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 for your comment on our table saw ANPR. I have passed it on to our staff. 

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 utilizes various 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 saw with safety devices from that era and a 1940's cabinet saw with no oem device. I typically utilize a 

splitter on both saws. The 2007 saw's overhead guard is used for approximately 25% of the saw's use. It works, but can 

get in the way of use. I do think there are better devices, and I build overhead guard for my vintage saw. I think that 

government should mandate guards, but should leave device to the OEM's decision on how to undertake the device's 

design and manufacture. One of the 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 of this type of device should 

entail training on what is acceptable use, and the removing of said guard should relieve the oEM from any liability in my 

opinion. I think that mandating the use of the one flesh sensing devise currently being used is wrong. In fact mandating 

this type of device is also wrong. 

Yes, injuries cost money and device could prevent injuries, but mandating is not the way to go. Allowing the free market to 

go forward is the way. If an indivudual or other group/company or entity wishes to buy this technology, it is available. 

Please don't force 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 = Dear Commissioner Adler, I'd like to comment on the proposed rule on table saw safety 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 offer a perspective from a users standpoint. I currently own both a 

2007 Cabinet table saw with safety devices from that era and a 1940's cabinet saw with no oem device. I typically utilize a 

splitter on both saws. The 2007 saw's overhead guard is used for approximately 25% of the saw's use. It works, but can 

get in the way of use. I do think there are better devices, and I build overhead guard for my vintage saw. I think that 

government should mandate guards, but should leave device to the OEM's decision on how to undertake the device's 

design and manufacture. One of the 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 of this type of device should 

entail training on what is acceptable use, and the removing of said guard should relieve the oEM from any liability in my 

opinion. I think that mandating the use of the one flesh senSing devise currently being used is wrong. In fact mandating 

this type of device is also wrong. 

Yes, injuries cost money and device could prevent injuries, but mandating is not the way to go. Allowing the free market to 

go forward is the way. If an indivudual or other group/company or entity wishes to buy this technology, it is available. 

Please don't force more cost and regulation on us. Thank you, 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, 


Tiffany Worthy 


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 = Robert Anderson 

Organization/Affiliation = Pronlem solver 

Daytime Phone = 352-259-8494 

E-mail address=randerson29@comcast.net 

Message = I saw where you are concerned about the number of fingers that are lost to power saws. 3 solutions for you. 

#1. require the manufacturer or seller of any saw to 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 harder than butter. No LOST Fingers. #3 All saws would come with a motor that makes a whirring sound 

but actually doesn't turn the blade. NO Lost Fingers. Voila! let me know if you need any other problems solved. It's what I 

do. 

1 
Stevenson, Todd 

From: Fred West [proergo@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, October 06,2011 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 a woodworker/furniture builder. I am extremely troubled by this 

entire process and wish that it were 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 it appears that you are mostly only receiving two side of this argument. 

Obviously you have heard quite a bit from Stephen Gass of SawStop as well as from the 

manufacturers of the other table saws. The side that appears to be weak is mine as a user and 

woodworker. 

A lot of this started with the case of Carlos Osorio who hurt himself on the jobsite using his benchtop 

table saw. Before we go any further, lets make a couple of points, number one was that Mr. Osorio 

could not help but hurt himself using the saw in the manner that he did. He followed virtually none of 

the suggestions given with every saw. Secondly SawStop does not make a saw of the 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 closer then they ever should which is going to 

come back to bite them when they use someone elses saw or the 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 a contractor saw and the other is a cabinet saw with a slider on it. If I use 

my cabinet saw with the slider for both my rip and crosscuts, I am FAR safer then if I had a SawStop 

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 of the 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 reality you 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 of that saw until I can have another brake installed at again an 

higher cost and finally my ability to choose between different saw makers will diminish as some stop 

making saws rather than taking on the additional cost of adding 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 a virtual monopoly until other makers can add it to 

their lines. Enforced training and/or even testing of table saw users would be a far 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? 


Thank you, 


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 accept anything. I want to give my opinion on tablesaw 

safety, which I see that you are studying. I am a carpenter who has been using a tablesaw almost daily for over twenty 

years. I still have all of my 'fingers and my eyes are intact. I use safety glasses and pushsticks with feather boards. People 

who use power tools should realise that there is risk inherent in their use. I resent the fact that you may mandate sawstop 

technology, thereby greatly increasing the cost of all tablesaws, because some users are careless, or even stupid enough 

to drink alchohol or use drugs before operating a tablesaw. This is a perfect example of a nanny state, and of government 

grown too big. I have saw blades worth over $100 each. If the sawstop misfires are you or the saw maker going to replace 

my blades after they are ruined? The real problem is that there are too many lawyers and too many idiots unwilling to 

accept responsibility for their own actions. I intend to write my congressman and my senators to halt this insanity. Safety 

should involve some personal responsibility. 

1 
Stevenson, Todd 

From: Center, Information 

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

To: OS - Office of the Secretary 

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

Subject: FW: Message from Email Form 

Todd, 

Please note the comments below. 

Thank you, 

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 of the arguments presented about whether the SawStop or similar device will either be accepted by 

manufacturers, or the public, the fact remains that the patent owner, if truly interested in prevention of the thousands of 

accidents, would have either given the rights to the public, or would have negotiated more moderate license fees from tool 

manufacturers, rather than trying to become wealthy by forcing the government to become a business partner. 

As a scientist, I can say with plenty of confidence, that the "invention" is pretty close to obvious in all of its features, and 

patent protection was extended purely to enable the sale of the invention, contrary to the basic intent of protecting a 

manufacturer. It was a mistake. Unfortunately, the extensive patent coverage precludes development of any similar, 

effective device. In the present embodiment, the need for kickback prevention is still there, and the high cost of each true 

or false triggering is a real incentive for users to disable the feature, as they mostly disable guards today. If legislation is 

passed, the largest segment of the consumer saw market will 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 render the patents null and void as a matter of public 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: Comment about flesh 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 to the potential for regulation that would require table saw manufacturers to 

incorporate flesh sensing technology into their products. As an avid woodworker, I would recommend that this technology 

not be required. There are several drawbacks associated with the technology that affect a table saws productivity, longterm operating cost, and overall capability . 

There is a potential risk associated with using any type of power tool improperly, and consumers should retain the ability 

to choose whether to accept that risk. Power tool users have a responsibility to remain alert and to pay attention to the 

tools they are using. I worry that the flesh sensing technologies will cause novice users to become too complacent in the 

shop, and there are still plenty of other tools that have the potential to cause serious, and sometimes fatal, injuries. 

I do favor education regarding proper tool use and the potential for injury, as well as the inclusion of non-electronic safety 

features such as riving knives and improved blade guards. 

I am interested in providing constructive feedback, and you are welcome to contact me at 

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 of the 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 = Your current proposal in regulating Woodworking Table Saws is falsely weighed by SawStop Inc. All of the 

testimony given to date, have been from users who have removed the standard safety features of the factory equipment. 

This is likened to any other modified device- such as a car, chainsaw, Lead-Acid batteries, and anything which contains 

glass- all of which 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 my table saw and covers SAFETY for about 7 

pages in the front of the 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 of the 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 = Herb Wofford 

Organizationl Affiliation = 

Daytime Phone = 803-786-1415 

E-mail address=herbwofford@gmail.com 

Message = In your investigation of the safeness of a table saw, I ask that you also look at who are what caused the injury. 

My guess you will find that 99.9% are caused by carelessness and improper use and not the product. This was evident in 

the much publicized lawsuit against Ryobi. I understand the need to make things 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 or will not put on the 

saw. Let the consumer make the choice. 

Over the years I have several minor injuries from power tools and in all instances, it was because of my error and not the 

product. 

Thank you, 

Herb 

1 
Stevenson, Todd 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Todd, 

For your review. 

Thanks 

Maureen 

Center, Information 

Friday, June 17,2011 11 :09 AM 

OS - Office of the 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 I am 

concerned at the direction this might go. Steve Gass has a monopoly on almost all effective new safety measures through 

intelligent patent application. This is great for a free market, but a government enforced monopoly has NO business in the 

US. In no way should the CPSC in ANY way mandate a patented technology. Thank you. 

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 of the 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 INDIANA WOODWORKERS ASSN. 

Daytime Phone = 219-548-2469 

E-mail address=morriswoowork@yahoo.com 

Message = PLEASE EXAMINE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE SAW STOP BEFORE PASSING LEGISLATION ON IT. TO 

CUT WET WOOD IT MUST BE TURNED OFF AS I UNDERSTAND IT. SINCE MOST OF US DO CUT WET WOOD 

WOULD IT BE TURNED BACK ON?? ALSO THE SUPPOSED $100 ADD ON MAKES ME IFNDER WHY SAW STOP 

COSTS $3000 WHEN A COMPARABLE SAW CAN BE BOUGHT FOR $1800 AND MOST WOODWORKERS SPEND 

UNDER $1000 FOR THEIR SAWS .. ALSO I HAVE AN $89 SAW FOR JOB HOPPING, IF I COULD NOT HAVE IT, IT 

WOULD BE BACK TO THE OLD SKIL SAW, AND THE NUMBER OF INJURIES WOULD GO UP. DON'T PRICE US 

OFF THE MARKET. IF MR. GOSS WAS SERIOUS HE WOULD MAKE THEM AVAILABLE AS AN AFTER MARKET 

ADD ON TO ALL SAWS. 

1 
Stevenson, Todd 

From: Center, Information 

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:13 AM 

To: OS - Office of the Secretary 

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

Subject: FW: Message from 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 

Organ izationl Affiliation = 

Daytime Phone = 5123503729 

E-mail address=russ@johnsonville.net 

Message = I think regulating the use of "Saw Stop" as a regulated standard will greatly increase the cost of tablesaws. 

Inez Tenenbaum stated" I personally witnessed the impact of their injuries. And their livelihoods have been deeply 

affected by the injuries that they suffered, and these injuries are preventable and there are solutions." This is true but in 

many if not all of the cases proper usage would have prevented the injuries. The use of "Saw Stop" technology will make 

users of table saws act more carelessly. Additionally it does nothing to prevent kick back a very common source of table 

saw injuries. This move will only serve to impact the consumer with 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 12th Avenue Southwest 

Seattle Washington 98146 

June 16, 2011 

Mrs. Inez Tenenbaum 

Chairwoman, Consumer Product Safety Commission 

4330 East West Highway 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814 

Dear Mrs. Tenenbaum, 

First of all let me start off by thanking you for taking interest in trying to make table 

saws safer, ! kno\lv this is a problem around the whole country that not a lot of people know 

about, this concerns me because thousands of people are getting injured every year. 

ilA recent study by a woodworking website found in a study of 262 woodworking 

accidents that 64% of them were due to table saws. Of these table saw accidents, 68% occurred 

due to physical contact with the spinning blade. Woodworking is a popular hobby, with table 

saws being owned and used by an estimated 6 million to 10 million people in the United 

States". According to L. D. Ryan and John L. Ryan 

On an average day ten people throughout the whole country have a table saw injury, 

whether it's from cutting off your finger to cutting off half of your arm, they have these injuries 

because they don't have the technology on their table saws to make it safer or they are not 

being safe, Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using a table saw. 

Technology has long been available to prevent these injuries from happening. The power tool 

industry must accept their responsibility to the consumer. 

I'm also aware that you and your commission are considering whether or not to make 

this technology required for all new table saws and I say yes all new table saws should be 

required to have the Saw Stop Technology, not just to make them safer but also to decrease the 

amount of injuries each year because the problem is enormous and it's getting worse, each 

year 40,000 Americans end up in Emergency rooms and 4,000 out of the 40,000 Americans 

suffer amputation. 

i know that you have the power to make this change, so lhat't> why I'm counting on you 

quire that all new table saws should have the Saw Stop Technology. 

Si c rely, 

erry Hernandez 

9th grade student, Health Services and Human Services High School 
U.S Consumer Products Safety Commission 

4330 East West Highway 

Bethesda, MD. 20814 

RE: SawStop Wednesday, June 15, 2011 

Mrs. Tannenbaum: 

A popular place for men at Senior Communities is the woodshop. 

A good place to try SawStop for a year or two. I can attest that the table-saw 

is very unforgiving. 

I 

RegardS4Ed G. 

Ed Geisler 

2001 Harrisburg Pike 

Lancaster, PA. 17601 

.. ,.J 

--'" 

-+. 

o· 

It) 

0

-..

o~ " ......

-w (0 

(')

.., 

CD 

...... 

OJ 

--c 

'< 

,...."" 

e

- ;0 

eo cc:: n

z CD 

N < 

N (l)

a.. 

U (")

- en 

(') U1 

W 

-0 
Stevenson, Todd 

From: Center, Information 

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 4:05 PM 

To: OS - Office of the Secretary 

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

Subject: FW: Message from 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 = hobbyist woodoworker 


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 of table saw accidents a much simpler and less expensive precaution is better. A "push 


stick" guides the workpiece through the cut while 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 effect than including Saw Stop type technology. Combined with education on the proper use of a table saw could 


reduce more types of injuries more effectively and with less expense (Saw Stop does not stop dangerous kick back 


injuries). 


Significantly, it seems 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 user who wants it so there is no need to mandate it for a hobbyist woodworker. He 


makes a wonderful product but there is no reason to make it's adoption mandatory. 


Thank you for your time, and again, please do not mandate Saw Stop technology in new table saws. 


Lonnie Milligan 


Norcross, GA 


678-485-4231 


1 
Stevenson, Todd 

From: Center, Information 

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 10:47 AM 

To: OS - Office of the 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. 

Thank you, 

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 their technology in return but only in return for a set and low price for licensing the technology. The goal is ideal 

of preventing table saws from cutting fingers, etc., which nearly happened to me once even though I am an infrequent 

carpenter. 

One thing the Power Tool Institute is overlooking in its position is that consumers like me either never buy a table saw out 

of safety concern or put the purchase decision off for more than a decade as I did. The market for table saws would grow 

a lot if it were 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 if that aspect adds a lot more cost. I do not think using infrared sensor(s) to 

activate te already built in sudden stop feature of table saws would add much cost, but I would be concerned with extra 

mechanical maintenance on a table saw that drops into the table suddenly In addition, total withdrawal of the blade risks 

the woodwork slipping off the table and causing a fall injury. 

Alternatively, I would suggest approving a different requirement that could be fulfilled using infrared sensors near the saw 

blade, because the Power Tool Institute is right that SawStop would derive too much benefit from its technology being 

mandatory. I believe if an infrared sensor(s) were used that the saw could merely be automatically stopped if a warm 

object came within three inches of the saw blade. It is a nice thought to drop the saw blade down into the table, but it is 

not nearly as important as stopping the saw. 

1