## Stevenson. Todd From: Adler, Robert 

### Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 5:31 PM 

### To: emailform@cpsc.gov 

### Cc: Fong-Swamidoss, Jana; Levine, Jason; Stevenson, Todd 

### Subject: RE: Message from Email Form



### Mr. Lifer Thanks foryourcomment on ourtable saw ANPR. I have passed iton to ourstaff. Best wishes. Bob 

### From: emailform@cpsc.qov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:28 PM 

### To: Adler, Robert 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 10/07/2011 21:27:20 Name = John Lifer Organization/Affiliation 

### = none Daytime Phone = 6015405575 E-mail address=jliferir@yahoo.com Message = Dear Commissioner Adler, I'd like to comment on the proposed rule on table saw safety devices. As a 53 yr old individual who utilizesvarious tablesaws and woodworking equipment in both private hobby settings and prior in production environment, I believe that I am qualified to offer a perspective from a users standpoint. I currently own both a 2007 Cabinet table sawwith safety devices from that era and a 1940's cabinet saw with no oem device. Itypically utilize a splitter on both saws. The 2007 saw's overhead guard is used for approximately 25% ofthe saw's use. Itworks, but can get in the way ofuse. I dothinkthere are betterdevices, and I build overhead guard for myvintage saw. Ithink that governmentshould mandate guards, but should leave device to the OEM's decision on how to undertakethe device's design and manufacture. One ofthe more outlandish courtdecisions concerning table saw injuries was a cheap portable saw that had the guard removed and was used in an unsafe manner. I do believe the use ofthis type ofdevice should entail training on what is acceptable use, and the removing ofsaid guard should relieve the oEM from any liability in my opinion. Ithink that mandating the use ofthe one flesh sensing devise currently being used is wrong. In fact mandating this type ofdevice is also wrong. Yes, injuries cost money and device could prevent injuries, but mandating is not the wayto go. Allowing the free marketto go forward is theway. Ifan indivudual orother group/company orentity wishes to buy this technology, it is available. Please don'tforce more cost and regulation on us. Thank you, John Lifer

1

### Stevenson, Todd From: Adler, Robert 

### Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 5:30 PM To: Stevenson, Todd 

### Subject: FW: Message from Email Form Hi, Todd I pass this on to you. Bob 

### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:28 PM 

### To: Adler, Robert 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 10/07/2011 21:27:20 Name = John Lifer Organization/Affiliation = none Daytime Phone = 6015405575 E-mail address=jliferjr@yahoo.com Message = DearCommissionerAdler, I'd like to comment on the proposed rule on table sawsafety devices. As a 53 yr old individual who utilizes various tablesaws and woodworking equipment in both private hobby settings and prior in production environment. I believe that I am qualified to offera perspective from a users standpoint. I currently own both a 2007 Cabinettable saw with safety devices from that era and a 1940's cabinet sawwith no oem device. I typically utilize a splitter on both saws. The 2007 saw's overhead guard is used for approximately 25% ofthe saw's use. 

### It works, but can get in the way of use. I dothink there are betterdevices, and I build overhead guard for myvintage saw. I think that government should mandate guards, but should leave deviceto the OEM's decision on howto undertake the device's design and manufacture. One ofthe more outlandish court decisions concerning table saw injuries was a cheap portable saw that had the guard removed and was used in an unsafe manner. I do believe the use ofthis type ofdevice should entail training on what is acceptable use, and the removing ofsaid guard should relieve the oEM from any liability in my opinion. I think that mandating the use ofthe oneflesh senSing devise currently being used is wrong. In fact mandating this type ofdevice is also wrong. Yes, injuries cost money and device could prevent injuries, but mandating is not the way to go. Allowing the free marketto go forward is theway. Ifan indivudual or othergroup/company or entity wishes to buy this technology, it is available. Please don't force more cost and regulation on us. Thankyou, John Lifer

### Stevenson, Todd From: Center, Information 

### Sent: Friday, October 07,2011 10:44 AM 

### To: Stevenson, Todd 

### Cc: Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nyche"e 

### Subject: FW: Message from Email Form Todd, Can you please process as a comment? Thank you, TiffanyWorthy

From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 7:14

### AM 

### To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 10/07/2011 07:13:52 Name = RobertAnderson Organization/Affiliation = Pronlem solver Daytime Phone = 352-259-8494 E-mail address=randerson29@comcast.net Message = 

### I saw where you are concerned about the numberoffingers that are lostto power saws. 3 solutions for you. #1. require the manufactureror seller ofany sawto have a trained operator stand by whenever anyone is going to use a saw... (pretty expensive and maybe impractical) but 2 and 3 are cheap and foolproof. #2. Make a" blades incapable of cutting anything harderthan butter. No LOST Fingers. #3 All saws would comewith a motorthat makes a whirring sound but actually doesn'tturn the blade. NO Lost Fingers. Voila! let me know ifyou need any other problems solved. It's what I do.

1

### Stevenson, Todd From: Fred West [proergo@gmail.com] 

### Sent: Thursday, October06,2011 5:14 PM 

### To: Stevenson, Todd 

### Subject: Table Saw safety 

## Mr. Stevenson, I could not find any other way to address this issue on table saw safety except for this email to you. My name is Fred West and I am awoodworker/furniture builder. I am extremely troubled by this entire process and wish that itwere a more straight forward process that not only allowed some one like me to comment but also made it easy to do so. From what I have read itappears thatyou are mostly only receiving two side ofthis argument. Obviouslyyou have heard quite a bit from Stephen Gass ofSawStop as well as from the manufacturers ofthe othertable saws. The side that appears to be weak is mine as a user and woodworker. Alot ofthis started with the case ofCarlos Osorio who hurt himself on the jobsite using his benchtop table saw. Before we go any further, lets make acouple of points, number one was that Mr. Osorio could not help but hurt himself using the saw in the mannerthat he did. He followed virtually none of the suggestions given with every saw. Secondly SawStop does not make asaw ofthe type used by Mr. Osorio so they could not have helped him. Thirdly according to SawStop's own figures people that use their saws start letting their fingers get much closerthen they ever should which is going to come backto bite them when they use someone elses saw orthe technology fails. Finally kickback happens far more than contact with the blade and the SawStop will not prevent this. I own two saws. One is acontractor saw and the other is acabinet saw with aslider on it. IfI use my cabinet saw with the slider for both my rip and crosscuts, I am FAR safer then if I had aSawStop as my fingers can NEVER get near the blade and I cannot experience kickback. However, I am also far safer on my contractor saw as well because I practice good technique. When feeding sn1allish pieces through in a rip cut, I stand to the left ofthe blade, I use a push stick so that my fingers do not get close and I use feather boards to keep my piece tight on the table and to the fence. Mr. Stevenson, you all are looking to help me but in realityyou will hurt me. First, I would be forced to pay more for my saw, secondly I am likely to fall into bad habits, thirdly should the the braking technology fire, I will not have use ofthat saw until I can have another brake installed at again an higher cost and finally my abilityto choose between different saw makers will diminish as some stop making saws rather than taking on the additional cost ofadding the SawStop technology. Thank you and the entire committee for looking out for my saftey in so many ways. However sometimes things are not quite as clean cut as Mr. Gass makes them and should he succeed in having this technology mandated he will have avirtual monopoly until other makers can add itto their lines. Enforced training and/or even testing oftable saw users would be afar better solution. Thank you very much,

1

## Fred West Take care, Fred

2

### Stevenson, Todd From: Center, Information 

### Sent: Tuesday, October 04,2011 11 :06 AM 

### To: Stevenson, Todd 

### Cc: Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle 

### Subject: FW: Message from Email Form

Mr. Stevenson, Can you please process as a comment? Thankyou, Tiffany Worthy

From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent:Tuesday, October 

### 04, 2011 7:21 AM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 10/04/2011 07:19:39 Name = gregory crowell Organization/Affiliation = none Daytime Phone = 607 547-2802 E-mail address=hfcrowell@gmail.com Message = I tried to use the forum on your website but it would not acceptanything. I want to give my opinion on tablesaw safety, which I see that you are studying. I am a carpenterwho has been using a tablesaw almost daily for overtwenty years. I still have all ofmy 'fingers and my eyes are intact. I use safety glasses and pushstickswith feather boards. People who use powertools should realise thatthere is risk inherent in their use. I resent the fact that you may mandate sawstop technology, thereby greatly increasing the cost ofall tablesaws, because some users are careless, oreven stupid enough to drink alchohol or use drugs before operating a tablesaw. This is a perfect example ofa nanny state, and ofgovernment grown too big. I have saw blades worth over $100 each. Ifthe sawstop misfires are you orthe saw makergoing to replace my blades after they are ruined? The real problem is thatthere are too many lawyers and too many idiots unwilling to accept responsibility fortheir own actions. I intend to write my congressman and my senators to haltthis insanity. Safety should involve some personal responsibility.

1

## Stevenson, Todd From: Center, Information 

### Sent: Monday, September 26,2011 11:47 AM 

### To: OS
- Office ofthe Secretary 

### Cc: Wolfson, Scott; Filip. Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle 

### Subject: FW: Message from Email Form Todd, Please note the comments below. Thankyou, Michael June


### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Saturday, September 

### 24, 2011 3:21 PM 

### To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 09/24/2011 15:20:05 Name = Dr. Richard J. Stein Organization/Affiliation = Daytime Phone = 203-853-9500 E-mail address=cooke@snet.net Message = RE: pending decision on circular table saws. Regardless ofthe arguments presented aboutwhetherthe SawStop orsimilar device will either be accepted by manufacturers, orthe public, the fact remains thatthe patentowner, iftruly interested in prevention ofthe thousands of accidents, would have either given the rights to the public, orwould have negotiated more moderate license fees from tool manufacturers, ratherthan trying to become wealthy by forcing the governmentto become a business partner. As a scientist, I can say with plenty ofconfidence, thatthe "invention" is pretty close to obvious in all of its features, and patent protection was extended purelyto enable the sale ofthe invention, contrary to the basic intent ofprotecting a manufacturer. It was a mistake. Unfortunately, the extensive patent coverage precludes developmentofany similar, effective device. In the presentembodiment, the need for kickback prevention is still there, and the high cost ofeach true or false triggering is a real incentive for users to disable the feature, as they mostly disable guardstoday. Iflegislation is passed, the largest segment ofthe consumer saw marketwill become unserved, as manufacturers wisely exit, and consumers will resort to even more dangerous options, such as adapting portable (handheld) saws for stationary use. My advice is to renderthe patents null and void as a matter ofpublic safety before legislating what amounts to a monopoly.

1

### Stevenson. Todd From: Center, Information Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 3:09 PM To: CPSC-OS, Subject: Commentaboutflesh sensing abilities added to table saws
Please see comment below


### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 9:23 AM 

### To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 06/22/2011 09:22:21 Name = Thomas McGill Organization/Affiliation = None Daytime Phone = 678-644-2445 E-mail address=hehearsthemountains@yahoo.com Message = This message is in response tothe potential for regulation thatwould require table saw manufacturers to incorporate flesh sensing technology into their products. As an avid woodworker, I would recommend thatthis technology not be required. There are several drawbacks associated with the technology that affecta table saws productivity, longterm operating cost, and overall capability

. There is a potential risk associated with using anytype ofpowertool improperly, and consumers should retain the ability to choose whetherto acceptthat risk. Powertool users have a responsibility to remain alert and to pay attention to the tools they are using. Iworry thatthe flesh sensing technologies will cause novice usersto becometoo complacent in the shop, and there are still plenty ofothertools that have the potential to cause serious, and sometimesfatal, injuries. I dofavor education regarding propertool use and the potential for injury, aswell asthe inclusion of non-electronicsafety features such as riving knives and improved blade guards. I am interested in providing constructive feedback, and you are welcometo contact meat hehearsthemountains@yahoo.com

1

## Stevenson, Todd From: 

### Sent: 

### To: Cc: 

### Subject: Todd, For your review Thanks Maureen Center, Information Monday, June 20, 2011 4:28 PM OS
- Office ofthe Secretary Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle FW: Message from Email Form

From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Monday, June 20, 20111:40 

### PM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 06/20/2011 13:39:53 Name =victor hotho Organization/Affiliation = woodworker Daytime Phone = E-mail address=vallen@bway.net Message = Yourcurrent proposal in regulating Woodworking Table Saws is falsely weighed by SawStop Inc. All ofthe testimony given to date, have been from users who have removed the standard safety features ofthe factory equipment. This is likened to any other modified device- such as a car, chainsaw, Lead-Acid batteries, and anything which contains glass- all ofwhich can be mis-used and cause injury. THis does not mean the CPSC should waste taxpayer dollars in regulating the use of"glass", pencils, pocket knives, etc. Please. Stop wasting our money. Manufacturers already put 30 stickers on mytable saw and covers SAFETYfor about 7 pages in the front ofthe operators manual. You will never be able to regulate "common sense". Thanks.-victor1

## Stevenson, Todd From: Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Todd, For your review Thanks Maureen Center, Information Monday, June 20, 2011 1:36 PM OS
- Office ofthe Secretary Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle FW: Message from Email Form



### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Saturday, June 

### 18, 2011 8:16 PM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 

### 06/18/2011 20: 15:23 Name = HerbWofford Organizationl Affiliation = Daytime Phone = 803-786-1415 E-mail address=herbwofford@gmail.com Message = In your investigation ofthe safeness ofa table saw, I askthat you also look atwho are what caused the injury. My guessyou will find that 99.9% are caused by carelessness and improper use and notthe product. This was evident in the much publicized lawsuit against Ryobi. I understand the need to makethings as safe as possible, there also must be some responsibility by the operator. Please leave it up to the company to determine what they will orwill not put on the saw. Letthe consumer make the choice. Overthe years I have several minor injuries from powertools and in all instances, itwas because ofmy error and not the product. Thankyou, Herb

1

### Stevenson,Todd From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: 

### Subject: Todd, Foryour review. Thanks Maureen Center, Information Friday, June 17,2011 11:09 AM OS
- Office ofthe Secretary Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle FW: Message from Email Form

From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent:Thursday, June 

### 16, 2011 9:16 PM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 06/16/2011 21:16:17 Name = David Goodnuff Organization/Affiliation = N/A Daytime Phone = N/A E-mail address=goodnuff@gmail.com Message =Table Saw safety requirements. There are table saw safety requirements currently being drafted. Frankly Iam concerned atthe direction this mightgo. Steve Gass has a monopoly on almost all effective new safety measures through intelligent patent application. This is greatfor a free market, but a governmentenforced monopoly has NO business in the US. In no way should the CPSC in ANY way mandate a patented technology. Thankyou.

1

### Stevenson, Todd From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject: Todd, For your review. Thanks Maureen Center, Information Friday, June 17, 2011 8:40 AM OS
- Office ofthe Secretary Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle FW: Message from Email Form

From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Thursday, June 

### 16, 2011 8:26 AM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 06/16/2011 08:25:41 Name = CHARLES MORRIS Organization/Affiliation = NORTHWEST INDIANAWOODWORKERSASSN. Daytime Phone = 219-548-2469 E-mail address=morriswoowork@yahoo.com Message = PLEASE EXAMINETHE LIMITATIONS TOTHE SAW STOP BEFORE PASSING LEGISLATION ON IT. TO CUTWETWOOD IT MUST BE TURNED OFF AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SINCE MOST OF US DO CUTWETWOOD WOULD IT BE TURNED BACK ON?? ALSO THE SUPPOSED $100 ADD ON MAKES ME IFNDERWHY SAW STOP COSTS $3000WHEN A COMPARABLE SAWCAN BE BOUGHT FOR $1800 AND MOSTWOODWORKERS SPEND UNDER $1000 FOR THEIR SAWS

.. ALSO I HAVE AN $89 SAW FOR JOB HOPPING, IF I COULD NOT HAVE IT, IT WOULD BE BACKTO THE OLD SKIL SAW, AND THE NUMBER OF INJURIES WOULD GO UP. DON'T PRICE US OFF THE MARKET. IF MR. GOSSWAS SERIOUS HE WOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE AS AN AFTER MARKET ADD ON TOALL SAWS.

1

## Stevenson, Todd From: Center, Information 

### Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:13 AM To: OS
- Office ofthe Secretary 

### Cc: Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle 

### Subject: FW: Messagefrom Email Form Todd, Please review comments below. Thanks Maureen


### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent:Thursday, June 

### 16, 201112:25 AM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 

### 06/16/2011 00:24:31 Name = Russell Johnson Organizationl Affiliation = Daytime Phone = 5123503729 E-mail address=russ@johnsonville.net Message = Ithink regulating the use of"Saw Stop" as a regulated standard will greatly increase the cost oftablesaws. Inez Tenenbaum stated" I personallywitnessed the impactoftheir injuries. And their livelihoods have been deeply affected by the injuries thatthey suffered, and these injuries are preventable and there are solutions." This is true but in many ifnotall ofthe cases proper usage would have prevented the injuries. The use of"Saw Stop" technologywill make users oftable saws act more carelessly. Additionally it does nothing to prevent kick back a very common source oftable saw injuries. This move will only serve to impactthe consumerwith higher costs while unfairly enriching one company "Saw Stop". I can appreciate Ms. Tenenbaum's interest in "Saw Stop" as it is a very interesting technology but should not be mandated as a standard.

1

### 10615 12thAvenue Southwest Seattle Washington 98146 June 16, 2011 Mrs. InezTenenbaum Chairwoman, Consumer Product Safety Commission 4330 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dear Mrs.Tenenbaum, First ofall let me start off bythankingyou fortaking interest in tryingto make table saws safer, ! 

### kno\lvthis is a problem around the whole countrythat nota lotofpeople know about, this concerns me because thousands of people are getting injured everyyear. ilA recent study by a woodworking website found in a study of262 woodworking accidents that64% ofthem were duetotable saws. Ofthese table saw accidents, 68% occurred dueto physical contact with the spinning blade. Woodworking is a popular hobby, with table saws being owned and used by an estimated 6 millionto 10 million people in the United States". According to 

### L.D. Ryan and John 

### L. Ryan On an average dayten people throughoutthe whole country have atable saw injury, whether it'sfrom cutting offyour fingerto cutting offhalfofyour arm, they have these injuries because they don't have the technology on theirtable saws to make itsafer orthey are not being safe, Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using atable saw. Technology has long been available to preventthese injuriesfrom happening. The powertool industry must accepttheir responsibility tothe consumer. I'm also aware thatyou and your commission are considering whether or notto make this technology required for all newtable saws and Isay yes all newtable saws should be required to have the Saw Stop Technology, notjustto make them safer but also to decrease the amountof injuries each year because the problem is enormous and it'sgettingworse, each year40,000 Americans end up in Emergency rooms and 4,000 out ofthe 40,000 Americans suffer amputation. i 

### know thatyou have the powerto make this change, so 

### lhat't> why I'm counting on you quire thatall newtable saws should have the Saw StopTechnology. Si c rely,

erry Hernandez 9th 

### grade student, Health Services and Human Services High School

## U.S ConsumerProducts SafetyCommission 4330EastWestHighway Bethesda,MD. 20814

RE: SawStop Wednesday,June 15, 2011 Mrs. Tannenbaum: Apopularplace for menat SeniorCommunities is the woodshop. A goodplacetotry SawStop for ayearortwo. I canattestthatthetable-saw isveryunforgiving.

I 

## RegardS4Ed

## G. EdGeisler 2001 HarrisburgPike Lancaster, PA. 17601

..,.J 

### --'" -+. 

# o· It) 0 

### -.. 

# "

......**o~** 

## -w

(0 (') 

## .., CD



### ...... OJ --c '< ,...."" 

## e


# - ;0 

### eoc

### n c:: 

### z CD N 

### < (l) N 

### a.. (") 

## U



# - en (') U1 W -0

## Stevenson, Todd From: Center, Information 

### Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:05 PM To: OS
- Office ofthe Secretary 

### Cc: Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle 

### Subject: FW: Messagefrom Email Form Todd, Please review comments below. Thanks Maureen


### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent: Tuesday, June 

### 14, 20111:46 PM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 

### 06/14/2011 13:41:04 Name = Lonnie Milligan Organization/Affiliation = hobbyistwoodoworker Daytime Phone = 678-485-4231 E-mail address=lonniemilliganiv@gmail.com Message = To Chairman Tenenbaum regarding table saw safety, I urge you to refrain from mandating Saw Stop technology in table saws. In the overwhelming majority oftable saw accidents a much simplerand less expensive precaution is better. A "push stick" guides the workpiece through the cutwhile keeping fingers away from the blade in the first place. This is a basic safety precaution and costs less than $1. This simple device could be mandated to be included with each saw purchase to greater effectthan including Saw Stoptype technology. Combined with education on the proper use ofa table sawcould reduce more types of injuries more effectively and with less expense (Saw Stop does notstop dangerous kick back injuries). Significantly, itseems that among table saw users only Mr. Stephen Gass of Saw Stop is interested in having Saw Stop be mandatory. Obviously he stands to make a considerable fortune through a government induced monopoly. His technology is readily available to any userwho wants itso there is no need to mandate itfor a hobbyistwoodworker. He makes a wonderful product butthere is no reason to make it's adoption mandatory. Thank you foryourtime, and again, please do not mandate Saw Stop technology in newtable saws. Lonnie Milligan Norcross, GA 678-485-4231

1

### Stevenson, Todd From: Center, Information 

### Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:47AM To: OS
- Office ofthe Secretary 

### Cc: Wolfson, Scott; Filip, Alexander; Fleming, Nychelle 

### Subject: FW: Message from Email Form Todd, Please note the information below as comments. The sender is making recommendations, but did not have a specific question. Thankyou, Michael June


### From: emailform@cpsc.gov [mailto:emailform@cpsc.gov] 

### Sent:Tuesday, June 

### 14, 2011 3:53 AM To: Center, Information 

### Subject: Message from Email Form 06/14/2011 03:52:59 Name =Walter L Johnson Organization/Affiliation = Daytime Phone = 503-544-1951 E-mail address=SeniorMoment@comcast.net Message = I know that SawStop in Tualatin, ORm is trying to convince CPSC to require its wonderful technology that stops saws and retracts the blade if it contacts flesh. This would be a perfect opportunity to negotiate with SawStop to mandate theirtechnology in return but only in return for a set and low price for licensing the technology. The goal is ideal ofpreventing table saws from cutting fingers, etc., which nearly happened to me once even though I am an infrequent carpenter. One thing the PowerTool Institute is overlooking in its position is that consumers like me either never buy a table sawout ofsafety concern or put the purchase decision offfor more than a decade as I did. The marketfortable saws would grow a lot ifitwere really safe to use them without a substantial price increase

.. I think though that requiring the saw blade to drop back into the table may be overkill ifthat aspect adds a lot more cost. I do notthink using infrared sensor(s) to activate te already built in sudden stop feature oftable saws would add much cost, but I would be concerned with extra mechanical maintenance on a table sawthat drops into the table suddenly In addition, total withdrawal ofthe blade risks the woodwork slipping offthe table and causing a fall injury. Alternatively, Iwould suggest approving a different requirementthat could be fulfilled using infrared sensors nearthe saw blade, because the PowerTool Institute is right that SawStop would derive too much benefitfrom its technology being mandatory. I believe ifan infrared sensor(s) were used that the saw could merely be automatically stopped ifa warm object came within three inches ofthe saw blade. It is a nice thoughtto drop the saw blade down into the table, but it is not nearly as important as stopping the saw.

1