2

Other

185

8,300

3.1

Body Part:

Finger

592

28,900

93.8

2,022

101,800

37.6

<0.0001

Hand

1,600

5.3

838

44,400

16.4

Other

2,453

124,300

46.0

Diagnosis:

Laceration

372

18,100

58.8

2,562

132,100

48.8

<0.0001

Fracture

112

5,900

19.0

378

18,600

6.9

Amputation

119

4,700

15.2

108

4,200

1.6

Other

2,200

7.0

2,265

115,600

42.8

Disposition:

Treated and Released

537

26,800

87.1

5,027

258,400

95.5

<0.0001

Hospitalized ‡

3,800

12.3

219

8,700

3.2

Other

3,300

1.2

* CVs for the table saws for reported estimates range from 0.09 to 0.24. CV's for estimates for the all other workshop products range from 0.08 to 0.20.

† Percentages are calculated prior to rounding.

‡ Hospitalization refers to the combination of two dispositions: Treated and transferred, treated and admitted.

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

D. Trend Analysis for Table Saw Injuries

CPSC staff estimated the yearly injuries associated with table saw blade-contact injuries from 2004 to 2015, using estimates from NEISS. As mentioned in section III.B. of the preamble,

UL 987 Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools

includes provisions requiring a riving knife and modular blade guard. The voluntary standard effective dates for riving knives and modular blade guards was January 31, 2014, and January 31, 2010, respectively. The date range for the trend analysis includes a timespan before the voluntary standard required table saws to be equipped with a riving knife and modular blade guard (2004 to 2009) and a timespan after the voluntary standard requirements became effective on most table saws (2010 to 2015). Table saws manufactured before the current voluntary standard remain in use throughout this entire period. However, in more recent years, after the current voluntary standard became effective, an increasing proportion of table saws in use conform to the current voluntary standard. Thus, if the voluntary standard was having an impact on the number or severity of injuries, there would be a steady decrease in the number of injuries or severity of injuries as the proportion of table saws compliant with the new standard increased. However, CPSC staff's analysis shows that the addition of the riving knife and modular blade guard in the voluntary standard has not reduced the number or severity of blade-contact injuries.

CPSC staff performed trend analyses for blade-contact injuries, as well as blade contact amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand injuries. CPSC staff concludes that there is no discernible change in the number of blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. Furthermore, CPSC staff concludes that there is no discernible change in the number of blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact from the timespan before the voluntary standard was implemented (2004-2009) to the time span after the implementation of the voluntary standard requiring the riving knife and modular blade guard on all table saws (2010-2015). The estimated number of table saw blade-contact, emergency department-treated injuries from 2004 through 2015 is in Table 4.

Table 4—NEISS Estimates for Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2004-2015

Year

Table saw blade-contact injury estimates

Estimate

95% confidence interval

2015

642

30,800

0.09

25,100-36,500

2014

631

30,300

0.08

25,300-35,300

2013

662

29,500

0.09

24,500-34,500

2012

648

29,500

0.09

24,100-34,900

2011

632

29,600

0.09

24,300-35,000

2010

657

30,100

0.10

24,000-36,200

2009

714

33,000

0.10

26,500-39,500

2008

723

34,600

0.09

28,700-40,500

2007

694

31,100

0.09

25,400-36,700

2006

766

34,200

0.09

27,900-40,400

2005

812

34,500

0.09

28,300-40,700

2004

773

36,300

0.09

29,600-43,100

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

Table 5—NEISS Injury Estimates for Table Saw Blade-Contact Amputations, Hospitalizations, and Finger/Hand Injuries, 2004-2015

Year

Amputations

Estimate

(95% CI)

% of

blade-

contact

injuries

Hospitalizations

Estimate

(95% CI)

% of

blade-

contact

injuries

Finger/hand injuries

Estimate

(95% CI)

% of

blade-

contact

injuries

2015

4,700

(3,100-6,300)

15.2

3,800

(2,300-5,300)

12.3

30,500

(24,900-36,100)

99.1

2014

4,000

(2,400-5,500)

13.1

3,100

(1,700-4,400)

10.1

29,400

(24,600-34,300)

97.2

2013

3,400

(2,300-4,600)

11.7

3,000

(1,800-4,200)

10.2

29,200

(24,300-34,200)

99.2

2012

4,100

(2,700-5,600)

13.9

2,900

(1,300-4,400)

9.8

29,100

(23,700-34,400)

98.7

2011

3,900

(2,700-5,100)

13.2

2,900

(1,900-3,900)

9.9

29,400

(24,200-34,700)

99.3

2010

3,500

(2,500-4,500)

11.6

2,800

(2,000-3,600)

9.2

29,800

(23,700-36,000)

99.2

2009

4,100

(3,000-5,200)

12.5

3,000

(2,000-3,900)

9.0

32,500

(26,100-38,900)

98.5

2008

3,700

(2,700-4,600)

10.6

2,600

(1,700-3,400)

7.4

34,200

(28,300-40,100)

98.7

2007

3,900

(2,600-5,200)

12.6

3,000

(1,800-4,100)

9.5

30,700

(25,100-36,200)

98.7

2006

4,300

(3,100-5,500)

12.5

2,700

(1,600-3,800)

7.9

33,700

(27,500-39,900)

98.7

2005

4,600

(3,100-6,200)

13.5

2,800

(2,000-3,600)

8.2

34,100

(28,000-40,200)

98.9

2004

5,100

(3,600-6,700)

14.1

2,900

(1,900-3,900)

8.0

36,000

(29,300-42,800)

99.2

CPSC staff also conducted a trend analysis to include the rate of injury (that is, the rate of injury, measured by the numerator as the estimated number of injuries and the denominator as the exposure estimate). Based on the information available, CPSC staff analyzed the risk of blade-contact injury using the estimated number of table saws in use for each year from 2004 to 2015. Table 6 provides the risk of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in use for each year in the analysis. The estimated numbers of table saws in use yearly is provided in TAB C of the staff briefing package.

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

CVs for estimates are equivalent to the CVs for injury estimates, due to no variance estimates being used for the denominator estimates.

Table 6-Estimated Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries per 10,000 Table Saws in Use, 2004-2015

Year

Table saw blade-contact injury estimates

Blade-contact injury estimate

95% Confidence interval

Estimated number of table saws in use

(in 10,000s) *

Table saws in use

estimate

Estimates ** of table saw blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in use

Estimate

95%

Confidence

interval

2015

30,800

25,100-36,500

813.8

37.8

30.9-44.8

2014

30,300

25,300-35,300

818.6

37.0

30.8-43.2

2013

29,500

24,500-34,500

824.0

35.8

29.8-41.8

2012

29,500

24,100-34,900

832.5

35.4

28.9-41.9

2011

29,600

24,300-35,000

838.9

35.3

29.0-41.7

2010

30,100

24,000-36,200

847.7

35.5

28.3-42.7

2009

33,000

26,500-39,500

873.1

37.8

30.3-45.3

2008

34,600

28,700-40,500

881.5

39.3

32.6-45.9

2007

31,100

25,400-36,700

882.5

35.2

28.8-41.5

2006

34,200

27,900-40,400

865.0

39.5

32.2-46.7

2005

34,500

28,300-40,700

846.3

40.8

33.5-48.0

2004

36,300

29,600-43,100

829.4

43.8

35.7-51.9

* CPSC's Directorate for Economics provided the estimated numbers of table saws in use for this analysis.

** Estimates are calculated from the exact number of injuries point estimate, not the rounded estimate.

CPSC staff's analysis shows that there was no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with blade contact related to table saws from 2004 to 2015. Furthermore, staff concludes that there is no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with blade contact related to table saws from the timespan before the voluntary standard was implemented (2004-2009) to the time span after the voluntary standard's implementation (2010-2015), which required the riving knife and modular blade guard on all table saws.

E. Other Table Saw-Related Injuries

Table saw-related incidents are not commonly reported to CPSC through means other than the NEISS. However, the CPSC received a small number of reports of table saw-related injuries through other means, such as news articles, consumer-submitted reports, attorney-submitted reports, and manufacturer and retailer reports. Reported incidents through means other than the NEISS are entered into the CPSC's CPSRMS database. The CPSRMS database is not a representative sample of all blade-contact injuries, and only injury estimates from the NEISS are used for nationally representative estimates of table saw and/or blade-contact injuries. These are anecdotal reports of blade-contact injuries, and the reports are not intended to be used to understand trends or the magnitude of the number of blade-contact injuries.

CPSC staff reviewed this data to understand the scenarios and the injuries associated with table saw blade-contact injuries, information not typically captured within a NEISS report. CPSC staff reviewed all reports in the CPSRMS associated with the product code 0841 (table saws) with incident dates from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2015. The incident dates chosen match the trend analysis performed on the NEISS for table saws.

CPSC staff identified 53 incidents in the CPSRMS database that involved blade-contact injury on table saws that occurred between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015, and the injuries were reported to CPSC by March 1, 2016. The data collection is ongoing for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015, and it is possible for CPSC staff to receive additional reports of blade-contact injuries that occurred during this timeframe. Of the 53 reported blade-contact injuries, 26 were attributable to bench saws, 22 to contractor saws, 2 to cabinet saws, and 3 were unknown.

CPSC staff reviewed whether there were any incidents with unexpected workpiece movement, such as kickback of the workpiece. Table 7 summarizes incidents by unexpected workpiece movement. For the majority of incidents, it is unknown whether unexpected workpiece movement was involved in the blade contact, thus making conclusions difficult. However, of the incidents where information about the contribution of workpiece movement was known, most blade-contact injuries involved some type of unexpected workpiece movement.

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

Table 7—Unexpected Stock Movement for Reported Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2004-2015

Unexpected workpiece movement

Frequency

Percent

Yes

37.7

7.5

N/A

1.9

Unknown

52.8

Total

* 100.0

* Due to rounding errors, totals may not exactly equal 100.

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

Blade guard use is recorded as “N/A” in three incidents, when blade guard use was either impossible (Dado cut, molding attachment on a saw from the 1950s), or the victim started the saw accidentally, and his hand was pulled into the blade by a nearby object.

For the six incidents in the blade guard type of “Other/Unknown,” one incident is in the “other” category, where the blade guard description did not fully meet the traditional description, but the saw was manufactured in the time span of traditional blade guards; the remaining five incidents in this category were classified as “unknown” blade guard type, due to the limited information provided.

Table 8—Type of Blade Guard by Blade Guard Use for Reported Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2004-2015

Frequency

(row percent)

Type of blade guard

Blade guard in use

Yes

Unknown

N/A

Total

Modular

9.1%

81.8%

0.0%

Traditional

19.4%

52.8%

8.3%

Other/Unknown

16.7%

33.3%

50.0%

0.0%

Total

CPSC staff noted that although there are large proportions of unknowns for the blade guard use, making conclusions difficult, out of the 53 reported blade-contact injuries, 36 are associated with a traditional blade guard. Of those 36, seven were reported to be using the blade guard at the time of injury, seven were reported to not be using the blade guard, 19 had an unknown guard use status, and three were not able to use the blade guard. Of the 53 reported blade-contact injuries, 11 are associated with a modular blade guard as part of the original equipment on the table saw. Of those 11, one was reported to be using the blade guard at the time of injury, one was reported to not be using the blade guard, and nine have unknown guard use status. Table 9 shows the frequency of the scenarios for the type of blade guard by injury type.

Table 9—Injury Description for Reported Table Saw Blade-Contact Injuries, 2004-2015

Injury

Type of blade guard *

Modular

Traditional

Other/

unknown/NA

Total

Amputation

Amputation and Laceration

Fatal Laceration

Laceration

Laceration and Fracture

No Details Provided

Total

* Table 8 shows that it is often unknown whether a blade guard was in use at the time of the incident.

This table does not break down the type of injury and type of guard according to whether the blade guard was in use or not.

Although for many of these injuries it is unknown whether the blade guard was in use at the time of the injury, CPSC staff's review of the reports indicates that the incident scenarios for table saws with modular blade guards are similar to the incidents for table saws with traditional blade guards, in terms of incidents (amputations and lacerations) occurring with and without the use of blade guards, and incidents occurring with and without unexpected stock movement from kickback of the material.

F. Modular Blade Guard Survey

To obtain additional information regarding modular blade guard use, in 2015, CPSC contracted EurekaFacts, LLC (EurekaFacts) to conduct a survey of consumers who own table saws with a modular blade guard system.

The survey instrument was designed to identify the potential reasons that may affect how a consumer uses the blade guard. EurekaFacts completed 200 surveys of respondents who owned a table saw manufactured after 2009, or later, that included a modular blade guard. The survey was based on a convenience sample of participants recruited by various advertisement strategies; therefore, no results from the survey are generalized to the population.

Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016),

supra

note 11.

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

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

G. Summary of Incident Data

Based on CPSC staff's review of the existing data, the Commission does not believe that currently available safety devices, such as the modular blade guard and riving knife, will adequately address the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on table saws. In 2015, there were an estimated 33,400 table saw, emergency department-treated injuries. Of these, staff estimates that 30,800 (92 percent) are likely related to the victim making contact with the saw blade. Of the 30,800 emergency department-treated blade-contact injuries in 2015, an estimated 28,900 injuries (93.8 percent) involved the finger. The most common diagnoses in blade-contact injuries are: an estimated 18,100 laceration injuries (58.8 percent); an estimated 5,900 fractures (19.0 percent); an estimated 4,700 amputations (15.2 percent); and an estimated 2,000 avulsions (6.5 percent). An estimated 3,800 (12.3 percent) of the blade-contact injury victims in 2015 were hospitalized.

Thousands of amputations occur each year on table saws; an estimated 4,700 amputation injuries occurred in 2015, alone. Compared to all other types of consumer products, table saw-related amputations are estimated to account for 18.6 percent of all amputations in the NEISS in 2015. When compared to all other workshop products, table saws accounted for an estimated 52.4 percent of all amputations related to workshop products in 2015. The estimated mean age for table saw blade-contact injuries is 55.6; whereas, all other workshop product-related injuries have an estimated mean age of 42.7. This approximate 13-year difference in the mean age of injuries is a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.0001), indicating that table saw blade-contact injuries involve older victims in comparison to injuries related to all other workshop products.

CPSC staff also reviewed table saw-related reported incidents in the CPSRMS database. Staff identified 53 incidents in the CPSRMS database that involve blade-contact injury on a table saw that occurred between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015, and were reported to CPSC by March 1, 2016. Of the 53 reported incidents related to table saw blade contact, 36 incidents involved table saws that came equipped with a traditional blade guard, and 11 incidents involved table saws that came equipped with a modular blade guard. Laceration and amputation injuries occurred on table saws equipped with traditional guards and on table saws equipped with modular blade guards. In addition, CPSC staff's review of the reports indicates that the incident scenarios for table saws with modular blade guards are similar to table saws with traditional blade guards in terms of incidents occurring with and without the use of blade guards and incidents occurring with and without unexpected workpiece movement from kickback of the material.

Finally, CPSC staff' review of the modular blade guard survey shows that, for woodworkers who responded to the survey, removal of the blade guard, traditional or modular, is a necessary and proper action when making certain cuts on table saws. In addition, many woodworkers selected in the survey chose not to use the modular blade guard at all or only some of the time.

Based on CPSC staff's review of the incident data, the Commission believes that operator finger/hand contact with the table saw blade is a dominant hazard pattern that presents an unreasonable risk of injury that can be addressed by a performance requirement to reduce the frequency and severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws. The proposed performance requirement is discussed in section VII of the preamble.

H. Special Studies

As discussed in the ANPR, in 2001, CPSC performed a NEISS special study for stationary power saw-related injuries.

The purpose of the survey was to collect more specific and accurate information about the type of table saw involved and also to collect more in-depth information about the hazard pattern and contributing factors to the injuries. The results were published in a memorandum, “Injuries Associated with Stationary Power Saws, 2001.”

In 2007, CPSC staff conducted, through a contractor, another stationary power saw special study, running through 2008. The report, “Survey of Injuries Involving Stationary Saws: Table and Bench Saws, 2007-2008,” presented estimates of the numbers and types of emergency department-treated injuries related to table saws in this 2-year study, which was published in March 2011.

In October 2011, the ANPR used the 2007-2008 special study estimates as the analytical support for the discussion of table saw-related injuries.

76 FR 62680-81.

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/powersaw.pdf.

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/118311/statsaws.pdf.

76 FR 62681.

However, the public comments submitted to the CPSC in response to the ANPR called attention to a contradiction between the estimated numbers for each type of table saw and the estimated injuries of direct-drive and indirect-drive table saws in the 2007-2008 special study.

As a result of these comments, CPSC staff reanalyzed the saw-type and drive-type responses provided by the injury victims in the 2007-2008 special study. CPSC published the results of the reanalysis in June 2014.

CPSC staff found that the estimated number of injuries based on the type of saw were inconsistent with the estimated injuries associated with respondent-declared drive type, which indicated that bench saws may be associated with a much larger proportion of the estimated injuries than initially reported.

Staff's economic analysis in the ANPR briefing package first noted that there was an apparent inconsistency between some study participants' responses to the type of saw used and their responses about the type of drive system used in the saw.

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

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

As explained in TAB F of the staff briefing package, after the contractors completed the 2014-2015 special study,

CPSC staff identified patterns in participant response data across the 275 completed survey responses that indicated that the interviewer may have affected the participants' responses, a phenomenon known as “interviewer effect.” Ninety-four percent (259) of the completed surveys were conducted by two interviewers from one company. Statistically significant differences between responses collected by the two interviewers existed for critical questions, such as the type of table saw involved in the injury, use of safety features, and activities preceding the injury. Because the integrity of the responses was indeterminable, CPSC staff did not use the 2014-2015 special study results as a basis for the proposed rule.

In addition, contractor interviewer information from the 2007 to 2008 special study was not available, so CPSC staff was unable to prove or disprove whether interviewer effect impacted that study's responses. Accordingly, CPSC staff did not use the data from either of the prior special studies to inform recommendations in the proposed rule for a performance requirement to address table saw blade-contact injuries.

V. Risk of Injury

A. Description of Hazard

CPSC staff reviewed analyses of finger injuries on table saws conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in a study titled, “

Table Saw Injuries: Epidemiology and a proposal for preventive measures,

” which was commissioned by UL.

UL extracted sections from that study, with some modifications, for its report, “

Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact.

”

The UL report indicated that lacerations to the finger or hand of varying severity are the most common injury associated with table saw operator blade contact. The severity of injury ranges from minor cuts to severe cuts and injuries resulting in amputation. Finger lacerations can be classified into two categories by the extent of damage to the structures of the finger:

Chung, K. and Shauver, M. 2014. Table saw injuries: Epidemiology and a proposal for preventive measures. Available at:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4154236/.

Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact,

UL Research Report,

Jan. 2014. Available at:

http://library.ul.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2015/02/UL_WhitePapers_Tablesaw_V11.pdf.

(1) Simple lacerations involving damage only from the skin surface to a depth of approximately 2 mm to 4 mm, and

(2) complex lacerations involving cuts deeper than 4 mm that cause damage to tendons, nerves, and blood vessels.

Simple lacerations can be managed at emergency departments with little expertise or by simple at-home care because these cuts generally heal without complications. Conversely, complex lacerations may require skilled microsurgery to repair damaged tendons, nerves, and vessels, and such care often requires hospital stays, transfer to a hospital with the required expertise, and extensive occupational therapy.

According to the UL report, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans show that critical tissues are deepest at the proximal phalanx of the long finger (base of the middle finger) and most shallow at the distal phalanx of the little finger. The neurovascular bundle, which contains the nerves and arteries, is the structure closest to the skin's surface. The mean distance from the surface of the skin to the neurovascular bundle on the tip of the little finger is 4.3 mm.

Therefore, UL determined that, based on measurements from the study, a depth of 4 mm is the maximum depth of cut to a finger before serious injury is sustained.

Staff's analysis of cadaverous tissue data indicates that the measurements presented in UL's research report are relative to the volar (palmar) surface of the skin.

UL Research Report, 2014,

supra

note 26 at 18.

B. Analysis of Operator Behavior in Blade-Contact Injuries

CPSC staff reviewed operator behavior in blade-contact injuries (TAB E of the staff briefing package). The most basic and common cutting operations performed on a table saw are ripping, which involves narrowing the width of a piece of wood or other “workpiece” by sawing along its length, and crosscutting, which involves shortening the length of a workpiece by sawing across its width. Anecdotally, ripping appears to be the more common of these two operations in the context of table saw use.

1. Ripping Scenarios

Blade contact may be more likely to occur while the consumer is ripping a workpiece, rather than crosscutting, because consumers often use just their hands to feed the workpiece into the blade while ripping, except when ripping narrow workpieces. Additionally, ripping has greater potential to result in kickback, compared to crosscutting. “Kickback” can be defined as the binding of a workpiece in the blade and the consequent thrusting of that workpiece back toward the consumer. Ripping involves the cut workpiece passing between the spinning blade and a rip fence, which forms a fixed boundary that constrains the movement of the workpiece. Thus, any lateral movements or rotation of the workpiece (or misalignment of the fence) may cause the workpiece to bind and be thrown or propelled at the consumer. The sudden movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the consumer to lose control of the workpiece and lead to blade contact in a number of ways. For example:

• The consumer's hand or push stick can slip off the workpiece, causing the hand to move into the blade.

• The workpiece can strike the consumer's arm or hand, sending the hand into the blade.

• The consumer can reflexively reach for the workpiece to regain control and inadvertently move the hand into the blade.

• The consumer's hand, if positioned behind the blade to hold, support, or remove the workpiece or cutoff, can be “pulled” into the blade with the workpiece.

Many of the scenarios may be possible even when a blade guard is in use, because blade guard systems generally are designed to allow free passage of the workpiece into the blade from the front; therefore, other objects, such as hands and fingers also can move into the blade from this direction. Thus, although blade guard systems can reduce the likelihood of blade contact from certain angles and certain approaches, the potential for contact remains. In addition, hand or finger contact with the blade can occur even without kickback. Possible blade contact scenarios during ripping, unrelated to kickback, include the following:

• The consumer's hand gets too close to the blade while feeding the workpiece, particularly small workpieces, and the fingers contact the blade. In some cases, the consumer may be wearing gloves for protection, or because of cool temperatures, and the blade catches the glove and pulls the hand into the blade.

For example, IDI nos. 121018CNE1304.

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

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

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

the blade is still spinning and the hand contacts the blade. Saw blades can continue spinning for some time after a table saw has been switched off. Accordingly, some consumers might contact the blade after having already switched off the table saw but before the blade has come to a complete stop. Furthermore, consumers who are aware of the potential for kickback might be motivated to remove a cutoff immediately to prevent a cut piece from kicking back or being thrown in some other way.

• The consumer gets distracted and turns or looks away, causing his or her hand to move into the blade. Such a distraction may not be merely daydreaming, but can include cases in which someone enters the room and the operator diverts their attention to make sure the other person is not placing themselves in a hazardous situation. This may be especially likely if the other person is someone for whom the consumer is responsible, such as a child.

• The consumer slips, stumbles, or otherwise loses balance and inadvertently moves a hand into the blade, possibly as a natural motor response to regain balance. Similarly, if a consumer is startled by something or someone, the consumer may move reflexively or jerk a hand toward the blade.

• The consumer's hand or push stick slips off the workpiece, causing the hand to move into the blade. This scenario is similar to the one cited earlier in the context of kickback, but it is not necessarily preceded by a sudden movement of the workpiece.

Many of these scenarios may be more likely to occur if the consumer is tired, or if the view of the blade or cut is impaired somehow. Working with a table saw for long periods likely would contribute to fatigue, which in turn, can degrade a consumer's decision-making abilities, judgment, reaction time, and vigilance.

Even devices and equipment that are intended to protect consumers may adversely affect consumers' ability to monitor a cutting operation with a table saw, and potentially increase the risk of injury. Blade guard systems might contribute to difficulties in seeing where a cut is being made, and consumers sometimes report this as a reason for removing blade guard systems. Staff also notes that consumers typically are instructed to wear eye protection when operating a table saw.

Although proper eye gear can provide important protection from projectiles striking the eye, the eye protection may affect one's ability to see a cut clearly, particularly if the eyewear is scratched or partially covered in debris, such as sawdust.

See Sharit, J. (2006). Human Error. In G. Salvendy (Ed.),

Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics,

3rd ed. at 708-760. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Staff also notes that, when ripping, consumers must make sure the workpiece maintains contact with the rip fence for the entire cut. Thus, a consumer's attention is likely to be where the workpiece meets the fence, rather than the blade, for at least part of the cut. This necessarily means that adequate attention cannot be given to the position of the hands relative to the blade. If attention is focused, instead, on the fingers relative to the blade, the workpiece may move off the rip fence and lead to kickback, which also can cause the fingers to contact the blade.

For example, general safety instructions for all power tools, published by the Power Tool Institute (PTI), states that one should “[a]lways wear eye protection,” and the section of the document that is specific to table saws states, in part: “Always wear safety goggles or safety glasses with side shields.”

See, http://www.powertoolinstitute.com/pti-includes/pdfs/Tool-Specific-Files/Table-Saws.pdf.

2. Crosscutting Scenarios

Blade contact scenarios involving crosscutting are likely similar to those involving ripping because many of the same potential issues can arise, such as the consumer feeding the workpiece with their hand too close to the blade, reaching past the blade for a cutoff, or becoming distracted. Although the potential for kickback seems less likely for crosscutting than for ripping, kickback still occurs, and the consequent loss of workpiece control can result in the hand contacting the blade. In addition, during a crosscut, the workpiece may become “jammed” in the blade guard or anti-kickback device. This may be more likely if the workpiece shifts position or rotates from against the miter gauge. In such a scenario, the consumer may reach toward the blade to adjust the workpiece position or attempt to move the offending portion of the guard system, and inadvertently contact the blade with the fingers.

3. Adult Aging Issues

As discussed in section IV of the preamble and TAB B of the staff briefing package, approximately 45 percent of all estimated table saw-related, emergency department-treated injuries that likely related to the victim making contact with the blade involved consumers older than 60 years of age. Although CPSC staff does not know if older consumers have greater exposure to these products, adult aging is associated with declines in many perceptual, cognitive, and physical abilities, as discussed in TAB E of the staff briefing package. Some of these age-related deficits likely contribute to blade contact incidents with table saws.

CPSC staff identified differences in the distribution of age groups when comparing table saw blade-contact injuries to all other workshop product-related injuries. Staff analysis of injuries in 2015 indicates that the mean age for table saw blade-contact injuries is 55.6 years, compared to 42.7 years for all other workshop product-related injuries. This approximately 13-year difference in the mean age of victims of table saw blade-contact injuries is a statistically significant difference and indicates that table saw blade-contact injuries involve older victims compared to victims of injuries from all other workshop products.

VI. Relevant Existing Standards

A. Voluntary Standards

1. History

In 1971, Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) published the first edition of UL 987,

Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools.

UL 987 included requirements for table saws that specified the following safety devices: A single-piece blade guard, a spreader, and anti-kickback pawls. In 2005, UL published the sixth edition of UL 987, which added riving knives to the general requirements for table saws. The effective date for the riving knife requirements for products already listed with UL was January 2014. In 2007, UL published the seventh edition of UL 987, which expanded the table saw guarding requirements to include a new modular blade guard design developed by a joint venture of the leading table saw manufacturers. The effective date for the modular blade guard requirements was January 2010. The revised standard specified that the blade guard shall not consist of a hood, but comprise a top-barrier guarding element and two side-barrier guarding elements. The new modular guard design was intended to be an improvement over traditional hood guard designs by providing better visibility, offering easier methods to remove and install the guard, and incorporating a permanent riving knife design. In 2011, UL published the eighth edition of UL 987, which clarified requirements for table saws. The eighth edition remains the current edition of UL 987.

In February 2016, UL balloted a proposal to adopt the first edition of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62841-3-1,

Standard for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden Machinery—Safety—Part 3-1: Particular Requirements for Transportable Table Saws

as the first edition of UL 62841-3-1. This effort is

part of UL's international harmonization goal to adopt international standards, such as one published by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) or ISO (International Organization for Standardization), into one UL standard that is based on the IEC/ISO standard, with appropriate national differences.

The proposal passed, and in August 2016, UL published the first edition of UL 62841-3-1,

Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden Machinery Part 3-1: Particular Requirements for Transportable Table Saws.

UL 62841-3-1 is recognized as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard and includes requirements for a modular blade guard, riving knife, and anti-kickback pawls. The effective date for UL 62841-3-1 is August 29, 2019. Until that date, UL 987 remains in effect, and table saw manufacturers can list their products to UL 987 or UL 62841-3-1.

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

Currently, UL 987 (Section 43.2.2) and UL 62841-3-1 (Section 19.101) specify that table saws shall be provided with a modular blade guard. UL 987 (Section 43.2.3) and UL 62841-3-1 (Section 19.103) specify that table saws shall be equipped with a riving knife. Both voluntary standards include: (1) Similar performance requirements to ensure that the modular blade guard prevents incidental contact from the top and from both sides of the saw blade; and (2) similar specifications for the location and rigidity of the riving knife.

2. Recent Developments

In June 2011, UL announced its intention to create a standard that addresses the performance characteristics needed to reduce blade-contact injuries associated with table saws, and UL invited CPSC staff to participate in developing blade-to-skin performance requirements for UL 987. UL formed a working group that met regularly during 2011 to 2015 to develop performance requirements for table saws to address flesh-to-blade-contact injuries. The UL working group developed the term “active injury mitigation” (AIM) to describe any type of safety system that detects an imminent or actual human contact with the table saw blade and then performs an action that mitigates the severity of the injury.

In January 2014, UL published a report titled,

Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact.

The report provides an in-depth study with hazard analyses, injury classification, and approach speed experiments. The intent of the research was to understand the circumstances that lead to hand/finger contact injuries for table saw operators and to help identify critical parameters to define the hazard level. The report identified the quantitative threshold between a simple and complex laceration of a finger at about 4 mm from the surface of the skin.

UL Research Report, 2014,

supra

note 26.

In February 2015, UL balloted a proposal to add AIM requirements for table saws to the

Standard for Stationary and Fixed Electric Tools,

UL 987. The performance requirements were based on a defined relationship between approach velocity of a finger to a rotating table saw blade and the depth of cut to the finger once contact has been made. The ballot proposed a performance requirement that introduced a surrogate test finger that demonstrates the proper triggering characteristics particular to the AIM technology to the table saw blade, at an approach rate of 1 m/s, and that limits the depth of cut to 4 mm or less, upon contact with the blade.

CPSC staff sent a letter to UL dated March 24, 2015, expressing staff's support of AIM requirements in the voluntary standard.

Staff also provided in-depth investigations (IDIs) of five incidents that occurred on table saws that met the UL standard for table saws at the time (and had a riving knife and modular blade guard). In April 2015, the ballot failed to reach consensus; the ballot received 14 votes against (versus 7 votes for) the proposal.

Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL, dated March 24, 2015. Available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMSproposalwenclosures.pdf.

In March 2015, UL published a report titled,

General Characteristics of a Surrogate Finger for Table Saw Safety Testing.

The report discusses the attributes of a human finger that could be used as the basis for triggering an AIM system and identified three primary methods to detect a human finger: Visual, electrical, and thermal.

UL Research Report, 2015,

supra

note 6.

In February 2016, UL balloted two proposals: (1) To adopt the first edition of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62841-3-1,

Standard for Electric Motor-Operated Hand-Held Tools, Transportable Tools and Lawn and Garden Machinery—Safety—Part 3-1: Particular Requirements for Transportable Table Saws

as the first edition of UL 62841-3-1; and (2) to add AIM system requirements for table saws as part of the adoption of IEC or as part of UL 987 (since UL 987 will be merged with IEC 62841-3-1).

Under the proposal, manufacturers were allowed the maximum latitude to design table saws to meet the requirements. The ballot proposed a performance requirement that introduces a conductive test probe, connected to a circuit, which mimics the electrical properties of a human body, to the table saw blade, at an approach rate of 1 m/s, and limited the depth of cut upon contact with the blade to 4 mm or less. The performance requirement also permitted other test probes to be used for AIM technology that depend on visual or thermal detection of finger contact to the blade.

CPSC staff sent a letter of comment to UL, dated March 11, 2016, expressing staff's support of AIM requirements in the voluntary standard for table saws.

In April 2016, the UL proposal for adoption of IEC 62841-3-1 reached consensus when the ballot received 15 votes in favor of (versus 2 votes against) the proposal. However, the proposal to add an AIM requirement did not reach consensus; the ballot received 12 votes against (versus 5 votes in favor of) the proposal. The ballots failed, in part, because the table saw industry objected to making AIM requirements part of the UL standard, and because they believed that the proposed requirements were not sufficiently developed.

Letter from Caroleene Paul, CPSC, to John Stimitz, UL, dated March 11, 2016. Available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSClettertoULcommenttoAIMS.pdf.

B. Voluntary Standards and Patent Policy

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has a patent policy

that is included in the

ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards

(ANSI Requirements). This policy sets forth requirements that apply to situations in which a proposed voluntary standard may require the use of an essential patent claim. UL's Standards Patent Policy

contains requirements that are consistent with ANSI's policy.

See

Section 3.1,

ANSI Patent Policy—Inclusion of Patents in American National Standards of the ANSI Essential Requirements: Due process requirements for American National Standards

(January 2017) available at:

https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2017_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf.

See UL Patent Policy

(March 1, 2017) available at:

http://ulstandards.ul.com/develop-standards/stps/ul-patentpolicy/?_ga=l.154860536.1359786552.1492183496.

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

Standards Developer (ASD) of a proposed American National Standard is informed that the standard may require the use of an essential patent claim, the ASD shall receive from the patent holder (or its authorized representative) written or electronic:

(a) Assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect that such party does not hold and does not currently intend holding any essential patent claim(s); or

(b) assurance that a license to such essential patent claim(s) will be made available to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the standard either:

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

(i) Under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination; or

(ii) without compensation and under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.

According to these policies, it appears that a voluntary standard on table saws that may require the use of an essential patent claim might not be adopted if the ASD did not obtain one of the listed assurances from any essential patent holders.

C. Adequacy of the Voluntary Standards in Addressing Injuries

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

76 FR 62683.

As discussed in section IV of the preamble, since the ANPR, CPSC staff has conducted a modular blade guard survey among owners of table saws with modular blade guards in 2015, reviewed incidents from the CPSRMS database to identify incidents involving table saws equipped with modular blade guard systems, and performed a trend analysis of the annual estimated number of emergency department-treated injuries associated with table saws from 2004 to 2015.

The modular blade guard survey assessed table saw users who own, or are familiar with, a table saw with the modular guard system.

Results of the survey indicate that a majority of respondents (80%) reported that there are circumstances that require the blade guard to be removed, and a majority of respondents did not use the blade guard “sometimes” (28%), “often” (17%), or “always” (14%). The results of the survey demonstrate that removal of the blade guard, traditional or modular, is a necessary and proper action when making certain cuts on table saws. In addition, many users choose not to use the modular blade guard at all. CPSC staff believes that any situation where the blade guard is not used eliminates the effectiveness of the blade guard in preventing blade-contact injuries. Accordingly, staff's review shows that reliance on the blade guard for injury prevention is insufficient because consumers have legitimate reasons for removing the guard or do not use it at all or only some of the time.

Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016),

supra

note 11.

CPSC staff is also aware of at least 11 incidents from the CPSRMS database that involve table saws that meet the current voluntary standard requirements for riving knives and modular blade guards. Of those 11 incidents, four incidents involved amputation, two incidents involved laceration, and one incident involved laceration and fracture. These incidents show that blade-contact injuries continue to occur on table saws equipped with riving knives and modular blade guards, with and without the blade guard in use.

Moreover, as discussed above in section IV of the preamble and in TAB B of the staff briefing package, CPSC staff performed a trend analysis of the annual estimated number of emergency department-treated injuries associated with table saws from 2004 to 2015. This trend analysis includes the timespan before the voluntary standard implemented the requirement for riving knives and modular blade guards on table saws (2004 to 2009) and the timespan after the requirements were implemented (2010 to 2015). Staff concludes that there is no discernible change in the number of injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff also performed a trend analysis for the risk of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws and concludes that there is no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. Accordingly, the implementation of the riving knives and modular blade guards requirements in the voluntary standards does not appear to have had an impact on the number or extent of blade-contact injuries on table saws.

Based on CPSC staff's evaluation of the data, the Commission concludes that the existing voluntary standard requirements for riving knives or modular blade guards will not prevent or adequately mitigate blade-contact injuries on table saws.

D. OSHA Regulations

In addition to the voluntary standard, several Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) regulations apply to table saws that are used in the workplace. Under section 3(a)(5) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2052, a “consumer product” means, with certain exceptions, any article or component part thereof, produced or distributed for sale to, or use or consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer for use in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or otherwise. Section 31 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2080, provides that the Commission shall have no authority to regulate any risk of injury associated with a consumer product if such risk could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent by action taken under OSHA. However, if the risk to consumers cannot be sufficiently reduced or eliminated by OSHA's actions, the CPSC has the authority to address that risk of injury associated with the consumer product.

OSHA currently has regulations on table saws used in the workplace, which are codified at 29 CFR 1910.213, Woodworking Machinery Requirements. The OSHA regulations require that table saws in the workplace include a blade guard, a spreader, and an anti-kickback device. 29 CFR 1910.213(c)&(d). The OSHA regulations require the saw be guarded by a hood with certain performance standards including, among other things, requirements that the hood be strong enough to withstand certain pressures, be adjustable to the thickness of the material being cut, and be constructed in a way to protect the operator from flying splinters and broken saw teeth. 29 CFR 1910.213(c)(1). The OSHA regulations also require inspection and maintenance of woodworking machinery. 29 CFR 1910.213(s). The existing OSHA regulations for table saws do not reflect the latest revisions to 8th edition of UL 987, which require riving knives and modular blade guards.

As discussed in the ANPR, CPSC staff found that the primary differences between consumer and professional

users of table saws are environment and training/experience.

In many work production environments where a specific cut is performed continuously, guards and safety cut-off switches are custom designed for that operation. The area is specifically designed to be as safe as possible, and safety is a continuous focus through warning/instruction signs and posters that are often displayed throughout the work area. The workplace is also subject to spontaneous inspection by OSHA inspectors; therefore, the prospect of being fined for safety violations increases the likelihood that workers or supervisors will help ensure safety codes are followed. In addition, professional woodworkers are in an industrial setting where employees often receive training on safety practices and in the proper use of the tool. Professional woodworkers are more likely to have had training and to be experienced in performing any special or complex operations with the saw and are more likely to recognize situations and set-ups that may be dangerous or require extra care and caution.

76 FR 62682.

Conversely, as the ANPR further discussed, amateur woodworkers generally have little or no safety training, nor training in the proper use of the table saw.

They may take woodworking classes or obtain a training video, but there is no mechanism to encourage the home woodworker to use a table saw as safely as possible. The home users typically have far less experience than professional woodworkers and may discover dangerous or difficult operations only by actually experiencing near accidents or problems. The consumer woodworker also does not have the same OSHA-regulated protections in the home wood shop. The focus on a safe environment in a consumer setting depends on the knowledge and initiative of the home woodworker. For example, in a workplace, regulations require that unsafe saws be removed from service immediately, push sticks or push blocks be provided at the work place for guiding or pushing material past the blade, and emphasis be placed on the cleanliness around woodworking machinery and, in particular, the effective functioning of guards and prevention of fire hazards. 29 CFR 1910.213(s).

Id.

We continue to believe that OSHA regulations may not adequately reduce the risk of operator blade-contact injuries to consumers because OSHA's regulations are intended primarily to ensure a safer work environment in the professional workplace setting, rather than the home woodworking environment. OSHA regulations rely on a comprehensive approach to promote safe practices in the workplace, including training and outreach, as well as mandatory safety standards and enforcement. These safeguards are not available to consumers operating table saws in a home woodworking environment.

Although the safety requirements provided in OSHA regulations would not address the home woodworking environment, we note that there is no clear dividing line between consumer and professional saws, except at the very highest levels of price and performance. We have little information on the proportion of occupational purchasers for contractor saws and cabinet saws. However, CPSC staff's review shows that, based on discussions with industry representatives, electrical requirements and power appear to provide the best distinction between table saws typically used by consumers and those used most often in industrial settings. Tables saws operating at 1.75 horsepower or greater likely cannot be run on typical household wiring. Most consumers do not have the necessary electrical wiring, specifically the specialized outlets and adapters, to accommodate power tools with horsepower ratings greater than 1.75 or requiring 220-240 volt power. Sliding table saws and many other cabinet saws require such electrical capabilities and, therefore, are less likely to be used by consumers. However, CPSC staff is aware of the development of a sliding saw aimed at the high-end do-it-yourself (DIY) market, and some serious woodworking hobbyists may wire their home workshops to accommodate the more powerful saws.

Although some of the more expensive, high voltage table saws are used in construction work or by professional wood workers, many of these same saws may also be used in the home, in schools, and in recreation (woodworking workshops and clubs). Therefore, the CPSC staff believes that these types of saws may be used more than occasionally by consumers. We note that the incident data reviewed by staff, as discussed in TAB B of the staff briefing package, excludes occupational injuries from the NEISS data, and are not included in the injury data estimates.

Based on CPSC staff's review, the Commission concludes that current OSHA regulations do not adequately address the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws used by consumers, which include cabinet and contractor saws. However, the Commission seeks comment regarding whether the scope of the rule should be modified to exclude certain types of table saws that are primarily used for commercial or industrial use.

VII. Overview and Basis for Proposed Requirements

As discussed in section V of the preamble, CPSC staff reviewed data analyses of finger injuries on table saws conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan in a study titled, “

Table saw injuries: epidemiology and a proposal for preventive measures,

”

and by UL in a report titled, “

Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact,

”

to assess the extent and severity of lacerations to the finger or hand from table saw operator bade contact. UL determined that, based on measurements from the study, a depth of 4 mm is the maximum depth of cut to a finger before serious injury is sustained.

Chung, K. and Shauver, M., 2014,

supra

note 25.

UL Research Report, 2014,

supra

note 26.

Id.

at 18.

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

A. CPSC Test Results on Existing AIM Technology

CPSC staff purchased samples of table saws with AIM technology and developed test protocols to evaluate the performance of the existing technology. UL report “

Table Saw Hazard Study on Finger Injuries Due to Blade Contact

” identified critical parameters that would define the hazard associated with a human finger/hand coming into contact with a spinning table saw blade.

The two critical parameters identified are:

Id.

at 3.

(1) Approach velocity of the hand/finger when making contact with the table saw blade.

(2) Maximum depth of cut to the hand/finger that would distinguish between simple and complex lacerations.

Due to ethical considerations which prohibit the use of human subjects to

test the AIM capability of a table saw to mitigate blade-contact injury, CPSC staff developed a performance test using a suitable test probe to serve as a surrogate for the human finger/hand. In the case of an AIM system that relies on electrical detection, staff developed an electric circuit mimicking human contact to trigger the AIM system. CPSC staff determined that effective injury mitigation can be defined by a maximum depth of cut to the test probe when it is introduced to the table saw blade at a prescribed approach rate. The allowable depth of cut in the probe represents the quantitative threshold between a simple and complex laceration, which is the difference between a minor injury and a severe injury to arteries, nerves, or tendons that requires microsurgery to repair. This threshold is 4 mm from the surface of the skin.

CPSC staff focused on test protocols that introduced a probe, as a substitute for a human finger, into the rotating saw blade and measured the resulting depth of cut on the probe after activation of the table saw's AIM system. Staff determined that an AIM system based on electrical detection can be triggered by a conductive test probe that is coupled to an electric circuit that mimics the human body, hereafter referred to as the human body network (HBN).

The test probe requires two properties: (1) Electrical conductivity, and (2) volumetric and mechanical properties that allow depth of cut to be measured. The probe is electrically coupled to the HBN, which is a network of resistors and capacitors that approximate how the body would respond to an electrical signal. The body's response is the result of two physical properties of the human body: (1) Body resistance, which is a physical property of the human body that limits the flow of electrical current into the body when a voltage source is contacted, and (2) body capacitance, which is a physical property of the human body that allows the body to store electrical charge from a voltage source. A detailed description of staff's development of the HBN for these tests is available in TAB A of the staff briefing package.

CPSC staff used a cuboid-shaped test probe made of conductive silicone rubber because the probe had already been developed by UL in its own testing of AIM technology and the probe was readily available. The test probe, shown in Figure 3, is made of low resistance, conductive silicone rubber measuring 12.5 mm x 12.5 mm x 60 mm. Staff determined that a layer of less conductive material to represent the epidermis (outer layer of skin) of a human finger is not necessary for AIM testing because the system is triggered by contact with conductive “flesh” once the epidermal layer has been broken. Therefore, for test triggering purposes, staff used a test probe that represents the conductive layer of human flesh once the epidermis has been cut by a table saw blade.

EP12MY17.002

The quantitative threshold between a simple and complex laceration of a human finger is a 4.0 mm cut from the surface of the skin, and the mean epidermal thickness for a fingertip is 0.369 mm ± 0.112 mm, or a maximum thickness of approximately 0.5 mm.

Because the test probe represents human flesh beneath the epidermis, staff subtracted the 0.5 mm thickness of the epidermal layer of skin from the 4.0 mm threshold value to arrive at a 3.5 mm value for the maximum allowable depth of cut to the test probe. This 3.5 mm value represents the quantitative threshold between a simple and complex laceration of a human finger, as measured by the test probe.

Judi Whitton and J.D. Everall, “The Thickness of the Epidermis,”

British Journal of Dermatology,

Vol. 89, Issue 5 (Nov. 1973) at 467-476.

Staff coupled the test probe to the HBN with a wire lead, fixed the probe in a holder attached to a computer-controlled linear actuator, and fastened the actuator to the table saw surface. This test protocol allowed staff to control the approach of the test probe to a rotating saw blade and to measure the depth of cut to the test probe after activation of the table saw's AIM system.

The approach rate of the test probe to the saw blade represents the rate of speed at which a human finger moves toward the saw blade during a blade contact incident on a table saw. However, there is no standard body of data that quantifies finger/hand approach rate to the saw blade in a table saw incident, and CPSC staff analysis of blade contact incidents indicates that there are many scenarios in which an operator's finger/hand can contact a table saw blade. These scenarios are described in detail in TAB E of the staff briefing package. Sudden movement from kickback can cause the operator to lose control of the workpiece and cause his/her hand to fall into or be “pulled” into the blade. Hand/finger contact is

also possible without kickback in situations where the operator's hand gets too close to the blade while feeding the workpiece or the operator is distracted and inadvertently contacts the saw blade.

In comments to the table saw ANPR published on October 11, 2011, SawStop presented analysis of the company's incident data (over 1,316 table saw incidents), which indicates approach rates to the blade occurred between 3.6 in/s (91 mm/s) and 14.5 in/s (368 mm/s), and 14 percent of the incidents involved kickback of the workpiece.

In 2014, UL conducted its own analysis of approach rates and noted the difficulty of taking laboratory measurements of human subjects and translating that information to estimate the approach velocity of an operator's hand or finger toward the center of the saw blade, or radial component of the approach velocity, in an actual blade contact incident (see Figure 4.)

UL considered its own analysis of SawStop's incident data, literature searches, and human subject experiments and determined that 39.4 in/s (1000 mm/s or 1 m/s) is a reasonable first-order estimate of a typical case in which a table saw operator accidentally contacts the saw blade.

Gass, S. (2012). Comments and Information Responsive to the ANPR for Table Saw Blade-contact injuries by SawStop, LLC.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=CPSC-2011-0074-1106.

UL Research Report,

2014,

supra

note 26 at 22.

Id.

at 5.

EP12MY17.003

CPSC staff's analysis of operator behavior in table saw blade-contact injuries indicates that blade-contact injuries occur at approach rates that range from slow feeding of the workpiece when the operator's hand is close to the blade and inadvertent contact is made, to faster approach rates that occur when kickback of the workpiece causes the operator's hand to make contact with the blade. Staff concludes that a radial approach rate of 1 m/s is appropriate for a performance test because this is a high rate of speed for the radial component of the hand's approach rate to the saw blade. In addition, this radial approach rate is more than twice as fast as the highest radial approach rate calculated by SawStop in more than a thousand blade-contact injuries that activated their AIM system. Therefore, staff conducted all tests at an approach rate of 1 m/s.

CPSC staff developed a test method to evaluate various existing AIM systems to compare them to the performance standard limiting the depth of cut after triggering, using a test probe that can be used to evaluate the depth of cut when the probe makes contact with the rotating saw blade while approaching the blade at 1 m/s. Staff has used this test method on currently available AIM systems that use electrical sensing to detect finger contact and injury mitigation after contact. The test method may work if a system were designed using visual tracking, or other means of detection, to mitigate injury after detection. However, the test probe used to test AIM systems based on other methods of detection should have the appropriate properties to trigger the system.

CPSC staff tested a SawStop JSS-MCA jobsite table saw and a Bosch REAXX

jobsite table saw for AIM technology performance in accordance with the above test protocol. Both saws have 10-inch diameter blades, and the manufacturer's blades were used in all test runs. Staff ran tests with the probe connected to the HBN which was connected to the table saw's ground wire. Staff tested 11 HBN settings/configurations to represent the effect of mutual capacitance between the human body and its surroundings that increases the capacitance of the human body beyond its minimum self-capacitance of 50 pF in 50 pF steps up to 500 pF plus an additional short circuit test.

The HBN settings reflect a stepped increase in increments of 50 pF to cover a reasonable range of body capacitance. CPSC staff tested both table saws with 11 test probe activations at an approach rate of 1 m/s, and determined the probe depth of cut for each test run. For all capacitance values, both the SawStop and Bosch table saws produced cuts that were under the 3.5 mm threshold for allowable depth of cut into the probe. The depth of cut for the SawStop table saw tests ranged from 1.5 mm to 2.8 mm and the depth of cut for the Bosch table saw tests ranged from 1.9 mm to 2.5 mm.

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

−12

) of a farad.

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

B. Proposed Requirement

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

saw blade at an approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to 3.5 mm. The proposed rule would require a test probe to act as surrogate for the human body/finger contact with the saw blade and to allow accurate measurement of the depth of cut.

Although the test probe and test method described in TAB A of the staff briefing package, are appropriate for the evaluation of AIM systems using an electrical detection system, other test probes and test methods using a different detection system may be developed to detect human body/finger contact with the saw blade and to measure depth of cut. There are many possible methods to detect human contact with a saw blade that range from electrical, optical, thermal, electromagnetic, to ultrasound and others. For example, a detection system could be developed that uses thermal sensing properties of the human body/finger or visual sensing and tracking of the human body/finger. The Commission believes that AIM systems using a different detection approach than what is currently on the market may be developed, based on sound material science and engineering knowledge.

Likewise, there are many different methods to limit the depth of cut to a probe. SawStop removes the blade from contact with the finger by stopping the blade and allowing angular momentum to retract the blade. The Bosch REAXX

retracts the blade with an explosive discharge. Other ways of retracting the blade could include pneumatic (using high pressure air), or hydraulic (high pressure oil) systems. Another method to minimize blade contact could involve moving the finger or hand away from the blade by projecting the blade away from the hand or projecting the table upwards rather than retracting the blade. The Commission seeks comments on the feasibility of developing new AIM technology on table saws and whether different detection methods may be applied as part of an AIM system.

The proposed rule would establish a performance requirement, but it does not dictate how table saw manufacturers would meet those requirements. Rather, firms would have the flexibility to determine the appropriate technology to meet the specified performance requirement. In the staff's briefing package, CPSC staff has explained the test procedure and equipment that staff would use to assess compliance with an AIM system that uses electrical sensing technology. However, manufacturers need not use this particular test procedure, so long as the test method they use effectively assesses compliance with the standard.

The Commission is aware that, currently, there are only two AIMs systems currently capable of mitigating a blade-contact injury, those used by SawStop and Bosch REAXX

, which operate by sensing electrical properties of the human body/finger and then retracting the blade. Although the Commission believes that new AIM technologies can be developed in addition to the existing AIM technologies to meet the performance requirements, if such new technologies cannot be developed, the Commission has considered the economic impacts on manufacturers who may be required to license the existing technologies. That discussion appears in section XI of the preamble and in TAB C of the staff briefing package.

VIII. Stockpiling

In accordance with Section 9 of CPSA, the proposed rule contains a provision that would prohibit a manufacturer from “stockpiling,” or substantially increasing the manufacture or importation of noncomplying table saws between the date that the proposed rule may be promulgated as a final rule and the final rule's effective date. The proposed rule would prohibit the manufacture or importation of noncomplying table saws in any period of 12 consecutive months between the date of promulgation of the final rule and the effective date, at a rate that is greater than 120% of the rate at which they manufactured or imported table saws during the base period for the manufacturer. The base period is any period of 365 consecutive days, chosen by the manufacturer or importer, in the 5-year period immediately preceding promulgation of the rule.

Assuming a promulgation date in 2018, the sales period from 2013-2017 (shipments were 600,000 in 2013 and 625,000 in 2014) would allow manufacturers to produce more than 720,000 saws (600,000 ×120 percent), assuming sales in years 2015 to 2017 are stable. In the longer term of 2002 to 2014, annual shipments averaged 675,000 table saws. The stockpiling limit would thus allow the industry to meet any foreseeable increase in the demand for table saws without allowing large quantities of table saws to be stockpiled.

IX. Response to Comments

In this section, we describe and respond to comments to the table saw ANPR. We present a summary of comments by topic, followed by the Commission's response. The Commission received over 1,600 comments in response to the ANPR. The comments can be viewed on

www.regulations.gov

by searching under the docket number of the ANPR, CPSC-2011-0074. Approximately 134 commenters supported developing regulatory standards for table saws. The other commenters generally opposed the rulemaking proceeding. These comments are addressed below.

A. Mandatory Standard Would Create Monopoly

Comment:

Numerous commenters stated that table saw performance requirements that mitigate blade-contact injuries would force all manufacturers to use the SawStop patented technology. Many commenters stated that mandating the use of the SawStop technology will result in a monopoly and stifle innovation, granting an unfair advantage to one company. Commenters stated that table saw performance requirements would be “a design standard” because SawStop's parent company (SD3, LLC) owns a number of U.S. patents for sensing technology and blade braking and blade retracting technology. Some commenters stated that if the CPSC did not mandate a particular technology, other companies could introduce their own safety technologies, some of which may prove to be better than SawStop's technology. Some commenters predicted that if CPSC did not mandate the SawStop AIM technology, other injury mitigation technologies would be developed and the competition among the technologies would eventually bring down the prices associated with these new technologies.

Response:

The proposed performance requirements would not require manufacturers to use the SawStop patented technology. The proposed rule does not mandate a particular detection method or test method to mitigate blade-contact injury. The proposed performance requirement for table saws limits the depth of cut to a test probe, upon making contact with the saw blade at a radial approach rate of 1.0 m/s, to 3.5 mm. Any test probe that is used must act as a surrogate for a human body/finger to ensure that the depth of the cut can be measured properly upon contact with the saw blade. There are many methods to detect human contact with a saw blade that range from electrical, optical, thermal, electromagnetic, to ultrasound and others. Likewise, there are many methods to limit the depth of cut to a probe that would not require retraction of the saw blade. Although all of these different systems do not yet exist, such AIM systems may be developed.

Although the proposed rule does not require a particular AIM technology, the Commission is aware that, currently, there are only two AIMs systems capable of mitigating a blade-contact injury, those used by SawStop and Bosch REAXX

. Both of these systems operate by sensing electrical properties of the human body/finger and limiting the depth of cut by retraction of the blade.

The Commission is also aware of ongoing litigation between SawStop and other table saw manufacturers, including Bosch. For example, on July 16, 2015, SawStop filed a complaint against Bosch at the ITC, requesting an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, to limit entry into the United States of the Bosch REAXX

table saws that allegedly infringed on several SawStop patents.

In the Matter of Certain Table Saws Incorporating Active Injury Mitigation Technology and Components Thereof,

Investigation No. 337-TA-965. The status of litigation between Bosch and SawStop is ongoing and has not been resolved. We note that some of the allegedly infringed upon patents may expire in 2020, and 2022, which may resolve the patent issues in the ITC investigation. However, we do not know what other SawStop patents may be impacted by companies that attempt alternative AIM technologies, nor do we know the expiration dates of the other existing SawStop patents given that SawStop filed more than 100 patents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office related to SawStop's woodworking safety systems. Therefore, it is possible that any injury mitigation system on a table saw that relies on sensing electrical properties, or other properties of the human body and finger, and engages a reaction system may potentially infringe on a SawStop patent.

SawStop has also filed antitrust claims alleging that several major table saws manufacturers conspired to boycott SawStop's safety technology and manipulate safety standards.

See SawStop LLC

Black & Decker, et. al,

801 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2015);

SawStop LLC

Black & Decker, et. al,

CV No. 1:14-cv-00191, 2016 WL 6093488 (E.D.Va. Oct. 18, 2016).

The outcome of ongoing lawsuits involving the SawStop technology will determine some of the impacts that may result from a mandatory rule requiring AIM technology for table saws. If the courts determine that the patents covering the SawStop technology allow for companies to manufacture their own saws with alternative AIM technologies (such as the Bosch REAXX

saw), then some manufacturers may choose to try to develop their own proprietary technology or license the Bosch technology (if available) as an alternative to the SawStop technology.

Alternatively, if the courts decide that other technologies do, in fact, infringe upon SawStop patents, then SawStop may effectively have a monopoly on the technology needed to comply with a mandatory rule, until SawStop's patents expire. However, even if the patents expire, if new AIM technology is not developed, other manufacturers likely would be required to work with SawStop and/or Bosch to license the SawStop or Bosch technologies for use in their saws. Even if all of the relevant patents eventually become public, many manufacturers may not be able to develop their own AIM system, and will either have to license the technology or exit the table saw market. As discussed in section XI of the preamble and in TAB C of the staff briefing package, the level at which the royalty payments are set will play a significant role in determining the economic impacts that CPSC's rule could have on table saw manufacturers.

B. Voluntary Standard Process

Comment:

Numerous commenters stated that CPSC staff should work with the table saw industry to offer solutions. The commenters stated that the voluntary standards process is working and has resulted in the addition of a permanent riving knife on all table saws. In addition, other commenters stated that the industry has also required the modular blade guard on all table saws, which has improved the safety of table saws.

Numerous commenters also stated that current table saws (some referring to older table saws with traditional blade guards, and some referring to newer table saws with riving knives and modular blade guards) are safe, if used properly. Many commenters cited their own personal experiences with table saw use and claimed that because they have not had an injury this proves that current table saws are safe.

Response:

CPSC staff performed a trend analysis of the annual estimated number of emergency department-treated table saw blade-contact injuries from 2004 to 2015. This trend analysis includes the timespan before the voluntary standard required riving knives and modular blade guards on table saws (2004 to 2009) and the timespan after the requirements were implemented (2010 to 2015). Staff's review shows that there is no discernible change in the number of injuries or types of injuries related to table saws from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff then analyzed the risk of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws in use for each year in the analysis. CPSC staff performed a trend analysis on the risk of blade-contact injuries and found that there is no discernible change in the risk of blade-contact injury associated with table saws from 2004 to 2015.

In addition, staff is aware of at least 11 incidents from the CPSRMS database (2004-2015) that involve table saws that meet the current voluntary standard requirements for a riving knife and modular blade guard. A riving knife may reduce the occurrence of kickback (that can lead to unexpected stock movement and finger/hand contact with the blade) on a table saw, but kickback can still occur on table saws equipped with a riving knife. Furthermore, reducing kickback will not eliminate blade-contact injuries because blade-contact injuries can occur without kickback of the stock.

The new modular blade guard system is a significant improvement over the old guard design; however, the effectiveness of any blade guard system depends upon an operator's willingness to use it. Results of the modular blade guard survey in 2015 of table saw owners with modular blade guards indicate that a majority of respondents (80%) reported that there are circumstances that require the blade guard to be removed and a majority of respondents removed the blade guard “sometimes” (28%), “often” (17%) or “always” (14%).

The results of the user survey demonstrate that removal of the blade guard is a necessary and proper action when making certain cuts on table saws. In addition, many users choose not to use the modular blade guard at all or only some of the time. Any situation where the blade guard is not used eliminates the effectiveness of the blade guard in preventing blade-contact injuries.

Sherehiy, B. and Nooraddini, I. (2016),

supra

note 11.

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

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

C. Consumer Choice

1. Comment:

Numerous commenters stated that table saw users should be responsible for their actions, should use common sense when operating the table saw, and should accept the risk of using a table saw. Many commenters stated that SawStop table saws are already available and the free market system should determine whether or not consumers will purchase a table saw with enhanced safety features. Many of these same commenters opposed any mandate from the federal government to make table saws safer. These commenters contended that the federal government should not regulate consumer choice or behavior. Many commenters stated that other products can also cause injury such as knives or band saws and ask if the CPSC will regulate those products as well. Other commenters argued that lawsuits against table saw manufacturers reward users who are irresponsible and use table saws improperly.

Response:

CPSC staff's analysis of blade contact incidents indicates that there are many scenarios in which an operator's finger/hand can contact a table saw blade, and there are certain cuts on table saws that require removal of the blade guard. Therefore, an operator's decision to use a table saw without all safety devices does not necessarily indicate intentional neglect or ignorance on the part of the operator. Sudden movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the operator to lose control of the workpiece and cause his/her hand to fall into or be “pulled” into the blade. Hand/finger contact is also possible without kickback, in situations where the operator's hand gets too close to the blade while feeding the workpiece or the operator is distracted and inadvertently contacts the saw blade. In addition, many of the scenarios leading to blade contact may be more likely if the consumer is tired or if the view of the blade, or cut, is impaired in some way.

An estimated 4,700 amputations related to table saws occur each year. When compared to all other types of consumer products, an estimated 18.6 percent of all amputations in the NEISS in 2015 are related to table saws. When compared to all other workshop products, table saws accounted for an estimated 52.4 percent of all amputations related to workshop products in 2015. Based on the severity of injuries and recurring hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high societal costs of these injuries, the Commission believes that a performance requirement is necessary to reduce the risk of injuries associated with blade contact on table saws.

2. Comment:

Many commenters supported preserving consumer choice in the table saw market by not mandating AIM technology. Most wanted table saws equipped with AIM technology to be available, and some even stated that they owned a SawStop saw; however, they wanted to preserve the option to purchase less expensive table saws not equipped with an AIM technology. Many commenters stated that the consumer should decide whether table saws equipped with AIM technology are worth the increased cost. Some commenters stated that there are already safety devices, such as splitters, blade guards, and push sticks, which if used properly, will reduce injuries; and therefore, consumers who properly use these devices should not be forced to pay more for saws with AIM technology. Some commenters requested that manufacturers be required to offer at least one table saw with AIM technology, instead of requiring all table saws to be equipped with the technology. Other commenters noted that saws equipped with AIM technology are already available in the marketplace and if consumers wanted these saws, they could purchase them.

Response:

We acknowledge that, although some consumers would prefer table saws with the AIM technology, other consumers would prefer to have the option to purchase a table saw without the AIM technology. In addition, some consumers may also prefer the use of passive table saw safety devices, as opposed to the AIM technology. However, the Commission believes that while the proposed rule would prevent consumers from purchasing table saws without some type of AIM technology, the proposed requirement would also substantially reduce the serious b blade-contact injuries involving table saws every year. In addressing the blade contact risk, the Commission must weigh the costs of blade-contact injuries against the cost of limiting consumer choice and the rule's potential effect on the utility, cost, and product availability to consumers.

As discussed in section XI of the preamble and in TAB C of the staff briefing package, the Commission considered the costs and benefits of proposing the rule. Based on estimates from NEISS and the CPSC's Injury Cost Model (ICM), the proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries annually. The societal costs of these injuries (in 2014 dollars and using a 3 percent discount rate) amounted to about $4.06 billion in 2015. Amputations accounted for about 14 percent of the medically treated blade-contact injuries but almost two-thirds of the injury costs. Overall, medical costs and work losses account for about 30 percent of these costs, or about $1.2 billion. The intangible costs associated with pain and suffering account for the remaining 70 percent of injury costs. Because of the substantial societal costs attributable to blade-contact injuries, and the expected high rate of effectiveness of the proposed requirement in preventing blade-contact injuries, the estimated net benefits (

i.e.,

benefits minus costs) for the market as a whole averaged $1,500 to $4,000 per saw. Aggregate net benefits on an annual basis could amount to about $625 million to about $2,300 million.

However, the Commission also considered alternatives to the rule, including no regulatory action, deferring to the voluntary standard, later effective dates, exempting certain classes or types of table saws, and information and education campaigns. These alternatives are discussed in detail in section XI.J. of the preamble and TAB C of the staff briefing package. The Commission determined preliminarily that the various alternatives would not greatly reduce the number of blade-contact injuries that would be addressed by the proposed rule. Based on the severity of injuries and recurring hazard patterns of blade-contact injuries, coupled with the high societal costs of these injuries, the Commission believes that a performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries on all table saws. However, the Commission seeks comment on various alternatives that would not require all table saws to be produced with the AIM technology.

D. Table Saw Incident Data Analysis

1. Comment:

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

blade guard. Some commenters stated that CPSC staff failed to estimate the risk of injury associated with table saw use, and that this data is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the voluntary standard requirements for a riving knife and modular guard on table saws.

Response:

For the proposed rule, CPSC staff estimated the yearly table saw blade-contact injuries from 2004 to 2015 by using estimates from NEISS. The date range for the trend analysis includes a timespan before the voluntary standard required table saws to be equipped with a riving knife and modular blade guard (2004 to 2009) and a timespan after the voluntary standard requirements became effective on most table saws (2010 to 2015). A proportion of table saws manufactured before the current voluntary standard became effective is expected to remain in use throughout this whole period. However, in more recent years, after the current voluntary standard became effective, an increasing proportion of table saws in use conforms to the current voluntary standard. Thus, if the voluntary standard was positively impacting the number or severity of injuries, there would be a steady decrease in the number of injuries or severity of injuries as the proportion of compliant table saws increased. However, the data reviewed by CPSC staff do not indicate that requirements in the voluntary standard have had any impact in reducing the number or severity of blade-contact injuries on table saws.

CPSC staff performed trend analyses for blade-contact injuries, as well as blade contact amputations, hospitalizations, and finger/hand injuries from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff concludes that there is no discernible change in the number of blade-contact injuries or types of injuries related to table saw blade contact from 2004 to 2015. CPSC staff also performed a trend analysis for the risk of blade-contact injury per 10,000 table saws and, likewise, concludes that there is no discernible change in the risk of injury associated with table saws from 2004 to 2015.

CPSC staff has also reviewed incidents reported through means other than the NEISS, which are entered in the CPSC's CPSRMS database. Of the 53 incidents identified in the CPSRMS database that were reported in the period from 2004 to 2015, 36 involved table saws with a traditional blade guard and 11 involved table saws with a modular blade guard. A review of the reports indicates that the incident scenarios for table saws with modular blade guards are similar to incidents involving table saws with traditional blade guards in terms of their use with and without blade guards and accidents occurring with and without unexpected stock movement from kickback of the material. In addition, the modular blade guard survey conducted by the CPSC in 2015 indicates that consumers frequently remove the modular blade guard to perform certain cuts, or do not use the modular blade guard at all or only some of the time.

Based on the trend analysis of blade-contact injuries and risk of blade-contact injuries dating from 2004 to 2015 conducted by staff, plus anecdotal evidence from CPSRMS that blade-contact injuries continue to occur on table saws that meet the current voluntary standards requirements, and results from the modular blade guard survey, the Commission does not see evidence that the voluntary standard requirements for riving knives or modular blade guards have reduced or mitigated blade-contact injuries on table saws. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the proposed performance requirement is necessary to reduce the unreasonable risk of blade-contact injuries associated with table saws.

2. Comment:

One commenter questioned the results of the 2007-2008 NEISS special study indicating that 68.7 percent of saws involved in incidents were fixed cabinet saws, 18.3 percent were semi-portable contractor saws, and 10.5 percent were portable bench saws. The commenter stated the results were inconsistent with other data in the survey regarding the table saws' characteristics.

Response:

CPSC staff conducted a re-analysis of the saw type and drive type responses provided by the injury victims in the 2007-2008 special study and published the results of the re-analysis in June 2014. CPSC staff stated that consideration should be given to staff's finding that the distribution of injuries for different types of saws cannot be based on how respondents answered questions about the type of saw.

However, as discussed in section IV of the preamble, the Commission is not relying on any data used in the 2007-2008 special study for the proposed rule.

See

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

3. Comment:

Several commenters stated that most table saw injuries are caused by kickback of the workpiece and the SawStop system does not prevent kickback. Others stated that riving knives will eliminate kickback and therefore reduce most injuries.

Response:

Based on CPSC staff's review of the data, the Commission believes that while the proposed rule would not eliminate kickback, the proposed performance requirement would reduce injuries that occur when kickback results in blade contact. CPSC staff's analysis of blade contact incidents indicates that there are many scenarios in which an operator's finger/hand can contact a table saw blade and there are certain cuts on table saws that require removal of the blade guard. Sudden movement of the workpiece from kickback can cause the operator to lose control of the workpiece and cause his/her hand to fall into or be “pulled” into the blade. However, hand/finger contact is also possible without kickback when the operator's hand gets too close to the blade while feeding the workpiece, or when the operator is distracted and inadvertently contacts the saw blade.

CPSC staff identified 53 incidents in the CPSRMS database that involve blade-contact injury on a table saw that occurred between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2015, and were reported to CPSC by March 1, 2016. For the majority of incidents, it is unknown whether unexpected workpiece movement was involved in the blade contact. However, of the incidents where information about the contribution of workpiece movement was known, most blade-contact injuries involved some type of unexpected workpiece movement. In addition, 11 of the 53 incidents involved table saws that meet the current voluntary standard requirements for a riving knife and modular blade guard. CPSC staff believes that the data show that blade-contact injuries continue to occur on table saws equipped with a riving knife and modular blade guard.

4. Comment:

One commenter claimed that the full NEISS sample overestimated the number of table saw blade-contact injuries in 2007-2008 based on estimates from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System—All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP). More specifically, the commenter argued that because the proportion of NEISS-AIP amputations (52%) treated in hospital emergency department(s) (ED) was statistically less than the proportion of ED amputations from the full NEISS estimate, NEISS-AIP is the appropriate and preferable sample to use when making national estimates of table saw ED injuries.

Response:

In the proposed rule, CPSC staff has reviewed updated incident data based on estimates from NEISS hospital

records for injuries related to product code 0841 (table or bench saws) for 2015. For the ANPR, staff's estimate of ED-treated blade-contact injuries for table saws, including the estimate of ED-treated amputations, was based on the weighted national estimate of actual blade-contact injuries reported through the full NEISS sample of hospitals during 2007-2008. NEISS is a stratified national probability sample of approximately 100 U.S. hospital EDs that allows the CPSC to make statistically valid national estimates of product-related injuries treated in U.S. hospital EDs. The NEISS-AIP is a statistical subsample of the full NEISS sample that is administered by the CDC and consists of approximately two-thirds of the NEISS hospitals in each stratum. This subsample collects information on injuries outside CPSC's jurisdiction, including occupational, motor vehicle, boating, and other injuries.

For table saw injuries (product code = 0841) in 2007-2008, approximately 62 percent of the weighted national estimate comes from the hospitals in the NEISS-AIP subsample. Although the commenter estimated that amputations from the NEISS-AIP subsample accounted for only about 52 percent of amputations from the total NEISS sample and reported that the difference was statistically significant, contrary to the commenter's assertions, the proportion of amputations coming from NEISS-AIP was not, in fact, statistically different than the overall national estimate of table saw injuries that came from the full NEISS sample.

E. Economic Issues

1. Comment:

One commenter stated that CPSC staff gives no basis for projecting injury estimates derived from NEISS onto other medically treated injuries to obtain a national injury rate for table saws. The commenter noted that other estimates of table saw-related injuries differ from CPSC's; using the NIOSH hospital sample, the average total number of work-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms for table saws was below the CPSC estimate. The commenter asserted that, to the extent that more serious injuries are likely to be treated in emergency rooms, the mix of injury severity based on the NEISS data overstates the severity mix once the injury total is multiplied by a set factor.

Response:

The CPSC staff uses the CPSC's ICM to project the number of medically treated injuries treated outside of hospital emergency departments (

e.g.,

non-ED office visits, including medical treatment in doctor's offices, emergency clinics, ambulatory care centers, etc.).

As described more fully in section XI of the preamble and TAB C of the staff briefing package, estimates were derived from empirical relationships between ED-treated injuries and injuries treated in other settings, based on National Health Interview Survey records (which provided detailed information on where the injuries were treated) stretching over 10 years.

Miller, Lawrence, Jensen, Waehrer, Spicer, Lestina, Cohen,

The Consumer Product Safety Commission's Revised Injury Cost Model

(Dec. 2000), available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/100269/costmodept1.PDF.

Since the table saw ANPR was published, the methodology for projecting the number of non-ED-treated injuries has been updated. It is described in:

Revised Incidence Estimates for Non-Fatal, Non-Hospitalized Consumer Product Injuries Treated Outside Emergency Departments,

Bruce Lawrence, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, MD, (April 2013).

The estimate of occupational table saw injuries treated in hospital EDs is not relevant for the table saw analysis. The CPSC excludes occupational injuries from the CPSC estimate of consumer injuries whenever possible. Moreover, the NIOSH estimates mentioned by the commenter were not based on a “NIOSH hospital sample.” Rather they were based on the NEISS-AIP, a subsample of NEISS hospitals administered by the CDC. The AIP subsample covers a much broader range of injuries,

i.e.

occupational, motor vehicle, boating and other injuries, in addition to injuries that are consumer product related, so the number of records collected is much higher for the AIP subsample. Thus, the results for the CPSC estimate of consumer injuries and the NIOSH estimate of occupational injuries are not inconsistent.

Finally, the mix of injury severities from the NEISS ED injury sample was not simply projected onto the estimate of injuries treated outside of hospital EDs. Rather, the estimates were based on the characteristics of injuries and victims treated outside of hospital EDs. For example, based on information from the National Health Interview Survey, a 40-year-old woman is almost twice as likely to be treated in a doctor's office (or some other non-ED settings) with a fractured clavicle than would a 10-year-old boy.

Consequently, for this example, the ICM would estimate more injuries treated outside the emergency room for 40-year-old women and fewer injuries treated outside of hospital EDs for 10-year-old boys. The more serious and life threatening injuries are more likely to be treated in hospital emergency rooms, and this is reflected in the CPSC injury estimates.

Miller et al., 2000,

supra

note 57, Table 6.

2. Comment:

Two commenters focused on several aspects of the economic value of injury risks used by the CPSC in its 2011 analysis. One commenter suggested that the CPSC did not provide any supporting data for any of the four cost components of the ICM: Medical treatment, lost time from work, product liability costs, and pain and suffering. The commenter suggested that counting product liability costs as well as pain and suffering may lead to double counting. Furthermore, the commenter asserted that the appropriate method for assessing the benefits from public programs is society's willingness to pay to avert small risks, an

ex ante

amount, as opposed to a retrospective piecemeal approach adopted by the CPSC. Finally, this commenter noted that even if jury awards for pain and suffering corresponded to willingness to pay values, there is no justification for applying these rates to all table saw injuries. Another commenter stated that the pain and suffering portion of the ICM injury cost estimates are overstated and inappropriate.

Response:

The methodology and data supporting the various components in the ICM are described in section XI of the preamble and in TAB C of the staff briefing package. The societal costs of blade-contact injuries represent the pool from which the benefits of a blade contact rule are derived. The societal costs of these injuries are quantified with the ICM. The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS, and, in addition to providing estimates of the societal costs of injuries reported through NEISS, it also estimates the costs of medically treated injuries that are treated outside of hospital EDs. The major aggregated societal cost components provided by the ICM include medical costs, work losses, and the intangible costs associated with lost quality of life or pain and suffering. In recent years, CPSC staff has excluded the product liability costs from ICM cost estimates. Although this component was intended to represent the costs of administering the product liability system in the United States, there was the possibility of some double counting, as suggested by the commenter. Accordingly, product liability costs administration costs are not included in the proposed rule.

The commenter also promotes the concept of willingness-to-pay over the method used by CPSC staff to estimate the likely benefits of regulation. CPSC does use willingness-to-pay estimates in valuing fatal injuries. However, such estimates do not generally exist for

nonfatal injuries, such as blade-contact injuries on table saws.

3. Comment:

One commenter asserted that the injury data used by CPSC's staff to estimate societal costs in its 2011 analysis were based on extrapolations that were imprecise and resulted in greatly overstated societal costs. The commenter based this statement on two factors. First, the commenter asserted that injury costs should be limited to blade-contact injuries reported through hospital emergency rooms. Second, because only about 11 percent of ED-treated injuries resulted in hospitalization, the commenter suggested that inclusion of the ED-treated and released injuries greatly exaggerated the CPSC estimate of societal costs.

Response:

CPSC staff uses the ICM to project the number of medically treated injuries treated outside of hospital emergency departments, and the costs of those injuries. Estimates were derived from empirical relationships between ED-treated injuries and injuries treated in other settings, and based on National Health Interview Survey records (which provided detailed information on where the injuries were treated) stretching over 10 years.

Cost estimates for the injuries treated outside of hospital emergency departments are generally less than the costs of injuries initially treated in emergency rooms. To exclude injuries treated outside of hospital emergency departments would severely underestimate the types and costs of injuries associated with table saw use.

Miller

et al.,

2000,

supra

note 57.

Moreover, while it is true that costs associated with injuries that were treated and released from emergency departments are substantially less than hospitalized injuries, the costs associated with treated and released injuries can still be substantial. To exclude the treated and released injuries, which typically account for about 90 percent to 95 percent of table saw injuries presenting at hospital EDs, would substantially underestimate the cost of table saw injuries.

4. Comment:

One commenter asserted that the methodology CPSC uses to extrapolate from ED-treated injuries to all medically treated injuries does not acknowledge that table saw injuries are likely to be more serious, and thus, more likely to require treatment in a hospital ED, than injuries involving fingers, wrists, hands, and lower arms that are associated with other consumer products. Accordingly, the commenter contended that the ICM overstates the annual number of blade-contact injuries treated during non-ED office visits. The commenter suggested that this purported error would be corrected by reducing CPSC's estimate of non-ED office visits (based on ratios involving rates of hospitalization). The commenter concluded that there were about 42,800 medically attended blade-contact injuries involving table saws annually during 2007-2008, about 36 percent less than CPSC's estimate of 67,300.

Response:

CPSC staff's review of 2015 data, based on estimates from NEISS and the CPSC's ICM, shows that the draft proposed rule would address an estimated 54,800 medically treated blade-contact injuries annually. As described in more detail in section XI of the preamble, and TAB C of the staff briefing package, the ICM uses empirically derived relationships between ED-treated injuries and injuries treated in other settings to estimate the number of injuries treated outside of hospital EDs. The methodology does not use a single 1 to 1 extrapolation factor, as suggested by the commenter. Nor does it estimate non-ED table saw blade-contact injuries by assuming “that the average injury severity (and thus the likelihood of seeking ED treatment) is comparable to that for other types of products,” as suggested by the commenter. Rather, based on national survey data from the National Health Interview Survey, the ICM uses information on the age, sex, diagnosis (

e.g.,

fracture, amputation), body part, and injury disposition to estimate injuries treated in non-ED settings. For example, according to national survey data (from the National Health Interview Survey), a 40-year-old woman is almost twice as likely to go to a doctor's office, an emergency clinic, or some other non-ED office setting with a fractured clavicle as a 10-year-old boy. Consequently, as suggested by this example, the ICM estimates more injuries treated outside the emergency room for certain combinations of injury and victim characteristics. For other types of injuries

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.